Yes
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tracyanne Jul 20, 2009 6:42 AM EDT |
and with respect to the desktop, proper marketing, and I don't mean every distribution for itself, or even the non marketing of Ubuntu, I mean generic Linux, and then on top of that each commercial distribution differentiating itself, in whatever way is important to the movers and shakers of that Distribution. But a properly coordinated marketing effort. We need to show people what Linux can do. I was demonstrating a netbook the other day, it had Mandriva One with the GNOME desktop on it, but that's not important. I had it set up with a standard GNOME desktop with the Compiz installed and configured the way I like it (all mouse driven), and the top and bottom panels set to hide. It looks really impressive. The person watching asked if it is was one of the new netbooks, I said "yes, but what you just saw can only be done with Linux." Another person I demonstrated it to commented that the netbooks were getting more powerful, I said "No, what you just saw is possible only because this netbook has Linux on it." |
| hteles Jul 20, 2009 8:28 AM EDT |
That's the way to go. We can live with a lot of diferent distros but we need just one face. We need to show to the world as one global comunity with one goal. We must unite and stop the wars about better desktop, better distro and so on, and we surelly need to stop the mono infection spreading to the distros we care. http://hteles.wordpress.com |
| tracyanne Jul 20, 2009 8:36 AM EDT |
up to this point Quoting:and we surelly need to stop the mono infection spreading to the distros we care. We were on the same wavelengthg. Then you blew it, and showed that you would rather be devisive, and beat the drum of your personal pet love/hate. This is probably why such a gathering will never happen. Too many people unable to put their petty differences aside. |
| Libervis Jul 20, 2009 9:44 AM EDT |
This very thread proves what is being fuzzily and warmly called upon here to be a largely impossible mission. Just say "Linux" and you've got enough of a problem. What do you mean by Linux? Joe means just the kernel. Jack means the whole operating system and Daniel means an entire ecosystem of operating systems. Put just a few different Linux users and advocates in the room and they can't even agree on what the hell "Linux" actually means, and you expect this "uniting" to happen? Well, you know, prove me wrong. I remain extremely skeptical. Like I said before, the Linux ecosystem will thrive once its promoters accept what it is rather than try to work with their mythology of what it is. Market what tangibly exists, not the abstract concept. Embrace diversity, don't call for unity. It never works. Unity cannot exist without top down order. The only way it could work if you could set up a corporation and buy up all of the other distros in existence, Linux kernel, the GNU Project and Xorg and declare it your ownership, and then dictate top down what's it's direction gonna be. Otherwise it wont happen. |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 20, 2009 12:13 PM EDT |
I disagree Libervis. This is about cooperation. It can be done and has been done in the past. Think of the Desktop Summit and of the Linux Plumbers Conference. For similar work in other areas think of the recent ODF plugfest where every major (and almost all minor) ODF implementers were present. |
| hteles Jul 20, 2009 1:00 PM EDT |
Quoting: We were on the same wavelengthg. Then you blew it, and showed that you would rather be devisive, and beat the drum of your personal pet love/hate. With all due respect, Linux come where it is today supported by technologies like Perl, Java, Python, C. We have frameworks like gtk, qt , wxWidgets, we have the LAMP stack. All this .Net nonsense even if we exclude the "trojan" possibility is nothing more than a war against Java. So yes, i think that mono should be avoided at all cost. |
| softwarejanitor Jul 20, 2009 1:14 PM EDT |
@hteles I'm not sure about "at all cost", but I think that Mono can be avoided without significant cost. F-Spot and Tomboy are things I can easily live without, for example. |
| hteles Jul 20, 2009 1:49 PM EDT |
@softwarejanitor, yes you are right. I should have said - it shouldn't be installed by default. |
| Libervis Jul 20, 2009 3:58 PM EDT |
Sander, I'm not against cooperation and organizing summits, conferences and other collaborative events. What I'm referring to are these calls for "one global community with one goal", unity and putting "petty" differences aside. It is exactly lack of unity and uniformity as well as the fostering of diversity which made FOSS thrive as much as it did. So I find these calls for such universal unity and attacks on diversity to be contradictory to what the FOSS and Linux world were so far, and downright unrealistic too because the same ones who call for unity have their own individual preferences for what we should unite behind, like hteles above immediately putting off Mono or that guy from the "Linux Sucks" video who also called for unity and then nonchalantly picked out his personal favorites between competing systems in the FOSS ecosystem. It's so self contradictory. When people begin calling for unity like that all they're really doing is throwing around empty abstract fuzzy terms which are supposed to cover up the fact that all they really want is for everyone to line up behind their particular vision of what Linux should be. Either that or they have no specific idea whatsoever what it should be except for the very vague idea of progress that they think will come out of equally vague calls for unity. I support collaboration between individuals in groups on various projects of interest and I can also envision multiple groups coming together to create cross-project collaborations and standards, but that in no way means the same thing as "one community, one goal". What is that supposed to mean exactly anyway? Are we now gonna proclaim ourselves a Linux Nation, the Linux Collective or what? It's a fantasy, always has been. The kind of monolithical structure implied by such slogans can only fit top down order found in corporations like MS and Apple. The "one community, one goal" thing in reality looks more like "my way, or high way". |
