advertisement


OS X High Sierra

Just finished updating on my spare MBP 2012 which has CS6 installed.

I've none of my working files on it but just to say that Illustrator opened, did a quick drawing and saved down to a PDF. PDF looks fine.
Photoshop working well also.

Have opened Parallels and of course, Windows has started an update!

So far, so good.
 
Been reading about High Sierra and there are some great improvements to the OS. There is the new Apple File System and Safari has some cool features like the ability to block auto-play videos and kibosh advertising trackers. It also has a new and faster video codec.

Think I'll download it in the next few weeks.

Jack
 
The advertising tracking worries me a lot as if I understand it correctly it may stop things like VigLink and AdSense working and eventually force sites like pfm to an expensive subscription model or off the internet all together once it is no longer possible to scrape a living doing it. The thing folk always forget is a website costs money to host and maintain along with an extraordinary amount of time. Ad-blockers are in effect piracy devices, they enable content theft. If this path is followed to its logical conclusion the only sites that will exist are huge businesses, subscription sites, sites financed by wealthy benefactors or vanity sites. The ones looking to finance themselves via advertising will be driven off the internet as their economic model is increasingly denied them by enhanced browser technology.
 
You know far more about this subject than me Tony. There are some things I am not in favour of though.

What I don't like when surfing is I can put something in, say, my Amazon basket and then find it advertised on my Facebook page. It is creepy. I am all in favour of that being done away with. Likewise the auto-play videos.

If I go to a newspaper site to look at football news, I don't want auto-play videos popping up. I am either not interested in their content or they are replicating what I am watching anyway.

I use an ad-blocker and sometimes forget to disable it on sites which I like and whose ads would interest me. Have you thought about not allowing people to look at pfm if they have an ad-blocker active on it?

Jack
 
Tony L said:
Ad-blockers are in effect piracy devices, they enable content theft.
Click to expand...

you do realize this is almost verbatim what the fox/republican/corporate right says. are you seriously implying that people should not have control over their own computing?

if revenue is important for maintaining pfm, then tell us outright and ask for a membership fee. i never click on ads or purchase anything via these routes, so whether i see them or not is relevant only in terms of how much of a nuisance they cause.

i'm also not quite sure why cost is such a massive problem. i have an amazon server (AWS), among others, that costs me roughly $10/month and i'm pretty sure has greater data volume than pfm. i would be glad to give you a hand if you ever want to migrate.

btw -- i do share toy concern about monopolistic practices on the net, but i don't think playing the advertizing game is the right way to fight that. not sure if you have seen it in the news, but google has recently been on an offensive against independent youtube news outlets who say things that are either too right OR left for their political ideology, so it's way beyond simple ad-blocking at that point.


vuk.
 
vuk said:
you do realize this is almost verbatim what the fox/republican/corporate right says. are you seriously implying that people should not have control over their own computing?

if revenue is important for maintaining pfm, then tell us outright and ask for a membership fee. i never click on ads or purchase anything via these routes, so whether i see them or not is relevant only in terms of how much of a nuisance they cause.

i'm also not quite sure why cost is such a massive problem. i have an amazon server (AWS), among others, that costs me roughly $10/month and i'm pretty sure has greater data volume than pfm. i would be glad to give you a hand if you ever want to migrate.

btw -- i do share toy concern about monopolistic practices on the net, but i don't think playing the advertizing game is the right way to fight that. not sure if you have seen it in the news, but google has recently been on an offensive against independent youtube news outlets who say things that are either too right OR left for their political ideology, so it's way beyond simple ad-blocking at that point.
Click to expand...

Good grief you are a total cock some times! This is my job, a job I love, but one that takes countless hours a week. What you are asking is the equivalent of my asking you to publish the entire code for your medical programs in full online along with full resolution RAW files for the photos you sell! The advertising is paying for my time as well as the hosting, that is how things work on sites like this. If you are using ad blockers then please either hit the donate button pretty substantially or don’t waste my time or bandwidth by posting. That is the moral choice as this, like almost all of the web, is not a free site.
 
jackbarron said:
Have you thought about not allowing people to look at pfm if they have an ad-blocker active on it?
Click to expand...

