Slashdot Mirror
The 'Linux Inside' Stigma
New submitter dtschmitz highlights the success of the Google Chromebook to underscore what, in his view, is a serious Linux brand image problem.
"It's remarkable how Google doesn't mention the word Linux anywhere in their marketing of the Google Chromebook. I mean, it's running the Linux Kernel, so shouldn't it be Google Linux instead of ChromeOS? Why did Google carefully avoid references to Linux? It's all a very carefully crafted, well executed plan of elegant branding and image making. ... The profile of this user is that of someone who really doesn't care anything about the technical underpinnings of a device. They are not sophisticated technophiles by any means. They have a set number of things which they wish to do--recreational surfing, banking, email, an occasional letter, not complicated. ... Google didn't mention Linux because they know it will scare buyers away. That's unfortunate, but true. And we need to come to terms with that fact and work towards improving the 'Linux Inside' brand image.
There are lots of things for which that level of detail is lost on the target consumer.
Why the heck Apple has OS-X and no BSD inside stickers, for many years now? ;-)
Paul B.
Because "linux" is toxic to 90% of the population out there.
"Windows" is the status quo, "mac" is sexy, and "linux" is that ugly fat guy in IT who smells bad and makes you change your passwords every other day.
Google is right to avoid "linux" like the plague.
Because people don't give a fuck what's inside their computers. They want their magic boxes to just work, without knowing all the innards.
You can blame Apple for making people less technologically astute, or praise them for raising the bar for every other manufacturer.
I think the reason why they don't mention Linux is simply because the thing isn't meant to run Linux software. It doesn't really matter that it uses Linux underneath when you never get to directly access it and instead are limited to whatever layer they strapped on top of it. Android isn't marketed as a Linux for the same reason, the Linux is simply an implementation detail, not an end user visible feature.
Lets say the product is a big success. They want the positive experience attributed to "CHROME", a trademark they own, versus "Linux", one they don't.
Who actually cares?
Not everything needs a nice friendly brand.
Its almost like no one mentions Android on their phones anymore.
And the best selling Android tablet won't even mention it at all...
If they did, then no one would buy it.
I think the reason they don't mention it, is that they don't want to take any reputation away from Google. If Google is using Linux inside, what's special about Google? Besides, if they do mention it, at some point in the far future which may never happen, Linus (or his inheritors) may come looking for some licensing costs. Or, here you go, when Google starts charging licensing fees, how does having Linux Inside affect that?
That their smart phone is likely running on Linux?
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
An astronaut falling into a black hole would die alone.
Tech folks get into specific discussions about the best solution to a problem. People just want to buy 'the best'.
If I had my way, we would not have Intel processors in machines and Windows would have ended at 3.1 when it was clear it was a poor solution. The market didn't work that way and I still have to live with bits in the wrong order and drives identified by their letter.
I somewhat take Linus's view - who cares?
-Interview with Linus last year (http://www.techradar.com/news/software/why-linus-torvalds-would-rather-code-than-make-money-1112900)
LT: "Technical people will complain 'it's Linux, and now people don't know they're using Linux'. Which is true, a lot of people don't even know they're using Linux"
LXF: "And that doesn't bother you?"
LT: "And that doesn't bother me at all, because I'm interested in the technical side. And I actually think it's the right thing to do, to say: "Hey, we're doing our OS".
And when they say OS, they mean more than just a kernel, and when I say OS I usually mean just the kernel.
But if you're doing your OS, Linux is a central, but it's still just a small part of the overall thing - you shouldn't need to name your stuff just because you use the Linux kernel.
So, I actually wouldn't want to use the trademark thing, plus I think it would be stupid anyway because I think people should just rename their things."
Maybe Google just don't want to agree to the terms they're required to agree to in order to use the Linux trademark.
What would the benefit for google be to add this information to their product? If anything it dilutes the brand strength and confuses people. Its the same reason why apple doesnt mention bsd anywhere
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
Why? Linux has been cruising along for a long time getting better and better, running in more and more places, first conquering servers, enveloping embedded devices, devouring the mobile phone market place, spreading into tablets, etc. It's at the core of VMware, Android, ChromeOS, and devices both on earth and in space.
So, again, why? So teenagers will use it? Choosy Moms will choose it over Jiff?
The brand image of Linux right now is: get shit done. well. Oh, and also do whatever you want with it.
What people like OP need to come to terms with is the fact that Linux is successful in spite of marketing.
And we need to come to terms with that fact and work towards improving the 'Linux Inside' brand image.
I wasn't aware that there was even a need to have a brand image for Linux, let alone improve it.
Apple basically, uses the entire tool chain of BSD using a custom kernel and windowing environment. Since LInux is just the Kernel, the sticker would likely be Manged by Linux or Abstracted by Linux. I would have to think about which is more accurate. If they do not install the standard GNU tool chains that Linux distro's use as common ground even the most experinced among us might be reluctant to call it Linux instead of of an OS that uses the Linux Kernel.
Great for wonks, but unaproachable to the non-wonks around us. "It just works" is never something I expect when I start a Linux machine, but that is the main desire of most consumers.
For people who want freedom and understand the underpinnings of how computers actually work, Linux is great... sometimes. And that's the best I've ever been able to say about the operating system. This is coming from a CS guy who learned to program on a linux machine. I've never owned a linux machine and I'm not sure I plan on getting one because the maintenance requirements are just too high from the experience I've had.
The machine is the virtual machine with pretty windows and Play Store and touch screen and Chrome browser.
Linux is command-line stuff. Had this been some other Unix child or grandchild, or CPM for that matter, who cares?
They aren't buying Linux -- they're buying all that other stuff, like it or not.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Have you heard RMS? The Linux kernel does not an OS make. Chrome OS may run on a Linux kernel, as does Android, but it is NOT anything like GNU Linux.
Google would have a bit of a black eye if they marketed it as Linux and people found out they can't run Linux apps on it. See also Windows Rt vs 8.
Oh, by the way... Due to the "bizarre" licensing of Linux, Google can call it whatever it wishes to. Calling it Google Chrome seems like a good marketing plan to me. You wouldn't be too impressed by Apple Mach OSX, now would you?
They have UNIX tm 2003
They did, however for a short time do the whole "UNIX Inside" thing. Even got as far as certifying one version of OS X.
Even if Linux has a flawless brand, Google would still likely use their own brand. Why? Because they want to be able to control it. They don't want a brand that is partially controlled or influenced by external parties.
It's making a big deal out of nothing. Really!
I just got off a support call two hours ago. I asked, "So you're using IE 10, what version of Windows are you using?"
"Explorer 10"
Telling folks that the OS is "Linux" means nothing and confuses them. They want their shit to work. They don't care. Really.
Tell an Apple something or another user that they are running iOS (whatever) - they don't care!
