Re: [Consortium] [LAU] poll : Advertising vs Linux Audio

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Patrick Shirkey <pshirkey@...>
Cc: <linux-audio-user@...>, consortium <consortium@...>
Date: Monday, April 23, 2012 - 12:16 pm


another long reply. please bear with me..

On 04/22/2012 03:45 PM, Patrick Shirkey wrote:

not really. I like the idea to support developers or musicians. It's
just that advertising and SEO on is not the right way to
do this. I was thinking of "business plans" in general not ads in

There were a couple of initiatives on the table a while back. e.g. merge
with and become part of the linux-foundation - similar to what
linux-printing/open-printing did. The linux-foundation has experience
with handling funding, supporting developers and properly taking care of

There's actually quite lot of linux-audio projects, devs and users that
accept donations or even make a living by selling services or products.

Yet, personally I don't have any clue how can directly
support those. IMHO the knowledge-exchange on LAD and LAU lists as well
as LA conferences, teaching newbies, etc is what does
best. It's not a business plan per se, though.

A linux-audio-record-label, sponsored music-contests, video-promos etc..
would be much more suitable for the latter. Yet someone needs to take
up that task -- I do prefer the avantgarde-like concerts featured at LAC
and that's where my time and efforts go. If someone has incentive to do
sth focused on musicians or other LA interest groups, the consortium is
usually very open to proposals and does support viable initiatives.

Keep in mind that a viable plan for the community must enable the
community to grow and not restrict them (and that includes granting
contributors the freedom to be not bothered with ads on the community
site itself - although compromises can be made as long as they're
according to LAO policy).

>>> So a policy that sets clear guidelines is completely out of the

And you got answers - most recently by the director of the linuxaudio
Management Board himself just before you approached LAU on 04/21/2012
11:29 PM CEST Ico wrote:

"... based on the majority of the consortium members the current site will remain ad-free." [1]

> These items have already been discussed and I provided options which would

No, you did not. You simply suggested move to a different [paid by ads]
host, which is not a smart idea given the infrastructure we have (see

Also your way of approaching the consortium is - at best - questionable.
I think you owe Ico an apology for your offensive phrases and
questioning his authority in [2].

Also migrating content away from - a domain intended
for linux-audio USERS (that you just happen to be curating) - to a .COM
domain without asking the community at large and completely deleting the
content from the server after the site has been migrated
speaks volumes.

I can completely understand that the consortium does want not continue
this discussion nor put this issue on the agenda (again).


>> From what I've learned: official policies are best avoided and replaced :)

Let me interpret it like this: If a sponsor support our cause:
"promote and enable the use of Linux kernel based systems for
professional audio use" - we can link to and /advertise/ for them.

A good example is your previous endeavor:
Commercial companies sponsor a prize for Linux-Musicians; the companies
in question also directly promote audio and/or GNU/Linux. We add a link
to and logo of those companies and the prize-money goes directly to the
musician(s). Great.

If an unrelated 3rd party wants to pay for SEO, ads or
whatever - even if we could use the money to do great things for LAO -
it's more or less a no go. -- At least for the time being.

For that to happen, would need to become a much larger
organization in order to balance commercial interest, retain its
independence and handle bureaucratic issues. It'd also require revising
the policy which can be only done by a majority decision of the Management Board.

On 04/22/2012 03:27 PM, Patrick Shirkey wrote:

> Considering that most server companies are offering 500Gb to 1TB of

On average over the last year served 1.5 TBytes/month
(~35-40k unique visitors per month). The last weeks (with LAC videos)
we're currently around 4-5 TB and this month is not over, yet.

yet, bandwidth is the cheap part.

Virginia Tech currently provides with unlimited traffic,
3 hourly, 7 nightly and 4 weekly full backups of a 300GByte disk volume
(soon to be extended to 500+ GB - Ico is working on that). 2GHz
dual-core amd64 CPU, 2GB RAM on a XEN virtual system. Not to mention
24/7 support via phone, xmpp/jabber, email or skype with highly
qualified Unix/Linux personnel (e.g. they sent us customized shell
scripts to manage LVM and virtual hardware upgrades on our server. We
we can review those scripts and simply run them root. The vt tech-team
also helped us to debug XEN related kernel OOPS and pushed fixes
upstream.) All free of charge. The only requirement is that we mention
them as in the about page and/or HTML footer. - Thanks to Ico for
organizing this.

Equivalent infrastructure is more like 150-200 euro per month (numbers
from - but their tech-support and backup-solutions are lousy
compared to I honestly have no idea what one would pay in the
commercial world these days for services like those provided by

Daniel James sponsors DNS and host-name registration ever since was born. Kudos to him.

