Perhaps a more useful hack would have been to have the blinky lights signal SOS when a server is being slashdotted. They could have checked it out when submitting this story.
Here's some more ideas:
1. Blinky lights go crazy when portsentry reports block yet another attempt at port 80 (best learn how to replace worn out blinky lights first);
2. Blinky lights make pretty patterns depending on up time of machine (Oops, now I'm flamebait since Windows users will never see pretty blinky lights);
3. Blinky lights go wild whenever a human female is within 10 feet of machine (unlike the machine's owner who may or may not notice, depending on the task at hand -- oy, did I really say that?);
I love blinky lights and thank the gods every day that I don't have adverse reactions to them. Now if I can just find a female who doesn't cause adverse reactions, I'm doing good!
Woo, funny picture. I'm not wearing that in public (or in front of the cat either.) The wearable displays have gotten much better thought over a short period of time and are improving rapidly. IMO, portable/wearable computers aren't all that useful until all the H.I. factors have been successfully challenged and beaten; i.e., usable yet unobtrusive. That includes both output _and_ input. Getting a decent keyboard or other input device might be even more challenging than the display.
Well, no new technology starts out mature just as full grown chickens don't come out of an egg. (Oy, that's a crappy analogy.) Give the technology time to mature and then see what it can do. I don't know about you, but when it comes to technology I'm becoming more and more careful about either using or implying the superlative.
Hmmm, yes, I see the problem with HUDs. Perhaps this technology can help with holographic displays by serving as the screen upon which banks of lasers paint images with the screen providing color information. Granted, lots of software work here coordinating information with pixels, but not much more complex than the cathode ray tube/software combination technology we already use.
Anyway, cool technology all the same but I really don't look forward to the day when I can't get away from constant ad bombardment -- it's already really bad and getting worse all the time, ugh.
1. The economy is tanking, thanks to some large corporations' fearless leaders and the fact that our national fearless leader is just another one of the corporate fearless leaders who are causing the economy to tank (Oh, the logic, the logic!);
2. TurboLinux tries to make a living selling something which not only do they not own, but is readily available for free from innumerable sources;
3. They have a bunch of highly overpaid PHBs who don't contribute much at all to generating income for the company (How do I know this? All companies have too many PHBs who don't contribute much at all to generating income for the company. Just look at your own company and figure the ratio of income generators vs. non-income generators and then factor in salaries;)
4. Their otherwise free product for which they charge dollars is sub-standard when compared with the other _commercial_ Linuxes with which they compete.
Hmmm, just doesn't add up to a working proposition. You do the math; does it work for you? I don't mean to be mean or to be an asshole or to troll, but sheesh, if the writing on wall were any bigger they'd have to borrow more wall.
Well, I suspect the use of the word "revolution" is going to be viewed either good or bad, depending upon the culture you're marketing in and also depending upon the income group which sees the ad/advocacy.
French folks might really like the revolution idea as a whole. French students might REALLY like the revolution idea; French folks in the $100,000 per year income bracket might really hate it. All the above goes for Americans as well.
The point I want to make here is that the word "revolution" carries a lot of baggage (connotations) which are going to be perceived in many different (and not always good, not always bad) ways by those doing the perceiving. You might be better off just avoiding it, but again, it's a cultural/class thing and what flies good here in marketing terms may fly like a rock where you are, so it's a judgement call on your part.
Yes, Linux is a great story! I'm always amazed to see the next chapter too.
> I actually do not think that we are moving from scarcity to surfeit. I think > we are moving into a society where we are going back to bater. Way back when > people used to bater and something that seemed interesting was driven up in > value. Tulips, gold, rice, etc. All of these products had no value other > than what people thought would be interesting. The value of the product was > determined by the eco-system around it. In other words so long as profit was > part of the equation due to a eco-system all were happy.
Remember that currencies replaced the barter system for a very good reason: It was really very inconvienient to carry around pockets full of cheese in order to trade for melons and when you did trade, you then had pockets full of melons.
> And here is where a product like Linux has issues. It is not the free price, > but the eco-system. Sure you may see jobs, but there are very little other > pieces of the eco-system around it. That is my point. Value is determined by > the eco-system that supports it. LINUX by its nature of no cost and very > techie people has no eco-system that can be used to pay for a mortage. There > will be a few, but that cannot be used to support an entire industry.
Yes, I understand your point and it seems, at least on the surface, to be a classic "chicken and the egg" problem. There is a point in system growth dynamics when a system can said to have reached critical mass, that is, the system has become self-sustaining (an ecosystem.) Linux is close to this "critical mass" state in the IT realm, but a ways away when talking about the desktop realm. But that's what we're mostly talking about here, how to get closer to critical mass state on the desktop. See another post below which talks about marketing/advocacy for more on this.
> Compare it to the fashion industry. The models walking down the cat walk do > not actually make money for the individual companies. It is pure show and > massive costs. Why do they do it? For show. The individual companies make > their money by taking other designs and bringing it to the market
> Put this into the LINUX perspective. LINUX and GNU are the models walking > down the catwalk. And everybody wants to be the model or the designer. But > the reality is that the money is made elsewhere.