Guys, F/OSS guys - if your goal is to get into the consumer "space" then your "brand" means nothing - unless you can somehow market it as a superior (something) to consumer that they'll understand - they have no concept of an OS. None. It's like some of the new kids who program with scripting languages (Python, Perl, Java, Ruby, etc ...) who have no idea what a device driver is - that's the best analogy I can come up with.
Intel thought they were making some sort of "branding" thing with their "INtel Inside" stickers but most folks bought an "HP" or "DEll". Yes, I'm saying Intel marketing wasted a shit load of money.
I know.
I talked to "those"people.
No - they are NOT stupid. They are very smart and intuitive at what they do. When I explain things to them - and how to work around it - they are ON it!
They SEEM stupid because most of us are impatient with non-techies - to put it nicely.
The "I'm on explorer 10" guy? Well he's a lawyer working one something that would melt your feeble brain. Just say'in.
Linux is seen as a geek OS, the only way to change that is to make them leave. If you want to release something that's entirely not geeky, don't call it Linux call it something like... Android? ChromeOS? Ubuntu? Because the command-line style Linux by code warriors for code warriors isn't going to go away. Why fight an uphill battle to change it to marketing bullshit that would be patently untrue? If somebody tries to use "it's Linux" as a negative, just say "so's an Android phone, if you want an easy, user-friendly device it can be that but for the geeks who want to tweak everything with cryptic commands it can be that too." Of course, it would help if any of the desktop GUIs actually lived up to the "easy, user-friendly" part...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
That's at least part of the story. Note how the rare attempts at selling prebuilt Linux PCs, such as the early netbooks, have tended to have oddball custom Linux distros (Linpus? WTF?) instead of, let's say, Debian, Ubuntu, or even a RHEL clone. My cynical side says that this was done on purpose as a way of discrediting Linux in the eyes of the general population.
A more recent thing that doesn't help matters is the new X11 vs. Wayland vs. Mir kerfluffle. Considering how often I use X11 forwarding over SSH, I'm not looking forward to Wayland or Mir.
Both good and bad: the multitude of desktop environments. As unhappy as I am with GNOME 3 and Unity, at least there are others I can fall back on. Still, I think that Ubuntu's default of sending local search results to Amazon by default is toxic.
Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
Indeed, the reason it doesn't say "Linux Inside" is because nobody but us have ever heard of Linux, not that they're scared of it. The only ones scared of Linux are slashdot users on Windows boxes who've read read the FUD from the MS shills.
They also don't tell consumers that the OS was written in a mixture of C and C++. Why are they hiding this too? Obviously, because it doesn't matter to the end user.
It doesn't change the user experience knowing the underlying implementation. If anything, by telling people that it is Linux, it will raise expectations that they can run all the software that they have heard about on Linux. I think that the name Chrome is more relevant to the nature of the platform than Linux because it is designed to work with web applications, not programs written to run on Linux distros.
If the OS is not named in any way, Google can substitute a new one without any market effect other that what Google choose to advertise. No name == no problem with changes.
Linux is just a kernel. Naming the whole system after a kernel seems a bit excessive to me, especially since it would be relatively simple to replace the kernel with other kernels such as the BSD, and no user would be able to tell the difference. Most of the software would still run without modification since the chromebooks are all about web apps and almost no native code.
Moreover, Linus and all other kernel developers game a written consent to everyone to do this.
So the authors of the kernel are fine with this and gave written permission to do it. Google is fine with this and seeks what they perceive to be the best marketing strategy. Who are you to complain? this is really a matter to be resolved between the authors of the kernel and Google, no one else has any skin in this game.
Every version from 10.5 (on Intel) onward is UNIX '03 certified.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
there's nothing elegant about anything Google does.
We just had a story about the confusion caused by Microsoft calling their tablet OS 'Windows RT' even though it can't run Windows programs, and now Chromebooks should be called 'Linux Chrome' (or something) even though they can't run most Linux programs?
'But I downloaded Steam for Linux and it won't run?'
Great plan.
Ubuntu doesn't even mention the word Linux on their own front-page, go take a look. You'll have a hard time finding any reference to Linux without some serious digging.
Why? Pretty simple really. Ubuntu and others are looking to create their own "platform" ala Android, with Linux as the base kernel. It saves millions in R&D to have to create your own and the userland stuff can usualy be rebuilt. Beyond that? Neither Google nor Ubuntu (just as an example) really care if Linux benefits, if Linux is promoted. They're not interested in promoting a product that you can download for free and hack on yourself, that's not a wise way to lock people into a platform. They're interested in promoting their own products, and Linux quite simply is nothing more than a way for them to save money doing it.
For the same reason why Mac OS X is not named "Apple BSD", or something. The whole is qualitatively much more than the sum of the components.
By releasing polished products that work well. Then the consumer incidentally finds out it runs on Linux and their opinion of it builds from there.
Twinstiq, game news
It is the same reason you don't see "Linux inside" on your Android phone, or any of the other hundreds of devices you see around you that are "secretly" running Linux. Know that credit card reading machine (POS)? Almost always, Linux.
The Operating System became a commodity, and the only think that is marketable is the interface.
morcego
it would start with there being an actual linux stigma, which is something that doesn't even exist in the first place. People just don't like things they don't undestand.
I recently bought one of these (the $249 version) more out of curiosity than anything. It's a pretty bad experience that has led me to believe that ARM is as much the issue as anything. It is slower than molasses to load even a reasonably complex Web page. Slashdot and even GMail peg the thing... four or five seconds minimum to start reading.
And because it's locked down, Google pre-loads a bunch of obscure Chrome extensions that would otherwise be separate programs. Besides that, the build cheapness makes it a throwaway.
I love my Nexus 7, which is a bargain and constructed properly for the tablet use case. (It's also slow to load pages, leading me to suspect ARM.) Anyway, Chromebook is a netbook without any flexibility.
I'm looking over the wall, and they're looking at me!
I think Google doesn't mention Linux because the target consumer has no idea whatsoever what a "Linux" is. They're trying to make the marketing message easier to digest. Probably a good way to go, in my opinion, and I LOVE my preferred Linux distros.
" Google didn't mention Linux because they know it will scare buyers away."
Or possibly, they know that 99% of non-techies have no idea what Linux is, and these non-techies are their target, and mentioning Linux will do nothing except confuse their potential customers. People don't care what's under the hood, as long as it works.
Here, let me give you a car analogy
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
And we need to come to terms with that fact and work towards improving the 'Linux Inside' brand image.
That is the wrong focus unless, of course, you are selling to buyers who are more concerned about Linux than whether or not the computer they are buying will serve their needs.
.
