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.
An astronaut falling into a black hole would die alone.
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."
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.
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.
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
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.
Like it or not, you are simply denying the fact that most people, if they even know what linux is, assume that it's only for someone who is very tech savvy and technical minded. Most people see Linux as a neat hobby for hardcore nerds. Most people believe it is damned near impossible to use unless you have countless hours to devote to fixing compatibility/other sundry issues. For many, many years, Linux was only spoken about on-line, and if you actually ran across a conversation in real life, it was in some sort of deep-tech/troubleshooting capacity.
Denying that there isn't a stigma attached to Linux doesn't make it go away. And, waving away the very real stigma attached to this product, while simultaneously calling the end-users stupid (which you essentially do by saying that the only reason people don't run linux is because they don't understand it) just makes you come across as an arrogant fan-boy. Which, by the way is about 99% of the image problem here. You want people to use it, don't be an ass.
With the current popularity of 50 Shades of Gray, they may garner some public interest if they renamed BSD to BDSM.
I don't necessarily agree. Examples of marketing terms used to promote computers/smartphones that I'm sure 98% of consumers have no idea what they are:
LTE
Intel Core i7
LCD
megapixel
WiFi b/g/n
5MHz spectrum
Linux does have a branding problem and it does need something on top of it to make it a true consumer product (I don't think anyone can argue anything else non-dogmatic standpoint) . I would not be surprised if Ubuntu start shying away from the Linux brand as well in order to increase public awareness.
Could you possibly be confusing stigma with obscurity? I have never met anyone outside the tech world who had ever even heard the word Linux in their lives (that they could remember). Perhaps Google avoided it because every word in marketing is precious, and specifying a detail that won't help sales (even if it won't hurt, either) is a waste.
weinersmith
I think "no" is the correct answer to all of these, especially about whether they care.
I've set up Linux systems for casual users (and I believe most users are casual users; that is not a slam, just an observation), people who just want to do Facebook and YouTube and some general browsing and email, maybe play a couple of on-line games. They run it and have little idea that they're running Linux. Half of them think they're running Windows because that's the only brand name they know. They're happy, they're getting everything they want.
So you hardly have to be an expert to use Linux. Maybe to set it up and maintain it--- then you need to know a little more. But to use it? Nah.
There are, of course, Linux fans who /want/ it to be difficult so they can claim elite status. I don't find that approach especially helpful. If you want to be a Linux hacker, cool, there's plenty to work with, way beyond Windows (because of source code). But Linux really can be for everyone, and it behooves the Linux community to drop the elite attitude, if that's what you have, and just help people set it up and use it. When they see what they all get for free, they may be convinced, as I have seen with quite a number of people.
unfortunately, i have to agree here for 2 simple reasons:
1. thanks to half-baked crap like Linpus Linux that was only put on Acer REVOs so that people can install their own pirated version of Windows afterwards, I personally know at least 3 people who got burned by it and would never even consider buying anything with Tux on it. (The version that was on Acer Aspire One netbook was kind of all-rightish though.)
2. thanks to Acer and Asus (and later also Dell/Lenovo), only the shittiest of shitty hardware was ever sold with GNU/Linux on it and that is how people remember GNU/Linux computers. The squeaky plasticky computers that lasted 42.5 minutes on a single charge, had unresponsive touchpad the size of a coin and took 50 seconds to open a Word document.
Thank you Acer/Asus. If you two were people, I'd run you over with a car.
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?
But... but... why do we care?
It even gives me an excuse to not fix co-workers' personal computers for free. "I don't use Windows at home, and I haven't done help desk in ages."
No, seriously. Why?
Linux works for what I want to do. I have a hobby. I don't need everybody in the world to share my hobby to feel good about myself or about my hobby. I don't care what the marketshare of my hobby is. And, there seems to be no shortage of people on the internet with similar hobbies.
I have a phone and a tablet that run Linux, but I don't see either manufacture of either of those devices jumping up and down about how Linux is the kernel, and I don't see anyone pushing for Android/Linux (as opposed to GNU/Linux) to be used instead of just "Android," although I suppose the tablet I'm typing this on would be GNU/Android/Linux.
I guess I just don't get why I should care that Linux has a "stigma?" Is it supposed to reflect on me personally somehow? Stamp collecting has a stigma, too. People still do it.
Most people wouldn't even know or care what to do with a general purpose computer. They're not hobbists, and they just want a way to talk to their friends and families and do things like sharing pictures and arranging get-togethers. All they care about computers is that they're magical boxes that get you to Facebook and Tumblr. They either buy a Windows machine or a Mac if they're feeling hip and trendy, they turn it on, and then they open the internet (you know, that blue E, that's where the internet is) where the places they want to go, like Facebook, are.
Face it. The year of the Linux desktop is here. Just like nobody talks about NT or BSD, nobody's talking about Linux.
Should BSD users feel ashamed that Apple doesn't cry out from the rooftops that OS X is a BSD?
No, the only "stigma" I see here is a news site owned by Dice trying to stir up some social inferiority complex it assumes its nerdy readerbase has (or what's left of it, god only knows why I'm still here).
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!