| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
A complaint about the look at the SCO complaintA complaint about the look at the SCO complaintPosted Mar 7, 2003 19:08 UTC (Fri) by jonth (subscriber, #4008)Parent article: A look at the SCO complaint Nice article, but I'm not very happy that "This article has been released without the usual subscription delay." Guys, what's the point of me paying you money for a premium service on the grounds that I get the important stuff now, only for the _really_ important stuff to be given out early anyway? Jonth
(Log in to post comments)
A complaint about the look at the SCO complaint Posted Mar 7, 2003 19:13 UTC (Fri) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] We've been running with subscriptions for almost six months now, and this is the first article we have released in this way over that time. I expect it will be a while before we do it again. I'm sorry you didn't like it, rest assured that it doesn't indicate a change in strategy on our part.
A complaint about the look at the SCO complaint Posted Mar 7, 2003 19:35 UTC (Fri) by torsten (guest, #4137) [Link] If you don't find value in what you have paid for, don't pay, or reduce your subscription level. Personally, I find this article of tremendous value. That the information may benefit a thousand other people, only multiplies my $10 monthly investment by a factor of 1000. I'd say that is a better return on investment than most.Try not to be so self-centered. Torsten
A complaint about the look at the SCO complaint Posted Mar 8, 2003 14:49 UTC (Sat) by jonth (subscriber, #4008) [Link] Sorry, I am not being self centred. Did I say I was unhappy about paying for the content? No. I said that I was unhappy that it was sent out to all the people who don't support LWN.I just feel that LWN short-changed itself. This was a really interesting article, just the sort of high quality comment I have come to expect from the LWN front page. However, it wasn't earth-shatteringly important that everybody read it right now, and as such, should have been restricted to those who pay for LWN. If they had, then perhaps those people who don't pay would have read it in a week's time and thought, "hey, that would be worth the money" and subscribed to LWN. cheers, Jonth
A complaint about the look at the SCO complaint Posted Mar 10, 2003 22:55 UTC (Mon) by Odinson (guest, #1402) [Link] You have been looking at the unfounded Linux bashing on the Microsoft stock boards then.The world does need this kind of anaylsis to not dismiss Linux at a cheap IP rip off scheme, yesterday. There is already malcontent among the Linux .com GPL ignorant/unfortunate.
A complaint about the look at the SCO complaint Posted Mar 8, 2003 5:56 UTC (Sat) by komarek (guest, #7295) [Link] Personally, I view my subscription as a way to keep Mr. Corbet alive long enough to write articles. I don't care much who as access to these articles, so long as I'm included and so long as they keep coming.Note that we can't allow Mr. Corbet to actually live comfortably from our subscription money. If that happened, he might lose his artistic edge. -Paul
A complaint about the look at the SCO complaint Posted Mar 8, 2003 16:32 UTC (Sat) by zonker (guest, #7867) [Link] I think Jon did the right thing. This was too important to a) hold until next Wednesday for subscribers and b) hold until the following week for non-subscribers.I'm sure that the remainder of the material for next week will continue to justify the subscription fee. Granted, I'm sure Jon's piece will be the most widely-read piece for next week's LWN (unless SCO does something even MORE bone-headed, if that's possible) but it isn't as if this is the only piece that will be in the weekly edition. Further, it shows that Jon respects the LWN readers enough to share this with everyone rather than holding it back in the hopes that it will drive a few more subscriptions. Instead, maybe it will remind the non-paying folks exactly what they're waiting to see on a regular basis and incite a few more people to subscribe.
|
|
||||||||||||