Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

LinuxDevices.com Vanishes From the Web

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the vh1-behind-the-website dept.

The Media 69

DeviceGuru writes "Embedded Linux pioneer LinuxDevices.com departed from the web earlier this week. The site became a collateral casualty of the aquisition of eWEEK by Quinstreet in February 2012, as part of a bundle of Ziff Davis Enterprise assets. Quinstreet immediately fired all the LinuxDevices staffers and ceased maintaining the site. A few days ago, the site's plug was finally pulled and it is now gone from the Web, save for a few pages on the WayBack Machine. For more than a decade, LinuxDevices played a pivotal role in serving and fostering an emerging embedded Linux ecosystem, and it was well respected by the embedded Linux community at the time it was acquired by QuinStreet. Unfortunately, the site did not mesh well with QuinStreet's B2B market focus. Fortunately, its spirit remains alive and well at LinuxGizmos.com, a site recently launched by LinuxDevices founder Rick Lehrbaum."

cancel ×

69 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

LinuxGIsmos is fine but (4, Funny)

FudRucker (866063) | about a year ago | (#43681167)

what about Linux Gadgets, wont somebody think of the gadgets!!!

Re:LinuxGIsmos is fine but (3, Funny)

Chas (5144) | about a year ago | (#43681359)

Pfft.

Widgets forever!

You and your pansy little girly-gadgets!

Re:LinuxGIsmos is fine but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43682057)

Widgets?

I think you mean applets [wikipedia.org] ^WTSRs [wikipedia.org] ^Wdaemons [wikipedia.org] ^Wbatches [wikipedia.org] !

Now get off my lawn!

aaand site's offilne (3, Funny)

ThorGod (456163) | about a year ago | (#43681179)

Looks like we just /.ed LinuxGizmos.com

Re:aaand site's offilne (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43681351)

Or maybe they got bought out by Quinstreet.

Re:aaand site's offilne (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43681361)

Minimum courtesy would be to give the guy a heads-up before putting the link here.

Re:aaand site's offilne (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#43681389)

Perhaps it was the universe's way of letting us let Rick know he forgot ServerTokens ProductOnly, or to tell him about Apache Traffic Server for his new endeavor.

His prior one was one of the few sites I've bothered to keep in my RSS reader, so I look forward to his impending success and traffic.

Re:aaand site's offilne (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43681957)

Either that or perhaps you're a gay nigger? They have an IP address block against known GNAA members.

Also being a coon maybe you're using Linux for Niggers? If so maybe you can find a human to view the page and translate to monkey.

Buy It & Kill It (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43681197)

It seems that "buy it and kill it" is not reserved for the extremely large tech companies.

My favorite site: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43681199)

Linux Jism O .cum

Re:My favorite site: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43681863)

That's a far better TLD than xxx.

AND ... !! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43681205)

Another One Bits the Dust !!

whew (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43681257)

nothing of importance was lost!

Re:whew (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43682723)

Dunno why you got modded flaimbait. Some overly zealous Linux bigot got mod points most likely

Why simply shut it down? Why not give it back? (5, Insightful)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about a year ago | (#43681331)

It was a community website. Okay, so the corporation doesn't have any interest in it, why not give it back to the community?

It seems senseless to shut it down and just 'disappear' it entirely from the interwebs. Why not give the data and the domain to the original site creator and leave him to it? The response of corporations to either:
A. Own it
B. Grind it into the dust
Is destroying the very environment in which corporations flourish. Chew up the competitors, spit them out then buy up anything new which is created in their wake. Most corporations are like big dumb 5 year olds, take what they want with no respect for anyone else and if they don't like it, drop it .. never admit their mistake and never look back.

Re:Why simply shut it down? Why not give it back? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43681397)

Seems like the fault lies with the person who sold the "community" site to the corporation in the first place.

Re:Why simply shut it down? Why not give it back? (4, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#43681423)

Sadly as somebody who dealt with too damned many of those corps when I tried to bring a way for those old shareware titles to be played on modern systems their attitude basically is "If I can't make a shitload of money off it I'll destroy it, because if somebody figures out how to make a cent on it I'll look stupid".

Its a damned shame but at least from what I saw that is the attitude, they would rather something die out than let anybody possibly make a single cent off of it.

