thanks Larry for that to be clear, I do agree that the ZDNet piece was poorly written. Contrast with http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/10/22/win7_launch/ which from the same information provides more meaningful analysis... In my view, open source as a reporter's beat is past its prime. A few short years ago, many large IT shops needed explanations due to their dependence on the monoculture. I don't think that's the case anymore; FLOSS has found its place in most areas of computing (desktop OSes being a notable exception). After all, there is no "proprietary software" beat, but organization by vertical market or technical class. I myself am much more focused on the K-6 education vertical market, and tend to want to see things through that prism; pundits in that area compare FLOSS to proprietary all the time. For good coverage of FLOSS, ars technica has a well-deserved reputation, their analysis is based on actual reviews such as this one: http://arstechnica.com/open-source/reviews/2009/10/ars-takes-a-first-look-under-the-hood-of-fedora-12.ars Sean On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 2:27 AM, Larry Cafiero <larry.cafiero@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Sean DALY <sdaly.be@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Yes, I agree that it's a good idea to set the record straight. >> However, there is an ugly truth: the wider the coverage of anything, >> the more errors there are... responding to them turns into >> whack-a-mole. > > Heh. I think that an exaggeration, but it can turn into that when not done > properly. > >> >> To combat that, what's necessary is to go beyond error-correction to >> influencing perceptions widely. When perceptions are positive enough, >> Fedora users will whack the moles themselves, and clueless >> commentators will educate themselves or lose credibility. >> >> A key way to influence perceptions is to cultivate journalists. Nobody >> likes to admit they made a mistake. Journalists get called clueless >> and worse every day of the week, like everyone they generally accept >> constructive criticism though. In this connection, Bob's comment was >> exemplary: he politely set the record straight. > > Bob's comment was exemplary, as were others. I'm not so quick to give this > pair a pass on this one. In this case, you have ZDNet's Linux and Open > Source bloggers -- a pair who SHOULD know that release cycles of the distros > in question are roughly six months ("roughly" because OpenSUSE's is not > exactly six; nine, I think, but that's close enough) -- writing something > that, essentially, is false and worse, it's arguably slanted toward > Microsoft. > > Again, these two writers are the <steps_back_for_emphasis>LINUX AND OPEN > SOURCE REPORTERS for ZDNet</steps_back_for_emphasis>. If they don't know > that the larger distros -- Ubuntu especially, with their x.04/x.10 naming > convention -- have a six-month cycle, then they really have no business > covering Linux and Open Source for one of the largest, if not the largest, > Web-based tech news portal. > >> >> What I'm saying is, make changing perceptions part of the plan. >> Although the media usually wish to present accurate information, what >> they really want is accurate information which is also timely, >> interesting, and topical. This is where press releases can play a >> major role. Many journalists with 4 stories to file in the day will be >> happy to quickly adapt a well-written release and put it up. > > Having been a newspaper editor for 32 years (which is what I do when I'm not > promoting Fedora), you are right about the workload. More times than not, > journalists appreciate being set straight when they're wrong, but more > importantly they are immensely grateful for getting accurate and > well-written information that they can glean (if not outright copy) for > their stories. > >> >> When that >> happens, you've made news, not reacted to it. Over time, awareness >> rises within influencers, and next thing you know, most of them will >> be able to write from memory that there are two Fedora releases per >> year for example. Or whatever branding message you wish to spread - >> that Fedora is high-quality, installs easily, etc. > > This is true. But again, I would think anyone who had been covering Linux > and Open Source for any length of time should know that release cycles for > Ubuntu and Fedora have always been six months. > >> >> Journalists know that Windows 7 is make-or-break for Microsoft; just >> look how MS is taking risks they haven't before such as selling PCs >> for the first time ever and painting all their national websites >> green. > > I hope. Again many reporters in the mainstream media are happy to be > spoon-fed whatever Microsoft provides them, so we should be vigilant about > this. > >> The WinXP -> Win7 upgrade path is wipe and install... the same >> as most WinXP -> GNU/Linux installs. So journalists know that now is >> perhaps a better time than ever to talk about alternatives. When >> Constantine launch time comes, perhaps a talking point to consider >> beyond the great features is how upgrading to Fedora can be a better >> choice than upgrading to Windows 7. > > That would be great. Is there anything on the drawing board? > > Larry Cafiero > > -- > Fedora-marketing-list mailing list > Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list > -- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
