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...
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."
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.
They did, however for a short time do the whole "UNIX Inside" thing. Even got as far as certifying one version of OS X.
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!
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.
Linux, it just works.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
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.
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.
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.
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.
You would be wrong.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2007/08/mac-os-x-leopard-receives-unix-03-certification/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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});
So Linux should be called "Free OS 12".
You mean GNU/Libre OS 12, right?
My first program:
Hell Segmentation fault