[LAU] LightWorks for Linux Demo

[Louigi Verona]

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 at linuxuse.de> 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/