Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

Linux Case Study Project At Linux International 52

Posted by Hemos from the making-inroads-in-the-world dept.
porkrind writes: "Linux International is launching a program designed to show all the different areas where Linux is used. It's the case study project. We figure this is a good place to start on our road to marketing Linux. What do you guys think about Linux vendors pooling resources via LI to launch marketing campaigns for Linux? In the end, whatever we come up with, we want to be used by all Linux communities: business, development, advocacy, et al."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux Case Study Project at Linux International More

Linux Case Study Project at Linux International

Comments Filter:
  • Basically, the subject says it all. But just in case: I'm free to use Linux at home (I do), but I'm not free to use it at work (yet). We have some Linux machines, but only a few, and IT doesn't like them. The problem is that, even though I have a big say in what we use, I don't have the final one. The PHBs of many IT departments still are M$ fanatics, even if they don't know anything at all about computers. Ours is no exception. Hence, the more commercial backing Linux gets, the easier it becomes for me to obtain the freedom to use Linux at work. QED

    --

  • Well yes it is about Freedom, but part of that is the freedom for different groups it push it in directions that they want to go with it. RedHat may want to push into the embeded space, IBM into servers and Eazel onto desktops. But in all 3 cases it has to make money or they will stop using it at all.

    The New York Times is a staunch supporter of the concept of a free press (as they have to be) but that does not mean that they don't try to turn a profit too. Even a free press has to pay the bills.

  • For a start the GPL hasn't been tested in a court of law so far, and so its viability as a protective mechanism is uncertain. So far the only reason it's worked is that no company wants to stick their necks out and be the first. If current trends continue though, it may become worth doing, and corporations can afford to hire good lawyers.

    Of course, one reason it hasn't been tested is that it's not the standard EULA. The standard EULA says, in effect "copyright gives you certain rights. We're taking some away." GPL says "copyright gives you certain rights. If you follow the GPL, you get some additional rights." Key to these additional rights is the right to redistribute the code. First company to challenge the GPL will find out that, since nothing else gives them the right to distribute the copyrighted code, they can't distribute it at all (normal copyright rules).

    Oops. "Sorry boss, I know you wanted it to become proprietary, but now we can't sell it at all."

    8-0

  • Linux branding, LSB, and the relevance of studies (Score:3)

    by iskander ( 9699 ) on Friday February 09, 2001 @03:44AM (#443999)
    Let me try to address a question from the article post in my own convoluted way. When people go to the store to buy a new computer, they look at the software and the peripherals available for it before making a decision. Right now, Joe Q. Average, retail shopper, will find plenty of digital cameras and scanners and printers and software with the Windows logo or the MacOS logo on the package, and he will assume that he must own a computer with Windows or MacOS in order to use them. Yep, Joe Q. Average will only consider buying a computer with pre-installed Linux if all those goodies I just mentioned feature a big fat Tux logo alongside the Windows disintegrating flag and the MacOS happy face. Computer manufacturers know this, and they will therefore refrain from putting a machine running Linux on a retail outlet's shelves until the situation is corrected. Now that Linux 2.4 is available, Linux International and friends should first try to persuade all of those cheap USB peripheral manufacturers to donate Linux drivers (or at least release hardware specs, which in time become drivers) for their products and then (and this is very important) persuade their marketing departments to advertise Linux 2.4 compatibility on their retail packaging. Of course, this would be a lot more meaningful if there were a suitable LSB specification that guaranteed the availability of corresponding userland facilities that may be needed to facilitate the use of the peripheral (like ALSA and SANE and Ghostscript and whatever) but that's a whole 'nother story. Of course, all of the above depends on the premise that Linux really is suitable for mass consumption; given that we would not want to fall flat on our faces, it is extremely important that case studies should tell us in what domains and to what extent Linux is ready for use by Joe Q. Average, computer user, before a potentially premature branding effort gets started. For some things, late is better than wrong.

  • Nice website - not (Score:4)

    by Brento ( 26177 ) <brento AT brentozar DOT com> on Friday February 09, 2001 @03:23AM (#444000) Homepage
    All I can say is if we're relying on this company to do the PR necessary for Linux to take over the world, we'd better prepare for a mighty long battle. That is the plainest, lamest, almost-Front-Page-inest looking web site I've ever seen for a supposed PR group. I'm mortified to think about what kind of advertising collateral they put out.

