Advanced

Why Google and Ubuntu don't say “Linux”

Posted by vainrveenr on · 6 comments
ZDNet; By Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols
Mail this story
Print this story

The most popular mobile operating system is Android. One of the most popular non-Windows operating systems is Canonical's Ubuntu. And, Google's is really pushing its Chrome OS-powered Chromebooks in the retail market. What does all this have in common? Each operating system is based on Linux and neither Google nor Canonical is mentioning that fact.

Full Story

  Nav
» Read more about: Story Type: Editorial; Groups: Linux, Ubuntu

» Get new stories by e-mail: nightly or as they are published

« Return to the newswire homepage

  Related stories
» More like this

Comments (6)

ZDNet site isn't responding

For a few hours now, the site hasn't responded. I can ping it. But, going directly to the page being referenced, http://www.zdnet.com/why-google-and-ubuntu-dont-say-linux-70... gets nothing. Going directly to http://zdnet.com/ still gets nothing.
I had now problems opening the page.
As opposed to "then" problems?
Well I didn't have any now problems then

Built on Linux

Why can't they just say {Brand Name} built on Linux, or something similar? It doesn't even need to be part of the name, just some acknowledgment. There is no Linux branding, other than maybe Tux. Linux in general needs some kind of universal brand or logo. We see it everywhere else, PC's with Intel or AMD logo's, phones with Android logo's, etc. Probably because there is no means of enforcement, no incentive or consequence of not relating to Linux. *SIGH*
It could work, if it was done right -- most people don't know enough to appreciate what it really means, so perception/image counts for a great deal.

For example, I've seen a number of ads for a particular make of heavy-duty pick-up truck, that make sure to mention that it's built with a transmission from the same manufacturer which supplies the transmission for the Abrams tank.

Of course it's worded in a positive way that strongly implies you're getting pretty much the very same power train -- but then Apple implies they're selling you a system with the rock solid ingrained security because of its BSD "foundation" . It works well, if it's done well.

I actually have no idea how well that tank's transmission actually performs in real life, or whether the truck version performs well, either -- but if I wanted a truck with good load capacity reliability and endurance (eg. to tow a boat while carrying a camper through my region's mountainous terrain) I'm sure that I would find this factoid somewhat reassuring.

Mere mention of Linux, by itself, might detract from as much or more than it buttresses the desirability of a product. "Linux Inside" has to be presented in a way that "Linux" implies "Good Stuff", rather than obscure, possibly intimidating, geeky technical details.

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:
|||||
10
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