Hardest marketing problem ever

[Hilko]

You're a marketer who finds an exciting new product developed by some really smart people. A great product few people have heard of - all you have to do is tell everyone about it, and the world will beat a path to your door.
However,

- The people who make the product have no money for marketing.

- The reason they have no money is that they give the product away.

- Since they give the product away, people never see it in shops.

- Because people never see the product in shops or adverstised, they don't know it exists.

- The makers of the product rely on word of mouth to attract more customers, but their customers only talk to each other.

- When you ask the product's maker for help, he suggests you talk to other users. They welcome you with open arms but answer your questions in a strange language.

- When you admit that you have trouble understanding their language, you're told you'd better learn it, or you won't appreciate the product.

- When you tell the designers that their product isn't marketable in its present form, they say that's okay, since they only wrote it to share with their friends.

- As you wonder what to make of it all, you watch the designers and their supporters squabble among themselves over all kinds of trivia. Then you realize that their collective focus isn't on fighting their real competitors.

- When you ask the people in charge why they don't show more leadership, they say they have no power to unite the squabbling communities. They add that disagreement and vigorous debate were the very fires that forged the great product in the first place.

The above was taken from the following article. Continue reading here
http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT3304051309.html


What to do about this ? What do you think of this ?

[billgoldberg]

What do you think of this ?

Funny.

[karellen]

What do you think of this ?

so very true

[s.fox]

A little sad to see, but also accurate.

[issih]

With all the respect in the world to the work of linus and all the people who work on the kernel, in many ways it would almost be better, from a new user perspective, if a distro was put together that completely hid the linuxness, much as apple hides its unixness. The utter bewildering range of options for every single task is bad enough, but the infighting and large range of half finished projects compound the problem. Linux IS wonderful, it is also something that takes a fair amount of commitment to learn to love, most people don't have that attention span.

I'd almost prefer it if ubuntu shipped a version in which synaptic was hidden away, so people just saw add/remove and mention of the word linux was verbotten.

Tell everyone to only use the tools within the OS to get tools/programs, and be very clear that windows programs do NOT work..just forget about wine entirely.

A more focussed proposition has far more chance of penetrating the market with new users, imho.

Once people have found their feet they can step out into the wider world of chaos that linux is.

[bubwitmaingay]

Hahaha... funny but true.

I'm a college instructor (general subjects) of a computer learning center and my students always asked me "How are these people developing OS profit from giving the OS away for free?". Of course, they haven't appreciated the learning process. Programmers may not profit but will sharpen their skills in programming in deriving and modifying the OS or application codes to suit their needs. That's what Linux is all about, besides the old UNIX was distributed to computer schools way back then.

On the other hand, Linux will never be perfect and will never have the ultimate distro because it is a part of the KNOWLEDGE SYSTEM - a continuously changing environment, so factions and schools of thought will always spring up. That's why there will always be squabbles and all the debates within the same distro.

Third, if you say that it didn't faced up with its competitor, maybe because it will never will. The people of the capitalist civilization always believed that if it is "for sale", it must be good. Linux had never been for sale and most think that it is useless. My country is a 95% Microsoft user - most think that there are no other OS out there (even my students taking up programming met Linux for the first time in College). If it will, then let's forget about capitalism all along.

Of course, it's the hardest marketing problem ever but if you are enthusiastic enough it will spread. My students and colleagues started using Linux. Some IT teachers tried and used Linux (for the first time) because I told them. Maybe because I am not an IT professional and I was able to use it flawlessly (I spend 3 hours learning the Video Tutorial and reading the pocket guide) that they think Linux is user-friendly.

My biggest selling pitch - LINUX IS VIRUS-FREE. I don't fear going through from one computer machine to the next (using my USB Disk) because I said MS viruses won't hurt my machine. If you attacked the biggest problem of MS users, I think they will eventually use the product.

[Hilko]

My biggest selling pitch - LINUX IS VIRUS-FREE.
If you attacked the biggest problem of MS users, I think they will eventually use the product.

No I don't think so. You need marketing for that. That is exactly the problem.
You may have a product that is a lot better in many ways. If it is not marketed right it will always stay small and people outside the community will never know about it.