A big problem that Linux faces is that it is fragmented, and the "marketing" focus has been that it is Linux. What is really amazing is that most of the pro-Linux crowd do not see the fragmentation as a disadvantage.
With more and more computing being done on the web and in the cloud, why does it matter whether or not a computer runs Linux, Windows or whatever? That is the point that Google has realized. Consumers want functionality, not an OS.
The sooner the Linux crowd understands that, the better off Linux will be; of course, presuming Linux is not so far gone in the public's eye that it is not redeemable.
Fuck you! Stay away from my OS.
its own. Nothing to do with the 'Linux' brand, whatsoever.
there's no place like ~
Um, Android is Linux too. So is my Linksys Router, and my cable box, my TV and probably parts of my car... really, whats the point of this article?
Or the install/distribution model? There are valid reasons why people don't want to mess with Linux. many don't want to get all into the technology. They just want something that works, works well, and works easily.
Look at the Mac. It's UNIX, but people don't know or care. It's about the experience and the value they receive.
You would be wrong.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2007/08/mac-os-x-leopard-receives-unix-03-certification/
Google wants to build their own brand, not someone else's brand. Especially not one that any of their competition could start using as well, and undercut their pricing.
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
POSIX-compliant, Open Brand UNIX 03 Registered Product http://images.apple.com/media/us/osx/2012/docs/OSX_for_UNIX_Users_TB_July2011.pdf
in branding. Not because of any stigma (most of their audience never heard of Linux anyway); rather because the could not control the Linux brand. Anyone could build a LinuxBook "just like Google's" whereas only Google builds a ChromeBook. They can create a specific brand to differentiate their product from generic Linux machines; and use that to carve out a market niche.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Because it was never technically BSD. It's a Mach kernel with BSD-Userland.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
No, that would be the OpenBSD user.
They don't want to turn users toward a free OS.
By the same token should I call a machine that is driven by an internal combustion engine, an internal combustion engine?
... the best way to go about improving the 'linux inside' brand is to avoid it entirely. The same way blackwater a private military company kept changing it's name when it's name became known in the media. Linux has the stigma so it would be best to rename and disassociate from linux and call it ANYTHING other then linux.
Most people are not hardware/software geeks. They just want something that works and pay someone else to take care of their worries. Linux biggest problem is that there needs to be an actual commercial incentive to develop a 'commercial fork' that just deals with things like drivers, compatability, etc. OS's are complicated and it's a full time job to manage all that complexity and that means it needs to earn $.
... I think Richard Stallman.
And when I think RMS, I think unwashed and smelly.
Don't deny it. You do too.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
When I finally put a stake in the heart of the SCO UNIX system that hosted our legacy accounting system, someone commented "so I guess UNIX is dead now, isn't it?" Then I pointed out that our server infrastructure was still Linux-based, and that the Google Apps we used ran on Linux, and that the NetSuite ERP system we use ran on Oracle Linux, and that the few macs we have were BSD Unix-based, and then the iPhones, iPads, Android phones, Android tablets and well, pretty much everything except the Windows desktops were UNIX-based. I think they were more confused rather than less after that explanation, but it felt good.
"Google didn't mention Linux because they know it will scare buyers away." ...and Microsoft wonders why no one buys "Windows" phones...
Are nerds the astronaut and Linux is the black hole?
Is Linux the astronaut and the black hole is desktop OS land?
Is your post the astronaut and the black hole is the wrong story?
Maybe the black hole is WoW. It has to be WoW.
Oh I got it! My post is the astronaut and posting AC is the black hole.
With the current popularity of 50 Shades of Gray, they may garner some public interest if they renamed BSD to BDSM.
The thing is this: The OS/Kernel is not as important as the things you do with it. For Linux to be a "brand" is to overstate what it actually is.
It has been pointed out numerous times that a Linux kernel is useless without an bunch of other sofware surrounding it. Sometimes it's a "Linux Distro" and sometimes it's something else like a firmware load which isn't quite a distro is it?
It's not exactly a secret that Linux is at the core of a very large portion of today's consumer and professional hardware. Multifunction copiers, TVs, DVD/Bluray players, Virtual machine hosts, Phones and Tablets and lots, lots more. It's not the suppression of something you think we should all be proud of. It's more like presenting something which might well confuse the consumer.
Considere this: "Intel Inside" essentially means it is running on an x86 type of processor. It implies a bit more, however, such as running Windows and other things which users believe to be the case but isn't necessarily true. (Think MacOSX, for example.)
The problem of attempting to put "Linux Inside" would be even MORE confusing because people would tend to think and expect things about Linux powered devices may have a lot more in common with one another than they do. This is simply inappropriate for the general consumer public. It take a real geek to understand the differences of applications everywhere.
Over time, of course, we can (and should) personally remind the public that Linux is at the core of all of these devices they enjoy so much and at the core of many extremely large operations which they know well or have heard of. Linux is not "a toy" or "for hobbyists only" because it is presently deeply entrenched into just about everything from the smallest to the largest of applications. It helps our pride to remember that and to remind others.
But still, we hear IT leaders in business cite how important brand names are and they talk about Cisco and VMWare and all those. But my Cisco phone system is all Linux inside... and VMWare is too. These are not toys and so neither is the core technology these major brands rely on.
No one is "keeping is secret." But it is good to be able to surprise nay-sayers with a rather long list of things they already use and depend on which are Linux powered. And for the vast majority of it all, there is no substitute.
Linux is a kernel, a key software component in an operating system. Inasmuch as it needs a brand image, it needs it among people assembling OS's, not among consumers.
Sure, geeks care about things like OS kernels, but geeks will pay attention to things like that even when there is no "Linux inside" sticker.
The name "linux" is not as toxic as the brand name "microsoft". Microsoft has the "(almost prime) mover advantage" of being the 800-pound gorilla after out-maneuvering IBM in their contract for MS-DOS for the IBM PC. Many people think very poorly of Microsoft products, yet MS does not realize this and keeps branding things with MS, or Windows 8 or Windows RT, because it knows that its brand name is well known.
.
The brand-name "Linux" is very poorly known. It's so poorly known that it's ludicrous to posit the idea that there's a toxicity to attaching that brand name to software or to hardware products containing that software. Google didn't use the name for whatever reasons they had. My guess in "reading google's mind" is that they saw no advantage to adding the linux brandname to what they sell, not that they saw a disadvantage to adding the name.
.
Religions have brandnames. Why do you think "Christian Science" and the "Mormons" == "Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints" both co-opt Christian nomenclature in the names of their religions? To get people to buy in that this religion is not different from the other religion (even if it really is in fact quite different).
.
