Why are these "Public Service Announcments"?
Again, despite protestations to the contrary in other posts, you are actively promoting and lobbying Open Source products in ww. Otherwise, I don't see why we don't see commercial applications being promoted. Even if its free, there are other free products that are not part of the Apache foundation, such as the Mono project, which runs on Linux, and is open source, that are available. Why only these products? I believe it is because there is an anti-commercial aspect to this, and these ads are designed expressly to foster one particular type of software.
I care about this because I've been a full member for a while, and I want to make sure I'm getting my money's worth from this site.
This is Brett's website, to do with he wishes (in Leosghost's terms "its your ball") . However, I believe that he is actively lobbying members to switch or use open source products by calling these ads "Public Service Announcments".
This is a big deal to me, I'll try to explain why. Objective forums are very difficult to find - someone is always promoting an agenda. As such, its very hard to take any information gleaned from that site as fact. I usually just have to balance out the propaganda with counter balancing propaganda. I wouldn't to join a free-for-all like that - its' just productive. I'm very busy and have a day job.
I don't really enjoy that process of participating in those types of discussion, its time consuming and frustrating, especially when things are obviously misrepresented or slanted.
Furthermore, and most importantly, it encourages a certain type of participant. By including these types of ads as "PSA's", and by (IMHO) actively taking a position on a controversial issue, ww is discouraging those of us who are in disagreement from posting. This is because we can not get past certain fundamentals in the discussion - we always get stuck talking about basic issues which, frankly, become uninteresting after a while.
Ie, I may wish to talk about some feature of IE in a non-technical, but objective fashion. However, because many users have already formed strong opinions on IE, the conversation will often degenerate into a discussion of some IE security hole, which although may be valid, has nothing to do with the issue being discussed. Instead, we have a prolonged exchange that provides no useful value to anyone.
IMHO, it is important to maintain a semblance of objectivity with regards to organizations and products. Individuals should be free to express their opinions, but I do not think the website should have a policy of suppporting open source.
Therefore, the practial problem is that I can't have productive discussions about things I wish to on this forum. There is just too much divisiveness and "partisan" bickering (on both sides, of which I have been guilty).
Again, this is not about the IE hole, or what you think of MSFT. This is a discussion about whether or not the principals of this website have a policy of actively promoting open source products.