[MikeTheC]

I have no answer to this conundrum. I have opinions (which I have expressed elsewhere on this message board in times past) but the problem is with the community itself. There comes a point where either you have some kind of unity, or you just fall apart at the seams. It's like what in "Comp I" terms is known as a "big, baggy monster" which threatens to Hulk-stretch the clothing it wears until it's all stretched, ripped, and the creature is now naked.

I find it harder and harder to support a community and a movement with the kind of attitude as expressed in the original article cited by the OP. It's not that I don't like and support the precepts and many (perhaps most?) of the concepts of the F/OSS movement. Rather, I believe the F/OSS community needs to grow up, grow a pair already, and be willing to put up or shut up.

The Linux F/OSS movement is best described as being like trying to herd cats, or, as Captain Sheridan once aptly described the situation, "like trying to stack marbles in a corner".

[jocheem67]

Why need marketing??? Let ubuntu just grow organically, the user-base is growing, isn't it?
Could it go any faster when there's a better Plan? Probably yes, would it be less symapthetic, also yes...


There is a premisse ( is this good English? ) in the article, it already says okay to marketing as a concept, and next it kind of blames us for not using it. Very bad reasoning.Very politics.

[saulgoode]

- As you wonder what to make of it all, you watch the designers and their supporters squabble among themselves over all kinds of trivia. Then you realize that their collective focus isn't on fighting their real competitors.

This is were it runs off the tracks. For many developers, the "competition" is to produce better software; hence the "squabbles" (debates over what is "better"). Marketplace ubiquity may be your goal -- and feel free to pursue it -- however, it shouldn't be expected that everyone shares that same goal.

[PrimoTurbo]

I agree to a large part, Linux is better in general but it's very hard to market because it's free.

Free often means cheap, I remember I was suggesting to a group of friends to replace a stolen vbulletin script with phpbb because I was worried their forum would get in legal trouble. They were like, we are not going to switch because we don't want free software it's garbage, I had to point out that their server was running off free software. BSD & Apache.

[PrimoTurbo]

Also I think all major distros need to come together and write some type of a standards document outlining every aspect of linux and what would be the best way to adapt various features, maybe even make it dynamic so you can add various goals for features or whatever.

Then whichever distro wants can adapt the changes, for example you can make repositories linux cross platform.

[PhoenixMaster00]

You're a marketer who finds an exciting new product developed by some really smart people. A great product few people have heard of - all you have to do is tell everyone about it, and the world will beat a path to your door.
However,

- The people who make the product have no money for marketing.

- The reason they have no money is that they give the product away.

- Since they give the product away, people never see it in shops.

- Because people never see the product in shops or adverstised, they don't know it exists.

- The makers of the product rely on word of mouth to attract more customers, but their customers only talk to each other.

- When you ask the product's maker for help, he suggests you talk to other users. They welcome you with open arms but answer your questions in a strange language.

- When you admit that you have trouble understanding their language, you're told you'd better learn it, or you won't appreciate the product.

- When you tell the designers that their product isn't marketable in its present form, they say that's okay, since they only wrote it to share with their friends.

- As you wonder what to make of it all, you watch the designers and their supporters squabble among themselves over all kinds of trivia. Then you realize that their collective focus isn't on fighting their real competitors.

- When you ask the people in charge why they don't show more leadership, they say they have no power to unite the squabbling communities. They add that disagreement and vigorous debate were the very fires that forged the great product in the first place.

The above was taken from the following article. Continue reading here
http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT3304051309.html


What to do about this ? What do you think of this ?

Politics. I just read the book 'The Success Of Open Source' and i don't know if it could work any other way than it does now. They don't need to market because they work outside the corporate structure. We shouldn't do anything about it but let it progress as it is. A lot of the software is slowly gathering support which is good since it doesn't overwhelm the developers. I enjoy the divided nature anyway i dont think many of the programs would be half as good if everyone on the team just agreed to certain changes and not to others.

[Hilko]

i don't know if it could work any other way than it does now. They don't need to market because they work outside the corporate structure. We shouldn't do anything about it but let it progress as it is. (...) I enjoy the divided nature anyway

So you're saying this is just how it is and that's ok. Well then i suppose it is okay. ... cause and effect ... ?

[koenn]

This is were it runs off the tracks. For many developers, the "competition" is to produce better software; hence the "squabbles" (debates over what is "better"). Marketplace ubiquity may be your goal -- and feel free to pursue it -- however, it shouldn't be expected that everyone shares that same goal.