    This has to be one of the larger reasons Microsoft is doing so well: they shovel money into advertising. Joe Sixpack sees the huge two-page spreads advertising Microsoft's five-nines reliability, and thinks, "Hmmm, must be reliable." The ads are gorgeous, they're everywhere, and you're driven to think the company must be doing a lot of things right in order to afford that kind of advertising. After all, this isn't like a dot-com that blew out an entire year's ad budget on a single Super Bowl spot: Microsoft spends more on ads than most companies make in revenue.

    Linux, on the other hand, gets a lot of press, but not the picture type. Linux reviews or articles tend to be long, wordy affairs, not quick glamorous ads, and thus people's eyes glaze over.

    Continental's in-flight magazine had a great article on Linux last month. I fly a lot, so I made it a point to ask a couple of my co-passengers if they'd read the article. It was a unanimous "No." Why? Because articles about computers are boring to them.

    But they can't help but see Microsoft's fast, easy-to-digest ads. (And yes, I asked.)

    Someone's going to pipe up and respond that Linux isn't ready for end users. That's correct, but it doesn't matter, because end users aren't going to ASK for it. End users routinely ask me when they can get upgraded to Win2k, even though they have no idea what the difference is (or why I won't put it on their P300 laptop with 64mb ram.)

    Good advertising generates demand. No advertising doesn't. Bad advertising generates repulsion. (Think sock puppet.) So with that in mind, I'm horrified by the Linux International website, because it's even worse than no advertising at all.
  • Anything to bring the masses to Linux has got my support. We have to empower the people and give them the opportunity to create better software. The Python [python.org] language will be the first programming language for everyone. Student's will learn it in school and grow up programming.

    Thank you for your time :)

    Vam (stepping of the soap box)

  • Interesting premise

    Of course, equilibrium CAN be shifted.

    OK, First an admission, I'm a Linux Newbee, but have been around /. and computers a LONG time

    I don't know how many of you were doing professional computer work back when the IBM PC was new, and were programmers when Windows 3.0 came out, but I was.

    Here is a little history lesson, from MY point of view.

    Windows 2.x and 3.0 were niche market products. In many ways, Linux today (market wise) reminds me of Windows 3.0. A lot of people and particularly businesses are interested, but there is NO reason to change, and some real reasons not to. Even though web based apps are all the rage, MOST business apps are still N Tier client/server. Right_NOW_ (stop - don't tell me about Kylix - I'll get there) there is no GOOD way to right business apps for the Linux desktop, just like there was no tool except C to write Windows apps back during the early Windows 3.0 days

    Then something happened - Microsoft came out with VB 1.0, and did there best to make sure that any developer who wanted it, got it. The gave good tech support. All of a sudden, there was a way for companies to write their own custom in house programs. A few companies took the risk (I was hired by one of them), and we succeeded. By the time Win 3.1 came out 6-9 months later, we had apps. But the big thing was, not only did Microsoft show of Windows, the dragged developers who were writing in VB to places like Comdex, and showed off those in house apps, and allowed people to talk to them. Awards for developers, nice parties etc. Why? It showed businesses that there was a way to write apps. Windows took off

    Linux has not had that. Yeah, we have Perl, and C++, but they don't cut it.

    We are about to have that - Kylix.

    Want to bet that there will be companies that buy Linux now, because there is a GOOD RAD tool? I'll tell you what - I'm hedging MY bets, and learning Linux as fast as I can, and you had better believe that there is a copy of Kylix coming my way.
  • YES, C++ does cut it, for building an OS. Business don't WANT to build an OS.

    OK, Let's look at what is really done in the corporate world. What percentage of apps are written in, say VC++ vs VB? Answer? About 99% VB.

    Remember the triangle, Good, Quick, Cheap - Pick two! Well most of corporate America has picked Quick and Cheap as the main parts - That leads to RAD tools. The few places you see GOOD, Quick are places like brokerages, where you see UNIX and/or VC++ development

    C++ is probably the most powerful tool out there. Perfect for writing an OS, and yes, you can write the best Insurance Claims app with it. The problem is that it'll take longer to do than companies are willing to wait, and cost more
  • Let's say you have a web server with 1gb of memory and your whole content uses 100mb. How would you set your server up to run only in memory? You would still have a hard drive also.

    I know you need to setup a RAM disk and copy the data over each time the computer boots... but what exactly would need to be copied over to the ram disk to make is speediest. Everything? ("/usr" "/" "/var") RedHat's distro is huge you don't to copy it all over into memory. What about Apache bin? a database driven site with MySQL?