Re: Why simply shut it down? Why not give it back? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43681565)

Don't like it? Move to fucking Cuba you statist dumbass.

Re: Why simply shut it down? Why not give it back? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43681633)

I think OP felt it's a damned shame because of the black-and-white view corporations usually take when dealing with purchasing competition. Not because it happens. It happens because that's how things evolve. Doesn't mean people need to feel happy about it.

Re: Why simply shut it down? Why not give it back? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43681637)

This is 'merica and if you don't like it you can giiiiit out.

Fucking rednecks.

Re: Why simply shut it down? Why not give it back? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43681947)

kill yourself, retard

Re: Why simply shut it down? Why not give it back? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43682015)

So you admit that you hate freedom.

Re:Why simply shut it down? Why not give it back? (3, Insightful)

NormalVisual (565491) | about a year ago | (#43681791)

they would rather something die out than let anybody possibly make a single cent off of it.

Even beyond that, they'll be damned if anybody uses it for free without *them* making something off of it, even when it's a legacy product that has no marketing potential whatsoever. This is part of why copyright law is so screwed up right now - lots of companies work very hard to ensure that nothing they produce ever becomes public domain where it could be freely used by others, which was the entire point of copyright to begin with.

Re:Why simply shut it down? Why not give it back? (1)

tapspace (2368622) | about a year ago | (#43685169)

Fortunately, we live in a time when we can just flout the unconstitutional and undemocratic copyright laws. The sad part (and this is also to the big corporations boon) is that it actually hurts the little guy who wants copyright protection. The average pirate doesn't see the difference between pirating a 50 year old Beatles record (copyright held by God knows who anymore, the estate of Michael Jackson?) and a brand spanking new one, because, legally, there is no difference.

Re: Why simply shut it down? Why not give it back? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43687973)

I'm pretty sure it's Sony that "owns" the Beatles. They sued Beatallica when they weren't even selling albums. Ironically, Lars Ulrich gave em legal backup against Sony.

Re:Why simply shut it down? Why not give it back? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43687953)

they would rather something die out than let anybody possibly make a single cent off of it.

Even beyond that, they'll be damned if anybody uses it for free without *them* making something off of it, even when it's a legacy product that has no marketing potential whatsoever. This is part of why copyright law is so screwed up right now - lots of companies work very hard to ensure that nothing they produce ever becomes public domain where it could be freely used by others, which was the entire point of copyright to begin with.

the actual logic is that the users have a finite amount of time to spend using things. if you fill their time with something free, they're not going to be using something they would need to pay you to use.

Re:Why simply shut it down? Why not give it back? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#43688709)

I agree as that was pretty much the attitude i got from these corps, even though their old products wouldn't even run on a modern system without DOSBox or being rebuilt from the ground up, they hadn't even attempted to do anything with it in the years or even decades since acquiring the property, and obviously had no desire to sink the amount of resources required to get anything out of the property.

Yet time and time again what i got was these companies expecting you to shell out like they won the lotto or they would let it rot and they'd get nothing, even with me pointing out that they are currently making $0 on the property and i would be dividing all the sales equally among the companies without them spending a single cent, basically they were getting free money but because it wasn't "iMoney" they wouldn't even take free money. Hell I had companies demanding 6 figures for games that probably didn't make 5 figures during their initial release! That was the part that blew my damned mind, we were talking Wolfenstein here, hell we weren't even talking Redneck Rampage or Codename Tenka here, we were talking about the fifth and sixth tier games that were used to fill space on shareware titles which was the whole point of wanting them, I wanted kids to see what it felt like when we got these shareware CDs when we were kids,how it would be this weird mix of indie games from match three to shooters to weird card games, all packed onto this cheap CD so while the games by themselves weren't really worth hardly anything you just had this huge variety. Sadly they wouldn't even let us use the ORIGINAL shareware, which if you remember was already not much more than demos in a lot of cases, not without writing these huge checks that wouldn't be worth it. Frankly we calculated and to put out one of those shareware titles like you used to get for $3 at Wally world would have cost us more than a mid tier shooter costs to make today, we are talking millions of dollars!