I was thinking the same thing.


From a slightly different perspective:
what is Ubuntu if not Canonical's (rather successful) attempt to turn Debian (or Linux + open source apps) into a product, and market it ?

[orethrius]

This is were it runs off the tracks. For many developers, the "competition" is to produce better software; hence the "squabbles" (debates over what is "better").

It's interesting you should mention that, because the competition does drive better software development. It's when that same attitude is used to suggest technical support options that the whole thing falls apart a bit.


Marketplace ubiquity may be your goal -- and feel free to pursue it -- however, it shouldn't be expected that everyone shares that same goal.

Here I thought marketplace penetration was a Good Thing.

[koenn]

It's interesting you should mention that, because the competition does drive better software development. It's when that same attitude is used to suggest technical support options that the whole thing falls apart a bit.
there is competion already. you're no explaining why additional marketing would further improve the quality of the software.
And even if you could make that case, software developers are usually good at software development. So let them do software. If you want to add more marketing, you'll have to find people who are good at marketing.




Here I thought marketplace penetration was a Good Thing.
Only for people whose livelihood depends on selling stuff.

[orethrius]

there is competion already.

There's no argument there, I agree completely.


you're no explaining why additional marketing would further improve the quality of the software.

I'll make that case right now.
1. Marketing gains public attention.
2. Public attention means public scrutiny.
3. Public scrutiny means more people examining the codebase.
4. More people examining the codebase means more people improving the codebase.
5. More people improving the codebase means a better overall quality of code.
6. A better overall quality of code means a better product.

In that instance, it stands to reason that increased market exposure indirectly leads to a better overall product. Of course, you'll have to deal with the genuinely misinformed as well as various miscreants and ne'er-do-wells, but the general idea is that more people working on the code increases the likelihood of producing a better result.


And even if you could make that case, software developers are usually good at software development. So let them do software.

Read my blog. That's precisely my point.


If you want to add more marketing, you'll have to find people who are good at marketing.

I believe Mr. Vencura and friends are doing a decent job there, but it must be recognized that the quality of technical support is ALSO a form of marketing.


Only for people whose livelihood depends on selling stuff.

So you propose getting mainstream attention in storefronts by...? Look, I've spent enough time combatting Redmond's FUD juggernaut to know that marketing isn't the enemy here. Microsoft uses marketing as a tool to exert market dominance, that doesn't make marketing inherently evil.

[crystal eyes]

I'm a windows user since 1993 and started with MS DOS til recently remove vista on my laptop and installs ubuntu. I think the problem why people not fully embraced ubuntu is it is not ready out of the box. For me I is ok because sometimes I know what to do. But my sister is not as good as I am. So when I install linux at there laptop, they dont like it. Because they dont have patiences going to forums and ask questions about an error appearing on there machine. they say in windows everything works ok. They just click the upgrade tab or so and it automatically download everything they need.

[crystal eyes]

before I forget, In my country, Philippines, lots of people know linux but they dont like to switch because of hazels encountered. As I told before not every one like to dig forums to ask solutions

[orethrius]

I'm a windows user since 1993 and started with MS DOS til recently remove vista on my laptop and installs ubuntu.

My own story begins with a format-and-reinstall after catching Downloader.Ject, whereupon I realized that I don't HAVE to prove ownership of my computer to run a bloody OS. I reinstalled alright, with Red Hat Shrike; and I've not looked back since.


I think the problem why people not fully embraced ubuntu is it is not ready out of the box.

It's at least as ready "out of the box" on a standard (read: non-laptop) system as XP, though caveats exist regarding MP3s (which all traces back to the Fraunhoffer Institute and software patents) and DVDs (DMCA in the United States). I highlighted the Lian-Li MP3 watch specifically because it's supposed to function as a simple USB drive, yet XP can't handle the Windows 98 drivers that ship with it. I can only imagine if I could've kept it by switching to Linux sooner.


For me I is ok because sometimes I know what to do. But my sister is not as good as I am. So when I install linux at there laptop, they dont like it.

I learned this lesson with my own sister. Don't install the system because you think it's better than what they're using. If they're experiencing viruses, or slowdowns, or what have you, you might mention that Linux works considerably better in those areas. Let them come to you for an install, not a repair.


Because they dont have patiences going to forums and ask questions about an error appearing on there machine.