    Would just copying the web server content each time it loads and serving off that speed it up significantly?
  • sorry... I'm a dumb ass and posted this to the wrong article. But just for kicks, how would you make your case out of just SDRAM??
  • You forgot a few:

    • Music Software - like Cakewalk, and SoundForge
    • 3D Modelling tools - 3D Max, Softimage, etc. (no Blender isn't good enough)
    • Vector Graphics - like Adobe Ilustrator (Who ever says Gimp, is an idiot. Gimp is close to Photoshop, but lacks the CYMK support)

  • > the #1 feature preventing Linux from going mainstream: DirectX support.

    As, a game developer, I agree. Allthough Loki did a good start with SDL [devolution.com].
  • You mean, moderators don't moderate on objective principles?! Of course not. They never have. They never will. We see retarded pro-linux posts get moderated to high heaven because they're pro-linux and good, rational posts stamped into the mud because someone said something which could be construed as anti-linux and pro-microsoft. In fact, my friends and i use a bastardized form of slashdot moderation in our daily conversation.

    "Argh, I'm sick of linux crashing."
    "Score -1, Made an assertion that linux could possibly do anything wrong."

    It ain't gonna change, either. The slashdot moderation system makes the assumption that more moderators are sane and rational than not.

    By the way, if you believe more moderators are sane and rational than not, I've got some beachfront property in Arizona I'd love to sell you.
  • By your definition of troll, we'd have to blacklist the vast majority of slashdot. I don't see many people getting their footnotes together before posting to slashdot, and I certainly don't see much in the way of common courtesy, let alone polite conversation.

    And why should we? It's just a damn message board. I'm bothered more by people who work themselves into an over-analytical frenzy over non-issues such as whether someone uses GPL or BSD (for example), which boils down basically to a matter of opinion.
  • >> Linux is not about money, it's about freedom. Don't let the corporations take it away from us.
    <<

    Quit your whining, biotch. Linux can't be taken away from us, it's GPL'd (for the most part).

    Linux Torvalds is hardly worries. Check out this excerpt from his most recent interview:

    Linus Torvalds: Oh, there's a lot of confusion here, probably because a lot of people get so hung up about "ownership transfer," when I personally don't think such a notion even exists in Linux.

    See, Linus isn't worried at all that linux can be taken away from us. He has alot more wisdom on this subject than probably any of us. If he thinks linux is safe from all the companies and outside interests, I tend to agree.

    By the way, most hackers who make code under the GPL (and bsd/x licenses) don't consider the use of such code to be exploitative. The way you react, I doubt you've ever even contributed 1 line of code to the free software community.

    If corperations think it is in their interest to sell free software, I don't think we should stand in their way. RMS isn't. Linus isn't. Please think before you detract.
  • You're paranoid.

    IBM, SUN, HP are NOT software companies. Embrace and extend what?! the kernel?! bahahah, I don't think so. Why should IBM and SUN hire kernel module writers and maintainers when the community takes care of that very well?

    If Microsoft were suddenly interested in linux, THEN I'd be worried. Microsoft is a pure software play (now with xbox, webtv, so who knows). Microsoft would certainly use the methods you site, but would IBM and SUN? that's doubtful. If they can sell the hardware with a software service contract then that's just as good as selling the hardware with their software with a software warranty which includes a modicum of service obligations.

    It's /cheaper/ to use linux for these corperations if it does everything Solaris or AIX does, for free, with little to know developer overhead, and with alot of room left over for lucrative service contracts. It just makes sense.

    At the current time linux can't do everything solaris and aix does, of course, so they will continue to sell those in the high end.

    I am very pleased that you are concerned about linux's succcess and what business might do to it. Free Software is addictive, once you use it you can't quit. I am certainly addicted to my debian installation, and the gads of free software it gives me. I don't think I'll be going back to windows/warez/crackz any time soon.

    Borland is in its death throes. Microsoft has effectively made them irrelevent and they are trying to maximize profit with a push into the linux sector. But puhlease. Anyone who uses gcc/autoconf on a regular basis couldn't care less about borland. What worthlessness.

    In the end, free software will have succeeded only if it makes software a commodity. Linux distributions are already commodities, and cost a person the price of bandwidth, or the price of medium+copy fee. Why do you think these distribution companies are having so much trouble? Software is becoming a commodity. You need to do something else to make your money. Redhat knows this. IBM knows this. Sun knows this. Suse is learning this. And microsoft has a monopoly.

    So there we have it. Will the big-box computer makers take over linux? Only if the laws governing free-markets of commodities end up that way. There will always be added value, and there will ALWAYS be a common base. Commodity markets looove consistency of product. You just watch. I know I'm right.
  • Modding to troll is definately not the same as blacklist. You could be "troll" and still +1..

