Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Media Hardware

LinuxDevices.com Vanishes From the Web 69

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the vh1-behind-the-website dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LinuxDevices.com Vanishes From the Web

Comments Filter:
  • by FudRucker (866063) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @08:40PM (#43681167)
    what about Linux Gadgets, wont somebody think of the gadgets!!!
  • by ThorGod (456163) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @08:43PM (#43681179) Journal

    Looks like we just /.ed LinuxGizmos.com

    • 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.

  • AND ... !! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Another One Bits the Dust !!

  • by OhANameWhatName (2688401) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @09:08PM (#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: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

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

    • 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.

      • by NormalVisual (565491) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @10:58PM (#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.
        • by tapspace (2368622)

          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.

        • by gl4ss (559668)

          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.

        • by hairyfeet (841228)

          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

      • by jythie (914043)
        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.
    • by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Thursday May 09, 2013 @09:27PM (#43681433) Homepage Journal

      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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by gandhi_2 (1108023)

      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.

    • by _Shad0w_ (127912)

      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.

      • 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.

    • by gweihir (88907)

      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 justifyin

      • by ultranova (717540)

        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 en

  • by interval1066 (668936) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @09:09PM (#43681341) Homepage Journal
    I hope he does well with the new site.
  • 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?

    • Agreed. The site hasn't been archived successfully since June 2009. Did Dice fire all the competent Slashdot editors?
  • by dgharmon (2564621) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @09:33PM (#43681465) Homepage
    "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]
    • by Anonymous Coward

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

  • That's their choice and I commend them for their brave stand against the community.
  • by gburgyan (28359) on Friday May 10, 2013 @02:41AM (#43682493) Homepage
    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.

  • Talk about useless (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fnj (64210) on Friday May 10, 2013 @08:44AM (#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.

  • 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!

Help stamp out Mickey-Mouse computer interfaces -- Menus are for Restaurants!

Working...