So if Linux or even GNU/Linux (praise be to RMS, all hail gnu and yaks [yaks = yet another kind software] ) had any sort of cachet or style or fashionability to them, companies would be stampeding to brand their products as having "GNU inside" or "linux internalized just for U!". Intel and MS pay a lot for their ads. Google has gone the way of Hershey candy bars and switched over from "we're so well known that we don't have to advertise" into "we better splash our brand name out there so people pick us!" There is no corporate marketing entity behind Linux, so there is no prime director behind the brand name or promotional aspects of it. That gives it a floppy directionless kind of vibe.
.
Will that lack of pointed focus kill GNU and Linux? Or will it be the saving grace for GNU and Linux? I vote on the saving side. It's the same arguments made for the GPL. Some say the GPL will kill all software that is GPL'ed. Others say GPL means the software will survive while non-GPL software won't fare as well as BSD and proprietary code-bases get co-opted and hidden by corporations and brands. I vote on the side of GPL surviving. But even GPL has been divided into the GPL 2 vs. the GPL 3 camps by Tivo-ization.
.
Brand name fights are about marketing and building market awareness and publicity. Google wants you to believe that buying their ads and their adwords will help you succeed. If someone tries to sell you on the importance of branding, look to see what else they are trying to sell you. What they're trying to sell you is either a marketing campaign or some of their services. Don't be sidetracked.
.
Content is more important than form. Well, form needs to be clean and crap-free, but a beautiful shiny-candy-coated interface over crap is still just candy-coated-crap. Don't eat it. Make the content good, and let the others fight over branding and 1st place.
.
Keep GNU good. Keep Linux good. The Linux "brand" is NOT toxic. Those who tell you that it is toxic are trying to sell you something.
Highlights the success of google chromebook...
OK, I guess shipping product is a measurement of success. But if you want linux to be thought of as being more popular, maybe associating it with disappointing sales is not a great idea.
Maybe instead point at the bajillions of consumer products that people actually bought: TVs, BluRay, phones, etc.
There is an easy solution for that. Abandon the happy-go-lucky Linux crowd (not dissing them, they achieved a lot of very good things) and start using one of the BSD's. Then you'll a lot less change (which provides more stability) and a general awareness of the OS being just a tool to get things done. That's (in my humble opiniion) one of the flaws of some Linux developers, they tend to think that the OS is an end goal. I think it isn't, it is a tool (a very important tool) to get things done. But those things are more important than the OS.
Linux is a tool, same as a hammer is a tool. I hope hammers get developed further, same as I hope Linux will evolve. But Linux is not an end goal. The things I need to get done are. And if Linux helps me with that, great! If BSD or Windows is better at helping me get things done, also great!
As a loosely related side story, as I need to purchase 2 laptops, I wrote a no-name laptop maker today asking for Linux compatibility as the laptop they sell are either with Windows or 'No OS'. I got a quick answer that said that although they cannot guarantee it, most of their models work well with Linux, with only one series having a chipset to currently avoid. I'd rather like guaranteed compatibility, but that's good to hear too. Indeed they forwarded a whole bunch of users' messages and criticisms.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
nonsense. there's no "linux inside" sticker because there's no reason to put it there. you see "inside" stickers if it's a selling point of the product. whether it should be or or not, linux is not a selling point when it comes to what consumers recognize and value.
also, note that windows-based computer packaging is routinely bashed for all of the ads and logos plastered to the box. the current trend is simpler packaging like what you see from apple products.
The software malady that occurs when you create yet another Linux distro with the expectation that plenty of people will want to use an amorphous pile of different user interfaces with no effort whatsoever to tightly adapt the OS to any particular line of hardware. So the user has to learn about different UIs and also about chipsets and peripheral chips and how they are wired differently in various computer models. They also have to learn about repositories, and how they are structured to reject the software you actually want to download and install yourself.
Extra Distro-itis points if you're an app developer and got so sick of configuring and packaging for umpteen different distros that you went and created your own new Linux distro specially configured to run certain applications (hardware problems notwithstanding).
I've been complaining about this stuff for years pointing out that "Ubuntu Linux" is far less helpful and appealing than just "Ubuntu".
The Linux distro milieu creates low expectations for certain important features of personal computer operating systems (OS as defined by the defacto standards set by Mac and Windows systems, not the anemic definition from academia that Linux proponents like to hide behind). One of those features is rich GUI & multimedia functionality set behind a searingly sharp demarcation line that defines "services that are always offered, even on different computers", and optional stuff on the other side. That creates an environment where third-party apps can be distributed for the platform independently, wherever and however the authors and users like, while being confident the apps will actually run.
Not to mention as a company you want tyour OWN brand on stuff. Your not trying to sell Linux, your trying to sell your own product. Unless your trying to take advantage of another stronger brand that is you wouldn't advertise Linux. Linux is a small market and Google is trying to hit a larger market. The people who might care already know its Linux anyway.
People don't say I drive an iron/carbon car.
Or give you the model number of their engine.
Sure car enthusiasts might do that, but no one else will know or care what you're talking about.
This blender was programmed with C++ inside.
...doesn't matter for the end user/consumer. As long as the image is strong enough that the developers making the next netbook, mobile device, set-top box, router, etc. decide to use Linux, then the brand is healthy in the right way.
You mean there's already a linux desktop and they forgot to have a year of the linux desktop? What a bunch of party-poopers!
Quick - what brand of tires/stereo is in your car? Do Ford ads mention it at all? Do they know that Bridgestone will scare people away?
I know people who don't even know that Android is a Google product - they know they bought their phone from Samsung, and it comes preloaded with Google Apps, an AppStore, and Skype, Facebook etc. Why should they care about the kernel? Will it make their life easier if they know which processor is in their microwave? You don't hear TI whining about how it doesn't get recognition.
And if you think the lack of recognition is what keeps people scared of Linux, then you have no idea what problem you are trying to fix. If you market Android as Linux, and expect people to adopt Linux on the desktop in droves, you are sadly mistaken. They might try it, find it is nothing like their phone/Chromebook, and leave.
There is quite a bit of difference. Google has created a Linux Distro in common parlance with lots of embedded JAVA support. But, Apple has their own OS.
It is true that OSX has elements and some compilance with BSD but that is because of historical developments. OSX is mainly based on Darwin which is itself taken from NeXTSTEP. Darwin is open source so that arguement about Android being open and iOS not being is partcially a rouge. Apple made Darwin open source in 2000. At the base, XNU/mach kernel elements give OSX its footing.
The BSD elements in OSX do not incoude the kernel but are more associated with file system, networking and process management.
So, Goggle uses Linux and Apple uses OSX...
The only ones scared of Linux are slashdot users on Windows boxes who've read the massive amount of lies and deceit from pathological Linux zealots.
TFTFY
Umm, the marketing droids for Chromebooks have 1 job: market Chromebooks that use Google ChromeOS. What possible motivation is there to hype Linux? Why should anyone expect Google's marketing people to market on behalf of the Linux kernel?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Berkeley Distributing Software Masochism
...onto the wormholes that suck you from one discussion thread to another one.