    Like I intimated. Thinking before reacting is vital to good postage.

    Yes opinion shouldn't be marked as troll.

    If you want to know my opinion about that top poster, I think he is a pro-microsoft astroturfer who wants to take mindshare away from linux.

    They've done it before, and they'll do it again. Remember when they badmouthed the internet before they presciently "got it".. hahaha. stupid microsoft.
  • <<No, I just made all that up. You have nothing to be afraid of. Enjoy your free AOL account. Large companies care about you, the customer.>>

    Your intellect is frightening. aol is a service for morons and their 5 year old children. Sorry it's the truth. Free software users won't be duped. And free software creators /can't/ be duped. They do it for the love. For the pleasure. For the endorphin rush. So they can get laid on saturday night.

  • Uhm ok. To get a bit legal, the rights under the GPL belong to the copyright holder. The copyright holders of the kernel are many. Any one of them could sue under copyright law for license infringement. It's not for me to make this decision, but if it gets out of hand, expect a class-action lawsuit against virgin player, or whatever the hell it is. Right now, the way you describe it, it's a trifle.
  • Don't think 'linux can't be taken away' or that 'the GPL protects'?

    Then explain the use of GPLed Linux as a base in the virgin webplayer, yet the box/software had a license that forbid your 'rights' to source code.

    Go ahead. Show the 'protection' of the GPL.
  • press release [internetwire.com]
    Merinta Ships Software And Services For Internet Appliance Network And Virgin
    iBrow(TM) Solution Delivered For WebPlayer(TM) Net Appliance Highlights First Media-Rich, Full-Featured Browser Running On The Linux Operating System

    Given this is the case, and the license shipped with the boxes excludes access to the source, this product was shipped in violation. Yet, no one has used the GPL to get the source.

    Do you actually have proof beyond the link to QNX corp? No? Thought not.

  • Point is, the more commercial support there is the more hardware/software/resources linux can get. Thus making it better. Look at IBM, they're doing TONS of stuff for Linux, keeping it all opensourse and free. They're not in it for the bottom line (well unlitmatly they are, better os gives their hardware an edge) they're in it to make Linux better and to get more support for more hardware.

    It also makes people realize that linux is a real os and not something only hacker weenies use and that they should release specs and drivers for their hardware.
    --

  • hey charlie,

    no disrespect but i think you are wrong.

    Linux has not had that. Yeah, we have Perl, and C++, but they don't cut it.

    DONT CUT IT?!?!? MAN, WE BUILT AN OS!! what more do people need to do to prove that this is the right way? make a rocket to mars? geeez, some of us refuse to believe... :-))

    but seriously, if rad tools are so important, how did the hackers make an OS without them? i mean, you might have your complaints about gnome and kde but you gotta hand it, they've done a *lot* of work in a very short space of time. they way i see it, you can have rad tools on linux but programers that *depend* on them arent good programers. its nice to know that all this new kids comming up will see vi, emacs, etc as the REAL tools. sure you need dia for some UML and glade for some prototyping but aint nothing more "rapid" than a skilled emacs / vi programmer. and thats the truth.


    soup, the dragon.
  • Not to be an AOL astroturfer but I have to say, Metoo! I think you're right about the "top poster" guy. I also think there are a lot of MCSE flying monkey shitbrains that hang out here get their modpoints, and fuck this site up (as if it wasn't bad enough already in 1999).

    That was a stir-the-anthill troll if I've ever seen one. I would have modded him as troll even though I couldn't be 100% positive about the motivation.

  • Enter the Sociopath?

    Humourless left wing hypocrite?

    Advocated Violence?

    I can see it now, right there in your mind.

    A bunch of Sociopathic Hypocrites standing in front of a court judge for alledgedly beating their Win98 disks.

    What would you have, oh mighty font of wisom?... "Goatsexes Faster?"

    Whether you like it or not, mr drivel, the ad campaign and advocacy campaign brings customers in not by lulling them to sleep, but by either showing them what they have, or by showing them why what the customer already has is useless.

    Got milk?

    krystal_blade

  • What I think some good ads would look like... (Score:3)

    by krystal_blade ( 188089 ) on Friday February 09, 2001 @03:13AM (#444021)
    1. Get Prodigy to do a theme song alteration of "Smack my bitch up." Exchange the lyrics for "Smack M S up."

    2. A nice little image on internet applications... an "us and them" video if you please.

    US (Linux) Show a computer with web hits scrolling across real fast...

