Should Ubuntu drop the Linux-name? [Archive]

nuvo

July 9th, 2006, 04:27 PM

Indeed, there's little point in going into the nerdy jargon every time you try to talk about Ubuntu, or any other easy to use Linux OS for that matter.

It's better to say something like "Ubuntu can install many commonly used programs as the click of a button" than "Since Ubuntu is Debian based, it benefits from Debian's APT package manager for .DEB packages and allows you to install software using a graphical frontend called Synaptic".
Going into all the technical spiel is fine if you're talking to someone who knows linux and \ or understands how these things work, but for the less Linux confident person, saying that you can install x app with a wizard is much better.
Whenever I mention Ubuntu, I basically just go for Ubuntu 6.06 and only bring Linux and Debian up when talking to more technically inclined people.

Apple does say they use Unix as a base for OS X (on the server edition page anyway), they just avoid going all technical about it and just say that it crashes less and isn't affected by Windows viruses or hacks.

Personally, I think Ubuntu would be better off having the more technical stuff in a different section so that general computer users would basically get information on Ubuntu rather than Linux in the same way that Apple doesn't throw the fact that OS X uses BSD Unix as a base at you, but doesn't completely deny information on it either.

On the Apple switch page, it doesn't hit you with stuff like "OS X is built off of Unix, a stable and secure OS blah blah blah...", it simply says "Macs work from day one and don't get viruses like Windows", but when people ask why Linux is better, they get rants on package formats, file systems and such.
All that really needs to be said is "Linux doesn't crash as much, it doesn't get viruses like Windows, it lets you easily install apps without downloading them and running installers and it can be set up how you want it".

chajuram

July 9th, 2006, 04:53 PM

I agree with the blog.

One thing I would like to add is that there is a prudishness about the linux comunity. An attitude like "We don't care if anyone else uses it". In escence some people like it to be eclectic. While is is okay if there are some people (read distros) which are that, I believe there should be at least one distro which should not be so, ubuntu is perhaps the closest in that regard.

Why should we not care if there are more users? It is in the interest of all of us.

1. If ubuntu has a decent market share then may be website designers and software providers will make their products for linux. Who likes spending a day getting a website to work?

2. We have to try to get those marginal users, who hate windows, but are not sure if they can handle the strain of working on a linux computer. To get these users we need to make ubuntu acessible, leave out the jargon. But we also have to be truthful, no need to lie and say everything works out of the box.

3. And finally a linux machine (working properly) has made me a lot more productive than before, may be it can do the same for many people.

Chajuram.

Adamant1988

July 9th, 2006, 05:05 PM

These people are most likely better off using whatever they use now.
I disagree. I think we as ubuntu users need to be keen to spreading Ubuntu, not the confusion that it's parent OS/kernal creates.

aysiu

July 9th, 2006, 05:07 PM

It really depends on the user. I know a handful of Windows users who would be better off with Ubuntu, but they're scared of anything unfamiliar.

On the other hand, I've seen quite a number of potential Ubuntu migrants on these forums who would certainly be better off on Windows or Mac OS X.

Right now, since the options aren't easily interchangeable, there are people in all camps who "should" be using a different operating system.

zenwhen

July 9th, 2006, 05:10 PM

He makes very valid points. I think the people responsible for the text on the front page of Ubuntu.com should have a good look at this.

kabus

July 9th, 2006, 05:16 PM

I think we as ubuntu users need to be keen to spreading Ubuntu

Why ?

BWF89

July 9th, 2006, 05:31 PM

chajuram

July 9th, 2006, 05:51 PM

Why ?

How about these reasons?

Why should we not care if there are more users? It is in the interest of all of us.

1. If ubuntu has a decent market share then may be website designers and software providers will make their products for linux. Who likes spending a day getting a website to work?

2. A linux machine (working properly) has made me a lot more productive than before, may be it can do the same for many people.

Virogenesis

July 9th, 2006, 06:05 PM

hellmet

July 9th, 2006, 06:18 PM

True...Ubuntu is Linux..
I have successfully convinced 3 people in switching over to Ubuntu...
at the present dual booting pirated windows..
There was one who was frustrated with windows to the heck.
I suggested Ubuntu..
He said will I be able to ??
I said yes..
Once u r done with configurin ..yes..it gets easy then on.
all the while I was tellin him things like..yes u have
almost everything u have o Windows here..
The apps are gr8 and all...never used complex terms
to **** him off!!

One of my other friends said "NO" to linux
But I am sure I'd convince him into using it..
But the problem is that hez and avid gamer!!

Derek Djons

July 9th, 2006, 06:52 PM

If you look at Apple they also use the term 'Unix' to re-assure there more 'technical' customers. But in all the Apple Centre's I've been and with all the people I have spoken who bought a Mac the word 'Unix' almost never came to the service.

Also I did mentioned the word 'Unix' to customers. Very quickly I've stopped doing that. People love the story about Mac OS X but as soon as they hear Unix... it's over with the hapiness and their eyebrows start to twitch followed by all kinds of questions related to Windows compatiblity ans the fear of leaving Windows behind.

As some posters mentioned, Linux has got a bad name. It's a shame because Linux (THE KERNEL) is a fantastic and reliable kernel on which a beautiful OS / distribution can be build. Having read almost all post in this thread I ask myself what would be the general opinion of (Windows) people if they found a Linux distribution working bad in the past in stead of LINUX WORKING BAD IN THE PAST.

Adamant1988

July 9th, 2006, 07:02 PM

I think its better to say "I use Linux" rather than "I use Ubuntu". And than when someone asks what Linux is explain theres its a bunch of OS's and the one you use is called K/X/Ubuntu and its made to make desktop computing easy and others are geared more towards techies (Slackware, Gentoo), some are more for businesses (RedHat).

The computer market is a very fast moving one, the Linux market because of it's decentralized nature is constantly changing. If you just tell someone "You should use Ubuntu" and than something better comes out and within a year Ubuntu is where Fedora Core used to be on the distro watch list and isn't the flavor of the month anymore than you'll have to explain that X new distro is now the OS they should use if they want something easy to use.

Plus not mentioning that Ubuntu is Linux will make the other Linux communities hate us. Debian already dislikes us and if we don't even mention that Ubuntu is based on Debian they'll think that were ashamed of them and disrespect the work they've done.
It's fine if you *Personally* want to spread every single possible linux distro that you can think of, but I *personally* think it's better that people not be told Ubuntu is just another distro in a pond full.

Why? Well for one, if they don't like something in Ubuntu, you'll have to support their distro hopping until they find something that does work for them.. if you don't bother telling them that ubuntu is a linux distro, they'll be a little more keep to fix the problem or get it fixed.

Or I say "Hey ubuntu is a great OS, It's based on linux so you know it's stable and secure" I'm going to spend more time explaining linux and it's history to the 'customer' than I am going to be singing the praises of Ubuntu, and in the end I haven't convinced the person that Ubuntu is a better choice, but I've explained a hefty bit about linux.
Or "It's based on Debian which allows for apt-get" same thing, they're going to be more curious what debian is because they can't even understand that statement until they know what debian is.

So the real question is are we supposed to be spreading Ubuntu, or are we supposed to be spreading Ubuntu, Debian, Foss, Linux, and everything else?
Personally, I'm fine with saying 'ubuntu' and leaving it at that. Throwing in a bunch of Jargon like "X86 platform", "Linux", "Debian", etc. just serves to confuse a user who doesn't already know about those things... if they're interesting in what makes Ubuntu up that info should be available but we shouldn't go out of our way to confuse them.

Virogenesis

July 9th, 2006, 07:13 PM

It's fine if you *Personally* want to spread every single possible linux distro that you can think of, but I *personally* think it's better that people not be told Ubuntu is just another distro in a pond full.

Why? Well for one, if they don't like something in Ubuntu, you'll have to support their distro hopping until they find something that does work for them.. if you don't bother telling them that ubuntu is a linux distro, they'll be a little more keep to fix the problem or get it fixed.

Or I say "Hey ubuntu is a great OS, It's based on linux so you know it's stable and secure" I'm going to spend more time explaining linux and it's history to the 'customer' than I am going to be singing the praises of Ubuntu, and in the end I haven't convinced the person that Ubuntu is a better choice, but I've explained a hefty bit about linux.
Or "It's based on Debian which allows for apt-get" same thing, they're going to be more curious what debian is because they can't even understand that statement until they know what debian is.

So the real question is are we supposed to be spreading Ubuntu, or are we supposed to be spreading Ubuntu, Debian, Foss, Linux, and everything else?
Personally, I'm fine with saying 'ubuntu' and leaving it at that. Throwing in a bunch of Jargon like "X86 platform", "Linux", "Debian", etc. just serves to confuse a user who doesn't already know about those things... if they're interesting in what makes Ubuntu up that info should be available but we shouldn't go out of our way to confuse them.
If you don't explain properly you'll end up with a mono culture like windows.
People will think ubuntu only exists, promoting other distros will help fill areas that ubuntu can not fill such as the music industry.

Lord Illidan

July 9th, 2006, 07:13 PM

As some posters mentioned, Linux has got a bad name. It's a shame because Linux (THE KERNEL) is a fantastic and reliable kernel on which a beautiful OS / distribution can be build. Having read almost all post in this thread I ask myself what would be the general opinion of (Windows) people if they found a Linux distribution working bad in the past in stead of LINUX WORKING BAD IN THE PAST.

I didn't quite get what you meant here...

