Roy Schestowitz espoused:
> Compiz is Cool ? and Why That Matters
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| One of the most vexed questions within the open source world is when, if
>| ever, GNU/Linux will take off on the desktop. Strangely, this isn't really
>| about capabilities: as someone who has Ubuntu running on both of his main
>| systems, I can attest to the fact that GNU/Linux is not just usable, it's a
>| downright pleasure to use. In fact, I constantly marvel at how transparent
>| open source has become: most of the time I'm simply not aware that I'm using
>| it ? it just works.
>|
>| This raises the interesting question: so what's missing? What more does open
>| source need to do in order to capture the attention of the general user? I
>| think the answer can be found on this YouTube video.
> `----
>
> http://www.computerworlduk.com/toolb...=701&blogid=14
>

Marketing people often refer to the "Wow" factor as the "USP" of a given
product. It could well be argued (correctly, in my view), that
Linux distributions are in the main /not/ products in a corporate sense,
although it's clearly a "product of someone's labour" which is not quite
the same thing.

Even so, Linux distributions are certainly up against proprietary
commercial products, namely Mac OSX and Microsoft Windows Vista, then
it's worth a rapid consideration of the marketing proposition which
Linux offers. I rather like this site:
http://marketing.about.com/od/advert...etmistakes.htm which
indicates commonly made errors in marketing. Let's take a quick peak
from a Linux perspective...

1. Lack of Research and Testing
2. Improper Focus and Positioning
3. Marketing without a USP
4. Failing to Capture Repeat Customers
5. Lack of Focus on Potential Customer's Needs

Of the above, it can certainly be said that Linux has had more Research
and Testing than either Windows Vista or Apple's OSX, considerably more,
in fact, so we've passed the first hurdle, but what next?

The second item is about correctly positioning an offering into the
market, thus avoiding the "solution searching for a problem" so often
seen in the pitches of sales people to the jaded middle-managers, you
know, the ones being asked "what's the biggest problem you have right
now?" and other great leading questions... For Linux distributions,
though, this has not been too much of an issue. Linux is great where
the customer wants freedom from vendor lock-in, freedom from malware,
viruses and so on, security, stability and no licensing costs. Oh yeah,
and the capability to run on relatively slim, low-power hardware
platforms. So, it looks like there are enough niche opportunities,
market segments and so on to keep any marketing guru salivating for
months, if not more.

The USP, the third item, has always been the achilles heel, the major
criticism of the open-source movement, that it "always copies" but
"never innovates". Anyone deeply involved in foss development will
probably cringe at this, but looked at from the outside, from a
non-technical perspective, which *is* most potential customers, Linux
distributions were doing something a lot like windows, but just not
quite as well (ie., it didn't *look* as good). Well, Compiz has finally
tipped the board in this department. Everyone to whom I've shown the
Compiz effects has gone from amazement to excitement, even to the point
of wanting to try it themselves - whereas most people are rather nervous
of computers, and would not normally want to do so. It's quite correct,
of course, that there are many aspects of foss which are extremely
innovative, but they're typically too technical for a non-expert to
comprehend, whereas Compiz, on the other hand, is merely stunning.
Linux, finally, has the right USP.

So now we get to the fourth item. So far, Linux adoption has tended to
be in small steps into different segments. It's been extremely sticky,
there are very few examples of organisations migrating /to/ linux and
then migrating away again afterwards (not zero, but very very few).
Linux, up until recently, though, has not had a great deal of traction
in the desktop or mobility space, where the end user plays directly.
The newest generation of highly mobile devices, a segment enabled by
Linux, and lead by Nokia's N810 and Asus's Eee, have not yet been around
for long enough that this can be tested, but my last check of Amazon's
sales showed Asus Eee, Nokia 810 and Apple's Airbook taking virtually
all of the top-10 seller spots, with Asus Eee right at the top.

The fifth item, lack of focus on potential customers, is the most
complex of all of these biccies to bake. By its nature, Linux has been
developed by people who like to and who want to use it. Perhaps
counter-intuitively, this has resulted in an exceptionally functional
and usable set of embedded, mobile, server and desktop environments, as
well as supporting super-computing requirements to boot. The latest of
the greatest distributions, Ubuntu and Android have taken this Focus to
other environments, but in reality, we're probably at the point where
connectivity and applications for communications of various kinds are
likely to emerge as the major forward looking requirements.

I retain my view that the desktop in its traditional sense (Microsoft's
1980s-like disconnected world view) is very much dead, and that mobility
and appliances are the future for normal people. I think that the
future sits with MLI, Android, OLPC, Mythtv, Nokia's N810, Chumby,
Excito's Bubba, Elonex, Asus Eee, OpenMoko and all those other new and
innovative devices built around open platforms and open source.
However, for what remains of the desktop, then Compiz is *the* USP which
can reel in that market segment.