True, this is mostly what is referred to as "image advertising." Such advertising is done primarily to raise awareness of people of brands or ideas.
> And in the case of PERL, Larry Wall is Claudia Shiffer and O'Reilly and > ActiveState the actual companies making the products for everybody
> Sure you can argue that Redhat is the product maker for everybody. But that > is only a very small piece and the rest are not making money. Compare the > profititability of O'Reilly and ActiveState vs the profitability of Redhat, > Mandrake, etc. From there it should become pretty clear that LINUX REALLY > needs to figure out how to become a profitable ecosystem.
Well, I'd have to say that the product makers in the Linux world are mostly the programmers who write the code which we all run on our machines. The commercial distributions play a part in this too, no doubt. I think the commercial Linux distributions have a problem in that that they try to make a living selling what they themselves don't own. Remember that commercial distributions are mostly selling convienience on a couple of CDs: It's much more convienient to install RedHat or Slackware than it is to build your own system from all the parts.
Larry Wall and kin are in the programmers group, not distribution sellers group. I don't think it's a accurate to say that O'Reilly and RedHat are similar enough in their products to draw a valid comparison because they're really very different; otherwise, your point regarding a self-sustaining economy (ecosystem) stands and is a good one. I hate to say this, but patience is required as it's gonna take some time. Not much, but some time.
Now really is the time for the LUGs to do their thing. I wish my local LUG were either a little more responsive or easier to contact as it's turning into a real chore to get in contact with someone. May be just some old, dated info on websites too (now there's a subject that fries my ass.)
> Nice points. However, surely you overlook the fact that awareness of Linux > amongst the general public is extremely low?
No, I understand the awareness in the general populace of Linux is low. Word of mouth is slow but sure.
> I don't think advertising would be bad per se, as long as it was done right. I > think most "computer people" now know at least what Linux is, if not much > about it. So what's needed (but not yet, linux isn't ready for home desktops > yet) is advertising that plants the seeds of curiousity in peoples minds - > that gets them asking "What is Linux?". They can then ask their local geek, > who will (hopefully) expound upon them it's greatness (the excuse being, they > did ask;)
I disagree that Linux isn't yet ready for home desktops. I do agree that planting seeds is a good thing. More on this in the marketing bit below.
> You say you have a marketing background. So what do you think of this? Let's > say we have a hypothetical campaign. Like most stuff to do with linux, it > doesn't have much money, let's say we rule out TV advertising. So we need to > get far more awareness for each pound, dollar, euro we spend than other > campaigns.
> Linux came from the streets. It's not like other products. Therefore, we can > get away with a different sort of advertising. We can play upon the > "revolutionary" aspects of it. Let's say, for a month or two, in the major > cities of the world some billboard space is bought up, and filled with simple > posters that have a faded picture of tux, with slogans such as "Get Ready", > "Join the revolution" or "Power to the People" overlayed. Perhaps one or two > have the word "Linux" underneath, so people know what to ask about, what to > call it.
The trick to successful marketing is understanding that marketing is mostly about psychology; the psychology of groups, individuals and individuals in groups. You hear the word "target" often in marketing when marketers are talking about specific groups they wish to market a product too. There are often many multiple target groups for a product; the wider the potential appeal of the product, the more target groups you will have. Identifying the groups can be both an art and a science, but you don't necessarily have to define target groups. Read on.
One big problem with many multiple targets is successfully marketing to some target groups without pissing off or otherwise alienating other target groups. For example, using the word "revolution" might really appeal to some groups but really turn-off other groups. The best way to deal with this problem is to make sure you don't use any terms which might piss off one of the groups. The easiest and most effective way to do this is to _not_ use any words or phrases which have negative connotations or denotations. In other words, focus on the positives of the product you're marketing and understand that any marketing you do to one group will more than likely be seen by the other groups.
Linux, as a general purpose OS on a general purpose machine (computer) has broad appeal, or many, many multiple target groups. So, if you want to appeal to as many of these groups as possible without pissing some of them off, just focus on the positive attributes of the product. Linux has a great many positive attributes which appeal across the spectrum of potential users and groups of users, so there is plenty of material to use without having to resort to negatives (which usually work against your product -- you'll notice you don't see a lot of ads which directly beat up on the competition.)
> IBM had a neat idea - people associate "revolution from the streets" with > graffiti. It doesn't have to be illegal, if you as a landlord had a spare wall > lying around, wouldn't you jump at a chance to earn a bit of money from it by > letting these friendly guys spray paint some words on the side? As long as > they clean up afterwards.....
> The aim would be to raise lots of awareness rather than promote the product > which is hard to get across in adverts anyway (distro? what's a distro?). That > vague awareness could then be turned into enthusiasm by word of mouth from > geeks and other happy users. It'd also get people talking - I remember in > England a national newspaper (I think it was the Guardian) ran a campaign > promoting "Joy". The idea was to see if you could raise awareness of something > that didn't exist, just a brand. It worked amazingly well, somebody even put > up a "Joy" poster in our 6th form centre. By getting people saying "What's all > this Linux Get Ready stuff about?" to each other, you could raise awareness > much faster than through pure word of mouth.
