On Wednesday 02 February 2011 19:50:24 Greg Freemyer wrote: > On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Nelson Marques <nmo.marq...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 3:46 AM, Helen <postmodernhousew...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I personally have mixed feelings about this - the fact that OBS has > >> openSUSE in its name helps to get the openSUSE name 'out there' as its > >> use becomes more popular, but I agree that there is a strong > >> implication for users that it is only for openSUSE. The other reasons > >> raised by Gumb are also valid ones. > > > > OBS is the beating heart of openSUSE, I don't see any problem in > > having 'openSUSE' on a platform as OBS. > > Agreed
I personally don't see it as a big issue directly - the only issue with it is that people clearly assume the "openSUSE Build Service" is there to "Build openSUSE Software". The discussions and chats I've had at several conferences including the latest LCA clearly brought that forward and I think those of you who've been at conferences have heard the same sentiments. Now the scope of the Build Service is much wider than that and this misconception is hurting at least some of our uptake. The marketing team is fighting this perception all the time. The brand is currently usually abbreviated as OBS - and known (in writing) like that. MeeGo actually calls it 'open build service' already, as do many other people. I wouldn't argue yet that 'open build service' is already the de-facto name, but it's going in that direction. So there is a reason to rename it: do something about a misconception which is hurting uptake. Reasons not to do it: 1 we diminish the link between openSUSE and OBS 2 we loose some brand value due to the repositioning On 1, I don't see this as a real issue as OBS is and will be principally developed by openSUSE - and as I wrote before, the culture of 'credit where credit is due' in FOSS protects us in this regard as well. 2 is really minimal - OBS is the name most known and won't change; moreover many people already call it open build service (or even just 'the build service' which is actually really good for us I would say - saying OBS is the de-facto standard build service). Hence I believe the reason to do it eclipses the reasons not to do it. On the facebook thing, I doubt our number likes on facebook for openSUSE have much if anything to do with uptake of OBS. Not to say we shouldn't try to increase that number... > > What is being propused is called 'repositioning', this is one of the > > hardest and most risky (if not the most risky at all) operation you > > can do from a marketing perspective. No one takes lightly to change an > > established brand name or service without a strong motive. None of the > > motives seem strong enough, and the work should deployed in a > > different way, but that not for me to decide. > > > > I don't think that changing the name (specially when it has strong > > roots in the industry already) will solve the problem around > > attractivity to OBS. What can solve the attractive problem around OBS > > is to increase exponentially (in a viral way) the number of users of > > the openSUSE. > > > > Lets imagine an hypothetical situation based on 'Facebook' numbers, > > since I don't have metrics for the userbase of openSUSE and Ubuntu > > > (official channels): > Per https://build.opensuse.org/ > > == > The openSUSE Build Service hosts 17,298 projects, with 115,652 > packages, in 28,949 repositories and is used by 26,656 confirmed > users. > == > > I find those pretty impressive numbers. I hope the name stays where > it is with that proven level of success. (Remember, that's effectively > 26,656 developers / contributors, because OBS is not used by typical > end users.) > > One thing that is not shown and may not be known is the number of > private instances of the OBS are running out there. Maybe the number > of appliance downloads per release could be added to the above stats. > > > Ubuntu: 328275 likes on facebook > > openSUSE: 2779 likes on facebook > > > > If I was a developer to launch an application, I would probably choose > > launchad/ubuntu because I knew before hand that Ubuntu would enable a > > higher potential user base for my application. This is simple common > > sense. > > OBS can build/publish for ubuntu. I suspect that is why some want to > change the name. > > > In a very simple way we are in the content distribution world, we > > distribute contents in the form of software. It's a service, it aims > > for people, that's the very own minimum denominator here. So we should > > actually look into a way of becoming more attractive to users and > > investors, and a strategy for that can be delievering a higher number > > of contents. > > In a real sense, OBS is already very successful and getting more so. > > > For example... Ubuntu plays this well... from a simple package, they > > create like 7/8 sub-packages, then they have over 32K packages as they > > advertise (look at a screenshot of their Software Center and how they > > explore this concept to brutalize users perception). Users who have > > done some packaging or developed something, they know this is a fairy > > tale and a 'marketing move', but for those without tech skills, they > > might believe it's the best choice due to the ammount of packages > > available, eventhough the largest part of them are futile for end > > users... And when they eventually might realize it, they have already > > a loyalty bond with Ubuntu and won't swap. > > Are you suggesting openSUSE start advertizing 115,652 packages, in > 28,949 repositories on the openSUSE Build Service! > > As you say, it is highly misleading if one is really talking about why > choose openSUSE 11.4 vs. ubuntu. > > OTOH, for a lot of developers, it is highly relevant to see OBS has so > much participation. > > > I believe on this at least... without a strong user base, we might not > > become attractive enough for developers to use OBS to distribute their > > software, because our user base isn't large enough. Maybe what > > developers love is probably that everyone picks their software and use > > it? Maybe that's the missing link. > > That reads as if you assume OBS is not successful. I feel the opposite. Indeed. It is popular but could be more so ;-) BTW we also need to do more in the area of USING those huge numbers. For marketing but also community building purposes. How could we get the tens of thousands who use OBS to contribute to openSUSE? After all, they're VERY close to openSUSE already - it's just pushing a few buttons to submit their packages to factory or request merges with existing packages to fix bugs. > Greg
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