I will try to implement something like this once we move to a new and more platform. There will always be freeloaders like Vuk who will figure ways to steal content, but it would help draw attention to the issue for those who value interesting and well-run sites.
 
Personally I would rather pay a membership sub than have viglink hijacking links and selling my tracking data.

It's a horribly invasive piece of code.
 
I think you'll find that if a membership fee was payable, then the site would wither and die as despite all of the good intentions, only a handful of regular posters would pay and the casual visitor would stay away.

It would not fly, IMO.
 
thebiglebowski said:
Personally I would rather pay a membership sub than have viglink hijacking links and selling my tracking data.

It's a horribly invasive piece of code.
Click to expand...

I'd prefer a subs model too. PFM is one of the few sites i value. Coming up with a price that doesn't frighten the fishes away is probably the hardest thing though.
 
NeilR said:
I think you'll find that if a membership fee was payable, then the site would wither and die as despite all of the good intentions, only a handful of regular posters would pay and the casual visitor would stay away.

It would not fly, IMO.
Click to expand...

Leave audio as public access and make the off topic a subscription based room.

There are plenty of options that can be discussed instead of just arbitrarily saying "it won't work"
 
One can always make a contribution here. Remembering when last done can be a pain.

I can think of one site I would pay a NOMINAL FEE if one did not have to interact with the Owner.

On Topic: Just downloading HS to my older sacrificial MacBook Pro to see how that goes.
 
I must be one of the few who actually likes ad tracking, I’d far prefer to be fielded ads on audio kit, synths, music and the stuff that interests me than trainers, beefburgers or whatever would otherwise be there! I don’t see it as sinister at all as I understand what it is doing.
 
The ads are very small so I'm not that fussed about it. The sites I hate are the ones that lob big ad pages at you, or make it hard to navigate past the ads in order to reach the content.

I only have a basic understanding about how the google ads thing works, and even less knowledge about how much income it brings. Personally I'd have thought that directly taking advertising from manufacturers would have been more effective bearing in mind what a very specific forum it is. I personally wouldn't mind if there was a bigger banner at the top and bottom of the pages with advertisers. Of course the latter would mean more work for Tony in terms of identifying and getting advertisers as opposed to just letting the google machine do it's thing.

Right now I have an ad for the saucy fish company, I wouldn't care if it was twice as large and from Devialet. I'd have thought the latter would have applied a greater value to pfm than the saucy fish company, but I may be wrong.
 
Ads are very small here too, just at the top right of the page. They don't bother me at all as they aren't intrusive.
 
vuk said:
jack.

there is absolutely no way to do anything like that in any reliable of effective manner.


vuk.
Click to expand...

To enable or disable the ad-blocker I use takes two clicks on Safari. It is simple.

There is an article in The Guardian about the new IOS11 and macOS High Sierra. Members of the industry say that Apple blocking ads on the web amounts to sabotage.

"Six major advertising consortia have already written an open letter to Apple expressing their “deep concern” over the way the change is implemented, and asking the company to “to rethink its plan ...

"Apple responded to the letter saying: “Ad tracking technology has become so pervasive that it is possible for ad tracking companies to recreate the majority of a person’s web browsing history. This information is collected without permission and is used for ad re-targeting, which is how ads follow people around the internet.”

Google meanwhile are testing an ad-blocker for their Chrome browser. Google's ads are not deemed intrusive, of course.

Jack
 
This is posted under HS so far ok. Installed latest HP driver/software.

Adverts? What adverts. It is a bit crap to see some site offering something I have looked at on another site. Does that make sense?

BEWARE Yahoo.co.uk email account! Cannot send
 
jackbarron said:
To enable or disable the ad-blocker I use takes two clicks on Safari. It is simple.
Click to expand...

i understand that jack, but it's not at all what you asked/said originally. there is no way for a website to know if i am blocking/hiding/masking their ads. that is impossible and for good reason.


vuk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top