    Them--Show the same thing, but slowly show their computer starting to smoke, and finally exploding (morphing into a huge peice of popcorn)

    Ad... "Whose got the better Kernal? Linux."

    krystal_blade

    as usual, in a humorous mood.

  • I respectfully disagree. Linux has only in the last year or two gotten to the point where I would start to recommend it to reasonably average Windows users. And I would still only recommend it to those who are frustrated with Windows' "quirks" (i.e. crashes) and who have fairly focused and specialized computing needs. IMO the battle for the desktop hasn't even really begun yet.

    I think there are a few forces that might well push Linux on to more desktops.

    1. Linux is free. Windows is starting to look like a hefty chunk of the price of a new computer. With profit margins where they are, equipment manufacturers have to be interested.

    2. Linux is Free (i.e. Open Source). This is perhaps a disappointment to companies who want to close the source and sell their own version. However it's a big advantage to hardware companies: they get a huge set of free programmers and they can tune the software in-house for their needs.

    3. Microsoft might be broken up. If so, expect to see Word for Linux. Expect to see legal complications for MS if they don't do it. Word running under KDE would allow Linux to provide the basic needs of 90% of non-gaming Windows users. And games aren't of any interest to a lot of people.

    4. MS has stepped on a lot of toes to get where they are. This is in part why so many companies are interested in Linux. They would like to get MS out of the picture.

    5. It's all about apps. A lot of programmers like Linux. If you can get programmers on board, apps will follow; and users won't be far behind.

    6. Average users don't like windows that much. My non-techie former girlfriend would curse Windows regularly. When she saw that I didn't have the same problems she expressed considerable interest in Linux (without prompting from me)---until I told her there wasn't Word for Linux.

    None of these is a strong enough point to show that Linux _will_ become a viable average user desktop. Some of the points are even arguable; I tried to throw in everything I could think of. But I think it's indisputable that there are a lot of reasons why a lot of suits and non-geeks would like to see Linux succeed. And the battle has yet to be fought.

  • Linux Cases? (Score:5)

    by grammar nazi ( 197303 ) on Friday February 09, 2001 @03:28AM (#444023) Journal
    I use my Linux case to protect my linux motherboard from dust and damage.

    Seriously, I can sum up many of the different markets for linux:
    1. Businesses that have a specific IT goal in mind and don't need a large corporation to set these goals for them.
    2. Geeky, pimply youths who like a 'flexible' operating system. (Not intended to flame, since I used to fit this category)
    3. Geeky, conservative older men (yes, men) who like a 'flexible' operating system (Not intended to flame, since I currently fit this).
    4. Developers who have specific goals in mind for hardware systems and don't need a large corporation to set these goals for them.
    5. Those who use Linux and don't understand what it is. This is a direct result of #4 and #1 and a good example is Tivo owners.

    I think it's apparent that companies often blindly follow what large corporations sell them. Thus, I conclude that the biggest potential market for Linux is to have a large corporation start marketing Linux solutions (IBM?).

    Actually, I can further summarize as follows:
    1. Those who need a flexible OS.
    2. Those who need a cheap OS.
    3. Those who enjoy playing with their OS.
    4. Those who enjoy a 'free as in speech' operating system are in a considerable minority. I don't intend this to Flame, I wish it weren't true, but I think it is.

    Did I miss anything?

  • Knock knock - it's reached equilibrium (Score:4)

    by w00ly_mammoth ( 205173 ) on Friday February 09, 2001 @03:36AM (#444024)
    When linux was young and hopping around in the excitement of its youth, there were many bold dreams and brave ideas. People talked of it replacing windows and leading to a revolutionary new world. Due to the large statistical numbers of programmers, marketers, companies involved, the movement has stabilized a lot.

    At this point, no matter of marketing is going to make much difference. The direction has already been set - linux as a server OS for scripters and hackers, windows as a gui for ordinary users. Sure, you get the fanatics talking about how Joe Sixpack uses linux to teach his kids, but those are the priests preaching to the choir. I've seen even hardcore linux users generally have a windows partition - at least I did, for gaming and writing resumes.

    Anyway, the point is - each OS has its strengths and builds momentum in its areas. Linux is good for servers, and excels there. Is marketing needed to highlight that point further? Doubt it. Will marketing make families switch to linux to use email and store their family photos? Doubt it.

    Basically, the battle has stabilized. The fight is over servers. In that area, I don't see how marketing like this is going to help.

    And one more thing - generally, these articles tend to say the things people already know. When I see these "convert the newbies" articles on /., from the tone and content, I wonder how many newbies actually see these things.