The stigma on Linux can't be any worse than the one that has settled on Windows 8.
Linux works and is the future, Windows is the past!
Like the inimitable Groucho Marx, I would never join a club that would have me as a member.
I see what you did there. Creating something that doesn't exist, Linux doesn't have a stigma and anyone who has used Steam in the past few months knows what Linux is; you can't avoid the big picture of Tux on the download page. The only people whom deny the existence of Linux and attach the implied Stigma, are those whom have a full partition dedicated to Windows and/or work at Microsoft.
Linux is in your TV, DVR, Phones and other electronics; It's also in the new Alienware X51. The only Stigma, is that of Windows, a Branding Mark of Microsoft Corporation, that has outlived it's usefulness. Seen Gartner lately? A 7% drop in Market share this year alone, soon to be followed by a 14% decrease. I'm backed up with fact's, so where is this non-existent stigma for Linux?. Dietrich Schmitz loves to write flame-bait articles sadly.
I've been trying to avoid saying what I really feel because the people that come here and Mod comments are not rally fans of Alternative Operating Systems, but alas, out it came. Goodbye points, I shall miss thee.
People aren't buying a kernel, they're buying a product.
Yes, this is just another knee-jerk reaction from an M$ hater who will gladly blame them for anything ranging from greed, to politics, to disease and famine.
But you could legitimately argue that they have a motivation in this. Look at all the fake reports MS has published saying that Linux has a higher TCO. And the outright lies they trained Best Buy drones to tell people
And the constant shills that they dish out on all kinds of websites, this very one included. I'm sure that there are hundreds of other, more obvious and egregious examples, which escape me at the moment.
But MS has a vested interest in tarnishing Linux's brand image, and the facts have shown that it is exactly what they do. But that's okay, they can keep doing it because eventually, people will eventually (if they haven't already) realize that Linux is lightyears ahead of MS's products, and that is what is causing (present tense!) an exodus from their awful platform. Linux has been growing from its very inception, and there's no reason why that should stop.
I'm not going so far as to say that this is all their fault, but you can't disagree that they haven't had a part in this, one based on a malicious, ulterior motive. And regardless, I don't think the whole issue present by TFA is problematic anyways. People use Linux cause it works, not cause it's sexy. And that's just fine.
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
Which is sort of the same issue but inside-out. It's not called OS X Mach, for the same reason that ChromeOS is not called ChromeOS Linux or Ubuntu isn't Ubuntu Linux.
The kernel is not a very exciting thing.
It's exciting for some people, but not that many.
Your dislike for the word Linux is purely subjective. I find the word Apple extremely unpleasent and that didn't stop them from using it as a brand name.
http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/
UNIX 03
Registered Products:
Apple Inc.: Mac OS X Version 10.8 Mountain Lion on Intel-based Macintosh computers
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
Google could have done what they have done without Linux and it's license. Everything Google builds has Linux as it's engine. Their Cloud, Android and ChromeOS. They could be a little thankful for that by mentioning it once a while.
When I ask friends if they want me to install Linux and they ask me what it is (they are usually coming from a virus riddled Windows install), I just tell them "Its like Mac but penguin themed." Ubuntu is plenty stable these days for your average user.
A "Brand" puts its corporate name behind every product - that's why branding works: The company's managers know that a mediocre product will impact brand perception and thus lessen their future sales of other products.
Look at it this way: Do you want a Mercedes Benz or a Mystery Car? The Mystery Car may be very nice but you need to test it. The Mercedes will probably perform. Now, do you prefer a Chromebook where Google says "This is our Flagship corporate laptop for Google Apps our execs use it, and we lose revenue if it doesn't perform", or a SlackwareBook which says "Entirely GPL, some hackers run this".
This is not a signature.
I remember a couple of occasions when I had no internet and same time had Hard Drives failure and had to reinstall Windows on a new hd or just do a fresh install(this was windows xp) to get rid of the old bloat. If i were using Linux as my primary OS I would have been screwed since it needs the internet to solve software dependency issues but with windows software it's not an issue since everything is packed into the .exe or .msi.
The windows 8 desktop(charm bar) and metro UI is better than windows 7, xfce, lxde, cinnamon, mate, kde(confusing mess). Unity is pretty damn good as well. Gnome 3 still needs a lot of work. Until we see software applications with all dependencies in .deb & .rpm available, stable, reliable, easy for the average joe to install and use I don't think linux will overtake windows. With shitty and overpriced internet services in the u.s it's going to be a big problem for linux.
Google isn't avoiding the Linux name because of any stigma. They're avoiding the name because they want it to be seen as GoogleOS(tm), not "somewhat reworked version of that other guy's OS". Branding it "Google Linux" makes it seem less like a game-changing cloud-based innovation and more like something you could get by adding shortcuts for Gmail and Google Docs to your old netbook.
I dived into Gentoo once, without any unix experience whatsoever. I succeeded in building from stage1, up to the point where I had a working X.org with some WM or another, then I somehow decided to execute "umount -f /" or similar, from a root terminal. And it worked. And then it started spamming me with bad inodes, then it kernel-panicked to death. That is not my main reason to not switch, though. The main reason is that it have a mostly irrational hate for POSIX, X11, and variable/function names with underscores. To me, Wayland was a nice beacon of hope for a while, until I decided to look at the documentation and I saw that the api was based on naming functions with underscores. So I'm back to shrugging and hoping there's a working alternative to Windows 7 (be it from Microsoft or from somebody else), by the time it becomes too obsolete.
Because it was never technically BSD. It's a Mach kernel with BSD-Userland.
Or, rather, a Mach+BSD+Apple stuff kernel with BSD+Apple stuff userland. That's why one subdirectory of the XNU source tree is called "bsd".... (There's no "Apple stuff" subdirectory; the changes and new stuff from Apple is scattered throughout the Mach ("osfmk") and BSD ("bsd") directory, as well as being in the "iokit" directory, etc..)
(Amusingly enough, Mountain Lion's autocorrect tries to replace "bsd" with "bad". Perhaps the Core OS group needs to pay a visit to the group that does autocorrect.... :-))
I mean, it's running the Linux Kernel, so shouldn't it be Google Linux instead of ChromeOS?
For the same reason we don't call it GNU/Linux, despite RMS's complaints.
Neither Android nor ChromeOS run what we understand as "Linux Programs", you can't download a tarball, deb or rpm package from some web site and just install and run it. So, I find it useful that it isn't marketed as Linux since it's incompatible with most of what Linux users would consider a LInux system.
But... the future refused to change.
