Slashdot Mirror
Linux Case Study Project At Linux International
porkrind writes: "Linux International is launching a program designed to show all the different areas where Linux is used. It's the case study project. We figure this is a good place to start on our road to marketing Linux. What do you guys think about Linux vendors pooling resources via LI to launch marketing campaigns for Linux? In the end, whatever we come up with, we want to be used by all Linux communities: business, development, advocacy, et al."
Well yes it is about Freedom, but part of that is the freedom for different groups it push it in directions that they want to go with it. RedHat may want to push into the embeded space, IBM into servers and Eazel onto desktops. But in all 3 cases it has to make money or they will stop using it at all.
The New York Times is a staunch supporter of the concept of a free press (as they have to be) but that does not mean that they don't try to turn a profit too. Even a free press has to pay the bills.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
Let me try to address a question from the article post in my own convoluted way. When people go to the store to buy a new computer, they look at the software and the peripherals available for it before making a decision. Right now, Joe Q. Average, retail shopper, will find plenty of digital cameras and scanners and printers and software with the Windows logo or the MacOS logo on the package, and he will assume that he must own a computer with Windows or MacOS in order to use them. Yep, Joe Q. Average will only consider buying a computer with pre-installed Linux if all those goodies I just mentioned feature a big fat Tux logo alongside the Windows disintegrating flag and the MacOS happy face. Computer manufacturers know this, and they will therefore refrain from putting a machine running Linux on a retail outlet's shelves until the situation is corrected. Now that Linux 2.4 is available, Linux International and friends should first try to persuade all of those cheap USB peripheral manufacturers to donate Linux drivers (or at least release hardware specs, which in time become drivers) for their products and then (and this is very important) persuade their marketing departments to advertise Linux 2.4 compatibility on their retail packaging. Of course, this would be a lot more meaningful if there were a suitable LSB specification that guaranteed the availability of corresponding userland facilities that may be needed to facilitate the use of the peripheral (like ALSA and SANE and Ghostscript and whatever) but that's a whole 'nother story. Of course, all of the above depends on the premise that Linux really is suitable for mass consumption; given that we would not want to fall flat on our faces, it is extremely important that case studies should tell us in what domains and to what extent Linux is ready for use by Joe Q. Average, computer user, before a potentially premature branding effort gets started. For some things, late is better than wrong.
All I can say is if we're relying on this company to do the PR necessary for Linux to take over the world, we'd better prepare for a mighty long battle. That is the plainest, lamest, almost-Front-Page-inest looking web site I've ever seen for a supposed PR group. I'm mortified to think about what kind of advertising collateral they put out.
This has to be one of the larger reasons Microsoft is doing so well: they shovel money into advertising. Joe Sixpack sees the huge two-page spreads advertising Microsoft's five-nines reliability, and thinks, "Hmmm, must be reliable." The ads are gorgeous, they're everywhere, and you're driven to think the company must be doing a lot of things right in order to afford that kind of advertising. After all, this isn't like a dot-com that blew out an entire year's ad budget on a single Super Bowl spot: Microsoft spends more on ads than most companies make in revenue.
Linux, on the other hand, gets a lot of press, but not the picture type. Linux reviews or articles tend to be long, wordy affairs, not quick glamorous ads, and thus people's eyes glaze over.
Continental's in-flight magazine had a great article on Linux last month. I fly a lot, so I made it a point to ask a couple of my co-passengers if they'd read the article. It was a unanimous "No." Why? Because articles about computers are boring to them.
But they can't help but see Microsoft's fast, easy-to-digest ads. (And yes, I asked.)
Someone's going to pipe up and respond that Linux isn't ready for end users. That's correct, but it doesn't matter, because end users aren't going to ASK for it. End users routinely ask me when they can get upgraded to Win2k, even though they have no idea what the difference is (or why I won't put it on their P300 laptop with 64mb ram.)
Good advertising generates demand. No advertising doesn't. Bad advertising generates repulsion. (Think sock puppet.) So with that in mind, I'm horrified by the Linux International website, because it's even worse than no advertising at all.
What's your damage, Heather?
Interesting premise
/. and computers a LONG time
Of course, equilibrium CAN be shifted.
OK, First an admission, I'm a Linux Newbee, but have been around
I don't know how many of you were doing professional computer work back when the IBM PC was new, and were programmers when Windows 3.0 came out, but I was.
Here is a little history lesson, from MY point of view.
Windows 2.x and 3.0 were niche market products. In many ways, Linux today (market wise) reminds me of Windows 3.0. A lot of people and particularly businesses are interested, but there is NO reason to change, and some real reasons not to. Even though web based apps are all the rage, MOST business apps are still N Tier client/server. Right_NOW_ (stop - don't tell me about Kylix - I'll get there) there is no GOOD way to right business apps for the Linux desktop, just like there was no tool except C to write Windows apps back during the early Windows 3.0 days
Then something happened - Microsoft came out with VB 1.0, and did there best to make sure that any developer who wanted it, got it. The gave good tech support. All of a sudden, there was a way for companies to write their own custom in house programs. A few companies took the risk (I was hired by one of them), and we succeeded. By the time Win 3.1 came out 6-9 months later, we had apps. But the big thing was, not only did Microsoft show of Windows, the dragged developers who were writing in VB to places like Comdex, and showed off those in house apps, and allowed people to talk to them. Awards for developers, nice parties etc. Why? It showed businesses that there was a way to write apps. Windows took off
Linux has not had that. Yeah, we have Perl, and C++, but they don't cut it.