    In any case, business decisions are made by managers after reading crap from Gartner and IDC. This doesn't make any difference. Realistically, the target audience is purchasing managers. will they read these "success stories" on the Linux International site and say - "Wow, that's impressive, I didn't know linux was so good. I will now install linux and try it out."

    Come on...people at that level already know this shit. They don't need to be fed baby food. From what I've seen, linux marketing works best by word of mouth from enthusiastic users - not by propaganda sites/articles.

    w/m
  • When linux was young and hopping around in the excitement of its youth, there were many bold dreams and brave ideas. People talked of it replacing windows and leading to a revolutionary new world...At this point, no matter of marketing is going to make much difference. The direction has already been set - linux as a server OS for scripters and hackers, windows as a gui for ordinary users.

    Exactly.

    It's not 1998 anymore. The rise of Linux from geek toy to mainstream OS was so meteoric that people were happy to project it into the future and talk about "World Domination" and the like. The reality has set in now: Linux has and will hold a major chunk of the server market and the new apps make it a practical desktop OS for those who really want to use Unix. But, at the same time, iD couldn't sell enough copies of Quake to justify future Linux boxes, Corel took a bath on its Linux productivity applications, Applixware is being sold, it's turning out that an army of hackers can't instantly write a solid office suite and Slashdot can't even pull a majority of Linux hits.

    I love running Linux at home, where it meets my needs (coding and net access) and I'm going to keep contributing to free software. But I'm certainly not giving up my Mac and MS Office at work.

    Speaking of marketing, search Google for KDE [google.com] and look at the paid ad on the right. Classy, huh?

  • That's too bad you think The Revolution is over, because it is really just starting. GNU/Linux is just now starting to get real coverage in the zines most people read (PCWorld, ZDnet). And KDE2/Ximian are really quite amazing. Given another year of maturity, and combined with OpenOffice, I see no reason why Mom & Pop won't be able to use free software. We're getting so close, people don't need to start giving up now.
  • A friend just gave me that (apparently hidden?) link: See http://www.linux-mandrake.com/bizcases/ [linux-mandrake.com]

    It's cleaner, with many other cases etc. Enjoy!

  • Already done for a long time... (Score:3)

    by joestar ( 225875 ) on Friday February 09, 2001 @03:22AM (#444028) Homepage
    On Mandrake website, for Linux-Mandrake uses... See their page [linux-mandrake.com], it's instructive.
  • Personally, I think that the Linux community should start using scorched-earth advertizing tactics. With M$ claiming that windows is open-source, we need to fight back. How about this one:

    A full page ad in the NYTimes. Two pictures. One is of a disheveled corporate manager, tie askew, bags under the eyes, looking upward with a forlorn expression and holding a gun in his mouth. Caption: Windows. The other being a picture of the same manager, with a slinky red-headed secretary sitting on his lap, drinking a martini. Caption: Linux

    Heck, if M$ is now targeting Linux with their propaganda machine, we might as well start fighting dirty.

  • ...so why should they choose Linux.

    Most people never gave a concious thought to what O.S. they would run, the decision was either made by the company or the reseller.

    If you want large scale adoption of Linux then you need to start selling Linux to large companies.

    Given that companies are now going back to centralised processing why is Linux with either X-Windows or VNC not being actively promoted. Is there a technical reason that limits these products in the thousands of users per machine environment?

    I think the O.S. has been ready for the enterprise since 2.2.0 was released. But I have yet to see small cheap, $300, Xterms, what's the good of having a cheap OS if the xterms cost more than a PC. Don't get me started on the lack of decent XServers for windows, do you want people to jump to Linux without a safety net?

    On a similar note, there is no complete COBOL compiler for Linux, there are a couple of projects in process, come on IBM give us a decent COBOL compiler and debugger. Go ahead laugh but when enterprise compaines port software it's COBOL they usually port.

    When big compaies start installing Linux as a matter of routine then you will see a big swing on the home front. But it ain't going to happen because a group with no name recognition asks people to. IBM, Compaq, DELL, GateWay, Oracle, Sun, CA, EDS and the like are who you need to convince.
  • This is the question you need to answer first, because what I'm going to suggest is sure to be ridiculed.

    Who is the biggest seller of OS in the world?

    Why not try and promote Linux to that company?

    If their OS has problems and they could get a better OS for a bargain price, would they not at least consider it? Forget the rhetoric M$ makes money.

    Has any of the advocacy groups approached Micro$oft? Why not?