Yes, this is known as "image advertising" in the real world. Only big corporations use it because it's outrageously expensive and almost impossible to measure in terms of effectiveness. IBM may be able to afford this, but not RedHat or SuSE or Mandrake. Personally, I think most image advertising is a waste of money but then I'm not the marketing guy at IBM and he/she may have a wildly different opinion on the matter.
The one other point I'd like to make in response is that when using the positives of Linux in marketing/advocacy, stress the potential benefits to the individual/group you're addressing. For example, compare these two statements:
"Linux is powerful and can do all computing tasks well."
or
"Linux empowers you to do all your computing tasks well."
The second will stomp the living pee out of the first in any focus group or measured marketing results comprised of any humans anywhere on this planet (and any other planet for that matter.) When you personalize the positives, people and groups of people response is much, much better.
> Good idea? Bad idea?
One last thought. Raising awareness can be tricky because you can effectively make the same mistakes as with marketing, that is, you can piss off some groups whilst doing the awareness raising of other groups. If you use the tips mentioned above, you can avoid pissing off some of your potential target groups. How best to do mass awareness raising? It may be slow, but nothing yet devised in the realm of marketing or advertising can beat word of mouth in terms of total effectiveness. So, the best bet is to loosely organize the current Linux users (already being done in the LUGs), give them some good tips on how to _and_ how not to talk to others about Linux. See my original post for more.
Hope all this helps and thanks for the reply, you really provoked my thinking on the matter.
See this checklist for what constitutes a cult. While many groups may have cult-like attributes, they are not necessarily cults. My understanding is that for a group to be a true cult, they have to meet all the criteria on this list. Having just moved from Utah, I've had more than my fair share of exposure to cult thinking and behavior, ugh.
http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm
I think you're right on the mark when using the term "subculture" as opposed to cult. Funny the way subcultures often become the common culture of tomorrow.
I agree with your point that one of the reasons people start to use Linux because it's become "cool" to do so. This isn't a bad thing providing this motivation satisfies yet another of your points, "...it does the job better than what they were using."
> And here is the problem with Open Source and specifically LINUX.... There is > no $$$ in Open Source because of the lack of ecosystem.
> Let me explain this point a bit.
> In a closed source environment like one built up by Microsoft and AutoDesk > the objective is to suck as much out of the client without actually killing > the client. So yes this is a parasitic scenario. But the scenario is not > just about selling a piece of software. It is about selling a solution based > on multiple peoples input. Training, Consulting, Service, etc an eco-system > where money is fluid.
Yes, good point. This is changing quickly now with the adaptation of Linux in the workplace. We'll see many more Linux jobs. I've been watching the job market over the past two years or so and the increase in continuous and rapid.
> And here the Microsoft and AutoDesk empire rules in sheer momentum of their > third parties. People know they can make money at selling their services or > whatever.
> In Open Source and specifically LINUX this is not the case. People who in > Open Source tend to be two things; cheap and farily intelligent coders. Two > things that keep the ecosystem small. Fairly intelligent coders tend not to > hire as many consultants, contractors, buy books, etc.
> While many may say that it is good that people do not have to hire "leech" > consultants or contractors. I tend to argue back that those "leech" > consultants and others keep money moving and that moving money can be used to > pursue activities to increase the eco-system.
> I am not saying that Open Source could never develop a rich eco-system > (examples of eco-systems being setup are PERL, PHP, etc). But notice that > those Open Source environments allow closed source implementations AND they > are NOT specific to LINUX. If LINUX wants to succeed then there need to be > many more footing the bill of developing since there is not that much > financial incentive. BTW I am not referring to simple domination, I am > talking about survival. PERL and PHP will survive without LINUX, but can > LINUX survive without PERL and PHP?
Well, consider _why_ a person or business buys something in the first place: They percieve that there is value (to them) in the product _and_ the cost of the product is equal to or less than the value. Linux is odd in this respect in that it doesn't cost anything (or cost very much.) This is difficult for a lot of people (especially Americans) to understand. It goes against what they've known to be the rule: Value equals money. When one tries to explain to Joe Windows user that Linux is better but doesn't cost anything, the cognitive dissonance is practically visible in his eyes as he wonders if you're pulling his leg or what.
This leads quickly into discussion of the paradigm shift we're starting to see in capitalism as we shift from economies of scarcity to economies of surfeit. Capitalism requires economies of scarcity to function and so what happens when things are no longer scarce? We're in for a long period of bad law, bad politics and bad times until capitalism either evolves into something workable or is replaced by something will work with economies of surfeit.
I know that seems like a big jump in topic and I apologize.
Are you sure the two positions are mutually exclusive? I really don't think so. UNIX is wonderfully complex but the complexity is only as deep as you wish to delve. There are many users out there who only float on the top of the complexity who do just fine and are happy with their state. Likewise, there are those who love to "get dirty" by digging into the details.