That's understandable, but there are a few good print titles (books) that can help make the transition more painless.


they say in windows everything works ok.

That's a line that people use to try to get Windows back. There's one of three things causing it.
1. Unfamiliarity with the system, the most common.
2. Unsuccessful attempts to run Windows-native programs. This goes hand-in-hand with 1, and often comes from a failure to recognize comparable software.
3. Outright attempts to force Linux into a Windows mold. Many journalists are guilty of this approach.

All three are best answered with appropriate information given in a respectful manner. If nothing else, Linux certainly doesn't have the level of concerning malware that seems to permeate Windows installs.


They just click the upgrade tab or so and it automatically download everything they need.

Slight problem with that: Windows didn't have an "Upgrade" tab when I used it around XP-SP2. Sure, you could browse random sites in a lengthy effort to find functional drivers, or you could rely on the Hardware Wizard's incredible ability to pick the wrong ones for you.


As I told before not every one like to dig forums to ask solutions

The fundamental problem there being that Canonical offers paid support with IM and similar options. The reality of the matter is that if you want real-time solutions, you ask someone knowledgeable via IM, you don't resort to time-insensitive forums.

[jocheem67]

As I said earlier, I don't believe in marketing as a positive tool to promote stuff, it has a bad connotation with me ( and a lot of other people I feel ).
However I would be curious how ubuntu/linux would do on the market if a group of marketeers launched an agressive campaign...
Ofcourse it's not a matter of ubuntu being good or bad, it's a matter then of how it's presented. And there are some big advantages over the other OS'ses, we all know that.

Well for me, I am advertising a bit: got me a nice shirt from the cannonical-shop.

As for marketing, would it be that hard to put ubuntu in the news at the moment? The logo is already beating MS and that piece of fruit:guitar:

[bubwitmaingay]

No I don't think so. You need marketing for that. That is exactly the problem.
You may have a product that is a lot better in many ways. If it is not marketed right it will always stay small and people outside the community will never know about it.

This is not about selling-out. What I mean is that most of my countrymen/women have the biggest problem with viruses in MS and when they saw what Linux can do, it was the selling point for Ubuntu. I didn't intend to impose that, but only suggested that it might be effective because it worked to my situation;).

[issih]

Actually Marketplace penetration has a lot of important benefits (that is why window's monopolistic position is ubuntu's bug no1).

Most importantly of all, if there was a significant chunk of linux users out there, then all the hardware manufacturers that merrily ignore us or fob us off with out of date and poorly made drivers would be forced to put more effort into linux compatability. Doing that will remove the need for lots of developers to spend time reverse engineering drivers (a slow and painful process). All those developers will then have time to spend improving the actual systems we use, not just kludging a bit of hardware to behave properly.

Secondly all the software that people are so frequently dismayed to find won't work on ubuntu (usually games, various torrent clients, itunes, etc) will slowly begin to produce compatible versions, simply because there is no way that the companies will abandon a large percentage of their potential userbase.

This is all somewhat chicken and egg, we sort of need these things to happen to get market penetration, which will then help drive these things to happen, but having linux's userbase expand would be highly beneficial, don't kid yourself otherwise just because its sort of nice to be a bit different from the norm (and I'm as guilty of that as anyone)

[koenn]

There's no argument there, I agree completely.



I'll make that case right now.
1. Marketing gains public attention.
2. Public attention means public scrutiny.
3. Public scrutiny means more people examining the codebase.
4. More people examining the codebase means more people improving the codebase.
5. More people improving the codebase means a better overall quality of code.
6. A better overall quality of code means a better product.

In that instance, it stands to reason that increased market exposure indirectly leads to a better overall product. Of course, you'll have to deal with the genuinely misinformed as well as various miscreants and ne'er-do-wells, but the general idea is that more people working on the code increases the likelihood of producing a better result.

nice try, won't fly.
It falls apart at # 3 and 4 :
What you describe is already happening. IT professionals, programmers, ... are aware that linux exists. Code is being reviewed and imporoved by users. Your additional public is mostly end-users. They're not going to review code, let alone improve it.
At best, they'll come up with suggestions and wishlists (heaps of them, look at ubuntu brainstorm) but wont lift a finger to make any of it happen. Some of them might file an occasional bug report, but don't check if the bug is already known (or don't recognize the same bug in a slightly different description), and the info they provide is barely enough to reproduce the bug, let alone fix it. If 'the project' can't recruite additional volunteers to manage the piles of feature requests, triage bugs and hunt for duplicates, the burden of of managing all this info is on the developers, who'll end up spending more time reading mailing lists and message boards than actually 'improving the code base'.
The net result is less improvement and more dissatisfied users.