It's not because we want it to be difficult. It's that we want it to be useful. If you keep on bumping up your feature count, you will eventually get to a point where what you have done is create a bad programming language (all programming languages are bad programming languages, but it goes double for GUI-based ones).
Programming is more or less the ultimate tool for telling a computer what to do. It is also more or less directly opposed to simplicity. Linux is optimized for utility. You can use it to create a simple interface to the computer, at which point we generally stop calling it Linux, but you cannot simultaneously optimize in two opposite directions. You cannot build a computer appliance using the tools contained within that appliance.
Designing interfaces is all about managing complexity. Most linux distributions opt for more complexity/utility rather than less. There is some complexity for complexity's sake, and some complexity for historical reasons, but utility is the driving force. And Linux users will get very upset at anything that detracts from that utility, as seen in (among other flamewars) the Wayland vs X11 debates.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
As soon as people start trying to fix Linux's brand image for the masses it is going to start changing in way's that will be bad for us that like it now. Let them have their iOS and Windows crap. Leave Linux alone.
I've set up Linux systems for [...] people who just want to [...] maybe play a couple of on-line games.
Don't most of these "on-line games" need Wine? Or by "on-line games" are you referring to SWF games?
Many OSes don't even bother naming their kernel anything particular. Of those that do bother, you never see the kernel as a centerpiece of their branding/marketing endeavor.
OSes based on Linux are unique in bothering to emphasize, specifically, the nature of the kernel they make use of. It does have significant under-the-covers implications, but the vast majority of the common user experience is more directly influenced by system libraries, GUI toolkits, and so on and so fourth.
It's not that "Linux" is a liability, but frankly it's mostly 'just another component'. If you started naming a distro to accurately give credit to all the components comprising the core experience, it might be called GNU/Linux/D-bus/Systemd/X/Gnome/GTK
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I had an ASUS Eee PC 900 that came with Xandros. I wiped it and installed vanilla Ubuntu.
I currently have a Dell Inspiron mini 1012 that came with Ubuntu Moblin Remix. I wiped it and installed vanilla Ubuntu. After 11.10 became more aggressive at switching users from GNOME 2 to Un(usabil)ity, I installed the Xubuntu desktop package. I'm typing this post on this laptop in a Wendy's.
I just wonder what I'll buy once this Dell dies now that nobody makes 10" laptops anymore and manufacturers have abandoned the form factor in favor of ARM fondle-slabs locked to run operating systems that force applications to run all maximized all the time.
I have a bunch of friends and relations for whom I've set up Linux (ubuntu, more recently LinuxMint). Usually what made them willing to try it was total fed-up-ness with endless viruses. I made sure to install with a desktop arranged as much like what they were used to as I could.
Result: not one single complaint, not one single reinstall, not one single virus of course. They range from a 65 year-old tech Luddite, to a fourteen (now 17) year old facebooking teenager. They've installed software they want. ("Oh? I just go to the Software Center? That's all? Cool.") I haven't had to help with any of that. One support issue in three years: setting wireless back up when a provider changed settings.
I think the best thing we could do is a system of (not-Tupperware)Linuxware parties/installfests. Like Arlo Guthrie said long ago, first there'd be one, and they'd think we were weird. Then there'd be two and they'd think we were gay. Then there'd be three, and they'd know it was a movement.
people have no idea exactly how much linux they are running now -- it's invisible. It's in TVs, DVRs, routers, cable modems, tablets, phones, etc. People just don't realize or understand they have linux already running in all sorts of gadgetry in their homes and offices. People don't notice because in these embedded applications, you don't see it at all.
Google is trying to get their brand "ChromeOS" appreciated -- they don't want to confuse the marketplace. Everybody who understands knows it's linux under the hood, same as for Android, ddWRT, etc.
This is really a very silly argument. 50 lashes for the editors.
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
We now have the frog in the pot of cold water and are slowly turning up the heat. You turn it up too fast, and the frog will jump out ;)
Oh, we're happy to call it Linux, just not GNU/Linux.
I do have to wonder why the kernel is singled out for special treatment and not, say, WebKit (well, for the time being at least).
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Yes, yes, its all true. Amazon runs Linux for its main system, and so does EBay and Facebook and Twitter and Google and Youtube and Pinterest. And the ChromeOS is really Linux, and likewise Android. And 95% of the worlds Top500 supercomputers run Linux exclusively. And so does my network router, and the Chinese made dsl router the phone company sent me, and my Dad's TV set. And the LG wired/wireless (b/g/n) dvd/video/usb player I bought for the folks for Christmas 2 years ago. And when I tell people I'm running an internet service with Linux servers, they ask quizzically "Why are you running that?" as if I am supposed to be running microsoft windows or some other silly thing. And I don't mind that they don't know. A long time ago I got tired of trying to 'convert' people. It's their fault if they don't know any better, not mine. 5 minutes research would get them more informed, but they've been using computers for years, and haven't done 5 minutes worth of research, so why should they start now? Linux *is* kicking the stuffing out of the competition. You know it. I know it. Google knows it. Without Google re-naming it, it might not get traction. Linux might be the man with 1000 faces, but if it runs on cameras and routers and tv's and dvd/video players and smart phones and tablets and supercomputers and open content cloud servers, then its vital. Its better than the alternative.
Microsoft, Apple and a few others have spent a lot of money and a long time doing their best to ruin the image of Linux.
Maurice W. Hilarius Voice: (778) 347-9907
Since their Mac OS is a MACH kernel with bits of BSD stuck on top of it. Maybe Apple wants you to associate their stuff with Apple and only Apple.
Linux really is everywhere. Even our $200K farm tractor and the $20K GPS auto-steer system fitted to it both have GPL copyright notices in their manuals. Putting the Linux "brand" on the huge variety of consumer goods that run linux would be meaningless to nearly everyone.
I just realized while reading your post that my laptop still has the "Windows Vista" sticker by the left CTRL key. I've had this machine for years. It has 5 operating systems. None of them are Windows. They're all Linuxes and BSD's.
I'm not going to peel off the sticker. I really like it.
I don't like Microsoft software, but I like the sticker. It's cool.
There's probably a pile on eBay for great prices.
And once those run out, then what? On the other hand, running out of 9-10" laptops on eBay might be a signal that at least one manufacturer should resume production. Besides, what should I do if a laptop from eBay breaks seven days after I buy it?
With respect, for the last decade and a bit the above should be rephrased "I'm just not ready to use linux in prime time for my desktop", and there's no reason to be ashamed of it. What you should be ashamed of is presenting it as a failing of others instead of just merely being a road you don't want to go down or need to go down. I personally would not have got my current job more than ten years ago if it wasn't viable to have an office full of linux workstations - they would have used something else instead and got someone without a *nix background.
