I agree. Of course, you cannot make total crap a success, no matter how much money you spend on marketing, but once you are beyond total crap, marketing is key! On 3/14/13, Hartmut Noack <zettberlin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Am 13.03.2013 21:51, schrieb Louigi Verona: >> Hartmut, you've caught me at the moment of my writing inspiration, so >> there >> you go: >> >> To be fair here, Microsoft also rarely speak about their kernel. They >> promote Windows. It so happens, that their kernel doesn't even have a >> name! > > I agree on this and on most of the other things you write. But methinks, > I have not pointed out clear enough, what I was to say ;-) > > If Linux arrives on the markets, is recognized as important enough to be > supported by hardware-makers, is accepted by the general public as a > thing that stands besides Mac and Windows as a real alternative, does > not depend on Linux as such. It depends on marketing efforts. > > If somebody takes a well-designed Distro with properly maintained repos > such as Mageia, Ubuntu, Fedora or Arch and adds PR plus advertisement > worth 4-500 Million dollares and announces, that everybody can buy > devices with this distro on every corner everywhere on the planet, then > there is a product, that competes with Mac and Windows. > > Google kind of did so with Android. Maybe Canonical plans to do so some > day sooner or later. But even the most perfectly designed Linux-Distro > cannot compete with anything, based only on its technical features. > > Microsoft tells the people: "Buy Windows and you are on the secure side, > as mainstream as you can possibly get." Apple tells the people: "Buy a > Mac and be mainstream but some kinda special too." Google tells the > people: "Buy us and try something kinda new, look we are a bit cooler > than the others, so be with us and soon you do not need that PC-thing > anymore..." > > What will someone say, that tries to push Linux to the markets? Someone, > who commits half a billion dollars capital in the campaign, that is. > > Markets are controlled by money, not by quality of products or let alone > sane decisions of costumers. Costumers choose from that, what they see > on shelfs and owner of market-shares decide, what is on the shelfs. > >> It is clear, of course, why Linux does have a name, as it is set aside >> from >> all other kernels in several significant ways, however, I do not see a >> reason why it should be promoted to non-technical consumers. > > I know and you know and everybody on this list knows, that Linux is but > a Kernel. But to the general public "Linux" is a complete OS plus > applications. This is more or less good enough for me. nteresting > though, that some 7 years ago a friend told me, he purchased a boxed > "Linux 9.2" it was Suse 9.2 -- he named it Linux, because he did not > know, that there are other Distros out there also: there was just one > boxed Linux on the shelf he picked it from.... > Today I meet people, that installed Ubuntu and do not know, that it is a > Linux.... ;-) > >> Saying "Ubuntu, based on Linux kernel" says nothing to the non-tech user >> but raise unnecessary questions, such as "does Ubuntu release with some >> other kernel as well?" and "what is a kernel and why should I care about >> it"? > > Hopefully Ubuntu-users will have enough education about their OS, to > know that a scanner or printer, that works with Ubuntu will work with > Fedora or Mageia as well.... And that they know, that if they should > dislike Unity, KDE or XFCE is just a few clicks in the packagemanager away. > >> >> I understand that the latter question might seem important to some of us, >> but seriously, of what immediate practical value is this education? >> Kernels >> of popular systems are not interchangeable in today's digital world, so >> Ubuntu, competing not with other Linux distros, but primarily with >> Windows, >> might not win much by speaking about kernels. You cannot stick Linux into >> Windows, "replacing" its original kernel. Why mention a kernel then? > > Not mention a Kernel, mention the technical basis of the ecosystem. > "GNU/Linux" would be appropriate but "Linux" is good enough with the > advantage, that one cryptic syllable less needs to be explained ;-) > >> >> >> The second point, about not respecting the user, I must say, with all due >> respect to the free software ideal, has a taste of unwelcome >> paternalistic >> attitude, in that free software supporters tend to think they are >> bringing >> light to the world, when, I would argue, they are bringing light to >> themselves. >> Linux is being developed by those who are interested in it for >> themselves, >> any calls to conquer the world fail if not at capturing imaginations of >> certain impressionable individuals, then certainly at bringing on any >> conquest-type action. We have to be honest with ourselves - most of us >> enjoy playing around with Linux and although certain practical reasons, >> like hardware compatibility, make us desire a more broad adoption of the >> system, really, do we care that much? >> >> And people who use Windows - and this might still be news for some - do >> not >> feel the need to switch, don't feel they are not respected, don't care >> about the freedoms that we care about - and we are not in a position to >> tell them that they should. It is their choice. And it may be the right >> choice for them. >> Maybe - ... drumroll! ... - they don't need the freedoms we do. And don't >> need not in a sense of not being aware, but genuinely don't care for >> them. >> Someone might very genuinely not care, say, for Freedom 1. And they might >> consciously give it up. >> >> So, quality sells, it's just that people understand "quality" >> differently. >> >> Stability is a separate issue. Stability sells - and sells well. But the >> thing with stability is that on the desktop it gets lost in-between other >> features, such as hardware support, developer support, mainstream >> availability, etc. Windows machines might be less stable on average, but >> all those other things make it rational to give up some stability for the >> confidence that any hardware you buy will work. >> >> Also, Linux stability is almost a myth, at least in the absolute form it >> is >> promoted. When it comes to multimedia systems, to the desktop, as opposed >> to running Apache on a server, Linux looses a lot of its stability. My >> worst computer experience ever (!) was with Ubuntu Karmic. It is the >> least >> stable system I have ever used, freezing about once in 2 hours, not >> recognizing ADSL, not having sound, etc. And I hear that modern Windows >> is >> less moody and is actually stable enough to be compared to a typical >> Ubuntu. >> >> So there you go. I hope this was not boring and too off-topic. >> >> Louigi. >> > > -- Louigi Verona http://www.louigiverona.ru/ _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
