- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
It's Time for an International Linux Summit
Just like the international gang summits in Los Angeles, Linux needs a collective, "sit-down" to discuss the future of this now formidable operating system. I'm not talking about a nice little get together with keynote speakers with high-powered, 10,000 foot views of where Linux is and where it's going. And I'm not talking about vendor booths touting the latest and greatest Linux toys or big blowout parties from a spectacle-making platinum sponsor. |
|
|
Comments (41)
21 earlier comments in the full thread.
Quoting:Spending a tonne of money to advertise such a broad concept as "Linux" is not optimal spending.
But it is. Establish the platform, and marketing the products that depend on it is much much easier.
Quoting:alleviating the need to try and figure out who will pay for mass marketing the above mentioned broad concept that is not really owned by any one company.
That's the point of establishing a common vision. At the moment there is no vision, which makes go it alone market more expensive than each can carry, and fails to establish a base line that potential customers understand.
I try to think of it in terms of product. Advertising something that isn't a product is not of as much value to a consumer as pushing something specific at them.
When I think of advertising Linux, I think of the Cheese, and Beef advertising. They are just generic product advertisements that don't mention brands. Then you also have individual brand advertisements as well.
I think that may work with Linux.
I think that may work with Linux.
> Advertising something that isn't a product is not of as much value to a consumer as pushing something specific at them.
The beef industry, the milk industry, and the egg industry (to name just a few examples) don't seem to agree with you.
The beef industry, the milk industry, and the egg industry (to name just a few examples) don't seem to agree with you.
And potatoes
Not the same thing.
EDIT: And throwing analogies like cars and produce around is actually a good thing, it will help arrive at a suitable case study eventually. Keep 'em coming.
Not the same thing.
EDIT: And throwing analogies like cars and produce around is actually a good thing, it will help arrive at a suitable case study eventually. Keep 'em coming.
Quoting:I try to think of it in terms of product.
I don't.
you rock
That's why she has that rocking chair.
Linux works just fine, its the people that insist on adding other odds and ends to the name and vocally insist that they and only they are right that add the confusion to the mix. It's Linux or BSD, or what have you. I'll leave those who insist on symbolic affectations to the symbol minded (to paraphrase george carlin).
Advertise Linux all you want, however you want. Debating if it should be done at all falls not into ignorance but rather into stupidity.
Advertise Linux all you want, however you want. Debating if it should be done at all falls not into ignorance but rather into stupidity.
Quoting:And throwing analogies like cars and produce around is actually a good thing, it will help arrive at a suitable case study eventually.
Have a look at the classic bike and car ads from the late 1800's, early 1900's. Very often you see them praising the virtues of owning a bike or car in general. Back then they were still competing with horses.
> Back then they were still competing with horses.
I can see comparing Linux to a car and Windows to a horse drawn carriage. :)
I can see comparing Linux to a car and Windows to a horse drawn carriage. :)
> I can see comparing Linux to a car and Windows to a horse drawn carriage. :)
Yes, you have to feed the horses every day, clean the manure, provide shelter, and on and on. With a car you change the oil once in a while and you're good to go. Buy a Windows computer and they'll give you an endless maintenance burden as a free gift.
Yes, you have to feed the horses every day, clean the manure, provide shelter, and on and on. With a car you change the oil once in a while and you're good to go. Buy a Windows computer and they'll give you an endless maintenance burden as a free gift.
According to Neal Stephenson, Linux is a tank, with the key already in the ignition, just waiting for someone to drive it away. Not to worry, we have fifty bazillion more, with whatever feature set you want.
I just *love* Neil's allorgy. I think I read "Commandline" at least a dozen times.
Linux as a core with an ecosystem built around it and Linux as a platform seem pretty close to me. One seems to paraphrase the other. A core which you build around: an ecosystem. A core which you build ON: a platform. Linux can be seen as both.
I don't think we need to mention the kernel in advertising to still refer to the kernel. The word "core" is essentially the same thing in terms of meaning as "kernel" and in that sense it fits the above context of a platform or an ecosystem. Call it by a name that is more user friendly, but which doesn't depart from describing what it actually IS. It is a kernel, but you call it a "core" or "technology" or "the base" or whatever would be more understandable to people all of which can serve as synonymous to the kernel.