So, I can't say that i'm convinced marketing or increased market share is necessarily a good idea

dislaimer: slightly simplified and generalized. Sorry.


So you propose getting mainstream attention in storefronts by...?
Look, I've spent enough time combatting Redmond's FUD juggernaut to know that marketing isn't the enemy here. Microsoft uses marketing as a tool to exert market dominance, that doesn't make marketing inherently evil.
I never said marketing is the enemy. The OP is about
"You're a marketeer ... you watch the designers over all kinds of trivia. You realize that their collective focus isn't on fighting their real competitors.

When you ask the people in charge why they don't show more leadership, ..."

Ok, so maybe the developers focus isn't on competing in the market place. It's on software development. Which is as it should be. Let the marketeers handle the marketing end.

It may be a bit of a challenge because of the peculiarities of the development model, but without that model the product would not be what it is. A marketeer who can't understand that or can't deal with that, shouldn't be marketing this product - if marketing is actually desirable (which, as stated earlier, i'm not convinced of).

[DaveLH]

The Linux F/OSS movement is best described as being like trying to herd cats...

Funny... "Like trying to herd cats" is how people describe my faith -- Unitarian Universalism -- Which, come to think of it, perhaps is the Linux of Religions...

[DaveLH]

nice try, won't fly.
It falls apart at # 3 and 4 :
What you describe is already happening. IT professionals, programmers, ... are aware that linux exists. Code is being reviewed and imporoved by users. Your additional public is mostly end-users. They're not going to review code, let alone improve it.


No, but they're going to provide feedback. I know from experience as a professional PC Tech that end-users often have an important perspective that geeks like me would otherwise overlook.

[jimi_hendrix]

i cant think of this in any real world situation

[koenn]

No, but they're going to provide feedback. I know from experience as a professional PC Tech that end-users often have an important perspective that geeks like me would otherwise overlook.

I've seen some of that feedback. As an IT professional who has had to work with this type of feedback, I know how much time and effort goes into distilling useful information out of it.

[Tomosaur]

'Marketing' is just another word for 'obscuring your flaws'. Linux being open about its flaws is what makes it so great.

[Hilko]

Tomosaur, you cannot possibly be more wrong.
Marketing is not about obscuring flaws. And in this case not even about making money, since Ubuntu is free. The purpose of marketing is attracting more users.


- if marketing is actually desirable (which, as stated earlier, i'm not convinced of).
This is very desirable, as is so clearly explained by issih:

Actually Marketplace penetration has a lot of important benefits

Most importantly of all, if there was a significant chunk of linux users out there, then all the hardware manufacturers that merrily ignore us or fob us off with out of date and poorly made drivers would be forced to put more effort into linux compatability. Doing that will remove the need for lots of developers to spend time reverse engineering drivers (a slow and painful process). All those developers will then have time to spend improving the actual systems we use, not just kludging a bit of hardware to behave properly.

Secondly all the software that people are so frequently dismayed to find won't work on ubuntu (usually games, various torrent clients, itunes, etc) will slowly begin to produce compatible versions, simply because there is no way that the companies will abandon a large percentage of their potential userbase.

This is all somewhat chicken and egg, we sort of need these things to happen to get market penetration, which will then help drive these things to happen, but having linux's userbase expand would be highly beneficial,

But the discussion here is not about if marketing is desirable or not. The question is how do we market Ubuntu Linux ?

It may be a bit of a challenge because of the peculiarities of the development model, but without that model the product would not be what it is.
Indeed we need a way of marketing that fits 'the peculiarities of the development model'.
Now that it is clear that we need marketing, and considering all the difficulties stated in the first post, what is the best way to do it ?

[jocheem67]

But the discussion here is not about if marketing is desirable or not. The question is how do we market Ubuntu Linux ?


Now that it is clear that we need marketing, and considering all the difficulties stated in the first post, what is the best way to do it ?

That's a nice try to lock out the folks that don't agree with you;)

Marketing as a concept should imho always be subject to discussion, but what the heck.....show us how to do it then;)

[issih]

Frankly, I would love it if the ideals of the linux project were enough to see it flourish. I'd be ecstatic. I just don't see it happening.

