A statement regarding the higher cost of European magazine subscriptions in comparison to the United States magazines. We here in the States forget that the magazines here are supported (funded) by the advertising within them. This "funding" causes some bias on writers' and editors' opinions due to the fact that advertising (indirectly) pays their salaries. So, it is about "selling" you a better product.
Linux has always been about making a better product. Sure, it has had its ups and downs over time, but it (Linux) has never lost focus on the "better" concept.
Windows has been about selling you that which you may not want or need. About getting you (the consumer) to buy it again. And along the way, they forgot to make a better software product (blue screen of death, for example.) Don't get me wrong here: there are some good things about Windows, as well as some bad.
When any consumer picks up a Windows type magazine, it is full of ads and biased opinions.
When any consumer picks up most any Linux type magazine, it is full of information. Information that helps with the operation of any computer using Linux. Computers should be about trying things and Linux is that.
So, for those subscribers who complain that Linux magazines cost too much, I say, no, they do not. If you take the total cost of the Windows operating system, some of their applications, and their magazines, I would have to say that Linux is still a better value.
Thank you, and keep the information coming!
Bob Wooden, by email
| LM |
Thanks for writing. We agree that Linux with a Linux magazine (any Linux magazine) beats Windows with or without a magazine.
I am wondering why Live365.com was left out of the listing of sites that provide access to Internet broadcasters? As a broadcaster myself, I can't imagine that there isn't one station of the over 10,000 that is popular on your side of the pond, considering that a number of my favorites are located in the UK and Sweden. I just thought that was kind of weird.
Also I noted a reference to the fact that even the smallest Internet broadcasters have to pay increasing sums of money in order to legally broadcast. I'd like to point out that "legal" Internet broadcasters actually pay more than either the terrestrial or satellite services (like XM or Sirius) do to broadcast the same music.
On top of that, we are restricted in how often we play a particular track or tracks from a particular artist. The other broadcast media are not saddled with this constraint. We are fighting back, but the best weapon is a huge listener base, because right now Internet Radio is battling for audience share.
One last note, I could have streamed "illegally" or taken the very expensive route of establishing licenses with all of the artists I like to feature. Actually, since I play a very wide mix of genres, receiving the proper permissions would have been extremely expensive. Instead, I chose Live365 because, as a performer myself, I like the idea of generating revenue for the artists when I play their music on my station, WBPM NetRADI.
Loved the magazine, by the way!
R. Bennett, by email
| LM |
We're glad you liked our look at Internet Radio in the May, 2006 issue of Linux Magazine. Our goal was to provide a sample of the Internet Radio landscape - we knew we couldn't cover every important station or source. Thanks for the additional information.