I also still disagree with advertising Linux the way cars were advertised. At best a "car vs horse carriage" is just a nifty analogy, a marketing pitch, but not a whole marketing strategy in itself. The reason is simply the fact that Linux is not anything like a car. It is more like a specific core component of a car engine shared by a multitude of driving vehicles.
Linux is the core. It is not an OS. It is not equivalent to a car. It is nothing abstract. It is tangibly a core.
And that's my bottom line. Whatever we do in marketing should not depart from calling it what it actually is. We can use synonymous terminology and contexts that pretty it up, but lets not call it what it simply is not.
An example marketing pitch:
"SimplePower Netbook lets you live on the web, whatever you do and wherever you go, enhanced by a leading edge Linux core technology that ensures top rated performance."
Or another example:
"Starlight Workstations maximize your productivity while lowering your costs. Based on industry standard Linux technology it provides superb performance, reliability and interoperability."
Note that if you're marketing an operating system rather than a specific brand of computers or devices whether you're using the word "kernel" to describe the technology it's based on or not is almost irrelevant since most people never install operating systems anyway so you're inevitably marketing at a more tech savvy crowd. But just a simple renaming of "kernel" to "core" or "base" even there does the job.
See what I'm getting at? Don't call it an OS because it's not an OS. It's not a generic brand either because Linux distros and devices are simply too different from each other to be compared to something as dull as "generic". Call it what it is, a core, but use the kind of language that conveys that well.
Mr. Torvalds might even do well to brand Linux as "Linux Core".
I don't think we need to mention the kernel in advertising to still refer to the kernel. The word "core" is essentially the same thing in terms of meaning as "kernel" and in that sense it fits the above context of a platform or an ecosystem. Call it by a name that is more user friendly, but which doesn't depart from describing what it actually IS. It is a kernel, but you call it a "core" or "technology" or "the base" or whatever would be more understandable to people all of which can serve as synonymous to the kernel.
I also still disagree with advertising Linux the way cars were advertised. At best a "car vs horse carriage" is just a nifty analogy, a marketing pitch, but not a whole marketing strategy in itself. The reason is simply the fact that Linux is not anything like a car. It is more like a specific core component of a car engine shared by a multitude of driving vehicles.
Linux is the core. It is not an OS. It is not equivalent to a car. It is nothing abstract. It is tangibly a core.
And that's my bottom line. Whatever we do in marketing should not depart from calling it what it actually is. We can use synonymous terminology and contexts that pretty it up, but lets not call it what it simply is not.
An example marketing pitch:
"SimplePower Netbook lets you live on the web, whatever you do and wherever you go, enhanced by a leading edge Linux core technology that ensures top rated performance."
Or another example:
"Starlight Workstations maximize your productivity while lowering your costs. Based on industry standard Linux technology it provides superb performance, reliability and interoperability."
Note that if you're marketing an operating system rather than a specific brand of computers or devices whether you're using the word "kernel" to describe the technology it's based on or not is almost irrelevant since most people never install operating systems anyway so you're inevitably marketing at a more tech savvy crowd. But just a simple renaming of "kernel" to "core" or "base" even there does the job.
See what I'm getting at? Don't call it an OS because it's not an OS. It's not a generic brand either because Linux distros and devices are simply too different from each other to be compared to something as dull as "generic". Call it what it is, a core, but use the kind of language that conveys that well.
Mr. Torvalds might even do well to brand Linux as "Linux Core".
Or "LinuxCore"
Quoting:Call it what it is, a core, but use the kind of language that conveys that well.
I've always referred to the kernel as the core of the system, when attempting to explain operating system concepts to to non techie people. They usually get a better feel for what you are on about, if they can visualise this thing at the centre of things.
Quoting:That's why she has that rocking chair.
Gus3, who told you I have a rocking chair?
Quoting:Gus3, who told you I have a rocking chair?You did, with that question...
Seriously though, I do, it's great, I've wanted one since I was 7 or 8 years old, I used to love the rocking chair our neighbour had. My partner bought me one just recently. There's nothing like it if you want to put your feet up.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
...and advertising (which is what you are talking about) Linux so out of context does not benefit anyone.