3 ms·

Side question about LWN, which maybe someone would have some opinion on. I don't read a lot of LWN, but I LOVE the work they're doing. I maybe read an article

Side question about LWN, which maybe someone would have some opinion on. I don't read a lot of LWN, but I LOVE the work they're doing. I maybe read an article a month, maybe even less, but I think that their model is great and appreciate their work. I used to subscribe at the regular rate, but never read LWN much and let it lapse when it was up for renewal and my history showed that I hadn't visited in 3+ months. Would it be frowned upon to buy the starving hacker subscription, even if I am probably not a starving hacker, given that I rarely read it and just want to support them? $42/year just seems easier to stomach for something I know I'll never use, than $84. First world problem, I know, but curious what others think.

cyphar 9y ago
I think that giving them something is better than giving them nothing. I doubt the intention of the "starving hacker" level is to only apply for hackers that are literally starving, more just for people who cannot afford it or who feel that higher levels are too much.
epistasis 9y ago
IMHO, better something than nothing, and marketing names should be treated only as suggestions. Even if you haven't read in a long time, aren't currently subscribed, and see an article you find super valuable, it's a good reminder to chip in something. The LWN model seems an awful lot like public radio in the US, but without the annoying pledge drives. Like you, I both read and subscribe in bursts of activity and inactivity. If it's something that you feel is valuable, and needs support, don't let the names get in the way of donating at the level that you feel you use it.
- CameronBanga 9y ago
  This was my thoughts exactly, but felt a slight bit guilty, and wanted some external validation. :) As a note to anyone reading this, as a former LWN subscriber a couple years ago, and as someone who will probably renew at the $40/year level here today again, definitely consider throwing them a subscription. It's one of the best tech publications on the web.

cyphar 9y ago

I think that giving them something is better than giving them nothing. I doubt the intention of the "starving hacker" level is to only apply for hackers that are literally starving, more just for people who cannot afford it or who feel that higher levels are too much.

epistasis 9y ago

IMHO, better something than nothing, and marketing names should be treated only as suggestions. Even if you haven't read in a long time, aren't currently subscribed, and see an article you find super valuable, it's a good reminder to chip in something. The LWN model seems an awful lot like public radio in the US, but without the annoying pledge drives. Like you, I both read and subscribe in bursts of activity and inactivity. If it's something that you feel is valuable, and needs support, don't let the names get in the way of donating at the level that you feel you use it.

CameronBanga 9y ago
This was my thoughts exactly, but felt a slight bit guilty, and wanted some external validation. :) As a note to anyone reading this, as a former LWN subscriber a couple years ago, and as someone who will probably renew at the $40/year level here today again, definitely consider throwing them a subscription. It's one of the best tech publications on the web.