Sysadmin, list-moderation, web-design, wiki-despamming and general
maintenance are taken care of voluntarily by various dedicated individuals.

Aside from infrastructure, there's a lot of stuff going on that is
really hard to quantify financially. Yet I'm pretty sure voluntary
contributions and enthusiasm would drop if we have advertisements on the
site and that revenue from advertisement and SEO will not be sufficient
to replace that.

That being said, some of your initiatives (e.g and are very interesting and were promising. I
suggest to focus on [reviving] those rather than pushing ads in general.

Consortium mailing list

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[Consortium] Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re:, Daniel James, (Thu Jan 22, 5:34 pm)
[Consortium] Re: Joining linuxaudio, Daniel James, (Thu Mar 24, 2:52 pm)
[Consortium] Re: mLAN on Linux, Daniel James, (Sat Jun 25, 2:31 pm)
[Consortium] Re: Streetfiresound RBX 1600, Daniel James, (Mon Aug 22, 3:56 pm)
[Consortium] mirror site for ISO?, , (Fri Aug 4, 4:04 pm)
[Consortium] LAC2008 submission deadline extended, Martin Rumori, (Sat Dec 1, 2:21 pm)
[Consortium] Made in Linux Vol.2, Ivica Ico Bukvic, (Wed Feb 13, 5:14 pm)
[Consortium] OpenExpo 2008 in Karlsruhe, Reinhard, (Sat Mar 29, 7:22 pm)
[Consortium] First release of jkmeter, Fons Adriaensen, (Sun Aug 3, 2:09 pm)
[Consortium] LAC2009 website on line, Fons Adriaensen, (Fri Oct 31, 9:50 am)
[Consortium] [Fwd: Re: Affiliation of], Daniel James, (Wed Nov 19, 11:37 am)
[Consortium] ATTN: Sponsors for Linux Audio Awards, Patrick Shirkey, (Tue Jan 27, 5:25 am)
Re: [Consortium] [LAU] poll : Advertising vs Linux Audio, Patrick Shirkey, (Sun Apr 22, 1:45 pm)
Re: [Consortium] [LAU] poll : Advertising vs Linux Audio, Robin Gareus, (Mon Apr 23, 12:16 pm)
Re: [Consortium] [LAU] poll : Advertising vs Linux Audio, Patrick Shirkey, (Mon Apr 23, 11:46 pm)
Re: [Consortium] poll : Advertising vs Linux Audio, Robin Gareus, (Tue Apr 24, 6:56 pm)
Re: [Consortium] [LAU] First release of jkmeter, Raphaƫl Doursenaud, (Sun Aug 3, 2:35 pm)
Re: [Consortium] OpenExpo 2008 in Karlsruhe, Burkhard Ritter, (Sun Apr 6, 9:37 pm)
Re: [Consortium] OpenExpo 2008 in Karlsruhe, Reinhard, (Tue Apr 8, 5:01 am)
Re: [Consortium] OpenExpo 2008 in Karlsruhe, Ivica Ico Bukvic, (Sun Mar 30, 2:39 am)
Re: [Consortium] OpenExpo 2008 in Karlsruhe, Michael Bohle, (Sun Mar 30, 10:45 am)
Re: [Consortium] Made in Linux Vol.2, Daniel James, (Thu Feb 14, 10:39 am)
Re: [Consortium] Made in Linux Vol.2, Ivica Ico Bukvic, (Thu Feb 14, 2:24 pm)
Re: [Consortium] Made in Linux Vol.2, Ken Restivo, (Thu Feb 14, 10:45 pm)
Re: [Consortium] mirror site for ISO?, Daniel James, (Fri Aug 4, 4:10 pm)
Re: [Consortium] problem about inclusion of Ubuntu, Patrick Shirkey, (Tue Mar 28, 2:13 am)
Re: [Consortium] Re: UK free software audio/video conference, Andrea Glorioso, (Mon Jan 24, 3:25 am)
Re: [Consortium] Re: UK free software audio/video conference, Joern Nettingsmeier, (Mon Feb 21, 11:57 pm)
Re: [Consortium] Re: UK free software audio/video conference, Andrea Glorioso, (Mon Jan 24, 4:01 pm)
Re: [Consortium] Re: UK free software audio/video conference, Joern Nettingsmeier, (Wed Jan 5, 1:11 am)
Re: [Consortium] Re: UK free software audio/video conference, Joern Nettingsmeier, (Wed Jan 5, 1:12 am)