But I think it's like this. If I have a problem with Fedora Core, or Ubuntu, I know something about these distros, perhaps, minimal, but I would say "Fedora sucks", or "Ubuntu sucks", because of this or that feature. Another guy, who might not understand linux distributions, will say "LINUX SUCKS." period.

Adamant1988

July 9th, 2006, 07:19 PM

If you don't explain properly you'll end up with a mono culture like windows.
People will think ubuntu only exists, promoting other distros will help fill areas that ubuntu can not fill such as the music industry.
I'm not saying we should hide the fact it's linux and debian based, I'm saying we shouldn't be parading it. The information should definitely be available for anyone who wants it, and I'm sure it wouldn't be too long using the Ubuntu forums or such before people figured out it's a linux distro.

kabus

July 10th, 2006, 08:51 AM

Why should we not care if there are more users? It is in the interest of all of us.

More developers would be in the interest of all of us.
More businesses using Linux may be in the interest of all of us.
Nobody really cares about end users, and the type of end user that we discuss here is just an added support headache, nothing more.

1. If ubuntu has a decent market share then may be website designers and software providers will make their products for linux. Who likes spending a day getting a website to work?

Websites should be OS-independent. If people can't even get something this fundamental right, it's probably better not to use their site/do business with them.

2. A linux machine (working properly) has made me a lot more productive than before, may be it can do the same for many people.

Other people's productivity isn't really my business.
But 'people who [...] don't want to waste time finding out' a few things about a new OS will certainly be more productive with what they already know.

If you just tell someone "You should use Ubuntu" and than something better comes out and within a year Ubuntu is where Fedora Core used to be on the distro watch list and isn't the flavor of the month anymore than you'll have to explain that X new distro is now the OS they should use if they want something easy to use.

Good point. Seen it happen often enough by now.

3rdalbum

July 10th, 2006, 11:35 AM

Linux does have some brand-name recognition, especially among people who have downloaded open-source software (e.g. Peer-To-Peer clients). It has some recognition amongst people who have downloaded Google Earth or Picasa.

Ubuntu doesn't have that recognition. If people don't know that it's Linux, they could think "Yeah, but if it's something I haven't heard of, there's not going to be any software for it".

BWF89

July 10th, 2006, 01:45 PM

Some of the people think that by saying Ubuntu is infact Linux that it'll stir up some bad blood with people that have used Linux in the past and found it lacking.

I'm sure if you say the word "Windows 95" to people it'll stir up alot of bad blood, but everyone uses Windows XP and despite what some of the zealots are saying it doesn't crash taht much.

And if your technical enough that you've attempted to install Linux in the past your techincal enough to know that computers (software and hardware) is improving by leaps and bounds. Especially over the course of years.

egon spengler

July 13th, 2006, 11:02 PM

Indeed, there's little point in going into the nerdy jargon every time you try to talk about Ubuntu, or any other easy to use Linux OS for that matter.

It's better to say something like "Ubuntu can install many commonly used programs as the click of a button" than "Since Ubuntu is Debian based, it benefits from Debian's APT package manager for .DEB packages and allows you to install software using a graphical frontend called Synaptic".

You're stating the very obvious here

Some of the people think that by saying Ubuntu is infact Linux that it'll stir up some bad blood with people that have used Linux in the past and found it lacking.

I'm sure if you say the word "Windows 95" to people it'll stir up alot of bad blood, but everyone uses Windows XP and despite what some of the zealots are saying it doesn't crash taht much.

And if your technical enough that you've attempted to install Linux in the past your techincal enough to know that computers (software and hardware) is improving by leaps and bounds. Especially over the course of years.

I don't think any of that is really true. I've encountered computer literate people, XP power users in fact, who in 2006 loudly pronounce the undesirabilty of Linux because "It's ugly. You need to install programs from the command line. It's harder to install than Windows. There is little to no hardware support" Basically just repeating thinga that they heard about Linux 8 years ago as if they are still true today. I think that undeniably for what ever reason (and more than likely a poor reason) a lot of people have made their mind up against anything Linux.

That said I would 100% agree that there is no reason to shy away from mentioning that ubuntu is a Linux distro.

richbarna

July 14th, 2006, 12:40 AM

I like the idea of avoiding the word Linux. If you call it Ubuntu OS, and more people have a different impression of it, then good.
What do you "really" think of when someone mentions the word "linux"?
Or more to the point, what do windows users think of ?

I hate stereotypes, but most think of 40 something, long haired, bearded, American guys, on 1990's TV computer documentaries, speaking in a technical language that may as well be Chinese.

I want linux to become widespread so that maybe the large corporations like Sony and Canon will take notice and start releasing drivers. I would like to see gamers being able to use any game they choose without Wine/Cedega.

I would like to see someone like Mark Shuttleworth making money from Ubuntu to continue doing this :-

In the hope that risk capital can be as important for social development as it is for the economy, Mark has also created a non-profit organisation that supports social innovation in education in Africa. The Shuttleworth Foundation funds projects that have the potential to bring about dramatic improvements to some aspect of the education system and hopes to improve both the quality and the reach of education in Africa. The Foundation has worked in all 9 provinces of South Africa, funding initiatives from teachers, small businesses and private individuals. The Foundation is also an advocate of the role of open-source software in education and in developing countries.

Instead of the likes of Bill Gates accruing billions of dollars while others can't even get a clean glass of water.

So if leaving out the word "Linux" gets more people interested, I'm all for it.

RavenOfOdin

July 14th, 2006, 12:45 AM

Reasons to bill Ubuntu as a Linux distribution:

1) It doesn't make Ubuntu users seem like the elitists of the FLOSS world, or like they're isolated.
2) On the same coin as another poster who brought up the "Linux sucks" issue -- It can to the opposite effect help the reputation of Linux among desktop users if they like what they see. This should be motivation for better products and a more professional atmosphere.
3) Brand name recognition -- see above posts. Ubuntu hasn't been around all that long.
4) It uses the Linux kernel.

As to the whole "tech jargon" issue, that shouldn't be viewed as a necessary component of desktop Linux. If I'm using Windows XP, am I going to point a new user to the Registry and start walking him through how to hack it bit by bit? No.

lapsey

July 14th, 2006, 12:49 AM

I would like to see someone like Mark Shuttleworth making money from Ubuntu to continue doing this :-

Instead of the likes of Bill Gates accruing billions of dollars while others can't even get a clean glass of water.

Er.... (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/)

aysiu

July 14th, 2006, 12:51 AM

There are two things at issue here:

1. How Ubuntu chooses to market itself officially
2. How we as users "market" Ubuntu to our friends, acquaintances, and family members

The two don't have to be the same. They could be. They don't have to be. I think it makes sense for Ubuntu and Canonical to acknowledge the Linux and Debian roots of the system. Do they have to mention them in every press release and on every page on the website? No. Those things can be acknowledged without being emphasized.

I'm definitely in favor of emphasizing Ubuntu as its own thing, not just because people have preconceived notions of what "Linux" is, but also because I don't know if Ubuntu is for everybody. I don't want people writing off all of Linux just because Ubuntu didn't do what they want.

For example, I hate it when people say, "The problem with Linux is that you have to install all these codecs manually or dig around to find Automatix." Well, if you use Mepis, you don't. If you use PCLinuxOS or Blag, you don't. I want people to think of the Linux distros as distinct operating systems (which they really are), so if Ubuntu doesn't work out, they can try something else.

hizaguchi

July 14th, 2006, 01:37 AM

richbarna

July 14th, 2006, 02:23 AM

Er.... (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/)

Yeah, I know, Easy to give away 9 million from shares and profits when you've got billions. Also easy when you get 30 billion with 1 donation. The 40% tax gift is nice too. And the bonus is when you make an 8% profit on the "charity".

Hell, if I had 30 billion I would start a charity too, maybe it would make me feel good about the billions I made by ripping people off. Nice clean helpful Bill. Poor guy always being attacked from all sides with multi-million dollar lawsuits.

Yes the Gates foundation does a lot of good, well done. But compare the percentage of Shuttleworths fortune that is given to charity, and the percentage of Gates fortune.

eeried

July 14th, 2006, 08:05 AM

I don't believe in advertizing strategies which are often a way of lying to people or hiding away part of the truth.

The truth is Ubuntu is derived from Debian and is one of Linux distros. This must be stated clearly (as it is now at last on the Ubuntu website).

I tell people who waste so much time protecting their Windows box or else are overcome by viruses and other problems (intrusions, spyware) that Liunx is an alternative and comes in various flavours, and Ubuntu for instance would suit them. Of course they need to be shown Ubuntu Live and then they'll see Linux is no monster. If I don't mention Linux at all, how will I explain that I don't use Ubuntu now but Debian? They'll understand better if they're told Linux is variegated, and Ubuntu just one excellent Linux distro they can use and enjoy.

The strength of Linux is its variety. Even some distros are made with children in mind (Edubuntu, Freeduc) while Windows, or Mac don't cater for them (and couldn't care less, they treat their users like morons).

Actually the real hurdle is hardware: manufacturers of many ink-jet and all-in-one printers don't offer drivers for Linux. So when people have just bought a brand-new discount printer which won't work with Linux, and even if you explain this is not the fault of Linux, you can't expect them to use Linux. Many people use a printer daily (printing out family pictures is a popular computer activity) and for them Linux is therefore no use, not even in dual boot. You can't expect them to have to quit Linux and switch to Windows when they want to print out some document :twisted:

Cheers,

BWF89

July 15th, 2006, 03:58 AM

I think it's important to mention not only Linux, but also Gnu. Because no matter how nice it would be for our market share to grow by leaps and bounds, it isn't worth it if that results in a mindless flock of users that have no idea how important it is that their free software is free.