To that end I'm all for some concerted push to drive linux adoption, and if we don't 'market' things then all we will have is vast swathes of users pissed off that they can't find the control panel, and that itunes won't run. We need to educate people about what linux is and what it can and can't do. To that end my original post in this thread advocated a more clearly focussed, stripped down distro aimed at the newcomer, something I think all linux distributions inevitably migrate away from (mostly due to the nature of the community, and that is not really meant as a criticism) even if it is their original goal. I do not mean a windows clone. I want linux only programs, very clear unavoidable explanations of how to get new programs and how not to, no Wine whatsoever, and all multimedia codecs and proprietary programs made very easily available.

We can argue amongst ourselves about the virtues or not of letting anything tainted by commercialism into our little ecosystem, but to new users coming in from windows, those arguments are utterly irrelevant, and we need to accept that if you want linux to grow (and I've already argued my case for why it should) you have to shelve those concerns and let people in the door. You can start trying to politicise them once they are hooked on the product.

There will always be people who want linux to remain 'elite' in the same way as there is always someone who hates every proposed piece of artwork for the next release. Large communities are brilliant at achieving certain things, they are also utterly incapable of unanimous agreement on anything whatsoever. This is why linux is the sprawling entity it is today. If we want people to come and join us, we need to hide some of that behind a curtain, at least at first :)

[koenn]

...We can argue amongst ourselves about the virtues or not of letting anything tainted by commercialism into our little ecosystem, ... politicise .... 'elite' ...
First, let's get something straight. People who don't share your opinion on marketing linux aren't necessarily elitists who's only concern is not letting anything tainted by commercialism into our little ecosystem. One could easily make the same sort of derogatory remarks about people who are in to marketing (here's a start : http://catb.org/jargon/html/M/marketroid.html - http://www.dack.com/web/********.html - http://www.dack.com/web/********.html ). I could slip some insults in my posts as easily as you do. Do we really want to go there ?



-----

Let's say you have a point. I can see how some forms of marketing could increase market share, and how that would have positive results in e.g. hardware support or porting of programs.

The problem with this thread is that the OP selectively quotes from an article, in such a way that it appears to be the software developers that are the cause for this "Hardest marketing problem ever".
Thats not the gist of the article in question - the author continues to propose as a solution that OEM's and hardware vendors start selling computers with Linux preinstalled, and (of course) handle the marketing of this product (Linux included).

That's just one possible implementation of what I've been saying a couple of times in this thread: let the coders code, and let the marketers market. The other way around won't work.

If you see other ways of marketing linux, do go ahead. Maybe here's a starting point : https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MarketingTeam/Proposal-Core-Marketers. Simply posting here is'nt going to help much, so you better get busy.

While we're at it, also don't forget that a large part of the "open source community" isn't interested in market share, compatibility with proprietary file formats, or the ability to run proprietary programs. Their goals and mission is to provide free software, not to cater for proprietary software on a free operating system, and you have to respect that choice (or force them in line at gun point ?).

[Tomosaur]

Tomosaur, you cannot possibly be more wrong.
Marketing is not about obscuring flaws. And in this case not even about making money, since Ubuntu is free. The purpose of marketing is attracting more users.

Have you ever heard a marketer talk about the product's flaws?

[lukjad]

Funny. I disagree with some points, but I don't care enough to make the needed 10 paragraph rebuttal.

[issih]

First, let's get something straight. People who don't share your opinion on marketing linux aren't necessarily elitists who's only concern is not letting anything tainted by commercialism into our little ecosystem. One could easily make the same sort of derogatory remarks about people who are in to marketing (here's a start : http://catb.org/jargon/html/M/marketroid.html - http://www.dack.com/web/********.html - http://www.dack.com/web/********.html ). I could slip some insults in my posts as easily as you do. Do we really want to go there ?


Um..ok.. calm down a bit, reread what I said with a slightly less impassioned eye, and notice that I didn't malign anyone or criticise them, and I certainly didn't insult anybody. In fact I pointed out that the very nature of large communities is that people with differing view points will be part of it.