Perhaps the key here is the tolerance that results from knowing there are many levels of users, most of whom will find their comfort level and be content. Don't dis others because you know more than they do, just view the disparity as an opportunity to help/instruct/encourage, etc.
(Note: This is a repost of a post made in reply to another post under the "Is Linux Dead?" thread from a couple of weeks ago. The original post advocated more commercial-type advertising for Linux and was titled, "Advertising would help")
Wrong. Let me explain please.
First, please do know I'm one of the three (a rough guess) people on the planet who are deep geeks with a marketing background. Okay, that said, here's some info to graze upon.
In the marketing world all research for the past 100 years shows that the very best -- bar none -- type of advertising is, surprise, word of mouth. Nothing has every beat it, nothing ever will beat it. People will trust the opinions of people they know first hand over any advertisement. Why do you think there are so many ads which try to establish that type of trust relationship in the minds of the ad viewer? These types of testimonial ads are among the most successful types of ads, but pale in comparison with "word of mouth" in terms of pure clout with the target audience.
Linux is doing as good as it is (which is very good indeed) because of a number of factors: quality, cost, and -- ta da -- the number of in-the-know technical people (computer geeks) who say it's as good or better than the commercial stuff available. Word of mouth advertising by people who have the confidence of the people with whom they're talking.
Who do you think mom or grandma or little brother/sister is going to believe, Microsoft ads or you? If they have any experience with MS product over the past ten years then they're not going to be inclined to believe anything in a MS ad -- their personal experience tells them MS marketing is geared toward getting the money out of their pocket and MS product is not very good.
You, the techincal person in-the-know, are in a great position compared with MS. You have a product with outstanding quality, an impossible-to-beat value-to-cost ratio and an entire, world-class army of other techies who are saying the same thing you are.
In my opinion, Gnu/Linux/OSS/Freeware advocates would do best to just keep doing what they've been doing. Don't focus on bashing MS, just make honest comparisons, be up front with newbies about the learning curve (harder to learn, easier to use) and focus on the benefits of the product when compared with the competition. You'll continue to win big!
Frankly, if I were leading a marketing push for Linux right now, I'd say that it's time for the little guy to be "on." Not the uber hackers (who do their own stuff so well) but all Linux users: Time for them to really focus on truely helping others understand the choices available and then helping them get going down the learning curve (which has become much shallower in the past year -- Gnome/KDE/OpenOffice.org -- hero-level work folks, congrats and thanks!)
So, if you want to help the world avoid continuus and expanding MS hell:
1. Join your local LUG or start one.
2. Learn how to make a simple press release and learn where to send copies for your area.
3. Offer some free evening classes to individuals and small businesses via the press releases (donate some time -- see next item.)
4. Make sure there are resources in your area for individuals/businesses (consultants, tutors, etc. -- if you're not seeing $$$ by now you're blind.)
5. Always remember that you serve yourself best when you do your best to help those you are targeting. This is the essense of quality! I know it sounds odd, but it works: The more helpful you are for your audience, the more rewards you'll see for yourself.
I coulda/shoulda/woulda been a preacher but that whole god thing really got it the way.
Magnetic RAM is coming soon (MRAM) and holographic memory storage too. Granted, bus speed is still a pain, but if you put enough RAM in the machine and use RAM disks, you can get some serious transfer speeds.
What I want is multiple CPUs per CPU. Yes, I know that sounds strange. Maybe those FPGA thingys will get faster and cheaper soon.
...give the customer a few free samples, get 'em hooked into the product and then that customer REALLY starts to pay.
If the Peruvians fall for this, they deserve what happens to them: Forever paying premium dollars for really lousy products from a compamy with an exceptionally bad attitude.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps a more useful hack would have been to have the blinky lights signal SOS when a server is being slashdotted. They could have checked it out when submitting this story.
Here's some more ideas:
1. Blinky lights go crazy when portsentry reports block yet another attempt at port 80 (best learn how to replace worn out blinky lights first);
2. Blinky lights make pretty patterns depending on up time of machine (Oops, now I'm flamebait since Windows users will never see pretty blinky lights);
3. Blinky lights go wild whenever a human female is within 10 feet of machine (unlike the machine's owner who may or may not notice, depending on the task at hand -- oy, did I really say that?);
I love blinky lights and thank the gods every day that I don't have adverse reactions to them. Now if I can just find a female who doesn't cause adverse reactions, I'm doing good!
...curiouser and curiouser.
You know they just wanna play BattleZone legally. *nod*
I don't understand why this post is considered a troll. Can someone explain, please?
Thanks.
Woo, funny picture. I'm not wearing that in public (or in front of the cat either.) The wearable displays have gotten much better thought over a short period of time and are improving rapidly. IMO, portable/wearable computers aren't all that useful until all the H.I. factors have been successfully challenged and beaten; i.e., usable yet unobtrusive. That includes both output _and_ input. Getting a decent keyboard or other input device might be even more challenging than the display.