| tracyanne Jul 20, 2009 4:51 PM EDT |
@hteles, this is an argument that has been done to death elsewhere, and settled by the distributors, if you disagree with them then don't use their distribution, or contact their devs and discuss it with them. It's boring, it's old, either p155 off or talk about something constructive. |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 20, 2009 4:53 PM EDT |
Quoting:What I'm referring to are these calls for "one global community with one goal", unity and putting "petty" differences aside. That's not what the original article calls for. The article calls for collaboration to get stuff done. Pretty much like the Linux Plumbers Conference, but targeted at other aspects as well, such as servers, desktops, mobile devices, etcetera. Quoting:the same ones who call for unity have their own individual preferences for what we should unite behind, like hteles above immediately putting off Mono Forget about hteles. Or at least forget about his Mono comment. It has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion at hand. |
| tracyanne Jul 20, 2009 5:06 PM EDT |
The article is about the Linux community getting the vision right, working out how to move forward in a coordinated manner, rather than everyone pulling every which way. At the moment there's the Cloud people, the virtualisation people, the desktop people, but there seems to be no overall understanding of how all this fits together, or even if it can. And so whatever Linux is lurches into being. Personally I'd really like to see some proper marketing of Linux, as a brand, an awareness of Linux outside of the Techie world. But to do that requires a common vision among the main players. For Linux to be seen by the main players as more than just a part of a solution, but to be the thing that needs to be marketed, so that more players will integrate it into their solution, thus making Linux even stronger. The benefit of marketing Linux, as a brand, a platform, an integral part of many possible solutions (including that of the solution to desktop users problems), is that Linux based products can be marketed as "based on the security of Linux" or the stability or the whatever it is that helps the product. At the moment linux is that which is never spoken of, like some disreputable uncle who lives in the basement, and only comes out of an evening to wander the streets peering into bedrooms from the bushes. |
| Libervis Jul 20, 2009 11:37 PM EDT |
Well that's a little more precise, common vision among *main players*, which is certainly worth trying, but wont be easy. It also depends on identifying who exactly those main players are and why. Regarding marketing, I still think it would be more effective if Linux was marketed as the kernel and then connoted and associated with an ecosystem that arises around that kernel. This way we clearly point to something tangible that actually exists, a specific project, rather than an abstraction of an OS which is at the same time many OS's. We point to the kernel the way we point to Intel or AMD processors in computers. We don't call computers AMD computers or Intel computers, but rather computers with Intel or AMD processors in there, thus assuming certain values that are associated with those processors. So for instance, we don't market Ubuntu or Fedora or even Chrome OS as "Linux" implying that these operating systems have two names (the other one being "Linux"). Instead we point to them and say these are operating systems based on proven and solid Linux technology and an ecosystem built around it. At first this may seem like a difficult way to win the desktop end users, but either way you're fighting an uphill battle, so why not pick something that you can actually talk about in a rational way, that is, without having to explain the contradictions inherent in the traditional approach that fostered the conflict between "Linux as an OS" and "Linux as a kernel". In short I am proposing a third alternative: "Linux as a kernel" plus "Linux as an ecosystem built around the kernel". No "OS" in there, no confusion. I might be too semantical here, but branding is all about semantics. |
| tracyanne Jul 21, 2009 2:12 AM EDT |
@ Libervis, that sounds pretty close to what I'm thinking, maybe my examples don't really make that very clear, but that's really the point I'm try to make. |
| jacog Jul 21, 2009 4:44 AM EDT |
Lib: Yup, I am with you on that. PCs do come with "Intel Inside" stickers on them, and this is kind-of how I imagne Linux should be treated. You market the heck out of the distros, but each come with a (possibly mandatory) "Powered by GNU/Liinux" logo visible somewhere in the distro's bootup or splash screen. |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 21, 2009 5:18 AM EDT |
