Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
Remember the "I'm a Mac... and I'm a PC" commercials? They were selling trendiness. Do you want to buy a young, hip, alternative OS or an old, dusty, middle-aged OS.

I'll say it again, it's just a prediction, but I think Linux could get a foot in the door some day with the same appeal.

There is no doubt about that - if somebody spends millions or billions on similar advertising campaigns.

Quote: Original post by Prefect

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
Remember the "I'm a Mac... and I'm a PC" commercials? They were selling trendiness. Do you want to buy a young, hip, alternative OS or an old, dusty, middle-aged OS.

I'll say it again, it's just a prediction, but I think Linux could get a foot in the door some day with the same appeal.

There is no doubt about that - if somebody spends millions or billions on similar advertising campaigns.

I don't think it would be that easy for Linux. It already has a brand and throwing money at it won't change that.

@tstrimp: Novell's version is more accurate:

Quote: Original post by Sander
@tstrimp: Novell's version is more accurate:

Maybe in reality, but we are talking about perception. Once a brand has been established it is very, very difficult to change people's opinion on it no matter how much it has changed. If you build an operating system around linux, and tell people it is something else (Similar to Mac OS X), it can get traction. But as a brand, linux is for geeks and popular perception of that will likely never change.

There is an excellent talk on branding and how it relates to FOSS, but my google fu is failing me.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: Original post by Sander
@tstrimp: Novell's version is more accurate:

Maybe in reality, but we are talking about perception. Once a brand has been established it is very, very difficult to change people's opinion on it no matter how much it has changed. If you build an operating system around linux, and tell people it is something else (Similar to Mac OS X), it can get traction. But as a brand, linux is for geeks and popular perception of that will likely never change.

There is an excellent talk on branding and how it relates to FOSS, but my google fu is failing me.

I am a Linux, too. I must say, though, that Linux has no popular perception. By "popular", I mean the non computer people, even those "experts" at the retailers. "Linux, what's that".

That's for here where I live, of course. Maybe the situation is different in the US, where some major linux companies are in the stocks.

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds

Quote: Original post by d000hg
Yeah right. A regular non-techy will hear about Linux and start asking "where do I get Linux" whereupon some loser will start talking down to them about distros and they give up.

MacOS got popular recently because of iPod/iPhone. Before that it's been used as a minority OS by certain minorities. OSX is not and never has been, anything other than minority interest, even now. It has not had "a turn".

Or maybe the complete opposite..

guy 1: "Where do I get Linux?"
guy 2: "Ubuntu. Here's a live CD. It's free. Any app you need is free and easy to find. Done."

That doesn't sound like a typical Linux user to me. There wasn't a single quip about MS or IE, or a rant about the intrinsic rightness of free software and the evils of corporate capitalism.

Quote: Perhaps you've forgotten Apple's platform from day 1. "We're not Microsoft". Did you comprehend their first commercial? I think you're mistaken if you don't think that "trendiness" had anything to do with a mainstream adoption of Mac in the art, music, and collegiate realms. It certainly wasn't just the iPod/iPhone alone. Mac marketed every step of the way as being "cooler" than Microsoft.

Remember the "I'm a Mac... and I'm a PC" commercials? They were selling trendiness. Do you want to buy a young, hip, alternative OS or an old, dusty, middle-aged OS.

Apples were not mainstream until very recently. They've not been mainstream until the iPod and iPhone... they were a niche machine used in certain industries. You can't be mainstream "in certain realms", that's the definition of "niche". Only very recently have PC stores had Macs on general display, and typical non-techy folk started getting Macs. Even now, Apple's market share is very small.

Anyhow, the rest aside, how would Linux gain a trendy image? The moment you plug in some device that doesn't work, you have to face-to-face with 'real' Linux users who will ask you what build number you're using and then laugh at you.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Personally, I see nothing wrong with being a business man with a job, rather than a cocky student wannabe.

Quote: Original post by d000hg
That doesn't sound like a typical Linux user to me. There wasn't a single quip about MS or IE, or a rant about the intrinsic rightness of free software and the evils of corporate capitalism.

No. What you mean is a Linux Zealot, and Zealots are not typical Linux Users. Maybe the most apparent ones to you because they represent what you want to see, but they are not more than an insignificant minority.

For proof, maybe visit the one most Linux focused mailing list of the world, the Linux Kernel Mailing List, and see of how much interest Windows and Capitalism is. You'll have a tough, very tough time finding any reference. Not users? Okay. Goto Ubuntu, Debian or maybe Arch forums. Same. Windows is simply not a topic.


There are also some Windows Zealots, luckily only a minority, too, who believe that the typical Linux user is a Hardcore Zealot and has nothing more creative to do than ranting all day ... But again, truth is, most Linux users (including me and most other Linux users on gd.net) don't care about ranting over Windows and Anticapitalism, and especially not about MS and IE.

Quote: [...] you have to face-to-face with 'real' Linux users who will ask you what build number you're using and then laugh at you.

"Build number" is not a typical Linux term. Typical Linux applications are not released with build numbers, but version numbers (or tags) like "1.4" or the trendy "YYYY/MM" pattern. Something like 9.0.30729.1 SP seems more typical of windows ...

If at all, I could now be laughing about how some romance fragile theses of typical Linux users and Linux itself, but are simultaneously too unqualified to say something meaningful about it. But otoh, I'll just spend my time with a self rolled now (bad bad bad habit) and a big dose of Red Bull and see what to do productive next (and if you haven't noticed, cigarettes and Red Bull are not quite anticapitalistic).

Quote: Original post by Yann L
That's basically my point. For me as a developer, both Windows and OSX are considerable less restrictive, more free and open than Linux.

I don't eat that as is - I think what you mean is "to me as a publisher" (and there I would even admit). But to those developers who release open source, the whole copyleft thing is less restrictive, as third parties can't legally rip you off, and you have the freedom to use their libraries.

Quote: On the former two I am essentially free do what I want,

as you are on Linux. Come on. How was that free-to-do app shop called again? Oh well.

Quote: while on the latter I am constantly in a legal gray zone created from the political delusions of a long-bearded weirdo.

If you don't understand the basic gist of the GPL and LGPL (which is not that hard, even I do) and can't pay an attorney, then yes. Otherwise, blatant bullshit that would make that bald-headed weirdo climax over the crowd and wet in the eyes.

"Build number" is not a typical Linux term. Typical Linux applications are not released with build numbers, but version numbers (or tags) like "1.4" or the trendy "YYYY/MM" pattern. Something like 9.0.30729.1 SP seems more typical of windows ...

This is the exact kind of thing I'd expect to see when posting in a Linux help forum as a non-Linux user. It's perfectly clear what I mean, but they want to make it absolutely clear that they know more than me.