Re: [ubuntu-marketing] Recent poor publicity - response?

2007-08-17 Thread Dominik Wagenfuehr
Dominik Wagenfuehr schrieb: > We have even need to post a clarification > on ubuntuusers.de because some users thought that the Ubuntu servers > with the Ubuntu packages were hacked. So a statement would be good... There has been an update on Linux Today [1] from Gerry Carr with an official (?

Re: [ubuntu-marketing] Recent poor publicity - response?

2007-08-17 Thread alan c
N Ali wrote: > On 8/16/07, Martin Albisetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 8/16/07, Matthew East <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> What do people think? Can bad publicity can be turned into good >>> publicity? >>> >> >> I personally believe that a nice article (the fridge sounds >> right) wit

Re: [ubuntu-marketing] Recent poor publicity - response?

2007-08-17 Thread alan c
Martin Albisetti wrote: > On 8/16/07, Matthew East <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> What do people think? Can bad publicity can be turned into good publicity? >> > > I personally believe that a nice article (the fridge sounds right) > with what will be done to prevent this in the future would suff

Re: [ubuntu-marketing] Recent poor publicity - response?

2007-08-16 Thread alan c
Dominik Wagenfuehr wrote: [...] > TheInquirer > [8]. (Last one is ridiculous... Saying "Cannonical" and "Open sauce > software"...) This is clearly ridicule, which also makes interesting reading for some. Most publicity, even bad publicity, is probably 'good' publicity, however, being vulner

Re: [ubuntu-marketing] Recent poor publicity - response?

2007-08-16 Thread N Ali
On 8/16/07, Martin Albisetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/16/07, Matthew East <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > What do people think? Can bad publicity can be turned into good publicity? > > > > I personally believe that a nice article (the fridge sounds right) > with what will be done to pre

Re: [ubuntu-marketing] Recent poor publicity - response?

2007-08-16 Thread Alan Pope
Hi Dominik, On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 06:07:27PM +0200, Dominik Wagenfuehr wrote: > Here are further news for it: eWeek.com [6], Slashdot [7], TheInquirer > [8]. (Last one is ridiculous... Saying "Cannonical" and "Open sauce > software"...) > Knowing the Inq, I suspect that's intentional! :) >

Re: [ubuntu-marketing] Recent poor publicity - response?

2007-08-16 Thread Dominik Wagenfuehr
> > This is a good point I've seen it on digg, and even on Planet Ubuntu Users? > In every case it's been very negative. > In Germany all of the big news websites (heise [1], Golem [2] and Pro-Linux [3]) has mentioned the issue. Some sites like winfuture [4] also mentioned that Canonical is bl

Re: [ubuntu-marketing] Recent poor publicity - response?

2007-08-16 Thread Martin Albisetti
On 8/16/07, Matthew East <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What do people think? Can bad publicity can be turned into good publicity? > I personally believe that a nice article (the fridge sounds right) with what will be done to prevent this in the future would suffice. Security breaches happen every

Re: [ubuntu-marketing] Recent poor publicity - response?

2007-08-16 Thread DThomas
This is a good point I've seen it on digg, and even on Planet Ubuntu Users? In every case it's been very negative. "Matthew East" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/16/2007 09:28 AM To "Ubuntu Marketing" cc Subject [ubuntu-marketi

[ubuntu-marketing] Recent poor publicity - response?

2007-08-16 Thread Matthew East
Hi all, (Jono and Matthew cc:ed) A thread on the -uk list has highlighted the recent poor publicity that Ubuntu has had as a result of the recent problems with the local community run servers, in particular on slashdot (http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/08/15/1341224.shtml). Does the marketing team h