We are about to have that - Kylix.
Want to bet that there will be companies that buy Linux now, because there is a GOOD RAD tool? I'll tell you what - I'm hedging MY bets, and learning Linux as fast as I can, and you had better believe that there is a copy of Kylix coming my way.
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
YES, C++ does cut it, for building an OS. Business don't WANT to build an OS.
OK, Let's look at what is really done in the corporate world. What percentage of apps are written in, say VC++ vs VB? Answer? About 99% VB.
Remember the triangle, Good, Quick, Cheap - Pick two! Well most of corporate America has picked Quick and Cheap as the main parts - That leads to RAD tools. The few places you see GOOD, Quick are places like brokerages, where you see UNIX and/or VC++ development
C++ is probably the most powerful tool out there. Perfect for writing an OS, and yes, you can write the best Insurance Claims app with it. The problem is that it'll take longer to do than companies are willing to wait, and cost more
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
It also makes people realize that linux is a real os and not something only hacker weenies use and that they should release specs and drivers for their hardware.
--
Free Mac Mini
Humourless left wing hypocrite?
Advocated Violence?
I can see it now, right there in your mind.
A bunch of Sociopathic Hypocrites standing in front of a court judge for alledgedly beating their Win98 disks.
What would you have, oh mighty font of wisom?... "Goatsexes Faster?"
Whether you like it or not, mr drivel, the ad campaign and advocacy campaign brings customers in not by lulling them to sleep, but by either showing them what they have, or by showing them why what the customer already has is useless.
Got milk?
krystal_blade
It will be easy to motivate our fellow man; there is hardly anything people treasure more than not being annihilated.
2. A nice little image on internet applications... an "us and them" video if you please.
US (Linux) Show a computer with web hits scrolling across real fast...
Them--Show the same thing, but slowly show their computer starting to smoke, and finally exploding (morphing into a huge peice of popcorn)
Ad... "Whose got the better Kernal? Linux."
krystal_blade
as usual, in a humorous mood.
It will be easy to motivate our fellow man; there is hardly anything people treasure more than not being annihilated.
I respectfully disagree. Linux has only in the last year or two gotten to the point where I would start to recommend it to reasonably average Windows users. And I would still only recommend it to those who are frustrated with Windows' "quirks" (i.e. crashes) and who have fairly focused and specialized computing needs. IMO the battle for the desktop hasn't even really begun yet.
I think there are a few forces that might well push Linux on to more desktops.
1. Linux is free. Windows is starting to look like a hefty chunk of the price of a new computer. With profit margins where they are, equipment manufacturers have to be interested.
2. Linux is Free (i.e. Open Source). This is perhaps a disappointment to companies who want to close the source and sell their own version. However it's a big advantage to hardware companies: they get a huge set of free programmers and they can tune the software in-house for their needs.
3. Microsoft might be broken up. If so, expect to see Word for Linux. Expect to see legal complications for MS if they don't do it. Word running under KDE would allow Linux to provide the basic needs of 90% of non-gaming Windows users. And games aren't of any interest to a lot of people.
4. MS has stepped on a lot of toes to get where they are. This is in part why so many companies are interested in Linux. They would like to get MS out of the picture.
5. It's all about apps. A lot of programmers like Linux. If you can get programmers on board, apps will follow; and users won't be far behind.
6. Average users don't like windows that much. My non-techie former girlfriend would curse Windows regularly. When she saw that I didn't have the same problems she expressed considerable interest in Linux (without prompting from me)---until I told her there wasn't Word for Linux.
None of these is a strong enough point to show that Linux _will_ become a viable average user desktop. Some of the points are even arguable; I tried to throw in everything I could think of. But I think it's indisputable that there are a lot of reasons why a lot of suits and non-geeks would like to see Linux succeed. And the battle has yet to be fought.
Seriously, I can sum up many of the different markets for linux:
1. Businesses that have a specific IT goal in mind and don't need a large corporation to set these goals for them.
2. Geeky, pimply youths who like a 'flexible' operating system. (Not intended to flame, since I used to fit this category)
3. Geeky, conservative older men (yes, men) who like a 'flexible' operating system (Not intended to flame, since I currently fit this).
4. Developers who have specific goals in mind for hardware systems and don't need a large corporation to set these goals for them.
5. Those who use Linux and don't understand what it is. This is a direct result of #4 and #1 and a good example is Tivo owners.
I think it's apparent that companies often blindly follow what large corporations sell them. Thus, I conclude that the biggest potential market for Linux is to have a large corporation start marketing Linux solutions (IBM?).