The part that makes me sick is they have fucked up copyrights so damned badly that by the time a game from the dawn of PC gaming becomes public domain not only will the code not exist but no system will be able to actually run the code if you could even find it. With each year that passes it gets harder and harder to run games designed for such weak and limited systems on modern hardware but we can't even try to preserve this history for the future without being sued out of existence...its fucking disgusting is what it is, its the destruction of our childhood memories by greedy pigs.

Re:Why simply shut it down? Why not give it back? (1)

jythie (914043) | about a year ago | (#43683359)

Sadly, the 'looking stupid' part is not just paranoia. Such a move can, on an individual level, really impact an executive's career. There is a significant risk to their reputation (and thus personal fortunes) if the site ends up doing well, and not much negative impact from their peers for closing it. In the end people tend to do what is best for their careers since the people who don't, well, tend to not make it to (or stay in) the upper ranks.

Re:Why simply shut it down? Why not give it back? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43689281)

In the 1980s I wrote many (20+) computer games for 6502 based machines.

In recent years I've been contacted by various people wanting to republish those games - the contact me asking permission.
1) One wanted me to say yes but I found out he was making money from the deal, so why should I let him make money off my work when he isn't paying me. So I declined. He was in it for himself, not for the community.

2) A different guy wanted me to say yes and he wasn't going to make any money, just wanted to do it for the gaming community. I was gong to say yes until I remember I no longer have the original contracts with the various publishing houses and although I'd like to say "do it", I can't. Problem is all those companies no longer exist, but someone, somewhere purchased their assets (including their contracts) when those companies died.

So it's not quite as cut and dried as you think. Some of us would like to see our earlier work in use again, but can't for legal reasons.

Re:Why simply shut it down? Why not give it back? (3, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#43681433)

Most corporations are like big dumb 5 year olds, take what they want with no respect for anyone else and if they don't like it, drop it .. never admit their mistake and never look back.

Both five year olds and corporations have limitations on liability for their poor behaviors. In the case of the five year old, the goal is to get him out of that behavior as soon as possible. In the case of corporations, the goal is to encourage that behavior. The losses society suffers for it are converted into corporate tax revenue for the government - that's why it creates and encourages them.

Re:Why simply shut it down? Why not give it back? (2)

stefanb (21140) | about a year ago | (#43681803)

are converted into corporate tax revenue for the government

Hahaha, that's a good one!

Re:Why simply shut it down? Why not give it back? (1, Informative)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#43681839)

Playing the "corporations pay no taxes" card may work well on OWS posters, but it's not a good way to excel in a public policy debate.

Re:Why simply shut it down? Why not give it back? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43681889)

according to taxpolicycenter.org, corporate taxes accounted for 9% of all revenue in fy 2012.

gp's point is pretty valid

Re:Why simply shut it down? Why not give it back? (3, Interesting)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | about a year ago | (#43681649)

1. Start something.
2. Get bought.
3. Jump ship and start the same thing under a different name.
3a. Let old thing get burned. Waste time and money of whoever bought it.
4. Profit. !

The dude should build up LinuxGizmos till QuinStreet falls for it again. Just hire all the people who get fired each time.

Re:Why simply shut it down? Why not give it back? (3, Insightful)

Belial6 (794905) | about a year ago | (#43682053)

I could have sworn that this is pretty much what people were complaining about happening to MySQL.

Re:Why simply shut it down? Why not give it back? (1)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | about a year ago | (#43682323)

That's what I can't understand; it's not like the site competed with anything else in their portfolio. It didn't mesh because it just wasn't something they were interested in as a business. In circumstances like those I really can't see why they don't spin it off in some way.

Re:Why simply shut it down? Why not give it back? (2)

mabhatter654 (561290) | about a year ago | (#43682517)

The publisher is about BUSINESS not writing. If it took them more than 5 minutes to understand, then they already lost their attention span. Selling it or spinning it off would require more than 5 minutes to figure out what it was worth and who would want it.
They WANTED other ZD assets to add to their collection and the rest were for the bin. That's how large companies work.

Re:Why simply shut it down? Why not give it back? (1)

gweihir (88907) | about a year ago | (#43682521)

The reason is that corporations are immoral to the extreme. They never contribute anything willingly, they are egoistical to the extend that they ignore the world, they willingly take from others but never give, etc. In the (increasingly rare) cases where this is not the case, you always find some individual or small group of individuals with intact personal ethics and enough clout within the corporation to do differently. Or you find somebody that has realized public image actually matters and is justifying any expenses (however small) in that direction this way. Often it is a combination of both. But corporations never, ever, ever behave ethical or altruistic, that is always individuals within the corporations and the example at hand just demonstrates what happens if these individuals are missing or do not have enough clout.