I have to disagree here. You lost the attention of the common people at the word "kernel". That's not marketable. Your Intel/AMD example proves that actually. Most people have don't have any clue what kind of CPU their computer contains and they don't care when they go shopping for one. Ask a non-techie user what kind of computer they have and you're lucky if they get the brand right (e.g. HP, Dell, etcetera). Play to what people know. They know what a platform is because they most likely heard of Macintosh or Apple. They also know what a brand is because people are surrounded by brands every day. |
| jacog Jul 21, 2009 5:22 AM EDT |
Don't call it the kernel. People don't need to know that. You just market the brand Linux as "the thing that makes this software possible", and do so completely incidentally. The product (ie the distro or embedded device) must still get the brunt of the focus. |
| tracyanne Jul 21, 2009 6:41 AM EDT |
Quoting:I have to disagree here. You lost the attention of the common people at the word "kernel". Quoting:Don't call it the kernel. People don't need to know that. You just market the brand Linux as "the thing that makes this software possible", and do so completely incidentally like my video montage. the idea is to vonvey the idea of linux, not talk about technology, or kernels. The idea is to convey this idea of a thing that makes all these things possible. Later the Distros air their differences, the cloud companies use the idea of Linux to sell thier wares and air thier differences etc./ |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 21, 2009 7:00 AM EDT |
Quoting:The idea is to convey this idea of a thing that makes all these things possible. Why not call that "thing" a platform? As I said, many people are already familiar enough with that. They know Windows and Mactintosh are two different platforms. Linux is just a third platform in that mix. That's all people need to know. Linux: faster and more secure than Windows and better looking than MacOSX. It powers anything from your TV and mobile phone, millions of home and office computers to the largest and fastest supercomputers in the world. With many different brands available it can even bring power to that five year old computer on your desk that you thought about replacing. Linux is the most versatile computing platform in the world. For more information visit www.linux.com/getlinux |
| jacog Jul 21, 2009 7:03 AM EDT |
I don't think one should ever advertise "Linux". It should only ever be an incidental reference attached to the advertising for the product that the customer will be using. In time the awareness will grow, but don't confuse consumers with it. Spending a tonne of money to advertise such a broad concept as "Linux" is not optimal spending. If you can get individual distributors such as Distros and pre-loaded Linux products to add a bit of "Linux" branding to their product, it will serve the purpose just fine, and these people will pay for their own marketing/advertising, alleviating the need to try and figure out who will pay for mass marketing the abovementioned broad concept that is not really owned by any one company. |
| tracyanne Jul 21, 2009 7:11 AM EDT |
jacog, I disagree. the idea one needs to sell is that one can do all these things because "you have the power of Linux at your fingertips." |
| jacog Jul 21, 2009 7:49 AM EDT |
(which is a rotten cliche') ...and advertising (which is what you are talking about) Linux so out of context does not benefit anyone. |
| tracyanne Jul 21, 2009 8:30 AM EDT |
Quoting:Spending a tonne of money to advertise such a broad concept as "Linux" is not optimal spending. But it is. Establish the platform, and marketing the products that depend on it is much much easier. Quoting:alleviating the need to try and figure out who will pay for mass marketing the above mentioned broad concept that is not really owned by any one company. That's the point of establishing a common vision. At the moment there is no vision, which makes go it alone market more expensive than each can carry, and fails to establish a base line that potential customers understand. |
| jacog Jul 21, 2009 8:36 AM EDT |
I try to think of it in terms of product. Advertising something that isn't a product is not of as much value to a consumer as pushing something specific at them. |
| theboomboomcars Jul 21, 2009 9:00 AM EDT |
When I think of advertising Linux, I think of the Cheese, and Beef advertising. They are just generic product advertisements that don't mention brands. Then you also have individual brand advertisements as well. I think that may work with Linux. |
| jdixon Jul 21, 2009 9:02 AM EDT |
> Advertising something that isn't a product is not of as much value to a consumer as pushing something specific at them. The beef industry, the milk industry, and the egg industry (to name just a few examples) don't seem to agree with you. |
| jacog Jul 21, 2009 9:11 AM EDT |
And potatoes Not the same thing. EDIT: And throwing analogies like cars and produce around is actually a good thing, it will help arrive at a suitable case study eventually. Keep 'em coming. |
| tracyanne Jul 21, 2009 9:48 AM EDT |
Quoting:I try to think of it in terms of product. I don't. |
| jacog Jul 21, 2009 11:01 AM EDT |
you rock |
| gus3 Jul 21, 2009 11:30 AM EDT |
That's why she has that rocking chair. |
| azerthoth Jul 21, 2009 12:07 PM EDT |