Why? Because even if everybody suddenly switched from Windows to Ubuntu, the demand for proprietary software wouldn't end. The OS is only part of the story. There is still Flash, and mp3, and DVD, and tons of others. If Windows ceased to exist today, proprietary formats would become available for Linux almost instantly. And then there would be no urgent need for open source alternatives... which would draw many developers away from those projects. We'd eliminate a proprietary OS but further secure the positions of dozens of proprietary formats in the process.
That's true. It reminds me of RMS saying on the direct-to-DVD documentary Revolution OS that many people are being let into our open source (or free software if you will) community without being taught the civics of our community. Such as that our software isn't only (most of the time) free to use but also free to study, modify, or rebrand. If you just let tons of people start useing Linux without teaching them about the freedom Linux grants than when lawyers, corporations, or corrupt politicians go to pass laws to restrict the users freedoms the users won't organize politicially to try to defend their freedoms because they don't even know they exist.

Johnsie

July 15th, 2006, 04:31 AM

I think the word Ubuntu sounds less nerdy/geeky that the word Linux.

For many years Linux has been associated with geeks.... Most non-geek people on the other hand have not heard of the word Ubuntu.

Also, Ubuntu seems like a more friendly word than Linux. You can explain the meaning of the word and let people know that poor people in developing countries can afford it because it's free. Do the whole charity thing, make them see they are doing a good thing for the developing world!

I think the best way to promote Ubuntu is to either let other people see you using Ubuntu and everything working smoothly and looking good, post screenshots of your desktop looking cool and telling people that Ubuntu is like Windows only free, with no spyware and a bunch of free software :-)

The word Linux can scare people and those who did venture into the Linux world a few years ago may already have impressions of it from all those years ago.

People need to know that Ubuntu is different from those misconceptions. You can explain that is is Linux but it is a special type of Linux designed to be easy to use for beginners.

My two cents :-)

phunkalicious

July 15th, 2006, 05:51 AM

I complete agree with the author; a difficult issue in getting Ubuntu, and Linux as a whole, out there is the lack of marketing. But I don't think this is because companies like Novell or Canonical aren't trying, just that it is very hard. One of the great strengths of Linux is choice; the ability to choose your distribution, your desktop manager, etc. I think though a lot of these choices are overwhelming to your average computer user, which is the big weakness of having all these choices. It's just a difficulty that comes with open source software, and frankly, I don't have the answer. Linux users all have their own wants and needs, and the fact that there are so many choices allows them to choose whichever distribution they would like to use, or whichever is easiest, etc. It's not like Microsoft where you have one choice, which is a good thing. But it is also very difficult to advertise in such a highly fragmented market.

aysiu

July 15th, 2006, 06:04 AM

I've never found one choice to be a good thing.

Not when it comes to search engines. Not when it comes to web browsers. Not when it comes to pizzas, cars, tissue brands, grocery stores, universities, or airlines.

Why would one choice be good for operating systems or desktop environments, then?

It's not choice that's bad--it's lack of education about those choices.

I think it makes a lot more sense to say, "Here, take this quiz (http://www.zegeniestudios.net/ldc/)" or "Go to DistroWatch (http://distrowatch.com/) and learn about the differences" than to just say, "Use whatever works for you" or "Just pick from Debian, Mandriva, Ubuntu, SuSE, PCLinuxOS, Mepis, Damn Small Linux, Gentoo, or Slackware."

slider

July 15th, 2006, 06:54 AM

I think it is dishonest to try and hide the fact that Ubuntu is a Linux distro. A lot of people have done a lot of work over the years and deserve credit for that. Growth for growth's sake doesn't work. You have to grow the open source community and teach people the benefits and responsibilities it brings. Sure, there is no reaon to overwelm non-technical users with jargon. That is true in any form of communication. At the same time, you can tell them it is linux and tell them their assumptions are wrong and outdated and then show them why.

phunkalicious

July 17th, 2006, 06:42 AM

I meant it is a good thing for Microsoft. They don't have to worry about supporting one hundred different versions of their operating systems, with tons of different GUIs, and package management, etc. This is why the LSB is a good start, but there needs to be more standardization across the board; that way, developers can concentrate on making new and good features rather than always having to worry about integration issues. And that way, there can be variations and differences between the distributions, but still have some standards that make sure Linux works for everyone, and money can be spent on marketing it more.

egon spengler

July 17th, 2006, 10:25 AM

forrestcupp

July 17th, 2006, 01:20 PM

It's not dishonest to use advertising skills to make a product look great if the product truly is great. I think the answer to this is on the front page to really butter up the product in terms that the average user can understand; terms that make them salivate. Then have a separate "Specs" page that the geeks can go to and see what's under the hood. This would be all-inclusive, and a good way to promote a product to everyone.

aysiu

July 17th, 2006, 06:51 PM

Some people seem to be viewing this in very extreme terms--that we either mention Linux and Debian everywhere or not at all.

There can be various shades of gray in this. You can mention Debian and Linux without emphasizing them. You can talk about them on the website but not in person. It's not an all-or-nothing situation.

Esben Kramer

November 15th, 2006, 09:06 PM

Publicly saying that it is a Linux-system, scares away a lot of people, if you ask me. I'm not saying that we should use another kernel, or hide the fact that it IS a linux-distro, but maybe not advertise it? What you hear is, that Ubuntu is a great linux-distro, not that Ubuntu is a great OS, and that alone makes it sound nerdy enough to scare away a lot of people, who wouldn't even have any problems running the system. What do you think?

earobinson

November 15th, 2006, 09:08 PM

I think its important to support our roots. Also when people try ubuntu and know its linux a lot of people try other distros also and that is a win for us. I feel that dropping the "linux for human beings" would do more harm than good.

maniacmusician

November 15th, 2006, 09:11 PM

I agree. We should not drop linux from our name. Not only would it do harm, it would also be disrespectful. Linux is what we are.

BarfBag

November 15th, 2006, 09:11 PM

Open source is about honoring what you're rooted in, and improving on it. If anything, we need more.

lazyart

November 15th, 2006, 09:11 PM

I'm hesitant to agree with dropping "Linux". I understand the OP's point of view. Maybe a slogan along the lines of-

Ubuntu - Linux for non-Geeks.

Esben Kramer

November 15th, 2006, 09:16 PM

I know that laying off the Linux-name would look very bad in the eyes of the Linux-community. Lazyart has probably got it more right than me, with Linux for non-geeks, but I'm still afraid that the Linux name may hurt Ubuntu more in the eyes of John Doe.

earobinson

November 15th, 2006, 09:17 PM

I'm hesitant to agree with dropping "Linux". I understand the OP's point of view. Maybe a slogan along the lines of-

Ubuntu - Linux for non-Geeks.
but it is all ready "linux for human beings"

aysiu

November 15th, 2006, 09:21 PM

Merged with an older thread about the same thing--just to give some context for the discussion.

I like this subject title better (it's more accurately descriptive), though, so I kept it as the main title.

Esben Kramer

November 15th, 2006, 09:23 PM

But Linux for human beings doesn't REALLY get the point across. People don't go "Oh. I'm a human. This is for me." They go "Linux? Human beings, yeah right!".

qamelian

November 15th, 2006, 09:23 PM

but it is all ready "linux for human beings"

I agree. And Ubuntu has features to satisfy both the geeky and non-geeky. I've been using Linux as my primary OS for about 8 years, starting with SuSE 5.2, and I've never enjoyed any distro more than Ubuntu for all my computer-oriented tasks.

Esben Kramer

November 15th, 2006, 09:32 PM

Thanks for joining it with this thread. The first post links to a nice blog

http://clearnightsky.com/node/242

Which pretty much explains my point better than I took the time to do. Read it, and think it over...if you want.

Ramses de Norre

November 15th, 2006, 09:35 PM

I think it's useful to talk about ubuntu Linux and make clear that ubuntu fits in a greater world of operating systems with many things in common.
After all it is a fact that once you know for example ubuntu pretty well, it wont be such a hassle to start using suse or zenwalk than it would be when you were using windows or OS X before.
And in the end Linux will lose its bad name I hope.

aysiu

November 15th, 2006, 09:49 PM

I don't really care either way. I see the point in dropping it, but I also don't think it'll make much of a difference.

Mac OS X can get away with not mentioning being based on BSD because it actually has more name recognition than BSD has. You can stop any Jane Schmoe on the street and ask her "What's a Macintosh?" "What's a Mac?" or "What's an Apple computer?" and you'll get far more meaningful responses than from "What's BSD?" or "What's Darwin?"

On the other hand, unless you live in South Africa, the word Ubuntu will probably mean even less to you than Linux. You're going to have to explain either way.

Besides, most people I know who would assume Linux is for servers are savvy enough to install Ubuntu themselves. The people I know who aren't computer savvy haven't even heard of Linux, and only a small subset of them know what an "operating system" is.

Old Pink

November 15th, 2006, 09:51 PM

If Ubuntu didn't mention Linux, I wouldn't have found it. I searched for, and found a good Linux distribution. I think this whole "Linux for human beings" craze has dumbed Ubuntu down a little too much. :(

DC@DR

November 15th, 2006, 09:53 PM

I would prefer the slogan: "GNU/Linux for human beings" :)

deanlinkous

November 15th, 2006, 10:34 PM

more GNU+Linux stuff for me, please!