Well, no new technology starts out mature just as full grown chickens don't come out of an egg. (Oy, that's a crappy analogy.) Give the technology time to mature and then see what it can do. I don't know about you, but when it comes to technology I'm becoming more and more careful about either using or implying the superlative.
Hmmm, yes, I see the problem with HUDs. Perhaps this technology can help with holographic displays by serving as the screen upon which banks of lasers paint images with the screen providing color information. Granted, lots of software work here coordinating information with pixels, but not much more complex than the cathode ray tube/software combination technology we already use.
Anyway, cool technology all the same but I really don't look forward to the day when I can't get away from constant ad bombardment -- it's already really bad and getting worse all the time, ugh.
...for this technology.
Cheap HUDs for autos (Heads Up Display) and bike helmets is an obvious application.
Televisions everywhere. (Okay, this could really suck; who wants to see ads for Cheer everywhere you go.)
And the big one: Wrap-around, full vision wearble displays. Granted, I'm stretching here, but one can dream, eh?
If this technology really works well, it could solve a great many problems associated with computer displays (size, heat generation, cost, etc.)
Lot's of really cool technology coming soon, makes the current despond somewhat more tolerable.
Hmm, let's see:
1. The economy is tanking, thanks to some large corporations' fearless leaders and the fact that our national fearless leader is just another one of the corporate fearless leaders who are causing the economy to tank (Oh, the logic, the logic!);
2. TurboLinux tries to make a living selling something which not only do they not own, but is readily available for free from innumerable sources;
3. They have a bunch of highly overpaid PHBs who don't contribute much at all to generating income for the company (How do I know this? All companies have too many PHBs who don't contribute much at all to generating income for the company. Just look at your own company and figure the ratio of income generators vs. non-income generators and then factor in salaries;)
4. Their otherwise free product for which they charge dollars is sub-standard when compared with the other _commercial_ Linuxes with which they compete.
Hmmm, just doesn't add up to a working proposition. You do the math; does it work for you? I don't mean to be mean or to be an asshole or to troll, but sheesh, if the writing on wall were any bigger they'd have to borrow more wall.
I've used Broadcast 2000 from the Virtual Herione folks to do something like this, but they're now pushing their Cinelerra product.
You might try it and see if it does what you want:
http://heroinewarrior.com/index.php3
May the luck be with you! -- Some old and wise Chinese dude
A billion geeks walking around in aluminum foil hats powering their wearable electronic tools and toys.
So why didn't Orwell see that one?
Woo, thanks! I did a quick Google search and all I can really say is, Holy Shit!
:)
Back to water and natural juice for this boyo!
Thanks again, you're the best AC ever.
Barely similar. There is a huge difference between 128 MHz and 1 GHz. Also a huge difference between 32 MB RAM and 256 MB RAM.
If this oOo thingy is real, I'd really be interested in getting one as it would actually be useful as a general purpose computing device.
The reason I've never bought a PDA is manifold:
1. I don't want to be locked in to some else's idea of what my computing tasks are or should be;
2. I want to be able to use the software of my choice and upgrade/change it as I need/want too;
3. I don't want to take a big performance hit in exchange for size.
So, I've just been waiting for the technology to catch up with my requirements. This little box could do it!
Yo, ho! Yo, Dude!
Don't tell my cat
or he get more attitude!
Save da cuffs, save da blotter!
Now my cat be doing pokey
'cause he kill a fucking otter?
So nerds, so brats
Ja, best ya be salutin'
when you see my bad-ass cat!
Woo, too much diet Coke today.
Well, I suspect the use of the word "revolution" is going to be viewed either good or bad, depending upon the culture you're marketing in and also depending upon the income group which sees the ad/advocacy.
French folks might really like the revolution idea as a whole. French students might REALLY like the revolution idea; French folks in the $100,000 per year income bracket might really hate it. All the above goes for Americans as well.
The point I want to make here is that the word "revolution" carries a lot of baggage (connotations) which are going to be perceived in many different (and not always good, not always bad) ways by those doing the perceiving. You might be better off just avoiding it, but again, it's a cultural/class thing and what flies good here in marketing terms may fly like a rock where you are, so it's a judgement call on your part.
Yes, Linux is a great story! I'm always amazed to see the next chapter too.
Cheers,
> Agree and disagree
> I actually do not think that we are moving from scarcity to surfeit. I think
> we are moving into a society where we are going back to bater. Way back when
> people used to bater and something that seemed interesting was driven up in
> value. Tulips, gold, rice, etc. All of these products had no value other
> than what people thought would be interesting. The value of the product was
> determined by the eco-system around it. In other words so long as profit was > part of the equation due to a eco-system all were happy.
Remember that currencies replaced the barter system for a very good reason: It was really very inconvienient to carry around pockets full of cheese in order to trade for melons and when you did trade, you then had pockets full of melons.
> And here is where a product like Linux has issues. It is not the free price,
> but the eco-system. Sure you may see jobs, but there are very little other
> pieces of the eco-system around it. That is my point. Value is determined by
> the eco-system that supports it. LINUX by its nature of no cost and very
> techie people has no eco-system that can be used to pay for a mortage. There
> will be a few, but that cannot be used to support an entire industry.