Which utter bastard put a *nix newbie onto Gentoo? Is it someone they ranted at for using underscores? I've used Gentoo myself and it has it's place, but that place is after you've used something else for a few years and you want to get something more out of a specific architecture (eg. VIA CPUs) or can otherwise get something of use out of compiling with different flags.
I used to suggest complete newbies try out a knoppix CD, but the current version may confuse a few with the initial text menu (lots of choices). There's bound to be a respin of that CD that just dumps the user into the GUI by default like the old versions.
His system is hurd, linux was developed by other people. His silly little effort to try to rename someone elses project LiGnuX and then gnu/linux to "raise awareness of gnu" appears to have found a sucker that believes him.
Google has it right.
Most consumers do not care what's under the hood, will never install Linux OR Windows, and it makes no sense to thrust the details in front of them
REALLY want LOTD or LOE (Linux On Everything)? Support doing it, not confusing Joe Sixpack.
Also, support running Windows apps on Linux. The only reason to buy Windows is the app ecosystem. Users give no fucks so long as their apps run as desired.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
who gives a shit how the kernel is called?
What's actually relevant (i.e. what makes difference for the user) is:
1) Desktop environment: Gnome vs Unity vs KDE vs whatever.
2) "Apps". Read: package management system + repositories.
Adobe: "Hey, let's write a computer program for editing pictures. It'll be like a darkroom in your computer... let's call it... photo - shop!
Marketers: "I can work with this!"
GNU: "Hey, let's write a computer program for editing pictures. Let's give it a name which means "person who is crippled!"
Marketers: "Please tell me this is a joke."
Mach kernel was originally designed as a replacement for the Unix kernel in the BSD.
Good to see that they are still doing it. But they still have to go through the certification process with every new version and/or architecture. Just pointing at 10.5/x86 says absolutely nothing about further versions.
Sorry but I really don't agree with that assessment. Linux is NOT a product. It is the result of collaboration of people around the world. It's definitely not the product of a company although companies choose to make products that RUN on Linux or choose to repackage what is an operating system that most of its pieces of software are released under the GPL for very good reasons.
EVERYONE WHO THINKS Linux IS A PRODUCT IS SO TOTALLY MISTAKEN.
Assume that and then the need people feel to MARKET the OS on whatever form it comes (kernel or distribution) goes away.
People who want to make money by selling products running on Linux should first start educating their potential customers instead of
selling them something that's cheaper than Microsoft Windows (or even worse try to bastardize Linux by running Roxio on Wine because
hey can't get used to the Linux DVD Burning programs...).
Do not depend on companies to do that for you. Raise it yourselves by creating helpful blog posts and other resources that people can
refer to.
Oh and if Canonical leaves the "Linux brand" (because Ubuntu has a large community but Canonical is just a company) believe me it'll take
a huge dive cause the alternatives are even worse.
Good point.
Another idea: people like "free".
Windows is on version 8. Mac OS is on ten. So Linux should be called "Free OS 12".
So Linux should be called "Free OS 12".
You mean GNU/Libre OS 12, right?
My first program:
Hell Segmentation fault
So, where are the posts saying the the NT kernel has a brand image problem because they don't really reference the fact that the NT kernel is in Windows anymore since well... Windows NT?
The fact of the matter is that people quite simply don't give a shit. Calling it Chrome/Linux makes the name ugly much in the way that calling GNU/Linux GNU/Linux instead of GNU or Linux (I'm sure Richard would certainly not complain about it being called GNU rather than Linux, but I digress). Or would people prefer kernels be mentioned everywhere? Let's see here. Windows 8/NT, Windows NT 7, Windows NT XP. MacOS/Darwin. It's certainly a brand problem, but one of aesthetics. Not any kind of stigma.
I'd describe it this way:
For those in the target market for whom "runs on Linux" is a positive trait, there is no need to mention that these products are based on Linux: they already know.
For those in the target market for whom "runs on Linux" means nothing, there is no value in mentioning that these products run Linux.
For those in the target market for whom "runs on Linux" is a negative trait, there is an incentive to not mention Linux.
Educating the public about what Linux is and does, and which products use it, is a goal that is largely orthogonal to the objectives of companies that want to make and sell products that use Linux. Users want to complete their tasks; if Linux can do this and the product performs well and is available at a decent price, it will succeed whether people know they are using Linux or not. If it can't, it won't, regardless of whether or not people know it uses Linux.
The value in knowing the identity of a platform comes when it becomes a broad ecosystem, the way "Windows" became shorthand for "runs all the applications you've already invested time and money in"-- those applications you bought and trained people to use in order to accomplish your assigned tasks. To some extent, iOS also has a similar identity, in that tablets running other mobile operating systems may do everything iOS devices do as well, or perhaps even better, but that means less to people who have ever-increasing stables of iOS apps they wish to continue using.
The Linux ecosystem is very deep, but is centered squarely around servers and software development, and less around general productivity, communication, or entertainment-- the things most people use computing devices for. People already use lots of devices that contain Linux all the time-- DSL routers and switches, for instance, but most of them don't know these devices run on Linux, and they don't need to.
Sorry, folks. You're all grown-ups. Do whatever pleases you.
Linux is not a product, Big screen Tv's, chromebooks , phones these are products People want to buy stuff for specific things. Linux might be a part of that thing but so are capacitors and resistors and people don't care about them either.
Googles been a bit more unusual in that they have pretty much branded an experience. So you buy an android phone or tablet or a chromebook. So if its an android phone expect it to do the same stuff in general as any other android phone or tablet. Chromebook all the things you can do in your browser minus all the windows stuff that gets in your way.
Nothing worse than starting a computer to do something and the first thing it wants to do is scan for virus and malware, slowing it down to a crawl and getting in the way of what you want to do. Probably a good reason office PC's tended to be left on, so they were ready to work when their operator is.
Linux may be doing the behind the scenes work, but although your samsung tv might run linux it doesnt run android (unless it says it does) so you can't expect to install android apps on your tv.
I guess i am writing on a gnomebook or maybe just Mint or Ubuntu, or Debian. Or Unity. It's all Linux really but most of these terms other than gnomebook tell you what to expect and roughly what can be run. I find non technical people who use ubuntu will use the word ubuntu rather than Linux and i think that is fair enough ubuntu is a product a type of Linux. Android, Ubuntu types of Linux with different expectations, different user experiences.
The only gripe really is with hardware manufacturers who are blinded by windows, and target just Windows.
If a printer is windows only then i'm probably not going to be able to print from my linux running tv. On the other hand there is quite a good chance if it does.
I'd kind of hope that most current printers should support printing from ios mac linux and android at the very least.