Brunellus

November 15th, 2006, 11:27 PM

I would prefer the slogan: "GNU/Linux for human beings" :)
"GNU/Linux: Software naming for pedants."

shining

November 15th, 2006, 11:54 PM

* Ubuntu is suitable for both desktop and server use. The current Ubuntu release supports PC (Intel x86), 64-bit PC (AMD64) and PowerPC (Apple iBook and Powerbook, G4 and G5) architectures.

That's what the home page of Ubuntu.com says about 66% of the way down. I'll posit the average user's 7-second reactions:

1. Huh?
2. Oh, it's for servers.
3. Oh, it's for hardware I don't have.
4. Oh, it's for people who are unix programmers.

Huh? What the hell is that?
Either you don't understand because you're missing some computer knowledge, and you can answer 1. , or you do understand what it means. What the hell are 2. 3. and 4. ?

This is called benefit selling, and it's beautiful. I wish we could market Ubuntu Dapper Drake like this!

Oh, I see, marketing... ](*,)

Polygon

November 16th, 2006, 12:37 AM

im not going to even read that blog because i know whatever he says he is wrong

ubuntu is a distrubution for linux, and everyone who uses it should know this. We should not try to hide what ubuntu really is.

.t.

November 16th, 2006, 12:46 AM

People are scared of Linux. They'll find out when they need to. Sell it as Ubuntu, and the good experience they get will make them think more of it. I never say, "oh and it's Linux", although I sometimes refer to it as plainly "Linux", as that rolls off the tongue better when you talk fast. They sometimes seem confused when I do that, though...

Esben Kramer

November 16th, 2006, 12:58 AM

No...not hide it! But 'marketing' it as linux will scare away some people, as I said before. This may not be a problem for us who already use the system, but for people who are just surfing around, not knowing anything about Linux, except that it is 'hard and geeky' will be put off by hard emphasis on Linux. I'm not saying that we should hide it, but a slight change in the wording could probably do a lot.

Besides, I'm also all about changing to frontpage of ubuntu.com. I know it does the job, and that somebody has to change it, which will mean a lot of work, but a nicer and more 'friendly' layout would do wonders. As it is now, it, too, makes the OS seem nerdy and scary. Windows-users who come to the page will see a lot of stuff they know nothing about, and the weird green news-box in the top makes it seem a little 'home-made'. I know a lot of people will disagree, and say that simpler is better, but it can be simple as well as instantly appealing. A good example is the OS X-page, which has a nice design (although it's very dark), that also gives the impression that this is what the system looks like. This should be pretty standard - the homepage of an OS, should show the OS from its best side, so visitors gets a general idea of how the system looks. Well...enough blabber from me.

glotz

November 16th, 2006, 02:29 AM

more GNU+Linux stuff for me, please!Ditto!

We need to enlighten the hordes who are carrying the burden of the MS darkness, not cheat them into using some OS that's real good!

The foolish or childish people will embrace FLOSS only first when it is windows; The market leader that everything else revolves around. That is, never ever. The smarter and more advanced people will discover Ubuntu easier among all the fluff and scams we're bombarded by every day if we openly and proudly call it GNU/Linux. I really like the simple and effective way debian describes the facts http://www.debian.org/

deanlinkous

November 16th, 2006, 02:33 AM

What about the foolish AND childish?

glotz

November 16th, 2006, 03:12 AM

:lol:

DonConradioni

November 16th, 2006, 03:48 AM

At first I thought that he was crazy.

However, I think he does have a point now. Linux has a lot of bad-name recognition, which has stuck to it. People who used Linux, say, 2-5 years ago, when it looked ugly, and wasn't good at all unless you knew how to configure it, took a bad impression and remained with it.

Tell me about it. I just switched finally, and all of my friends give me a weird look like I am crazy for undertaking switching or a computer genius because i can work with a Linux style system. A few have converted since I showed them how easy it was to set-up, but the stigma still remains. I say keep the Linux name but making the point that its the way to ease into the Linux universe is a good one

Polygon

November 16th, 2006, 04:33 AM

so instead of ditching the name alltogether, we need to work on it getting a better reputation.

Brunellus

November 16th, 2006, 04:21 PM

so instead of ditching the name alltogether, we need to work on it getting a better reputation.
the reputation is already out there and nearly impossible to change. Back during the dot-com era, Linux was ridiculously overhyped--there was more hype than development muscle. Linux was *definitely* not ready back then for anything but server use.

But the hype began overtaking the reality--and as people tested the hype, they came back posting the regular LINUX IS NOT READY rants.

Unless and until the using public is *compelled* to switch OSes, they won't.

For me, Ubuntu remains "Linux for Human Beings" because it strikes a good balance between power and tweakability on the one hand and ease of maintenance on the other. But I remain pessimistic about the prospects of The Masses awakening and installing Linux en masse.

EdThaSlayer

November 16th, 2006, 04:50 PM

If Ubuntu dropped the Linux name, it would sound very weird, and people might think that it is not related to Linux(especially Linux guys that want to switch to Ubuntu).But I agree with the fact that they should use easier and better words to describe how great Ubuntu is.

Bachstelze

November 16th, 2006, 06:21 PM

Complete rubbish. Linux is not a "parent OS" of Ubuntu, Ubuntu is Linux, period - and it's a kernel, not a "kernal". If people are confuse just by the name "Linux", I can't imagine how they will be confused when they have it installed. I agree they're better of with theit current OS.

Henry Rayker

November 16th, 2006, 06:35 PM

Lies by exclusion are lies nonetheless. If we make it a point to "sell" the software through lies, we might as well be using M$.

argie

November 16th, 2006, 06:47 PM

I have a dislike for this idea for a couple of reasons:

1. You are not giving credit where it is due.
2. There are programs for Linux which don't have any Ubuntu packages. This way that user is not going to be able to know that program exists, if their search keywords are anything similiar to mine. e.g. movie player linux, would become movie player ubuntu, and, assuming there was a lovely movie player for linux and not ubuntu specifically, I wouldn't see it with the second search.
3. The same problem, but think hardware. As an example, "nvidia geforce linux drivers" and "nvidia geforce ubuntu drivers" give different results (for me atleast), and the first is gives me the linux driver page on the nvidia site, the other gives me an outdated HowTo.

See, most people I know are scared by the "Linux" name at first, but like aysiu said already, showing works better :)

EDITPS: I just saw that osx features page linked to in the blog and I was surprised to see them touting stuff that I've accepted as standard as a "feature". I mean, "GCC 4"? "Burn folders"? Come on!
http://www.apple.com/macosx/newfeatures/over200.html

Henry Rayker

November 16th, 2006, 06:55 PM

One more point: It is cold, but I firmly believe that if you are so frightened by a word ("Linux") that you won't even look into the OS, your chances of installing, configuring and everything are very slim. It would be a different thing altogether if it were preinstalled on a computer; if the OS is preinstalled and configured, I think anyone can use it.

chrisblessing

September 4th, 2007, 09:03 AM

My school uses several versions of Linux (Mandriva, PCLinuxOS, Fedora 7) on teacher and student computers, and has 3 Edubuntu labs. Students and staff are well aware of and quite comfortable with Linux and understand that Ubuntu is one of many distributions. I would regard it as patronizing to discuss Ubuntu out of the Linux/open source context. What if users of all distros chose this tact? Ubuntu, like other distributions, is as successful for what it is not (Windows, Mac OSX) as for what it is (Linux).

karellen

September 4th, 2007, 09:31 AM

Why ?

drivers

lyceum

September 4th, 2007, 11:40 AM

I decided to stop saying Linux a while back, as I realized that I could just as well say I was using Gnome Ubuntu, Linux is just one part, even thought it may be the most important part. Any how, I had to call AT&T for tech support and the lady asked me what OS I used. I told her Ubuntu. She asked me if that was Linux, and stated that they did not support Linux. I told her it was not Linux, but that it was build on the Linux kernel. So then she said okay and walked me through the process of fixing the problem, which just required Firefox or IE anyway. So, I agree with the artical.

:popcorn:

Larkshall

September 4th, 2007, 12:34 PM

In the UK, helpline operators are likely to throw a fit if you mention any OS other than Windows. The benefit of using Ubuntu is that it discourages any one from messing around with your machine. They switch on and are greeted with a screen they don't know, then it asks for a name and password. They may mess around for a while but eventually give up.

bowens44

September 4th, 2007, 12:40 PM

Misleading and distorting the truth is always a good idea..........

Ubuntu IS linux. IMO to imply other wise (through omission) is a lie.

forrestcupp

September 4th, 2007, 02:40 PM

Necroposting is cool.

For Ubuntu to not plainly mention Linux is worse than when they stopped plainly mentioning that they are a derivative of Debian. Remember when everyone was whining about that? Well in my opinion, leaving Linux out of the picture is even worse than that.

glotz

September 4th, 2007, 03:12 PM

<Zap>

mocoloco

September 4th, 2007, 07:23 PM

I finally found the blog post I was looking for, that basically suggests the opposite, that is, focusing mainly on the Linux name rather than distro names.
http://www.beatniksoftware.com/blog/?p=55
He makes some strong arguments.