My point about commercialism was following on from my own suggestion about how to make a more "marketable" distribution, which suggested making obtaining none free software as simple as we possibly can. I knew that this was a contentious point, and I understand why, so I gave my reason for doing so, and suggested we keep the infighting that occurs on this issue hidden from view and that we let people fall in love with Linux before we expose them to the full force OSS argument.

The elitist point is simple fact, there are people who want that, and indeed Linux forums have a very bad reputation for how that attitude prevails, and how intolerant they are of differing points of view. Fortunately that is NOT what happens here most of the time, but it is undeniably a tangible section of the very diverse linux community. I never said you were one or indeed implied that it would be wrong if you were, I merely said that we needed to shield new users from that side of the linux community until they had found their feet.

Any insult here is perceived at your end, and not intended. I'm afraid I'm not going to apologise because I don't think anything I said was out of order in any way.

Oh and for the record, I detest 'marketing' (which you will note I have quoted every time I've used it), I hate it with a passion. I have argued for increased linux marketshare, and stated my reasons. I am, however, a realist and I believe that 'marketing' of some form will be essential to achieve this without confusion and disaffection from people arriving believing that they are getting windows XP for free. It will also be necessary to have any hope of getting traction with users who have never considered installing an operating system, is it distasteful? yes, but sadly if you want to achieve certain things then the highest of ideals are nearly always sacrificed.

[jonathonblake]

Have you ever heard a marketer talk about the product's flaws?

Cray Research and its successor, Cray Computer Corporation spent more time telling companies and people why their systems were flawed, from the user's perspective, than what those systems could do.

[koenn]

Um..ok.. calm down a bit, reread what I said with a slightly less impassioned eye,
I'm so calm it's scary.
It just annoys me that anyone who doesn't jump for joy over things like Linux 'beating MS', "winning", 'increase market share', 'attract loads and loads of new users', "become mainstream" is automatically labeled an elitist - and usually elitist has some sort of negative connotation.
If you're the exception to whom elitist is a completely neutral word, OK, fine, so noted.

[saulgoode]

... I merely said that we needed to shield new users from that side of the linux community until they had found their feet.

So new users are enfeebled wretches needing to be shielded from the reality of Free Software by superior beings such as yourself who know what's best. How very egalitarian.

[issih]

So new users are enfeebled wretches needing to be shielded from the reality of Free Software by superior beings such as yourself who know what's best. How very egalitarian.

Good lord some people really do go looking to take offence don't they?

Consider this, on the one hand here is a 2 million page book explaining all the complexities and nuances of every foreign policy position between every country on the globe.

On the other here is a book that explains the basics of foreign policy decision making and diplomacy.

Which do you think is more helpful to someone with no experience of the subject?

Fair enough, someone who has worked in the field for years can dive in at the deep end and will get more from the complex arguments. But nobody learns like that...you start small and move up. Same goes for anyone coming to linux from windows in my opinion. You get their feet wet, then let them travel the path they wish to take through the wider community once they have a better chance of not drowning.

Secondly, yes, in some ways they do need protection, Linux communities have had a very bad reputation for treating new users as idiots and of being beneath all contempt. I simply said that if you want increased market share (which I've stated I do) that shielding people from those attitudes is a good plan. As I stated previously that attitude is not overtly prevalent here, and that is a good thing.

Either way, I'm done, I don't talk to people who choose to try and make things personal. if you want to talk about the merits of different positions then thats fine. If all you want to do is go looking for a reason to be rude and obnoxious and not bother to actually state anything useful yourself then I will not participate. I only bothered to continue because koenn did attempt to discuss things beyond being personal.

People who don't bother to argue with ideas are not worth arguing with.

[saulgoode]

Either way, I'm done, I don't talk to people who choose to try and make things personal. if you want to talk about the merits of different positions then thats fine. If all you want to do is go looking for a reason to be rude and obnoxious and not bother to actually state anything useful yourself then I will not participate. I only bothered to continue because koenn did attempt to discuss things beyond being personal.
The ability to perceive rudeness in the statements of others while failing to recognize it in one's own is quite amazing.

[Hilko]

Pffffff... enough of that. Let's try to get back to the topic.

Suppose you wanna attract more users to Ubuntu. How do you deal with difficulties such as, people don't know it exists, they don't see it in shops, they don't find it pre-installed on their new computer ?

I like the idea of a distribution targeted at newbies coming from windows. But I'm sure that's gonna take a while before it's there.