Yes, I understand your point and it seems, at least on the surface, to be a classic "chicken and the egg" problem. There is a point in system growth dynamics when a system can said to have reached critical mass, that is, the system has become self-sustaining (an ecosystem.) Linux is close to this "critical mass" state in the IT realm, but a ways away when talking about the desktop realm. But that's what we're mostly talking about here, how to get closer to critical mass state on the desktop. See another post below which talks about marketing/advocacy for more on this.
> Compare it to the fashion industry. The models walking down the cat walk do
> not actually make money for the individual companies. It is pure show and
> massive costs. Why do they do it? For show. The individual companies make
> their money by taking other designs and bringing it to the market
> Put this into the LINUX perspective. LINUX and GNU are the models walking
> down the catwalk. And everybody wants to be the model or the designer. But
> the reality is that the money is made elsewhere.
True, this is mostly what is referred to as "image advertising." Such advertising is done primarily to raise awareness of people of brands or ideas.
> And in the case of PERL, Larry Wall is Claudia Shiffer and O'Reilly and
> ActiveState the actual companies making the products for everybody
> Sure you can argue that Redhat is the product maker for everybody. But that
> is only a very small piece and the rest are not making money. Compare the
> profititability of O'Reilly and ActiveState vs the profitability of Redhat,
> Mandrake, etc. From there it should become pretty clear that LINUX REALLY
> needs to figure out how to become a profitable ecosystem.
Well, I'd have to say that the product makers in the Linux world are mostly the programmers who write the code which we all run on our machines. The commercial distributions play a part in this too, no doubt. I think the commercial Linux distributions have a problem in that that they try to make a living selling what they themselves don't own. Remember that commercial distributions are mostly selling convienience on a couple of CDs: It's much more convienient to install RedHat or Slackware than it is to build your own system from all the parts.
Larry Wall and kin are in the programmers group, not distribution sellers group. I don't think it's a accurate to say that O'Reilly and RedHat are similar enough in their products to draw a valid comparison because they're really very different; otherwise, your point regarding a self-sustaining economy (ecosystem) stands and is a good one. I hate to say this, but patience is required as it's gonna take some time. Not much, but some time.
Now really is the time for the LUGs to do their thing. I wish my local LUG were either a little more responsive or easier to contact as it's turning into a real chore to get in contact with someone. May be just some old, dated info on websites too (now there's a subject that fries my ass.)
Cheers,
> Nice points. However, surely you overlook the fact that awareness of Linux
;)
> amongst the general public is extremely low?
No, I understand the awareness in the general populace of Linux is low. Word of mouth is slow but sure.
> I don't think advertising would be bad per se, as long as it was done right. I > think most "computer people" now know at least what Linux is, if not much
> about it. So what's needed (but not yet, linux isn't ready for home desktops
> yet) is advertising that plants the seeds of curiousity in peoples minds -
> that gets them asking "What is Linux?". They can then ask their local geek,
> who will (hopefully) expound upon them it's greatness (the excuse being, they
> did ask
I disagree that Linux isn't yet ready for home desktops. I do agree that planting seeds is a good thing. More on this in the marketing bit below.
> You say you have a marketing background. So what do you think of this? Let's
> say we have a hypothetical campaign. Like most stuff to do with linux, it
> doesn't have much money, let's say we rule out TV advertising. So we need to
> get far more awareness for each pound, dollar, euro we spend than other
> campaigns.
> Linux came from the streets. It's not like other products. Therefore, we can
> get away with a different sort of advertising. We can play upon the
> "revolutionary" aspects of it. Let's say, for a month or two, in the major
> cities of the world some billboard space is bought up, and filled with simple
> posters that have a faded picture of tux, with slogans such as "Get Ready",
> "Join the revolution" or "Power to the People" overlayed. Perhaps one or two
> have the word "Linux" underneath, so people know what to ask about, what to
> call it.
The trick to successful marketing is understanding that marketing is mostly about psychology; the psychology of groups, individuals and individuals in groups. You hear the word "target" often in marketing when marketers are talking about specific groups they wish to market a product too. There are often many multiple target groups for a product; the wider the potential appeal of the product, the more target groups you will have. Identifying the groups can be both an art and a science, but you don't necessarily have to define target groups. Read on.
One big problem with many multiple targets is successfully marketing to some target groups without pissing off or otherwise alienating other target groups. For example, using the word "revolution" might really appeal to some groups but really turn-off other groups. The best way to deal with this problem is to make sure you don't use any terms which might piss off one of the groups. The easiest and most effective way to do this is to _not_ use any words or phrases which have negative connotations or denotations. In other words, focus on the positives of the product you're marketing and understand that any marketing you do to one group will more than likely be seen by the other groups.
Linux, as a general purpose OS on a general purpose machine (computer) has broad appeal, or many, many multiple target groups. So, if you want to appeal to as many of these groups as possible without pissing some of them off, just focus on the positive attributes of the product. Linux has a great many positive attributes which appeal across the spectrum of potential users and groups of users, so there is plenty of material to use without having to resort to negatives (which usually work against your product -- you'll notice you don't see a lot of ads which directly beat up on the competition.)