I do think it would be good to see better use of the brand recognition Linux has, and Tux. On the other hand what's the best way to do that? I've seen the Tux with the distro logo on his tummy as a way to portray distros as being Linux, but would that just thow people off? How can you toute it as Linux, when each distro experience is so vastly different?
I've like Ubuntu's simplification of things, for example completely separate distros for Gnome and KDE, since to an end user a different UI is like a different OS. I guess I'm on the fence here :).
Ultimately I think what's being done now works well, the name is Ubuntu, the sub-title is "Linux for Human Beings".

Quillz

September 4th, 2007, 07:26 PM

I didn't read the article, I just came in this thread to post that "Linux for human beings" is a fine slogan, and there's little need to change it.

glupee

September 4th, 2007, 08:03 PM

In my opinion it's silly to think that dropping the linux will help people be more comfortable with it whether linux has a bad stigma attached to it or not. The linux is what gives ubuntu name recognition. People are more likely to trust a name they've heard before as opposed to something completely new specially when competing w/ m$ (and that's almost all name recognition).

Blondie

September 4th, 2007, 10:04 PM

http://clearnightsky.com/node/242
So the argument against this is that mentioning Linux/debian serves to support Ubuntu's claim of stability. I don't think that's a good argument as the people who know what makes up Ubuntu already know about debian and Linux in general, and the people who don't know probably don't want to waste time finding out; they just want something that works.

It's stupid to namedrop Debian in trying to make Ubuntu sound stable, Ubuntu is more famous than Debian. Anyone who knows what Debian is also knows what Ubuntu is unless they've been in a coma for four years.

lyceum

September 5th, 2007, 12:58 AM

The smarter and more advanced people will discover Ubuntu easier among all the fluff and scams we're bombarded by every day if we openly and proudly call it GNU/Linux.

If the people the work on Linux, and the man that MADE Linux say that it is Linux, how is it smarter to call it GNU/Linux? In reality, it is Linux/GNU. GNU came first, but Linux makes it run. If you took away Linux, GNU would have no OS. You can take other non-GNU programs to make a Linux OS. I cannot proudly call anything that which it is not. Linux is Linux, GNU is GNU. When you put them together you have many different distros, and each have their own name. To me Linux/GNU should ONLY have the Linux kernel and GNU programs. Once you get one program that is not GNU, it is Linux/GNU/?/? for each group making the program. ex: Firefox is not GNU, so all Linux and GNU with Firefox would be Linux/GNU/Mozilla. Linux is first, as it is the kernel, GNU second for the GUI interface and Mozilla last for the Firefox web browser. The more programs, the longer the name. How is that smarter? None of it make sense to me. And if I do not get it, I know the average Joe will be even more confused, as I use the stuff everyday and they are new. Linux is only one part of the OS. I do not use Linux alone. I use it blended with other high quality programs created my many hard working people. That mixture is called Ubuntu. Therefore, I use Ubuntu. Ubuntu is still new to the world, so "Linux for human beings" makes sense for those that have heard of Linux, as it means "Linux made easy". For those that do not know Linux, it really does not matter either way, to them it is just Ubuntu.

my 2 cent.

Billy_McBong

September 5th, 2007, 03:13 AM

I People are more likely to trust a name they've heard before as opposed to something completely new specially when competing w/ m$ (and that's almost all name recognition).

not if they have heard bad things about Linux

RAV TUX

September 5th, 2007, 03:45 AM

After reading the article linked in the OP:

I neither agree or disagree....

There is a successful clothing store in Maryland, their logo is "An Educated Consumer is our best Customer"

What does this mean?...they actually ran ads educating their potential customers and gave them the beginning basic knowledge to make an educated choice why buying clothes at their store was better then any other store.

They then ended it with: "An Educated Consumer is our best Customer" (or something close to that)

While divorcing the name Linux from an OS is nothing new, it is exactly what I have done when I changed the name of "Oz Linux" to "Oz Enterprise", "Oz GNOME", "Oz KDE", "Oz Rx" "Oz Live (GNOME), Oz Live (KDE). All of the new names do not have Linux in it.

So the idea is a good idea, since I incorporated this some time ago with Oz.

...but again even if you divorced the name Linux form Ubuntu it would still come up.

I remember when I first started using Ubuntu and I was spreading ship-it Cd's around like wildfire, I gave a CD to a Apple user, not just your average Apple user but a major Apple investor. We started discussing in depth Operating Systems and in the end. He stated Apple and Linux are both based on Unix and that is why Apple is so good. Most Apple users are very informed and aware of the Unix base that OS X shares with Linux. This is not in question.

Are the average Windows users this informed?...probably not.

Here comes the kicker while Ubuntu without Linux would be a great marketing ploy, would it be a road Ubuntu wants to go down?

Mark stated once, he did not want an accidental Ubuntu user. I agree with this philosophy.

I believe an educated user is our best potential Ubuntu Linux user.

The problem is, I have met and talked to more people then I can count, doctors, lawyers, successful business owners who get that 'deer-in-the-headlights' look when I say "Operating System" or even "Wikipedia".......believe me most people are not that into computers. They pay their IT guy to come and fix things and they just want it to work when they push that familiar button.

I think while it sounds like a grand idea, it will do little to nothing to help Ubuntu.

Of course last time I went against the grain, of the Ubuntu pop-ideas I was thought of as mad. Call me a madman but I believe we need to pull our head out of our monitor display lights and realize when we start speaking Zulu and computers to people they have no idea what the hell we're talking about. Some have little interest in such things also.

This does not mean that some people who are interested can't be stirred to be of further interest and educated. We all know true knowledge is true power.

...but this idea of divorcing Linux from Ubuntu is not the epiphany of marketing ideas, and it is not the savior that the white rabbit spoke of either.

It's a marketing idea, a very old one. That is all. Will it help?...perhaps, but then agian perhaps not.

vishzilla

September 5th, 2007, 05:10 AM

ubuntu's popularity is good for the linux community. "linux" shouldn't be dropped

Dimitriid

September 5th, 2007, 05:39 AM

In México we say "Ni tanto que queme al santo, ni tanto que no lo alumbre". I say the current "link" between Ubuntu and Linux is just the right ammount: neither too much Linux preaching that might scare newbies, nor complete distancing that alienates the Linux community.

To sum up, now I remember what American's say: "If it ain't broken, don't fix it"

tehkain

September 5th, 2007, 07:37 AM

I am an advocate for the GNU+Linux wording instead of Linux, but I will argue on another platform. Lets look at something that has spun off of ubuntu - Nexenta. It is a GNU/Solaris system that is very much ubuntu based. By classifying ourselves in this way we are limiting the product by name. We are using the GNU and the Linux kernel sure, but we should not limit ourselves even by naming it GNU+Linux. What happens if or when Solaris drops its kernel to gpl3, instead of the less free current license, and It becomes a valid alternative in the FS world. On just technical merits it is bad choice to restrict ourselves by using 'Linux' to refer to the thousands of replaceable programs in Ubuntu. Thats including the kernel and gnu tools.

I would like to see linux dropped and replaced with:

Ubuntu: A(The) Free Software Operating System

Why? We are using Free Software of all kinds - Not just GNU and Linux. Linux scares people by being associated with FUD and old news. Having Free in the name is great for those who know what it means, and it also is fine for those who think about it in the cost area.

eentonig

September 5th, 2007, 07:42 AM

I don't like the poll option.

I voted "more linux..." because I lacked the possibility of a status quo.

Ubuntu shouldn't stress too much on the linux part. But it sure as hell doesn't need to hide it. Ubuntu is some kind of Linux. And should be proud on it.

DjBones

September 5th, 2007, 07:47 AM

i prefer to call them all linux, because they all use the same kernel..
although for brevity instead of calling it ubuntu linux i just call it ubuntu, in the same fashion that most people shorten GNU/Linux into just Linux.

really they aren't very different from each other, thats why their called distributions and not different operating systems.

tehkain

September 5th, 2007, 07:51 AM

If the people the work on Linux, and the man that MADE Linux say that it is Linux, how is it smarter to call it GNU/Linux? In reality, it is Linux/GNU. GNU came first, but Linux makes it run. If you took away Linux, GNU would have no OS. You can take other non-GNU programs to make a Linux OS. I cannot proudly call anything that which it is not. Linux is Linux, GNU is GNU. When you put them together you have many different distros, and each have their own name. To me Linux/GNU should ONLY have the Linux kernel and GNU programs. Once you get one program that is not GNU, it is Linux/GNU/?/? for each group making the program. ex: Firefox is not GNU, so all Linux and GNU with Firefox would be Linux/GNU/Mozilla. Linux is first, as it is the kernel, GNU second for the GUI interface and Mozilla last for the Firefox web browser. The more programs, the longer the name. How is that smarter? None of it make sense to me. And if I do not get it, I know the average Joe will be even more confused, as I use the stuff everyday and they are new. Linux is only one part of the OS. I do not use Linux alone. I use it blended with other high quality programs created my many hard working people. That mixture is called Ubuntu. Therefore, I use Ubuntu. Ubuntu is still new to the world, so "Linux for human beings" makes sense for those that have heard of Linux, as it means "Linux made easy". For those that do not know Linux, it really does not matter either way, to them it is just Ubuntu.

my 2 cent.
The people that made the kernel can say what the entire os is called? I would ask you to learn a little bit more about the system you are using. The kernel is important but it is not the show stopper. Basically what you are saying is that without the engine block there is no car. There are other engines blocks. And later what you find out is that the engine block its self is a small part of a car also. The engine block makes the car move but it does not make the car. Where is the engine block without the car? It goes both ways you see.