Re:Why simply shut it down? Why not give it back? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43683105)

Please, stop treating corporations as entities which make (im)moral or (un)ethical decisions. They do not. Corporations exist only as abstract legal entities, and as such can do nothing on their own. What corporations do is the responsibility of those who run them.
So do not point the finger of blame at a company, point it instead at the board and executives. They are the ones making those unethical and immoral decisions, and it is they who should be held accountable for the consequences of those decisions.

Re:Why simply shut it down? Why not give it back? (1)

ultranova (717540) | about a year ago | (#43685067)

But corporations never, ever, ever behave ethical or altruistic, that is always individuals within the corporations and the example at hand just demonstrates what happens if these individuals are missing or do not have enough clout.

A corporation will never, ever, ever behave in any way or do anything whatsoever without it actually being some individual or a group of individuals within doing so in its name. A corporation is legal fiction and just as incapable of independent action as any other fictitious entity.

Good Luck Rick! (2)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#43681341)

I hope he does well with the new site.

WayBack machine.. (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | about a year ago | (#43681385)

I cannot see even a few recent pages on the WayBack machine; just crawl time errors and

Sorry. This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine.

Are the pull-the-plug drones really that efficient or has it been broken for some time?

Re:WayBack machine.. (1)

storagedude (1517243) | about a year ago | (#43681487)

Agreed. The site hasn't been archived successfully since June 2009. Did Dice fire all the competent Slashdot editors?

many want a realy linux hand-held device. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43681409)

by linux I mean Gnu/linux. 1% of market share is a great thing since the users are the ones that actually knows system. No monopolization, no market strategy. What I'm trying to say is that:
there are many folks out there who really want/need a really linux phone with full Gnu utilities. They are definitely not the majority, but the number is still great.
Android is based on the linux kernel, apart from that, it has nothing to do with linux((I'm being emotional). Shame there is no manufacturer will to make these devices available.

Re:many want a realy linux hand-held device. (1)

Ignacio (1465) | about a year ago | (#43681499)

Nothing is preventing anyone from packaging all the GNU tools into a .apk and installer short of not giving a rat's ass. Won't you please give a rat's ass?

Re:many want a realy linux hand-held device. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43682987)

That's not what I'm talking about. You can even get coreutils on iphone. What I mean is gnu should be the system rather than installing some software.

Re:many want a realy linux hand-held device. (1)

SpectreBlofeld (886224) | about a year ago | (#43681815)

Have you looked into Sailfish OS?

Re:many want a realy linux hand-held device. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43682977)

salifish is much better, but I really want a phone that I can install gentoo or archlinux.

Quinstreet lost LinuxDevices archive .. (3, Interesting)

dgharmon (2564621) | about a year ago | (#43681465)

"Despite any recent updates, the vast LinuxDevices news archive continued to serve as a valuable archive of embedded Linux information, history, and memorabilia; but earlier this week, the plug was pulled and LinuxDevices disappeared from the Web"

Quinstreet could restore a lot of goodwill by donating the LinuxDevices news archive to linuxgizmos.com [linuxgizmos.com]

Re:Quinstreet lost LinuxDevices archive .. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43681583)

They're spammers. Nothing they do is going to get them any goodwill.

a shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43681485)

My company [rajant.com] 's first big product was on there. They were a neat site for embedded linux devices.

To bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43681681)

Really to bad, this was a great site. The information they had couldn't often be found anywhere else on the net.

Re:To bad (1)

Bodhammer (559311) | about a year ago | (#43681771)

Not sure why you posted AC - I concur, it was a great site and it will be missed.

Re:To bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43682845)

Some of us CBA to log in.

Re:To bad (1)

Miamicanes (730264) | about a year ago | (#43681873)

Are we talking about the same site? As badly as I want to feel sad, I can't even remember the last time that site had anything that seemed relevant, especially ever since Android arrived.