    Both camps have a lot to gain from this, M$ gets a decent OS. Linux removes competition on the server, gets a large advertising budget, Office gets ported, Visual Dev tools get ported. Of course M$ would probably keep the desktop, but for how long?

    If the Linux camp is not thinking about this, they should be. I bet people in M$ have already discussed this, maybe not with Gates and Co :-)
  • [br] You could use Linux for more then a server. I use it for a workstation and playing games as well. Yeah I don't get that many games, but Linux could be used for gaming, office, server... Linux could be a box for the family, it's whatever people make it is what I'm trying to say...
  • If you like M$, go to MsSlashdot.com.
    Because Slashdot IS a pro Unix site.

  • Or better yet. Remember that commercial with the guy that grabs his monitor, and throws it out the window. And then it says "If only everything was as dependable as a chevy" ???

    Do the same thing. But instead of chevy, have a penguin dance across a blue screen after that, and make him say: "Got Linux?".

  • This is the ONLY thing Linux needs to make it past M$ in the next few years. Yes it would take time, probably about 2-5 years. Depending on demand. First before I get into this. Lets define what windows REALLY is. Windows is a GUI stuck on DOS. It is not a real OS ( no flame here, this is just a fact ). All 9x-16bit M$ OSs are stuck on command.com, making it NOT a true OS, but a GUI. Now what IF, someone where to take somthing like the windows GUI, stick it on Linux itself, and make it able to run M$ binarys? What would you get? Probably the most widelyy used OS in the world. Make it OpenSource, and then charge people $50 for it commercialy, where the user pays for support, and commercial programs, and in the mainstream, keeping the kernel itself, open source, and free. THAT my friends is what will drive M$ into the ground.

  • He also forgot the #1 feature preventing Linux from going mainstream: DirectX support.

    We all know the CEOs of Fortune500 corporations don't need a 1.4GHz pentium to write a word doc. No, all that computing power is going on Golf simulations and other games that older executives are into (War simulations, fishing games etc).

    What CEO will ever take linux seriously, if he cannot play his games in his corner office when his staff aren't watching ?

    What do others think ?

  • Yep. You're right.
    But you missed one thing. Linux is big now and needs some full time developers, to keep track.

    And unless you have already some money, you cannot do this without being paid for.
    I cannot imagine, that there are so many qualified people, with enough money to provide and maintain the technical equipment, and having the desire and the time to dedicate a main part of their life to the development and connected aspects of free software.

    Somewhere the money for the thousands of developers has to come from. So some business wiling to spend their money in Linux and other free software are necessary. I don't like it, too.

    But if you want to make free software really independant from business and/or donations, you have to make business and industy for money unnecessary at all. And we all know the "bad" word for this.

    The market is the new God. And we need a new Atheism

  • Linux advertising buzz phrases:

    "Come to where the EMACS is."

    "Where you don't want to reboot today?"

    "Always Tux."

    "OOOOHHHH MYYYYYH GOOOOOD, this is deliciuos. You gotta try it!!"

  • Is linux the operating system we want it to be? Is it possible for it, to be the only one every private computer. Then it still needs a lot of things:
    • a unified and easy to use package format (I like .debs best, but they mostly need perl for the scrips, so you have to have perl on the disc, they are only secondary supported and dselect is hell to use).
    • a full featured browser
    • a lot(or at least on extremely good) of (mainly 3D) Graphics Applications
    • far easier an wide spreaded sound support
    • proper printer support for other than postscript printers or at least cheap postscript printers
    • lotta (commercial quality) games
    • better interaction of all programs, wich needs the linux standard base to get ready
    • gcc 3.0 soon ready
    • all those standard office applications ready, not beta
    That may sound arrogant and and pessimistic, but you need this to completely replace Win* or MacOS on your machine. And all this is something you can only do in full time efford. There may be some men of genius who might do this as a side show, but there are never enough of them.

  • But you missed one thing. Linux is big now and needs some full time developers, to keep track.

    But most of these new features seem to be aimed at the business end of the market rather than at the core community of Linux users. So if we need full time developers (which I doubt anyway) it is only because of the demands being placed on Linus and co from business organisations that want to turn Linux into CorpLinux.

  • Quit your whining, biotch. Linux can't be taken away from us, it's GPL'd (for the most part).

    Do you honestly think Linux can't be taken away from us? I think that's a naive point of view, and overly trusting of corporate business practices, which we see on /. everyday exposed for what they are.

    For a start the GPL hasn't been tested in a court of law so far, and so its viability as a protective mechanism is uncertain. So far the only reason it's worked is that no company wants to stick their necks out and be the first. If current trends continue though, it may become worth doing, and corporations can afford to hire good lawyers.