Linux works just fine, its the people that insist on adding other odds and ends to the name and vocally insist that they and only they are right that add the confusion to the mix. It's Linux or BSD, or what have you. I'll leave those who insist on symbolic affectations to the symbol minded (to paraphrase george carlin). Advertise Linux all you want, however you want. Debating if it should be done at all falls not into ignorance but rather into stupidity. |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 21, 2009 12:09 PM EDT |
Quoting:And throwing analogies like cars and produce around is actually a good thing, it will help arrive at a suitable case study eventually. Have a look at the classic bike and car ads from the late 1800's, early 1900's. Very often you see them praising the virtues of owning a bike or car in general. Back then they were still competing with horses. |
| jdixon Jul 21, 2009 12:12 PM EDT |
> Back then they were still competing with horses. I can see comparing Linux to a car and Windows to a horse drawn carriage. :) |
| bigg Jul 21, 2009 12:24 PM EDT |
> I can see comparing Linux to a car and Windows to a horse drawn carriage. :) Yes, you have to feed the horses every day, clean the manure, provide shelter, and on and on. With a car you change the oil once in a while and you're good to go. Buy a Windows computer and they'll give you an endless maintenance burden as a free gift. |
| gus3 Jul 21, 2009 12:55 PM EDT |
According to Neal Stephenson, Linux is a tank, with the key already in the ignition, just waiting for someone to drive it away. Not to worry, we have fifty bazillion more, with whatever feature set you want. |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 21, 2009 2:09 PM EDT |
I just *love* Neil's allorgy. I think I read "Commandline" at least a dozen times. |
| Libervis Jul 21, 2009 4:08 PM EDT |
Linux as a core with an ecosystem built around it and Linux as a platform seem pretty close to me. One seems to paraphrase the other. A core which you build around: an ecosystem. A core which you build ON: a platform. Linux can be seen as both. I don't think we need to mention the kernel in advertising to still refer to the kernel. The word "core" is essentially the same thing in terms of meaning as "kernel" and in that sense it fits the above context of a platform or an ecosystem. Call it by a name that is more user friendly, but which doesn't depart from describing what it actually IS. It is a kernel, but you call it a "core" or "technology" or "the base" or whatever would be more understandable to people all of which can serve as synonymous to the kernel. I also still disagree with advertising Linux the way cars were advertised. At best a "car vs horse carriage" is just a nifty analogy, a marketing pitch, but not a whole marketing strategy in itself. The reason is simply the fact that Linux is not anything like a car. It is more like a specific core component of a car engine shared by a multitude of driving vehicles. Linux is the core. It is not an OS. It is not equivalent to a car. It is nothing abstract. It is tangibly a core. And that's my bottom line. Whatever we do in marketing should not depart from calling it what it actually is. We can use synonymous terminology and contexts that pretty it up, but lets not call it what it simply is not. An example marketing pitch: "SimplePower Netbook lets you live on the web, whatever you do and wherever you go, enhanced by a leading edge Linux core technology that ensures top rated performance." Or another example: "Starlight Workstations maximize your productivity while lowering your costs. Based on industry standard Linux technology it provides superb performance, reliability and interoperability." Note that if you're marketing an operating system rather than a specific brand of computers or devices whether you're using the word "kernel" to describe the technology it's based on or not is almost irrelevant since most people never install operating systems anyway so you're inevitably marketing at a more tech savvy crowd. But just a simple renaming of "kernel" to "core" or "base" even there does the job. See what I'm getting at? Don't call it an OS because it's not an OS. It's not a generic brand either because Linux distros and devices are simply too different from each other to be compared to something as dull as "generic". Call it what it is, a core, but use the kind of language that conveys that well. Mr. Torvalds might even do well to brand Linux as "Linux Core". |
| helios Jul 21, 2009 5:01 PM EDT |
Or "LinuxCore" |
| tracyanne Jul 21, 2009 5:36 PM EDT |
Quoting:Call it what it is, a core, but use the kind of language that conveys that well. I've always referred to the kernel as the core of the system, when attempting to explain operating system concepts to to non techie people. They usually get a better feel for what you are on about, if they can visualise this thing at the centre of things. Quoting:That's why she has that rocking chair. Gus3, who told you I have a rocking chair? |
| gus3 Jul 21, 2009 6:01 PM EDT |
Quoting:Gus3, who told you I have a rocking chair?You did, with that question... |
| tracyanne Jul 21, 2009 6:06 PM EDT |
Seriously though, I do, it's great, I've wanted one since I was 7 or 8 years old, I used to love the rocking chair our neighbour had. My partner bought me one just recently. There's nothing like it if you want to put your feet up. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!