| |||||||||||||
The value of $5The value of $5Posted Feb 9, 2004 15:52 UTC (Mon) by corbet (editor, #1)In reply to: New site feature: comment response notifications by siesel Parent article: New site feature: comment response notifications When we started the subscription scheme, $5 cost the better part of €6. Now it's rather closer to €4. Given that over 60% of our readers are outside of the US, I'd say that $5 is, in fact, less money now to the bulk of them. What I was really trying to do was to post some snide comments about our currency and our president. This was always the wrong soapbox for that sort of stuff, of course.
(Log in to post comments)
The value of $5 Posted Feb 10, 2004 13:48 UTC (Tue) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link] That is true. Compared to some countries, the Us dollar has indeed lost some value.Still, $5/month is a lot of money to a pretty large part of the world-population. More than 5 billion of the poeple in the world have not yet selected ANY operating-system, personally I would like Linux to be a viable choise for atleast some of those. Personally, I think you, and all the other Lwn-people *deserve* a LOT more cash than you're presently getting. I can't with the most positive guesses imagine you're getting more than half of what you're worth. For Lwn to seek more income is natural and healthy. I've got no problems with that whatsoever. I only wish that it'd be possible to do so without coming off as snotty. Without shutting out people from poorer countries. Without sounding as if "everyone" is doing well. (when infact I'm sure the Lwn staff is well-aware that many are still without work.) Fact is, to a average person living in a rich country, and having a job, Lwn is cheap. To pretty much anyone else it's not.
The value of $5 Posted Feb 11, 2004 14:12 UTC (Wed) by larsga (guest, #2801) [Link] These two things sounded a wrong note for me, too. I accept your explanation, but even had you made it clear that this was your intention (which would have helped) I would have preferred not to see this. One thing I've always liked about LWN is how you've consistently (well, mostly) avoided any reference to issues irrelevant to LWN's subject area. I can still remember the pleasant surprise of reading the 2001-09-13 edition, with no reference whatsoever to the events two days before. I'd much prefer to see this continue.
|
|||||||||||||