On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Stuart Ellis wrote:
> Very much so...there's not a lot of positive talking points around, just
> negatives, and so those are what people repeat. The words "support" and
> "stability" also seem to cause a lot of confusion when they are used,
> regardless of the intent. Perhaps marketing material should use
> different terms to differentiate things like API stability vs.
> five-nines stability, vs. not crashing in normal use ?
>
> > But again, "why Fedora"? For those who are not already converted, it's
> > the most important question we can answer, and as Paul points out, we're
> > not currently doing a very good job of it.
>
> It might be worth thinking about it in terms of use cases. It's easy
> for other people to say that "Debian stable is for your servers" or
> "Ubuntu is great for your desktops". But, "Fedora is for ???"
>
> For what it's worth, I advocate Fedora as the best distribution for
> teaching and learning Linux - easy setup to get you going, config tools
> that don't interfere with CLI use, cutting edge tech without being
> unstable, everything you learn on your PC transferable to RHEL/CentOS on
> Serious Enterprise Hardware.
I like that one, very bullet-pointy and identifies an immediate
"vertical". "Teaching and learning Linux." Any others?
(Of course, for reasons that must surely appear obvious, I'd rather not
see CentOS mentioned in the same breath as RHEL. I spend too much time
with lawyers as it is.)
--g
_____________________ ____________________________________________
Greg DeKoenigsberg ] [ the future masters of technology will have
Community Relations ] [ to be lighthearted and intelligent. the
Red Hat ] [ machine easily masters the grim and the
] [ dumb. --mcluhan
--
Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