--
| mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |

Mark Kent wrote:

> I rather like this site:
> http://marketing.about.com/od/advert...etmistakes.htm which
> indicates commonly made errors in marketing. Let's take a quick peak
> from a Linux perspective...
>
> 1. Lack of Research and Testing
> 2. Improper Focus and Positioning
> 3. Marketing without a USP
> 4. Failing to Capture Repeat Customers
> 5. Lack of Focus on Potential Customer's Needs
>
> Of the above, it can certainly be said that Linux has had more
> Research and Testing than either Windows Vista or Apple's OSX,
> considerably more, in fact, so we've passed the first hurdle,

No you haven't. Almost all Linux/OSS products are poorly designed, poorly
coded, poorly featured, poorly documented, and receive small amounts of crap
testing and QA. That's why they fail and freeze and lockup so much and have
so many bugs when they're released in final form.

Look at Ubuntu. Look at the KDE 4.0 release. Look at the history of MySQL.
Of OpenOffice.
Of Gambas. Of native Linux games, etc etc.

You guys need to open your eyes and try to understand and accept something:
open source cannot compete with commercial, closed-source programs. And the
few exceptions proves the rule.



> Well, Compiz has
> finally tipped the board in this department. Everyone to whom I've
> shown the Compiz effects has gone from amazement to excitement, even
> to the point of wanting to try it themselves - whereas most people
> are rather nervous of computers, and would not normally want to do
> so. It's quite correct, of course, that there are many aspects of
> foss which are extremely innovative, but they're typically too
> technical for a non-expert to comprehend, whereas Compiz, on the
> other hand, is merely stunning. Linux, finally, has the right USP.

Compiz is Linux's 'unique selling proposition'? You're daft. It's an
extremely buggy, nearly-useless toy. Fun to play with for a few minutes,
but ultimately a waste of time and computer resources (so it's right where
it belongs, on Linux).


> So now we get to the fourth item. So far, Linux adoption has tended
> to be in small steps into different segments. It's been extremely
> sticky, there are very few examples of organisations migrating /to/
> linux and then migrating away again afterwards (not zero, but very
> very few).

No duh. The few organizations that do migrate to Linux (vast, vast majority
being govt and education institutions) do it for cost savings.



> my last check of Amazon's sales showed Asus Eee, Nokia 810 and
> Apple's Airbook taking virtually all of the top-10 seller spots, with
> Asus Eee right at the top.

And a large chunk of Eee buyers wipe Linux and install XP
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16834220244



> I retain my view that the desktop in its traditional sense
> (Microsoft's 1980s-like disconnected world view) is very much dead,

What are you trying to say - that a computer with no Internet connection is
in the minority?

You're a frickin' genius, Kent!



> and that mobility and appliances are the future for normal people. I
> think that the future sits with MLI, Android, OLPC, Mythtv, Nokia's
> N810, Chumby, Excito's Bubba, Elonex, Asus Eee, OpenMoko and all
> those other new and innovative devices built around open platforms
> and open source.

My guess is you're typing this on a desktop system.



> However, for what remains of the desktop, then
> Compiz is *the* USP which can reel in that market segment.

If Compiz eye-candy is desktop Linux's best hope, it's doomed.

DFS had de volgende lumineuze gedachte op 22-04-08 05:57:

>
> No you haven't. Almost all Linux/OSS products are poorly designed, poorly
> coded, poorly featured, poorly documented, and receive small amounts of crap
> testing and QA. That's why they fail and freeze and lockup so much and have
> so many bugs when they're released in final form.
>
You mean they are like Windows Vista, a "work in progress"?

> Look at Ubuntu. Look at the KDE 4.0 release. Look at the history of MySQL.
> Of OpenOffice.
> Of Gambas. Of native Linux games, etc etc.
>
> You guys need to open your eyes and try to understand and accept something:
> open source cannot compete with commercial, closed-source programs. And the
> few exceptions proves the rule.

The problem is: in the case of a negative statement one exception
disproves the rule.

Erik Jan.

* none peremptorily fired off this memo:

> DFS had de volgende lumineuze gedachte op 22-04-08 05:57:
>
>> No you haven't. Almost all Linux/OSS products are poorly designed, poorly
>> coded, poorly featured, poorly documented, and receive small amounts of crap
>> testing and QA. That's why they fail and freeze and lockup so much and have
>> so many bugs when they're released in final form.
>>
> You mean they are like Windows Vista, a "work in progress"?
>
>> Look at Ubuntu. Look at the KDE 4.0 release. Look at the history of MySQL.
>> Of OpenOffice.
>> Of Gambas. Of native Linux games, etc etc.
>>
>> You guys need to open your eyes and try to understand and accept something:
>> open source cannot compete with commercial, closed-source programs. And the
>> few exceptions proves the rule.
>
> The problem is: in the case of a negative statement one exception
> disproves the rule.
>
> Erik Jan.

Plus, DFS is simply lying his ass off.

Linux applications are no more problematic than Windows applications.
And there are many OSS projects with great QA procedures, /and/ direct
access to their source-code control repositories based on solid OSS
products like Subversion, Bazaar-NG, or Mercurial.

One of the reasons Linux is making headway in servers and supercomputers
is that it receives a /lot/ of testing.

I'll bet it even compares favorably to FreeBSD. May need some more work
to match OpenBSD's record, but I'm only guessing.

--
People always fear change. People feared electricity when it was invented,
didn't they? People feared coal, they feared gas-powered engines...
There will always be ignorance, and ignorance leads to fear. But with time,
people will come to accept their silicon masters.
-- Bill Gates