You can use a distro based on Ubuntu(Nexenta is ubuntu with the Solaris kernel) without linux and it will be very much ubuntu. Sure solaris might not have as much hardware support yet but that does not make it useless. If we had to classify it that way it would be GNU/[kernel], but that is not a good way either. GNU is important - Linux is Important - X is important for desktop users, but gnu is the biggest single set of tools/programs in the system. That still does not make any X/X name right or correct. You could use GNU without linux now and before(tho less free). You can use Linux without gnu now. The only place either one is up the creak with no paddle is when you are trying to a create a free operating system and that is not even true anymore.

We are using Ubuntu: the free software operating system.

mocoloco

September 5th, 2007, 04:10 PM

The people that made the kernel can say what the entire os is called? ....

This is part of the problem with the term "Linux". I respect those that say GNU+Linux and agree with the concept. More than the GNU tools, I would say the GNU in GNU+Linux is for the GPL, without which no free software would be at the state it's in today.
However I personally feel its too "out there" for the average person. For better or for worse it's the term most of the public has come to use*, so I prefer to call the entire system Linux. My compromise is when explaining about Linux I start with GNU/GPL/Free Software, and then mention the Kernel.

It drives me nuts to read an article that says "Linux is an operating system written from scratch by LInus Torvalds in 1991". Aaaarrrgh! There are SO many people involved in creating Linux (the OS), not just one man.
Bottom line, just be clear on what you mean by "Linux".
----------------------
* It's like the term "American", which really should refer to someone or something from the Americas, just like the term European doesn't refer just to people from say France. So "American English" should refer to English as spoken in Canada, US, Belize, Jamaica, etc. This would all be clear with a term like "United Statsian", but there isn't one, so fighting the established terminology doesn't do much good now.

shane.reid

September 5th, 2007, 04:20 PM

I thought about this for a day before i replied.

I think it is actualy a pretty good idea. I do like how Apple does their marketing, and I do think that Linux has a reptutation (mostly unwarranted) that precedes itself.

It is generally not wise to market something with a word that will give off a vibe that is the opposite of what you are trying to do.

For exmaple "Linux for human beings" the whole concept of using Linux in that sentence lets you know that they are combating the notion that Linux is generally not for human beings - ie. too technical (which is inaccurate, as we know)

toupeiro

September 5th, 2007, 04:40 PM

bad idea IMO, and I'll tell you specifically why..

Beyond being the kernel behind ubuntu, "Linux" is the common glue sticking RHEL, SuSe, Fedora, Slackware, Ubuntu, etc. etc together. Its the common backbone Kernel and in my opinion, catchphrase that gives these mentioned os'es their greatest power, homogeneity!

Look at the Marketing Microsoft is employing behind the name Windows. Microsoft chose to call their OS releases Windows 3.1 Windows 95, Windows 2000, Windows NT, Windows XP, and Windows Vista. Yes, they used the windows framework and the windows Kernel, but they could have named it differently for the sake of marketing. Why didn't they? Because there is only one "Windows" Operating system (and one company making versions of it), thus no direct alternative and because people know the name!

Calling ubuntu ubuntu, or SuSE SuSE, makes them sound solitary. It makes it sound like you'd have to retrain yourself completely between one flavor to the other. Since this is marketing we're talking about, that would be the simplest level of looking at these other OS'es. The greatest thing about linux is that you can serve it up any way you want; something windows cannot offer you. Linux distributions have built their userbase off the reputation linux has to do this. If you cut the name linux out, I think you are choosing to cut out a lot of free and 100% honest marketing, and making yourself sound proprietary.

tehkain

September 5th, 2007, 07:10 PM

bad idea IMO, and I'll tell you specifically why..

Beyond being the kernel behind ubuntu, "Linux" is the common glue sticking RHEL, SuSe, Fedora, Slackware, Ubuntu, etc. etc together.

The kernel does not make the system and it is not the common glue. Free Software is the common glue between those systems. You can have Ubuntu without linux.. When other kernels start competing with linux(like solaris is trying to start doing) on the desktop as a drop in replacement you will see that such a limited naming system is flawed. Those are Free Software Operating Systems, or OpenSource if you are only using the technical merits, and it is not a unified kernel that makes them alike.

VXLinux by wind river is a linux kernel based system. Does that make it like Ubuntu or Fedora? No not really. Once again Nexenta, which is ubuntu/debian using the solaris kernel, is alot more like what you call Linux then WXLinux which powers planetary rovers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexenta_OS
Ubuntu: a Free Software Operating System

toupeiro

September 5th, 2007, 07:47 PM

The kernel does not make the system and it is not the common glue. Free Software is the common glue between those systems. You can have Ubuntu without linux.. When other kernels start competing with linux(like solaris is trying to start doing) on the desktop as a drop in replacement you will see that such a limited naming system is flawed. Those are Free Software Operating Systems, or OpenSource if you are only using the technical merits, and it is not a unified kernel that makes them alike.

VXLinux by wind river is a linux kernel based system. Does that make it like Ubuntu or Fedora? No not really. Once again Nexenta, which is ubuntu/debian using the solaris kernel, is alot more like what you call Linux then WXLinux which powers planetary rovers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexenta_OS
Ubuntu: a Free Software Operating System

... I strongly beg to disagree with your using opensolaris as as your example. If you are saying openSOL and linux are alike, they are in that a SUV is similar to a Speed Bike. They can use the same gasoline, but if you think you can do all the same things on one as you can on another, you are mistaken. I run Nexenta, and yes, it LOOKS like ubuntu, but under the hood it is Solaris. I can make Ubuntu look like OSX, but that doesn't mean its going to run all OSX applications. there is an extreme difference. Calling Nexenta a Linux Distribution would be false advertising in the marketing aspect. Its like buying a truck and getting a car. It has seats, wheels and a radio but.. its NOT a truck! You will not be able to do all the things with a car that you can with a truck. Similarly, Not all Linux software is going to run on Solaris. Therefore, the significance of LINUX is very apparent. I would not feel confident investing time or money into a piece of software whose vendor did not disclose parts of it to me up front because they felt they had to protect me from thinking "it was for servers" as the original article stated. I would also not invest my time or money into someone selling me a car, telling me it's a truck! unless.. I was looking for an El Camino :-D

I digress a bit but my point is,

err to the side of sensible marketing.

Open Sorce Software needs to run, otherwise its useless code. I'm not saying there isn't other open source choices, If linux isn't the elmers (http://www.elmers.com/index.asp) of open source, and isn't what makes Open Source OSes like SuSE, RedHat, Ubuntu and so many others work in a homogeneous fashion, while maintaining their unique attractiveness for their respective offerings, I would be thrilled if you could enlighten me.

greymongrey

September 5th, 2007, 08:01 PM

I think if people are afraid to give it a try because of the name, they shouldn't try it. Not everyone should run Linux. It does require a little thinking about what you want and how to get there. If people can't think they need to stay where they are.

happysmileman

September 5th, 2007, 08:14 PM

I think removing the Linux from the motto would just **** off EVERYONE (including me) and cause adoption to drop dramatically, right now Linux users all send new users to Ubuntu because it's good and easy to use.

If they removed the Linux from the name it would be seen by most of the community as trying to seperate itself from other Distros and even Linux itself. this would **** a lot of people off, Ubuntu would no longer be the cool distro you send the n00bs to, it'd be the distro created by assholes and used by idiots who have no idea about Linux.

Sorry for ranting, and I'm sure a lot of you probably think I'm over-reacting, but Ubuntu is a Linux distribution, Linux is more important than Ubuntu in general, therefore it should be an honour to be able to call it Linux (or GNU/Linux, which is more correct but a hassle to say)

tehkain

September 5th, 2007, 08:35 PM

... I strongly beg to disagree with your using opensolaris as as your example. If you are saying openSOL and linux are alike, they are in that a SUV is similar to a Speed Bike. They can use the same gasoline, but if you think you can do all the same things on one as you can on another, you are mistaken. I run Nexenta, and yes, it LOOKS like ubuntu, but under the hood it is Solaris. I can make Ubuntu look like OSX, but that doesn't mean its going to run all OSX applications. there is an extreme difference. Calling Nexenta a Linux Distribution would be false advertising in the marketing aspect. Its like buying a truck and getting a car. It has seats, wheels and a radio but.. its NOT a truck! You will not be able to do all the things with a car that you can with a truck. Similarly, Not all Linux software is going to run on Solaris. Therefore, the significance of LINUX is very apparent. I would not feel confident investing time or money into a piece of software whose vendor did not disclose parts of it to me up front because they felt they had to protect me from thinking "it was for servers" as the original article stated. I would also not invest my time or money into someone selling me a car, telling me it's a truck! unless.. I was looking for an El Camino :-D

I digress a bit but my point is,

err to the side of sensible marketing.

Open Sorce Software needs to run, otherwise its useless code. I'm not saying there isn't other open source choices, If linux isn't the elmers (http://www.elmers.com/index.asp) of open source, and isn't what makes Open Source OSes like SuSE, RedHat, Ubuntu and so many others work in a homogeneous fashion, while maintaining their unique attractiveness for their respective offerings, I would be thrilled if you could enlighten me.