Actually Androids cloud print supports a small server service bundled with chrome so I can share my printer attached to my nas with my mint running netbook and this connects to googles cloud print. so yes i can print from my phone to the cloud and pass the print job to my netbook on my lan then it sends it to my nas who prints it on one of my printers. So yes I can find a recipe on my phone get it to print it so i can pick it up from one of my printers when i get home and make my dinner using the recipe i found earlier.
I might try that, should be able to pick up the ingredients i'm short of on the way home...
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
...after 20 years of FUD.
Dungeon Tactics : Free Open Source SRPG
Yeah, a classic M$oft propaganda piece we have here.
Basically, nobody cares about the guts, and those who do are capable of finding out by themselves.
"Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
There's a whole bunch of reasons you wouldn't slap a "Linux Inside" sticker on, and it's more to do with branding than stigma. The biggest one is that Linux is not, and never will be, a word that is wholly and exclusively associated with Google's operating system.
Meaning that if Google were to make a big thing about ChromeOS being Linux-based, there's a very good risk that potential customers would just punch "Linux" into Google if they wanted to know more. What will they do next? Who knows - but it certainly won't be "learn all about ChromeOS". Right now, if I do that the first things that come back are a Wikipedia article that's very heavy on jargon, Ubuntu's homepage and linux.org - a learning resource with a distinct technical flavour. At least two of those will likely scare the living daylights out of someone who's interested in ChromeOS.
The next issue with branding is that Linux does not have a strong brand at all. The brand is what customers look for, and it needs to be properly presented. It would perhaps be a little disingenuous to call branding a science, but there are some things that pretty well everyone who's any good at persuading people to buy something agree on.
Presenting a brand doesn't just mean you have a catchy name and a logo - it's how that logo and name are consistently presented together. You'll never see "Coca-Cola" written in black text with a pale green background, for instance, because Coca-Cola has very strict rules that dictate precisely how their logo is used and those rules are applied religiously to everything that gets a logo slapped on it.
But a brand is more than that. It also refers to pretty much everything an organisation does. You want people to associate your company with quality, you put enormous effort into ensuring every product that goes out the door works as intended. You want people to associate your company with customer service, you make damn sure that you ship promptly, answer questions efficiently and every customer who comes back to you with an issue - no matter how small - is well looked after. You want people to associate your company with having fun, you don't give your staff a uniform of grey suits.
As a brand, Linux is terrible because it encompasses Ubuntu (Linux for humans), Debian (Linux for server admins who value stability over ease of use), RedHat (Linux for server admins who are quite happy to spend money), Android (Linux for mobile phones and tablets) and virtually every set-top PVR under the sun. All of these projects have different - sometimes wildly different - goals. Linux might be a useful term to describe the kernel all these things run, but it will never be a consumer product brand.
Adding "Linux" or "Linux-inside" prominently to the ChromeBook name, or in stickers, would not be forward-looking.
On one hand, the Linux kernel has been heavily modified, sometimes in ways that the linux kernel community in general does not approve. On the other hand you have the "Linux" trademark. Combined they could be a risk:
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/programs/legal/trademark
Also, in theory they could ditch the linux kernel for the next releases of ChromeBook / ChromeOS, and replace it with something else, for example FreeBSD, just how they decided to replace Intel processors with ARM A-15 in the last model.
In short, adding "Linux" to marketing labels probably has been researched by google as not boosting sales enough to justify it, I would think also considering the restrictions it would impose on future products.
>There is no corporate marketing entity behind Linux, so there is no prime director behind the brand name or promotional aspects of it.
Hey, isn't that what the Linux Foundation was supposed to be for? So IBM, HP, Fujitsu, Redhat, Oracle et alia don't have to shoulder the marketing burden all by themselves.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Kernels do boring things like allow applications to interface with computer hardware. If it is working as it should, you shouldn't notice the kernel at all. If I put a "linux system" and a "free bsd" system side by side, both running the KDE desktop, people would not and should not notice any difference between the two. If you swap the KDE desktop for Android, the interface in a typical TV set or the Ubuntu Unity Interface, but leave the linux kernel in place, people will definitely notice the difference.
how about Google gnu Linux .. They are using gnu stuff aren't they? :P
--------- Give Stallman his due!!
The Linus fanboys avoid "GNU/Linux" like a plague, so why shouldn't Google shun "Linux/Chromebook"? In either case, it is the "if we tell people which giant's shoulders we are standing on, they'll stop using our product because the giant's feet are too hairy" attitude.
Yes, but you can look at the sources and decide for yourself whether or not we're lying. Unlike those scurvy Linux users... oh, wait...
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
.. and they have no idea what it is. Something they have never heard of is not toxic. They hadn't heard about Google Chrome or ChromeOS either, before Google started pushing it. Android is massively well known these days, but almost nobody knows it has a Linux kernel.
The reason Google calls it ChromeOS rather than Chrome Linux or Google Linux, is that they don't want to share brand recognition with other Linux distributions, pure and simple.
It is the same reason that there is not a single mention of the word 'Linux' on the Ubuntu front web site, or the download page, or the "What is Ubuntu" page. You'll have to dig pretty hard to find any mention of the word 'Linux' on ubuntu.com at all.
No one in the free / open source movement ever anticipated the walled gardens built on top of free software, or they never would have happened. Companies like Google, Apple, and others exploit open source to build platforms that are the opposite of what open source is all about.
It's not about stupid consumers, or stigma or some other techie specific paranoid fever dream but Google doesn't want to be screwed over.
Who owns Linux? Not just the kernel, but the copyright? I don't know, but I'm sure it's not Google. And this has a serious implication, if Google promotes the linux-ness of their Laptops (and smartphones), you'll have copycats marketing their products with Linux laptops (Just like Google!!).
These copycats will poison Linux and Google. And ruin opensource for everybody.
My usual MO is "Your Windows is FUBAR, and you do not have any sort of backup. You can either try this free linux operating system, buy a new Windows license, or I'll install a new Windows as long as you are the one getting your own pirated copy."
End result has always been "Lets try that thing." followed by half an hour demo and up to three calls total trying to get a handle on things. And none of them have switched back over the years.
Surely you mean GNU/Linux ChromeOS? :P
To the average user, should it even matter what is under the hood as long as it just works? How often does Ford advertise what kernel (or other utilities) is running in the onboard computer of their vehicles? When John Doe goes to Home Depot to buy a refrigerator with a Wi-Fi connected display panel on the front of it, does he know or even care what the software is called that runs that display? To him, it just allows him to run some apps, maybe get on Facebook, track refrigerator contents, or whatever else it supports.
The end user doesn't necessarily need to know the inner workings of the system, as long as they know that it will do what they need it to do. I don't think I've ever heard a "regular" user call their smartphone an "Android smartphone". They have a "Droid 4" or "Samsung Galaxy II" or "iPhone" maybe.
Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
"Linux" is not mentioned in the marketing of my microwave either, but that's what it runs.