Am Mon, 21 Jan 2008 12:07:18 -0600 schrieb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'll further state that while I believe choice is good, it hinders our > ability to make decisions. If you're going to offer choice, make the > choice obsolete ( Project Portland / PackageKit ). I think one of the mistakes that were made in Linux "marketing" in the past, was that marketing was not aggressive enough. And although most Linux software vendors agree on some basic principles of cooperation there is still a lot of redundancy just for the sake of it? I think some very important points are mostly not visible to the public and are also not really communicated: * With every Linux you get a bunch of software with which you can do a lot of things. OpenOffice.org seems to be the most prominent, but still this is not identified with Linux because many Windows users use it - same is true for Mozilla products: The most visible and interesting alternatives are not Linux-only because Linux has failed to identify with them, although often those software works better on Linux. * From my experience as a customer the support for simple software is often MUCH better for free software than for proprietary software. I have never been able to influence any conventional software vendor to really help me or fix any bug, which on Linux I hand this many thousand times. This might be different if you have a really costly support contract, but that's not what most customers and companies want or have. * The Software Freedoms - they help to get the first two points working and many more. This includes the ability to legally use one disc to install on multiple computers (or on multiple virtual instances). This requires revolutionary new business models, leaving behind the "buy one - get one" logic. I think one thing is very problematic still: * The established computer business model is much about buying a computer and additional software either in a store or via Internet (Dell, Amazon,...). Besides some exceptions customers still cant really buy Linux computers and the additional software in these channels. And you still wont get GIMP for Linux in any shop. Why don't you get it? Because its available for free through different channels. But this also means it is not attractive to either advertise it not to offer it for any amount. I am not saying it should cost something. it could - but still I think the problem is not that GIMP is bad software or that people would not buy it - GPL would allow it - but current business models make it hard to make money with GIMP or other software. What I am trying to say is that I think that if we can change the circumstances and have a market for services around free software and Linux companies would offer services and (more) people could make (more) money offering services. They would then carry the ideas of Linux and free software to the customers. So I don't think Linux itself needs better marketing or branding, but that we need to find ways that make it attractive to open a business based on free software. Today for a small computer shop its still more attractive to just offer standard computers with Windows as to offer free software. I have witnessed a lot of discussions especially at GNOME how marketing should work but I found that mostly people (or developers) are more worried about how they could advertise their desktop (and additionally what their employer thinks make sense), while I have not seen any consistent ideas and strategies. The reason for that is because most projects think only in the terms of their own projects (be it KDE, GNOME, a distribution or a company). So all ideas and actions usually end just there: At what benefits their own projects. This itself is not problematic - the problem is lack of actions ans strategies that go beyond single projects. This list is one of the few points where such topics can be discussed. And although many think those discussions are not productive I think they are often more important as to find a new slogan for a single project or to meet a deadline. Why? Because if there is a common understanding of what the issues are and what needs to be worked on the issues many single projects have can be removed much faster. We still have what i would call the "desktop dilemma", which is that desktop environments like to brand their desktops, while they are not offering them directly (besides downloading source code and live images). This is as if Microsoft would not offer Windows. So KDE and GNOME are brands that cant be bought directly. But if this is the case, does it make any sense to promote them? And if the answer here is still yes: What does that mean to marketing? Maybe AIDA principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDA) is a bit outdated but still I think the point where people get interested and they want something like a Linux computer or a KDE desktop and to the point where they get what they want must be made more easy. Today if people want a Linux desktop its still not easy for them to get it. I don't think its all the options that make it hard to decide - rather people would choose what is most easy - if there is an offer for a Linux desktop that seems reasonable, people would buy, like they just do with Dells offers or the EeePc. This doesn't dissolve the described "desktop dilemma" but on those occasion I guess the dilemma doesn't worry the customers that much and is still up to the desktop environments to think about their strategies. My personal expectations on a desktop is that it integrates nicely. I don't want to start a flame war but I think that's where KDE's Koffice make more sense as GNOMEs strategy to not offer an Office suite of its own. I know Abiword and Gnumeric are very good applications but they are not officially backed by GNOME, so from my perspective GNOME is not planning to offer a full desktop. Another relates issue is that of compatibility between open source applications. The sad truth is that much more energy goes into the ability to import Microsoft standards as to be interoperable in the open source world. Such as between Gnumeric, Koffice and OpenOffice.org or between Kmail, Thunderbird and Evolution . It seems as if as long as you use Microsoft's products you are attractive - but as soon as you choose an open source product you more likely end in a lock in situation. There are often options to get out of this lock in, but this is mostly an advanced topic. Here we see again the result of small thinking - projects think more about how they can get more users (from Windows) than how their users could switch their data without a pain. That's where I think OpenDocument comes into play and can lead to a desperately needed new culture of interoperatibility. A field where Open Source also needs to adapt some principles. Thilo Pfennig -- Thilo Pfennig Foresight Linux Packager http://flinux.wordpress.com/ _______________________________________________ Desktop_architects mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop_architects