    Secondly you've heard of "embrace and extend" right? The kernel may be GPLed but if it is surrounded by enough non-GPL stuff then it may come to the point where it might as well not be - you need loads of non-GPL stuff to run it. Borland's Kylix is a prime example of that, and I hope it doesn't succeed, because it could be the start of a long decline...

  • What's up with all of the marketing stuff? (Score:5)

    by sharkticon ( 312992 ) on Friday February 09, 2001 @02:56AM (#444042)

    At some point in the last few years it seems as though I went to the kitchen for a cup of coffee and when I came back, Linux was a hotbed of corporate activity. What on Earth happened?

    The whole point of Linux was never commercial success or brand-name recognition, it was to provide a high-quality operating system under a free license. Back in those days we didn't care about whether or not we could come up with a case study of success stories in order to drum up more corporate users, hell the corporate users were geeks hidden in darkened corners.

    Why should we care that a bunch of greedy corporate suits want to promote Linux as if it's their baby? To be quite frank, I find all this corporatism an affront to the ideals that RMS stands for, and it's not why I starting using Linux in the first place. Software should be free, not exploited for the bottom line.

    At this rate I expect to see "Bullet Proof Linux", "Fortune 500 Linux" and a whole host of other business-friendly distributions. Corel was bad enough, this sort of thing with its "Collaborative Marketing Programs" is worse.

    Linux is not about money, it's about freedom. Don't let the corporations take it away from us.

  • Having said that, yes, we are looking to spice it up with some real designers. Yes we need to make it look prettier, but first, I just want a functional web site where people can go to grap info on Linux.

    And by the way, we're not a company. We are a vendor-driven organization - not-for-profit.

    Be seeing you,
    John Mark Walker
    LI Webmaster
    Vice-chair, Marketing Committee
  • What we need is some entity to bring Linux info to the masses that's not part of a specific company. The reason is that if every company tries to bring Linux to the masses, everyone will be confused about what Linux is and what it can do. However, Linux International is not a company - we represent the Linux companies. Thus, we are in position to distribute Linux info to the world. If successful, then those execs at companies who decide IT strategies will be better informed about Linux.

    John Mark Walker
    LI Webmaster
    Vice-chair, LI Marketing Committee
  • Sure, Linux has reached equilibrium - if you're an ISP, of if you need a cheap print server... or web server... or ftp server. The fact is, however, that in the IT space, Linux is not in the center of the picture - not by a long shot. You won't find Linux in most legal institutions. You won't find Linux in a lot of banks, although that is slowly changing - and very slowly, and if you do it's for compute clusters. You won't find Linux on corporate desktops. Linux is making up ground in the embedded space, but that's still a dog-fight. You won't find Linux in a lot of App server shops, or on most companies' middleware, or in web development consulting shops. The fact is, we have a ways to go before we reach "equilibrium."

    And this is not about bringing Linux to newbies. This is about spreading info about Linux so that IT power brokers can be better informed. This is not about educating Joe desktop user about how to get KDE2 running on his desktop - there are other and better places for that.

    And yes, word of mouth from enthusiastic users does a lot for Linux, but we cannot rely on that *exclusively*. We need good, quality marketing material to give to IT managers, CIO's, etc. And no, they *don't* know that shit. If you get bombarded by sales guys from Sun, MS, et al. and there's nothing from the Linux side, how successful do you think Linux will be?

    John Mark Walker
    LI Webmaster
    Vice-chair, LI Marketing Committee
  • I agree. We can't let it become total BS that no one will listen to. However, we need a place to proactively distribute Linux info. Why do we need this? Because every day now, I see more drivel coming out of Redmond. We don't need to respond to it, per se, because that only legitimizes it. However, we do need to come out with our own "drivel" except make it good information that can be used by many.

    John Mark Walker
    LI Webmaster
    Vice-chair, LI Marketing Committee
  • The marketing web site is not the advertising material. This is just a place to discuss and get info about the materials we're producing.

    Anyway, the advertising materials are coming, and no, they're not from the same designer as the web site... :@)

    And, as I already above, the web site will change, but right now it's functional and does what it needs to do.

    Besides, if you have any brilliant ideas about how the web site should look, there is a clear link on the front page about how you can join the mailing list and provide input.

    John Mark Walker
    LI Webmaster
    Vice-chair, LI Marketing Committee

Slashdot Top Deals

Mediocrity finds safety in standardization. -- Frederick Crane

Close