I never said anything about open solaris. I said GNU + Solaris kernel. It is based on ubuntu and it is not like Open Solaris(the OS). Under the hood is the GNU toolsets. Not all LINUX software run on what you call LINUX. That is why we implement much of POSIX, and distros use many other standards outside the kernel space. Nexenta is not just a bloody theme - it does not just look like what you call LINUX. Applications that are written correctly and use libraries that are written correctly will work on solaris - 10,000 packages have been compiled for Nexenta out of the 30 some thousand in our repos. Now that is with limited hands and very little time. So you are very wrong and I would ask you to look at nexenta more and actually see what the operating system is.

What it is: A Operating System that is very much like what we call LINUX with a different kernel.

What it is not: It is not a theme or a mod to open solaris that makes it look like ubuntu.

'Calling XXX a linux distribution is false advertising' Well of course it is because its not a linux system. No one said it was. My point is the linux kernel does not make what most people call LINUX(as in the OS). That is why the naming is wrong and limiting.

Lets look at another flaw - MS says their patents are being infringed upon by LINUX. Do they mean the kernel? Do they mean all of free software? Instead of pointing at specifics they can hide behind a veil of confusion that even has Linus saying "what in the kernel?".

Debian GNU/LINUX GNU/SOLARIS GNU/FreeBSD GNU/Herd - they are all Debian. Not the same but alot closer then Ubuntu and VXLinux

Erik Trybom

September 5th, 2007, 08:37 PM

From a marketing perspective, it's often much easier to change people's view of a brand than to establish a new one. Apple is one example of this - they went from being a near-bankrupt niche computer manufacturer to a hip tech- and media company making mp3 players and stylish computers. They kept the name Apple however, because it was a name people recognised even though they didn't at the time connect it with music. The connection gradually evolved as more Ipods were sold.

I think Linux is one of the strongest brands of free software, and it should be kept so that people can associate it with something new and exciting. Throwing it away because people right now might associate it with hard-to-install distributions from the 90's is short-sighted and won't attract any new users.

bruce89

September 5th, 2007, 08:44 PM

Any situation where my use of (GNU/)Linux is mentioned, the stock reply is:

Do you have to type out things more in it?

LowSky

September 5th, 2007, 09:11 PM

i am all for dropping Linux name... it scares too many people I know away... i dont mean throw the name away but dont advertise it as such..

ie: Ubuntu: welcome to humanity

a friend of mine has an old comp tat was running win2000 until it Blue screened to death... he ask me to fix it, i said i could reinstall windows if he had a disk or i could load ubuntu (huh?, he said.. i sad its linux), but he said why cant i just boot leg him a copy of windows... i then just laughed...

what I have learned is that people dont want to change, or at least make decisions involving change. the few that do are involved in this or simular communties.

All my fiend uses his computer for is searching for porn, playing movies and music, maybe seach the web.. other than that he doesn't touch it... for him ubuntu would be fine, but he is reluctant because he thinks its too weird..

toupeiro

September 5th, 2007, 09:47 PM

I never said anything about open solaris. I said GNU + Solaris kernel. It is based on ubuntu and it is not like Open Solaris(the OS). Under the hood is the GNU toolsets. Not all LINUX software run on what you call LINUX. That is why we implement much of POSIX, and distros use many other standards outside the kernel space. Nexenta is not just a bloody theme - it does not just look like what you call LINUX. Applications that are written correctly and use libraries that are written correctly will work on solaris - 10,000 packages have been compiled for Nexenta out of the 30 some thousand in our repos. Now that is with limited hands and very little time. So you are very wrong and I would ask you to look at nexenta more and actually see what the operating system is.

What it is: A Operating System that is very much like what we call LINUX with a different kernel.

What it is not: It is not a theme or a mod to open solaris that makes it look like ubuntu.

'Calling XXX a linux distribution is false advertising' Well of course it is because its not a linux system. No one said it was. My point is the linux kernel does not make what most people call LINUX(as in the OS). That is why the naming is wrong and limiting.

Lets look at another flaw - MS says their patents are being infringed upon by LINUX. Do they mean the kernel? Do they mean all of free software? Instead of pointing at specifics they can hide behind a veil of confusion that even has Linus saying "what in the kernel?".

Debian GNU/LINUX GNU/SOLARIS GNU/FreeBSD GNU/Herd - they are all Debian. Not the same but alot closer then Ubuntu and VXLinux

Good god man... I never called it a mod. But.. they used Debian/Ubuntu's packaging and distribution system to.. MAKE IT LOOK LIKE AND FEEL LIKE UBUNTU!!! Or, they would have chosen something else. I don't merely "look" at nexenta. I use nexenta, practically on a daily basis. I Also run Solaris 8,9, and 10 and RHEL at work and know full well the software and toolset differences between them. For someone not wanting to label due to technical merit, you are really missing the point alltogether. Since you are staying merely technical, I will respond on that same level. GNU is licensed under the GPL. OpenSolaris is licensed under the CDDL (http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki/FAQ#head-b596480b2340edc341ba6d86629457f359323137). So, what you have is GNU/GPL apps ported to an OS licensed under CDDL. It is a hybrid of two different technologies with two different open licensing structures combined in one OS. GNU in this case is a port of controls and software toolsets and applications for functionality on top of OpenSolaris. OpenSolaris would have to be covered under the GPL to be a true GNU/OpenSolaris release, which it cannot legally be. That being said, In EITHER case removing the label of Linux or Solaris is deadening the investment choice to the consumer. If it would be a SEAMLESS transition from ubunto to nexenta (from a consumer standpoint, removing linux and solaris from the label), then that would make sense. If you have ever installed nexenta (And I am hoping if you are dragging it this far that you have), then you know that someone who installs Ubuntu thats never used a solaris system isn't going to have the SLIGHTEST IDEA what c0t1d1s2 is, nor will they understand how to format and partition (or slice) ufs or zfs... Putting Solaris or Linux in the marketing where you have similar, but DIFFERENT, OS'es makes it that much more valuable to the consumer to know what they have. Perhaps you should stop trying to be so contradictive and make your arguement keeping the actual subject in mind. You used Nexenta in your example where it did not fit. You are entitled to your opinion on the relavence of Linux, but you are talking on a technical forum, and you should probably be very solid on your facts before you start outright saying people are very wrong.

from opensolaris website:
It is a result of our inspiration and desire to build a great system based on the best existing software: SunOS kernel and GNU software. We use Debian/Ubuntu - one of the best existing software distribution/packaging mechanisms - to glue the numerous pieces together. At the moment, Nexenta is not part of the Debian Project

tehkain

September 5th, 2007, 09:53 PM

Good god man... I never called it a mod. I don't merely "look" at nexenta. I use nexenta, practically on a daily basis. I Also run Solaris 8,9, and 10 and RHEL at work and know full well the software and toolset differences between them. For someone not wanting to pay close attention to technical merit, you are really missing the point alltogether. GNU Linux is licensed under the GPL. OpenSolaris is licensed under the CDDL. So, what you have is GNU/GPL apps ported to an OS licensed under CDDL. GNU in THIS CASE IS A PORT OF SOFTWARE for functionality on top of OpenSolaris. OpenSolaris would have to be covered under the GPL to be a true GNU/OpenSolaris release, which it cannot legally be. That being said, In EITHER case removing the label of Linux or Solaris is deadening the investment choice to the consumer. Your arguement has absolutely nothing to do with the marketing value of the linux name at all. Perhaps you should stop trying to be so contradictive and make your arguement keeping the actual subject in mind.

Open solaris does not have to be released under the gpl or even a free license for it to be 'true' GNU/Solaris. Licensing does not limit technical names and it is lame to even suggest that, now if you said 'it would have to be GPLed to be considered GNU' you would be right.

it LOOKS like ubuntu, but under the hood it is Solaris. I can make Ubuntu look like OSX, but that doesn't mean its going to run all OSX applications. there is an extreme difference. That sounds like you called it a 'mod'. So sorry if you did not mean it but you sure did make it sound that way.

The subject is in my mind. My reasoning is we should use 'A Free Software Desktop' rather then Linux because linux is a kernel and it is not the only option.

Also the reason I have Debian GNU/Solaris is because it is a pilot project that is going on. The GNU/FreeBSD and Herd systems are not official releases either.

bruce89

September 5th, 2007, 10:11 PM

Licensing does not limit technical names and it is lame to even suggest that, now if you said 'it would have to be GPLed to be considered GNU' you would be right.

I'd assume the GNU bit comes from the use of GNU's libc, gcc etc. not the fact that it is licensed under a GNU one.

toupeiro

September 5th, 2007, 10:20 PM

It does not limit technical names, but you are putting Nexenta in the same limelight with other GNU based OSES that are linux based. There are inherant differences between solaris and linux, and not disclosing them is misrepresenting your product. If you market something like a GNU based OS which has several Linux and one or two solaris based releases, and you market them as equal alternatives, you will get dropped like a bad habit when they don't work that way.

Calling it a free OS is extremely vague..

If you don't give it more structure, I hope you fund your helpdesk well enough to support all the people trying to install Office 2007 and Quicken 2007 on it from the CD's, or use their Zune software.
I can't think where what you are suggesting has never been successful in the history of oses. Maybe there is a reason it hasn't been done, or if it has, hasn't succeeded from a marketing standpoint. You obviously have a good technical background, but for this debate, what I would suggest is more research in marketing technique, which is really what the technical focus around everything I said was intended to be around.

tehkain

September 5th, 2007, 10:25 PM

I'd assume the GNU bit comes from the use of GNU's libc, gcc etc. not the fact that it is licensed under a GNU one.

