Slashdot Mirror
Novell/Linux Parody on Apple's Mac vs PC Ads
xtaski writes "Wired's 'Cult of Mac' blog offers up video of Novell's spin on the Apple Mac vs. PC ads. The twist: a young lady portraying that winsome third party, Linux. There are two ads available for perusal, and the second is definitely the better of the two."
I like the third one best because it actually implies something useful to people about Linux: it has what you want on PCs and Macs (even games via Wine and Cedega, but they don't mention that).
Now I know someone's going to say "but Linux doesn't have $x, and $y is a crappy replacement that doesn't support $z", but take a look at the Mac vs. PC commercials that Apple made; they don't mention crap like that either. The point of the ads are to get "Joe Sixpack" to use it.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
You really need better writers. Just putting a cute woman on screen is not enough.
... Linux is a 3rd choice?
... no license requirements? PC and Mac both dig into their wallets ... Linux invites all her friends along.
Look at what each of the other commercials is about. Each has a point.
Macs are easy to setup - PC's are not.
Macs are secure - PC's keep asking you to confirm each action.
Your point is
Why not focus on something like
Windows: "How long have you been standing there?"
Linux: "Um... a long time."
As soon as I watched that part, it was obvious - the implication is that "nobody's been even noticing". I like Linux; but I think there was a big shot of unintentional self-parody right there.
#DeleteChrome
You know, someone could make a funny parody of the "Get a Mac" commercials; it's just that no one has. It seems like all the parodies are made by geeks who are upset about the originals, not creative people who can put a funny spin on them. All the parodies are basically big rants about why geeks don't like the originals. There's no subtlety involved at all. You can't parody a 30-second spot by making a 4-minute rant about how much the source sucks. You actually have to be clever. That's what the geeks making these things don't get.
Novell's ads aren't as bad, but really, what do they say? "Hey, Linux exists too"? So? When I'm car shopping, I know that Fiat exists too. Doesn't mean I consider it a viable option.
Or video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-L-0s-7-Z0&mode=re lated&search=
I don't know that this is funny, but their Linux representation is much more realistic than the stupid Novell parodies.
I also like how it's pointing out that it doesn't matter what type of computer you have. You can run Linux now. I guess many people are used to the idea of having to buy a new computer to change operating system.
It's understandable that anyone might prefer Linux to Windows. That said, many people are probably wondering, "If you have a Mac, why would you install Linux* on it?" This is a good question; pretty much any Linux program for which source is available can be recompiled for OS X. If it's command-line, no problem. If it's X11-based, just fire up Apple's free X11. The only snags are with binary-only software, but it's rare that you'd actually need to use a binary-only Linux app for which there's no Mac-native equivalent, and much more likely that you'd encounter the opposite situation.
I've actually installed Linux on a Mac on multiple occasions (starting with kernel 2.2.x on an original iMac, which was about the first time it was really possible), so I will try to enumerate the reasons:
0) Because you can.
1) For fun--you enjoy tinkering with things.
2) To learn about Linux.
3) To develop Linux-specific software, such as Linux kernel drivers.
4) Ideological reasons relating to Free Software--you refuse to run an OS where a portion of the code is non-Free (in which case you'd better be using Debian).
5) Because you care about performance in a particular niche where Linux has substantial real-world performance benefits over OS X.
6) You're so used to Linux's user interface that it would be too difficult for you to switch.
7) You actually think Linux's user interface is nicer than OS X (since they both offer the same choice of shells, this comes down to GUI preference).
I really can't think of any other reasons that make any sense--if you can, please reply and elaborate. Now, to the analysis.
It's pretty clear that the reasons given above are valid only for computer geeks. Normal people don't care about (0 - 5), (6) is obviously not applicable, and I have yet to meet a reasonable person who claims (7) holds true for "average" users. There's nothing wrong with this--being better than Windows for a lower price is a big accomplishment--but why imply that Linux is something it's not?
Linux is a great OS for many people whose alternative is Windows, and for geeks. It's not a good replacement for Mac OS X.
As an alternative ad that plays on the same themes, have PC as a guy, and have him break up with his girlfriend Vista because she's too demanding. PC sees Mac OS X (woman), and tries to hit on her, but is shot down because he's "not her type" and she "doesn't think they'd be compatible". Linux walks in, and she and PC hit it off. This would communicate that you can use your existing PC hardware to run Linux but not Mac OS X.