Another idea is making an Ubuntu propaganda page (http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/17265).

[howlingmadhowie]

With all the respect in the world to the work of linus and all the people who work on the kernel, in many ways it would almost be better, from a new user perspective, if a distro was put together that completely hid the linuxness, much as apple hides its unixness. The utter bewildering range of options for every single task is bad enough, but the infighting and large range of half finished projects compound the problem. Linux IS wonderful, it is also something that takes a fair amount of commitment to learn to love, most people don't have that attention span.

I'd almost prefer it if ubuntu shipped a version in which synaptic was hidden away, so people just saw add/remove and mention of the word linux was verbotten.

Tell everyone to only use the tools within the OS to get tools/programs, and be very clear that windows programs do NOT work..just forget about wine entirely.

A more focussed proposition has far more chance of penetrating the market with new users, imho.

Once people have found their feet they can step out into the wider world of chaos that linux is.

issih, and others who have made similar posts, you have to understand why so many dislike this sort of post.

the general tone is 'linux needs to changed. linux needs marketing. linux is chaos that no beginner should be forced to deal with'.

the first problem i see is that you continually refer to gnu/linux as linux. not many people are annoyed at this, but it does tell us something about you, namely that you either do not know about the history of free software, do not care about it, or have decided that 'gnu/linux' is too complicated.

you assume that marketing is a good idea because your main aim seems to be that linux gets more users. not everybody agrees with this. some are suspicious that changing gnu/linux to the level that joe the plumber can seamlessly change from windows xp to it would mean bastardising the software they know and love. some are suspicious of marketing in general. some don't like being told what they should want gnu/linux to be. some perceive a discussion about what gnu/linux should try to achieve as being orthogonal to gnu/linux itself. most seem to suspect that any attempt to steer gnu/linux development would require external pressure. i'm sure others can add things to this list.

these are valid concerns and either you should explicitly say that you are not interested in discussing them, or you should deal with them before going on to talk about marketing strategies.

i suggest you say that you are not interested in these concerns at the moment and as a purely mental exercise would like to talk about ways to market gnu/linux.

[WalmartSniperLX]

Honestly, this is a rather common and sensitive topic. There are both pros and cons when one discusses massive marketing of open source software.

First of all, open source does not carry the same mind set as MS and/or Apple. Open source software, in general, isn't there to compete with what is mainstream. Instead, it is more of an idea, not a product. It just so happens to be that Ubuntu is designed to bring regular end-users, or 'human beings' into the GNU/Linux and FOSS community. However, it was never designed to be a standard or a true competition for our favorite capitalist empire.

Then again, marketing will result in larger interest but does not promise a larger user base. There will always be people who think, "Windows works perfectly fine for me... why do I need to change?".

And honestly, with this in mind, marketing can be a good idea for those who strive to get Linux further into the market. However, mass marketing of FOSS may completely destroy the conservative beauty of open source software and what it stands for; the idea of sharing knowledge freely, to build on one another, and to bring humanity together to create something useful without a price in cost or freedom.

That's about as unbias as I can get on this one. :lolflag:

[jocheem67]

Maybe one should narrow this discussion and not wanna talk 'bout open source and it's philosophies..it might be better to discuss the strategies that cannonical could embrace to promote ubuntu....
Ubuntu being the distro that aims to bring linux to the masses, in that context I wouldn't mind learning about marketing-strategies...

The purists and the pragmatists, the capitalists and the socialists, the dreamers and the practical.....wouldn't they all be happy then?:lolflag:

[bubwitmaingay]

As Nelson Mandela would point out, "When a traveler stops in a village, he (she) will be welcomed with what the people can give." That is Ubuntu. You don't go walking around saying, "Hey man, we practice ubuntu in our village.", it is practiced not preached. It is doing your share to further the cause of the community.

This should be the point of Ubuntu all along. We don't just market it, but we give them out for people to see the result. As with my previous posts, my colleagues saw that it is Virus-Free (at least, when most use Microsoft here and MS users are bugged with viruses - not to mention the locally-created where international anti-virus softwares can't control), they dual-booted their machines with MS and GNU/Linux.

I would contend that it's very hard to convince them to leave MS but at least they saw the promise of Ubuntu. Newbies here even thought that MS is the only OS available, when in fact there are four major OS's. Try the Philippines and your "hardest" will be the "most hardest". ;)