> IBM had a neat idea - people associate "revolution from the streets" with
> graffiti. It doesn't have to be illegal, if you as a landlord had a spare wall > lying around, wouldn't you jump at a chance to earn a bit of money from it by
> letting these friendly guys spray paint some words on the side? As long as
> they clean up afterwards.....
> The aim would be to raise lots of awareness rather than promote the product
> which is hard to get across in adverts anyway (distro? what's a distro?). That > vague awareness could then be turned into enthusiasm by word of mouth from
> geeks and other happy users. It'd also get people talking - I remember in
> England a national newspaper (I think it was the Guardian) ran a campaign
> promoting "Joy". The idea was to see if you could raise awareness of something > that didn't exist, just a brand. It worked amazingly well, somebody even put
> up a "Joy" poster in our 6th form centre. By getting people saying "What's all > this Linux Get Ready stuff about?" to each other, you could raise awareness
> much faster than through pure word of mouth.
Yes, this is known as "image advertising" in the real world. Only big corporations use it because it's outrageously expensive and almost impossible to measure in terms of effectiveness. IBM may be able to afford this, but not RedHat or SuSE or Mandrake. Personally, I think most image advertising is a waste of money but then I'm not the marketing guy at IBM and he/she may have a wildly different opinion on the matter.
The one other point I'd like to make in response is that when using the positives of Linux in marketing/advocacy, stress the potential benefits to the individual/group you're addressing. For example, compare these two statements:
"Linux is powerful and can do all computing tasks well."
or
"Linux empowers you to do all your computing tasks well."
The second will stomp the living pee out of the first in any focus group or measured marketing results comprised of any humans anywhere on this planet (and any other planet for that matter.) When you personalize the positives, people and groups of people response is much, much better.
> Good idea? Bad idea?
One last thought. Raising awareness can be tricky because you can effectively make the same mistakes as with marketing, that is, you can piss off some groups whilst doing the awareness raising of other groups. If you use the tips mentioned above, you can avoid pissing off some of your potential target groups.
How best to do mass awareness raising? It may be slow, but nothing yet devised in the realm of marketing or advertising can beat word of mouth in terms of total effectiveness. So, the best bet is to loosely organize the current Linux users (already being done in the LUGs), give them some good tips on how to _and_ how not to talk to others about Linux. See my original post for more.
Hope all this helps and thanks for the reply, you really provoked my thinking on the matter.
See this checklist for what constitutes a cult. While many groups may have cult-like attributes, they are not necessarily cults. My understanding is that for a group to be a true cult, they have to meet all the criteria on this list. Having just moved from Utah, I've had more than my fair share of exposure to cult thinking and behavior, ugh.
m
http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.ht
I think you're right on the mark when using the term "subculture" as opposed to cult. Funny the way subcultures often become the common culture of tomorrow.
I agree with your point that one of the reasons people start to use Linux because it's become "cool" to do so. This isn't a bad thing providing this motivation satisfies yet another of your points, "...it does the job better than what they were using."
Wow, great reply, thanks! I'm honored by such a reply.
You make a great many good points. Mind if I use your attitude as an example?
Best wishes,
Another Jim
> And here is the problem with Open Source and specifically LINUX.... There is
> no $$$ in Open Source because of the lack of ecosystem.
> Let me explain this point a bit.
> In a closed source environment like one built up by Microsoft and AutoDesk
> the objective is to suck as much out of the client without actually killing
> the client. So yes this is a parasitic scenario. But the scenario is not
> just about selling a piece of software. It is about selling a solution based
> on multiple peoples input. Training, Consulting, Service, etc an eco-system
> where money is fluid.
Yes, good point. This is changing quickly now with the adaptation of Linux in the workplace. We'll see many more Linux jobs. I've been watching the job market over the past two years or so and the increase in continuous and rapid.
> And here the Microsoft and AutoDesk empire rules in sheer momentum of their
> third parties. People know they can make money at selling their services or
> whatever.
> In Open Source and specifically LINUX this is not the case. People who in
> Open Source tend to be two things; cheap and farily intelligent coders. Two
> things that keep the ecosystem small. Fairly intelligent coders tend not to
> hire as many consultants, contractors, buy books, etc.
> While many may say that it is good that people do not have to hire "leech"
> consultants or contractors. I tend to argue back that those "leech"
> consultants and others keep money moving and that moving money can be used to
> pursue activities to increase the eco-system.
> I am not saying that Open Source could never develop a rich eco-system
> (examples of eco-systems being setup are PERL, PHP, etc). But notice that
> those Open Source environments allow closed source implementations AND they
> are NOT specific to LINUX. If LINUX wants to succeed then there need to be
> many more footing the bill of developing since there is not that much
> financial incentive. BTW I am not referring to simple domination, I am
> talking about survival. PERL and PHP will survive without LINUX, but can
> LINUX survive without PERL and PHP?