* I use Linux in the sense that everybody except Richard M Stallman uses--I mean the entire OS, in a generic sense that does not specify a particular distribution, rather than just the kernel.
I'm with #7. I love GNOME. The Mac UI confuses me.
OK, before I go further--do you consider yourself an average user, or a nerd/geek/power user? If the latter, you're not contradicting my argument, and may in fact be demonstrating point (6) to some degree. If the former--you consider yourself an "average" user--then you are probably the first reasonable person I've ever heard favor GNOME for average users. In that case, I'm wrong.
Assuming I'm not wrong on (7):
That's fine if you prefer GNOME--more power to you--but for what it's worth I'll try to explain why the Mac OS is the way it is.
If I'm working inside a window near the bottom of my screen, it is a waste to move the mouse all the way to the top. Why can't I have my menus be near where I'm working?
Early on, Apple put a lot of research into their human interface guidelines. They found that, in general, the amount of time it takes a user to click a button, menu, or other control was inversely proportional to the size of the control. The exception was items at the edge of the screen, which were effectively "infinitely large" in one direction (since it was impossible to overshoot). Thus, in many cases, putting menus at a screen edge can make them faster to access. I find that, if my trackpad sensitivity is set properly, I can hit menus at the top of the screen very quickly, even if my cursor is initially at the bottom. If you're always working in small windows on a very large screen, menu-in-screen may work better for you.
And why does that window that pops up have 3 panes when you're just trying to open an app?
I'm not totally sure what you mean. Are you referring to column view in Finder windows? That's just one of three different views in Finder, the OS X file browser.
Shouldn't the app be in the menu instead of in some folder hidden somewhere?I don't get it. GNOME puts the programs in categories by you use it for and its in the menu, not opening up extra windows to get to a launcher. It's much easier to me.
Finder is only one of several means of launching applications. Commonly-used apps are usually added to the Dock, located by default at the bottom of the screen (thus benefitting from the same point I raised earlier about controls at the edge of the screen). You can replicate the category structure using a few folders of aliases in your Dock. For "power users", I highly recommend QuickSilver.
My very-non-geeky sister is confused by Macs too, but she asked for Linux after using my laptop.
The best way to help a non-timid neophyte get started on a Mac is to spend a few minutes talking to them about what they think they'll want to use the computer for, then stick the relevant programs in the Dock. Point out a few key apps, then tell them to go ahead and play. Reassure them they won't break it.
And Macs need to get right-click.
Am I being trolled? Macs have had right-click for many, many years. Plug a standard three-button mouse into a Mac and you'll see typical right-click functionality just work. Apple sells a mouse with right-click. Their laptops, although nominally one-button, let you do a "right-click" by placing two fingers on the trackpad while clicking, and on any Mac you can also just control-click to simulate a right click.
It sounds to me like you haven't given Macs a chance, or at least not recently. Buy, borrow, or otherwise use a Mac for a few days and you'll quickly get used to most of the differences you're complaining about. The few genuine preference issues you have can probably be resolved by tweaking the OS X interface with third-party utilities, although I'd strongly recommend giving the "Mac way" a fair try first. For your pains, you'll get all sorts of great stuff, ranging from launchd to Cocoa to the iLife apps to Photoshop. You may even find a Mac-only killer app for your interests, such as BibDesk for academics.
You think that's bad - try multiple monitor setups, where the app's window is on one screen, and the menu bar is on the other.
Yeah, don't you just hate the way streamed Flash videos "just work" across PC and Mac, with IE, Firefox, Safari or Opera - for anybody with the ubiquitous Flash plug-in installed?
Of course, they discriminate against Linux users... Oh, wait, no, I just clicked "Install Plugin" in Firefox under Ubuntu and the video was running within 15 seconds... OK, so its not so easy if you're running PPC or 64 bit, and I had to click-through my Immortal Soul to Adobe, but they'd have to fight Microsoft, the Inland Revenue and T-Mobile if they wanted to collect that!
Yes, Flash is propietary, and yes, it has been abused for unnecessary eye candy, but it is also a bloody good product for small-scale, web-deliverable, cross-platform multimedia/forms apps that don't need the full might (and bewildering technology thicket) of Java. Show me (say) a combination of SVG and ECMAScript that actually works reliably.
PS "works reliably" in this context precludes telling your users/clients/potential customers "What? You're using Firefox|IE|Safari under Windows|MacOS? Just install Gentoo and do 'sudo apt-get-install mypersonalideaofadecentbrowserV1.0E-12PreAlpha' you moron! "
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.