It's harsh, but as a practical matter, the "Linux Appliance" market is kind of in a state of both crisis and opportunity right now. Crisis, because anything x86 based with less computing power than a 2GHz+ Core2 can't really compete with a nameless Android USB-HDMI stick from Shenzhen... but those same nameless USB-HDMI Android sticks from Shenzhen are so cheap, you could practically connect them to port extenders, pot them in black epoxy, mount them inside an attractive case, and use them for things that would have been cost-prohibitive with a $599 slow Via system.

Re: Too bad (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | about a year ago | (#43683537)

In certain ways embedded devices have actually become a bit more mainstream. First there is the Arduino and then there is the legion of boards using ARM based SoCs, which include the RaspberryPi and the Beagle Bone. And now you can write your code in a language such as Python. Embedded devices are a lot more capable than than they used to be.

There are certainly more out there and the market seems to be developing. The problem I find is that it isn't always easy finding what is going in in the market.

Linux Devices started to feel a bit forgotten about and didn't seem to have created a thriving community. The new owners probably couldn't monetize the site, couldn't understand the site and if the small number of people there were blocking ads, then that probably did not help either (sites have been hurt by this). In many ways the death of Linux Devices just means there is now a void to be filled, possibly with something better?

Maybe they don't care anymore? (1)

Adult film producer (866485) | about a year ago | (#43681787)

That's their choice and I commend them for their brave stand against the community.

Good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43682087)

Less people waste their lives on Linux, the better it is for everyone. Less pointless flamewars, less FUD about Windows which Linux fanboys *love* to spew out without thinking, or don't even care so long as it raises Linux's profile. Linux needs to die for there to be peace in technology forums.

Re:Good (1)

Coeurderoy (717228) | about a year ago | (#43682339)

It's true, with all these pesky Open Source stuff out'n'away, we'll have peace, the peace of the graveyard ....

Don't like it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43682423)

You have feet. Vote with them!

Dead for over 1 year (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43682473)

This horse died so long ago, even the flies have left.

Having worked at a company acquired by QuinStreet, (3, Informative)

gburgyan (28359) | about a year ago | (#43682493)

I have to say that they are quite the arrogant bunch. The company I worked at was Insurance.com. I was there from almost the start back in 2001. QuinStreet acquired them in 2010. I was one of the six folks that were kept on to keep the lights on.

I have no respect for QS. They look at people as chits to cashed in. People are their currency. If you can't monetize someone right now, then the source is ipso facto useless. Mind you, Insurance.com sent out its share of emails (er, spam), but at the same time we had some pretty good voices of the consumer at the table as well -- myself included. QS had none of that.

Beyond the consumer angle, they are a meat grinder for the employees. I met very few folks in my year there that had more than a year or two of tenure. There are a couple people I worked with that were there for years that were waiting to cash out and leave (some have left since then), but they were few and far between.

If anyone wants to know anything, feel free to ask.

Re:Having worked at a company acquired by QuinStre (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43683357)

Nothing like the bitter ramblings of a laid off employee. But this is slashdot, we love biased one off anecdotes. Mod this man up!!!!1

Re:Having worked at a company acquired by QuinStre (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43687969)

Nothing like the bitter ramblings of a laid off employee. But this is slashdot, we love biased one off anecdotes. Mod this man up!!!!1

it sounds he would have liked being laid off instead of being kept to keep the lights on...

Are they aligned with Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43682537)

Quinstreet, sounds more like Queer Street to me. Are they associated with Apple by any chance?

Re:Are they aligned with Apple? (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year ago | (#43682813)

Quinstreet, sounds more like Queer Street to me. Are they associated with Apple by any chance?

Or maybe quimm street, after all they are a bunch of cunts

Talk about useless (3, Insightful)

fnj (64210) | about a year ago | (#43683785)

Can somebody please pull Quinstreet's [quinstreet.com] plug? With extreme prejudice. Any outfit that can't comprehensibly explain what they do [quinstreet.com] is pretty bloody useless.

Sites Still Get Slashdotted in 2013? (1)

snookerdoodle (123851) | about a year ago | (#43685197)

I stopped reading reddit, so maybe they linked to it, too. I guess I was a little surprised that this would happen, given that we Linux people remain somewhat of a niche.

Please note: Due to extremely heavy traffic, we have temporarily substituted a single static page for this site. Please return later for full site access. Sorry for the inconvenience!

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>