Well, consider _why_ a person or business buys something in the first place: They percieve that there is value (to them) in the product _and_ the cost of the product is equal to or less than the value. Linux is odd in this respect in that it doesn't cost anything (or cost very much.) This is difficult for a lot of people (especially Americans) to understand. It goes against what they've known to be the rule: Value equals money. When one tries to explain to Joe Windows user that Linux is better but doesn't cost anything, the cognitive dissonance is practically visible in his eyes as he wonders if you're pulling his leg or what.
This leads quickly into discussion of the paradigm shift we're starting to see in capitalism as we shift from economies of scarcity to economies of surfeit. Capitalism requires economies of scarcity to function and so what happens when things are no longer scarce? We're in for a long period of bad law, bad politics and bad times until capitalism either evolves into something workable or is replaced by something will work with economies of surfeit.
I know that seems like a big jump in topic and I apologize.
Are you sure the two positions are mutually exclusive? I really don't think so. UNIX is wonderfully complex but the complexity is only as deep as you wish to delve. There are many users out there who only float on the top of the complexity who do just fine and are happy with their state. Likewise, there are those who love to "get dirty" by digging into the details.
Perhaps the key here is the tolerance that results from knowing there are many levels of users, most of whom will find their comfort level and be content. Don't dis others because you know more than they do, just view the disparity as an opportunity to help/instruct/encourage, etc.
(Note: This is a repost of a post made in reply to another post under the "Is Linux Dead?" thread from a couple of weeks ago. The original post advocated more commercial-type advertising for Linux and was titled, "Advertising would help")
Wrong. Let me explain please.
First, please do know I'm one of the three (a rough guess) people on the planet who are deep geeks with a marketing background. Okay, that said, here's some info to graze upon.
In the marketing world all research for the past 100 years shows that the very best -- bar none -- type of advertising is, surprise, word of mouth. Nothing has every beat it, nothing ever will beat it. People will trust the opinions of people they know first hand over any advertisement. Why do you think there are so many ads which try to establish that type of trust relationship in the minds of the ad viewer? These types of testimonial ads are among the most successful types of ads, but pale in comparison with "word of mouth" in terms of pure clout with the target audience.
Linux is doing as good as it is (which is very good indeed) because of a number of factors: quality, cost, and -- ta da -- the number of in-the-know technical people (computer geeks) who say it's as good or better than the commercial stuff available. Word of mouth advertising by people who have the confidence of the people with whom they're talking.
Who do you think mom or grandma or little brother/sister is going to believe, Microsoft ads or you? If they have any experience with MS product over the past ten years then they're not going to be inclined to believe anything in a MS ad -- their personal experience tells them MS marketing is geared toward getting the money out of their pocket and MS product is not very good.
You, the techincal person in-the-know, are in a great position compared with MS. You have a product with outstanding quality, an impossible-to-beat value-to-cost ratio and an entire, world-class army of other techies who are saying the same thing you are.
In my opinion, Gnu/Linux/OSS/Freeware advocates would do best to just keep doing what they've been doing. Don't focus on bashing MS, just make honest comparisons, be up front with newbies about the learning curve (harder to learn, easier to use) and focus on the benefits of the product when compared with the competition. You'll continue to win big!
Frankly, if I were leading a marketing push for Linux right now, I'd say that it's time for the little guy to be "on." Not the uber hackers (who do their own stuff so well) but all Linux users: Time for them to really focus on truely helping others understand the choices available and then helping them get going down the learning curve (which has become much shallower in the past year -- Gnome/KDE/OpenOffice.org -- hero-level work folks, congrats and thanks!)
So, if you want to help the world avoid continuus and expanding MS hell:
1. Join your local LUG or start one.
2. Learn how to make a simple press release and learn where to send copies for your area.
3. Offer some free evening classes to individuals and small businesses via the press releases (donate some time -- see next item.)
4. Make sure there are resources in your area for individuals/businesses (consultants, tutors, etc. -- if you're not seeing $$$ by now you're blind.)
5. Always remember that you serve yourself best when you do your best to help those you are targeting. This is the essense of quality! I know it sounds odd, but it works: The more helpful you are for your audience, the more rewards you'll see for yourself.
I coulda/shoulda/woulda been a preacher but that whole god thing really got it the way.
As the other reply says, plus:
Magnetic RAM is coming soon (MRAM) and holographic memory storage too. Granted, bus speed is still a pain, but if you put enough RAM in the machine and use RAM disks, you can get some serious transfer speeds.
What I want is multiple CPUs per CPU. Yes, I know that sounds strange. Maybe those FPGA thingys will get faster and cheaper soon.
It's right there in your post: "C" is the ansa to you silly question, glasshoppa! Must I do all you thinking for you? *bonk*
Is your real name Bill Gates by chance?
...give the customer a few free samples, get 'em hooked into the product and then that customer REALLY starts to pay.
If the Peruvians fall for this, they deserve what happens to them: Forever paying premium dollars for really lousy products from a compamy with an exceptionally bad attitude.