Well I was referring to the GNU Operating System as in the stallman sees it here: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html Where, as he says, the linux kernel is just another piece of gnu and they are all GPL.

I do not think I am pioneering 'a Free Software Operating System' wording since I got the Idea from Shuttleworth. When he was speaking after Stallman, Perens, and a few others he did not use the word linux. Instead he used 'Free Software Operating System' and 'Free Software Desktop' to refer to all of these systems. The FSF considers the CDDL to be Free since it does give the four freedoms. So I think it applies.

At the moment people try to use software that was build for/on a different FSO distribution so that problem will always exist. If this was 'Ubuntu: A FSO' why would they expect windows apps to work any more then if it was 'ubuntu: linux' ? Ubuntu is Ubuntu - calling it a Free OS only describes the system and is not its name. Does Mac OS X have trouble because they do not advertise their UNIX cert after their name? We do not have to be 'Ubuntu: Linux for human beings' any more then OS X has to be 'OS X: Unix for people who like white'.

toupeiro

September 5th, 2007, 10:42 PM

Well I was referring to the GNU Operating System as in the stallman sees it here: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html Where, as he says, the linux kernel is just another piece of gnu and they are all GPL.

I do not think I am pioneering 'a Free Software Operating System' wording since I got the Idea from Shuttleworth. When he was speaking after Stallman, Perens, and a few others he did not use the word linux. Instead he used 'Free Software Operating System' and 'Free Software Desktop' to refer to all of these systems. The FSF considers the CDDL to be Free since it does give the four freedoms. So I think it applies.

At the moment people try to use software that was build for/on a different FSO distribution so that problem will always exist. If this was 'Ubuntu: A FSO' why would they expect windows apps to work any more then if it was 'ubuntu: linux' ? It is ubuntu above all and calling it a Free OS only describes the system and is not its name. Does Mac OS X have trouble because they do not advertise their UNIX cert after their name? We do not have to be 'Ubuntu: Linux for human beings' any more then OS X has to be 'OS X: Unix for people who like white'.

umm... Do you see Mac computers and OS/X flourishing and outselling Windows systems? So how can you tell me that is an arguement that holds any water in a marketing debate over branding? Apple's BIGGEST problem has always been their ability to screw up marketing with lime green and tangerine orange computers, and nothing about 'what they can do'. Mac pretty much only caters to people doing graphics and loyalists. They are the failure story of IT Marketing if there ever was one. I was literally 'pissed off' (ok.. disappionted!)' during the live webcast of the first generation iMac, because I thought they were finally going to be a bit more innovative in the mainstream business world. They really haven't learned all their lessons from that. They do make pretty trendy mp3 players though. They can reinvent themselves through that and save their company.

OSes running a linux kernel have drawn a userbase based on innovative ideas and word of mouth. You can't buy that kind of marketing. So, if you are going to market it, you better market it for what it is, not for what it's like.

tehkain

September 5th, 2007, 10:59 PM

umm... Do you see Mac computers and OS/X flourishing and outselling Windows systems? So how can you tell me that is an arguement that holds any water in a marketing debate over branding? No apples biggest problem or greatest asset is that OS X is hardware locked and not sold as a standard OS. Oh and apple is taking the laptop market by storm so yes it is working as much as it can. Apple is not planning on becoming Microsoft - their systems tie select hardware with select software so there is no way or reason to seek out such a monopoly. So their business and marketing model is working wonderfully.

My point is: I am a ubuntu user and all I would like to see is it marketed correctly rather then conveniently. As a free software advocate I want to see it all represented for the part it plays. It does not have to have GNU/Linux or Linux in the name for people to know it uses linux and gnu.

VitaLiNux

April 4th, 2008, 10:02 PM

mybunche

April 5th, 2008, 05:17 AM

It depends on the target audience.
If for Windows only users, I would say Ubuntu.
If they already know about Linux, I would say Ubuntu Linux.

madjr

April 5th, 2008, 05:17 AM

what about linuxmint ?

people like it even if it has linux on it's tag. sometimes they like it even better than ubuntu.

I wouldn't be an Ubuntu user if it didn't had linux as base !!

Am here mostly for the open source !

i did had a few not so good experiences in the past with linux but i always knew it would catch up.

I agree with some points in that guy's blog, but Linux is a tremendous force in the world !

Ubuntu would not be much if not of it's linux base and name.

I call it Ubuntu linux, not just Ubuntu.

windows 95 was a wreck, tons of viruses and unstability, but that didn't stop me from using or upgrading to newer versions like windows XP later on.

now i have upgraded to "linux"

SomeGuyDude

April 5th, 2008, 05:45 AM

While I agree about the word Linux turning off people, I hardly think there's any verbal way you could convince most people into using "Ubuntu" (unless they're from Africa and know what that word means).

I say show them what Ubuntu is... then, talk about it.

Talk is cheap.

You say that like "Apple" or "Windows" would be any more descriptive to someone unfamiliar with the product. It's just a name, a series of syllables to slap onto the thing you're promoting simply for identification purposes. For the most part, as long as the name isn't insanely terrible ("dude, have you seen the new beta of McTesticles?"), I don't see why the name is even relevant.

I agree that if you can just promote Ubuntu (or Mandriva, or whatever your distro is of choice) without getting into "and it's LINUX!" then that's a step up. Just show it as an alternative.

tomcat2007

April 5th, 2008, 06:05 AM

Ubuntu is a flavor of Linux, it uses the Linux kernel, and is arguably the most popular distribution. It is the Linux that weaned me from the Microsoft teat :-)

I am guilty of pimping Linux to everyone who listens and will cite Ubuntu as my favorite distro.

amingv

April 5th, 2008, 06:23 AM

Just as much as "GameCube" or "Wii" should drop "Nintendo". I can call them "Nintendo Wii", "Wii" or even "Nintendo"; but I can not (should not) divorce them.
(I'm talking in the sense of the root of something, not the company that makes it.)

linuxbeatswin

April 5th, 2008, 06:38 AM

While I agree about the word Linux turning off people, I hardly think there's any verbal way you could convince most people into using "Ubuntu" (unless they're from Africa and know what that word means).

I say show them what Ubuntu is... then, talk about it.

Talk is cheap.

I use Ubuntu, and the way I've gotten people to try it is to show them what I do on my machine. I've swayed more people toward Linux by showing them what my machine can DO rather than telling them that "Ubuntu is awesome- it's Linux, and it rocks!"

After people see what can be done, I give them (yes, for "free" as in "free beer") a live cd, and tell them that it will not hurt their precious ******* machine, and they often call me up saying, "This really is COOL! Can I put it on my machine with *******?" Of course, we get into dual-booting, which I walk them through, and they're off.

Yes, talk is cheap, Ubuntu will take a little more time to become as familiar a name like Wrigley's gum, but with awesome representatives like us, and the kind of support users get on forums like this, it's bound to get there.

I still use Mandriva, FC5, etc., but Ubuntu is my new home.

tubasoldier

April 5th, 2008, 08:18 AM

People who used Linux, say, 2-5 years ago, when it looked ugly, and wasn't good at all unless you knew how to configure it, took a bad impression and remained with it.

I've been using Linux that long, and I can say it wasn't really ugly back then. It looks pretty much the same now as it did then. IMO it was as usable then as it is now. I guess if you haven't seen screenshots from 5 years ago you would never really know. It is my opinion that Ubuntu is perhaps one of the uglier distros out there. The Ubuntu grub screen is ugly as well as the use of usplash. Fedora, Mandriva, and OpenSuse, are all much professional looking on boot.
5 years ago Mandriva was the easiest to configure and had the best hardware detection. The reason I stopped using it is because of the large amount of bugs that came with it. Ubuntu was pushing that for me, especially the Gusty release, but so far Hardy Heron is starting to make up for it.

And for the main point of the thread. No way, disowning the Linux name would be akin to disowning your entire family!

Zyphrexi

April 5th, 2008, 09:26 AM

you're kidding right?

I want to say a lot of angry things after reading that question, but I'll just leave it at that.

*cough* traitor *cough*

EDIT: in response to OP question

lyceum

April 6th, 2008, 03:19 PM

billgoldberg

April 6th, 2008, 03:55 PM

What bothers me is that people refer to "Ubuntu" as "Ubuntu Linux".

It's called "Ubuntu" not "Ubunu Linux".

MaximB

April 6th, 2008, 04:55 PM

I just say that I use Linux, most windows guys don't even know what Ubuntu is.

ssam

April 6th, 2008, 06:06 PM

I also agree that if Mac said they used UNIX, then there would be a lot of "huhs?" in the Mac world!

Apple have used the word UNIX in their advertising for mac os x

http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/unix.html

madjr

April 6th, 2008, 09:43 PM

I am just wondering, how many people actually say: "I use Ubuntu Linux for Human Beings..." or "I use Ubuntu/Linux" or "Ubuntu/Gnu/Linux" etc... I just say "Ubuntu". Linux for Human Beings is just an add on. Also, Apple does not say Mac OSX/BSG/Unix or whatever.

:guitar:

you can call it what you want depending on the person you're speaking to. Depending on the person corporations change their ads.

Apple advertises being robust because they're based on Unix. But they advertise this to geeks or people wanting better security and virus protection.

But Linux is more than an OS, it's a movement and a revolution in the world against mega corporations and world monopolization.

Unix didn't start as a FOSS proyect to stop mega corps from being too powerful. Linux =! unix

am proud of being a Linux user, not an *nix User.