Michael does not force anybody to pay. So he has to put up ads to keep the site running.
People like you want the service, generate costs and don't want to give anything back. You act like some ads somewhere are such a big thing - they aren't. All you do is sucking away on his money. Think about that.
If the 'content' and the service is not worth paying or having some ads - then both are surely not worth coming here in the first place.
You do. So there is something you like. But you refuse to do your share and instead use up ressources. Parasitism, nothing else.
on this site. As stated above:
It's really that simple. I don't think you want to try to convince us ofOriginally Posted by AnonymousCoward
the contrary. If you find it worth paying for, do it. Because I
don't, I won't. And again: I won't artificially keep the advertising
industry profitable. If the model doesn't work, that's just too
bad. I'd be more sympathetic to Phoronix cause if I actually liked
what's being done over here and I saw more value to the original
contents it offers.
You don't have to agree, but actually I think my posts, as well as yours
and those of the grey mass of Phoronix readers, enrich this site and provide
most of its value.
Apparently he gets enough money from ads to keep this site running, so his business model is working and I don't see why you're getting so worked up about all this.
In fact it's a great parallel, what he's doing is no different then what and MPAA, RIAA, BSA and the rest have been trying for yeas, it's completely ineffective at stopping us and just wastes far more of his time and energy then it does ours since what we're doing it basically "set it and forget it" and every time he comes up with something new it's fairly trivial to to work around it while still blocking the ads.
Now that doesn't mean people like me wont pay, I would, but I refuse to pay for shit like this http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTAwMjg I posted at length about how far less then amateurish that was.
So since I value journalistic integrity and my own privacy you can see how I see only one "parasite" here and it's name is Michael Larabel.
Sadly as it stands the compiler tests are worthless, Micheal doesn't understand the impact of flags, he doesn't understand how pointless it is to benchmark applications where everything performant is done using hand-optimized assembly, he doesn't even examine the default flags and update them when they are totally whack like -O1, -O0, tuned for ancient architectures etc. I'm not interested in which compiler does the best job at -O1, or with no optimizations, or with NOTHING to optimize.
That said, I do click on the ads periodically (except for the swedish dating ads) since I do spend time here using his bandwidth.
From when Danny Carlton made that hilarious Why Firefox Is Blocked site.
Get up and go to work for 8 hours a day like most people do instead of posting false stories like Steam on Linux, or uninteresting ones about video drivers that don't change radically that often. You managed to milk that Linux power "bug" for a long time even though it was never a bug. Bugs are unintentional and the "Linux power bug" was intentional. Some computers crashed when flipping on ASPM and flipping it off caused a minor power usage increase. What do you do? Tell your users that they should accept that Linux doesn't boot on 5% of systems because it should use 1% more power for everyone else?So, where does the money come from? Basically, there are two possibilities. One is purchases done on the Internet. The other is investments by companies who usually hope that these investments will help their products sell better. Advertisements are only a mechanism to distribute this money (one of many mechanisms). And usually, the idea is to distribute the money depending on how much revenue a particular site generated for the advertiser. That’s right, it is not important how many ads have been squeezed into each single web page, it is not important how many times they have been viewed, it is not even important how many users have been distracted from what they were doing. It is only important how many people actually decided to click through to advertiser’s site and to buy something, thus justifying this ad (I admit, this is a very simplified view but that’s the general idea).
Other than misrepresentations and what I can only gather are exagerations and lies, I'm not exactly 100% on what you could be doing for 100 hours per week. You seem to manage OK if you can buy hundreds of graphics cards, at least several computers (some of them are Macs, which cost 2-3 times more than a comparable non-Apple PC), and pay all your living expenses off a low quality website. If you do ever figure out a way to block people who don't want spyware ads that your site serves up, I don't think your site is valuable enough to even bother subscribing to or flipping my ad blocker off. If I don't make exceptions for sites that matter a lot more, I'm sure as hell not going to bend over backwards so you don't have to find gainful employment. (But as said earlier, you manage somehow). I think you're just greedy and are trying to suck up that last 1-2%. Get over it. You sound like a broken record every time you spread malicious lies about people who don't want to view bandwidth sucking spyware ads.
I could comment further, but you can probably make more money strip searching the couch than continuing to complain about people who don't want to buy Microsoft Windows products from a "Linux" site.
Last edited by DaemonFC; 12-14-2011 at 11:41 AM.
You have no moral stance to complain. In fact, everybody else has good reasons to tell you and people like you:
you are parasites killing free content.
You are the cancer that kills the internet.