Actually, I can further summarize as follows:
1. Those who need a flexible OS.
2. Those who need a cheap OS.
3. Those who enjoy playing with their OS.
4. Those who enjoy a 'free as in speech' operating system are in a considerable minority. I don't intend this to Flame, I wish it weren't true, but I think it is.
Did I miss anything?
Keeping
When linux was young and hopping around in the excitement of its youth, there were many bold dreams and brave ideas. People talked of it replacing windows and leading to a revolutionary new world. Due to the large statistical numbers of programmers, marketers, companies involved, the movement has stabilized a lot.
/., from the tone and content, I wonder how many newbies actually see these things.
At this point, no matter of marketing is going to make much difference. The direction has already been set - linux as a server OS for scripters and hackers, windows as a gui for ordinary users. Sure, you get the fanatics talking about how Joe Sixpack uses linux to teach his kids, but those are the priests preaching to the choir. I've seen even hardcore linux users generally have a windows partition - at least I did, for gaming and writing resumes.
Anyway, the point is - each OS has its strengths and builds momentum in its areas. Linux is good for servers, and excels there. Is marketing needed to highlight that point further? Doubt it. Will marketing make families switch to linux to use email and store their family photos? Doubt it.
Basically, the battle has stabilized. The fight is over servers. In that area, I don't see how marketing like this is going to help.
And one more thing - generally, these articles tend to say the things people already know. When I see these "convert the newbies" articles on
In any case, business decisions are made by managers after reading crap from Gartner and IDC. This doesn't make any difference. Realistically, the target audience is purchasing managers. will they read these "success stories" on the Linux International site and say - "Wow, that's impressive, I didn't know linux was so good. I will now install linux and try it out."
Come on...people at that level already know this shit. They don't need to be fed baby food. From what I've seen, linux marketing works best by word of mouth from enthusiastic users - not by propaganda sites/articles.
w/m
On Mandrake website, for Linux-Mandrake uses... See their page, it's instructive.
This is the question you need to answer first, because what I'm going to suggest is sure to be ridiculed.
:-)
Who is the biggest seller of OS in the world?
Why not try and promote Linux to that company?
If their OS has problems and they could get a better OS for a bargain price, would they not at least consider it? Forget the rhetoric M$ makes money.
Has any of the advocacy groups approached Micro$oft? Why not?
Both camps have a lot to gain from this, M$ gets a decent OS. Linux removes competition on the server, gets a large advertising budget, Office gets ported, Visual Dev tools get ported. Of course M$ would probably keep the desktop, but for how long?
If the Linux camp is not thinking about this, they should be. I bet people in M$ have already discussed this, maybe not with Gates and Co
- a unified and easy to use package format (I like
.debs best, but they mostly need perl for the scrips, so you have to have perl on the disc, they are only secondary supported and dselect is hell to use).
- a full featured browser
- a lot(or at least on extremely good) of (mainly 3D) Graphics Applications
- far easier an wide spreaded sound support
- proper printer support for other than postscript printers or at least cheap postscript printers
- lotta (commercial quality) games
- better interaction of all programs, wich needs the linux standard base to get ready
- gcc 3.0 soon ready
- all those standard office applications ready, not beta
That may sound arrogant and and pessimistic, but you need this to completely replace Win* or MacOS on your machine. And all this is something you can only do in full time efford. There may be some men of genius who might do this as a side show, but there are never enough of them.Just because I can imagine doing a hippopotamus, doesn't mean I'd like to do it.
Quit your whining, biotch. Linux can't be taken away from us, it's GPL'd (for the most part).
Do you honestly think Linux can't be taken away from us? I think that's a naive point of view, and overly trusting of corporate business practices, which we see on /. everyday exposed for what they are.
For a start the GPL hasn't been tested in a court of law so far, and so its viability as a protective mechanism is uncertain. So far the only reason it's worked is that no company wants to stick their necks out and be the first. If current trends continue though, it may become worth doing, and corporations can afford to hire good lawyers.
Secondly you've heard of "embrace and extend" right? The kernel may be GPLed but if it is surrounded by enough non-GPL stuff then it may come to the point where it might as well not be - you need loads of non-GPL stuff to run it. Borland's Kylix is a prime example of that, and I hope it doesn't succeed, because it could be the start of a long decline...
At some point in the last few years it seems as though I went to the kitchen for a cup of coffee and when I came back, Linux was a hotbed of corporate activity. What on Earth happened?
The whole point of Linux was never commercial success or brand-name recognition, it was to provide a high-quality operating system under a free license. Back in those days we didn't care about whether or not we could come up with a case study of success stories in order to drum up more corporate users, hell the corporate users were geeks hidden in darkened corners.
Why should we care that a bunch of greedy corporate suits want to promote Linux as if it's their baby? To be quite frank, I find all this corporatism an affront to the ideals that RMS stands for, and it's not why I starting using Linux in the first place. Software should be free, not exploited for the bottom line.
At this rate I expect to see "Bullet Proof Linux", "Fortune 500 Linux" and a whole host of other business-friendly distributions. Corel was bad enough, this sort of thing with its "Collaborative Marketing Programs" is worse.
Linux is not about money, it's about freedom. Don't let the corporations take it away from us.