Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> __/ [ Alex ] on Friday 23 February 2007 17:04 \__
>
>> Hi ...
>>
>> When you read the tech magazines or watch tech-related shows on
>> television, there are a plethora of advertisements for closed source
>> systems, whether Microsoft, Adobe, Oracle, you name it. These
>> companies have huge chunks of cash to throw towards Marketing and PR,
>> but unfortunately open source applications don't have this advantage.
>> Is there any way for OS projects like MySQL, PHP, Samba, or even
>> distributions like Ubuntu or even RH (who does make a good profit) to
>> get their products out there to consumers?
>>
>> Unfortunately in today's world, most CEO's and CIO's still stick to
>> the verbiage that if it costs lots of money, it must be better, and in
>> the software industry this just isn't true. Problem is, upper
>> management generally doesn't know there's options outside of the
>> companies who do the advertisement, and with companies like Microsoft
>> putting so much FUD out there about Linux and other open source
>> systems/applications, that doesn't help.
>>
>> What options do open source developers have to get their names in the
>> marketing world? I honestly think if not for IBM's push with the
>> Linux commercials over the last few years, many outside of the tech
>> industry might not even have heard of Linux. In fact, I still run
>> into folks all the time who have never heard of it... they simply
>> think all PC's run Windows, and this is the kind of ignorance that
>> might be avoided with more marketing power behind FOSS.
>>
>> I just thought I'd put that out there. I know it all costs money, but
>> would the users of FOSS be willing to pay alittle if the money went to
>> advertisement? I know I would --
>
> Advertisements are paid for by the customer, indirectly. It's wasteful. The
> perception of cost/quality is beginning to be change and merits of
> collaboration -- facilitated by open communication -- better understood. As
> time goes by, people understand software better. They depend on it. The FUD
> (e.g. "you get what you pay for") no longer has an effect. Also remember
> that the younger generaton will, in due time, replace the seniors. Then,
> traditional things like paper-based commerce will be eroded and disappear.
> And the same applies to shrink-wrapped software. Electronic storage changes
> news delivery, software distribution, photography, communication, and
> television, among many other things.
One thing you can be sure of is that you will get older. As you do, so
you take your attitudes and experiences with you, and before you know it,
you've become the "old-guard". Any organisation which tries to prevent
progress will, in the end, be beaten by this unavoidable reality. Even
the catholic church has had to embrace change.
The free software revolution has the potential to free information
up for consumption across the planet by everyone; the possibilities
for efficient growth are amazing. Similarly, free software and open
hardware designs have the potential to enable everyone to take part
development and progress, rather than using legal frameworks to limit
this possibility to a chosen few.
One question I continue to wrestle with is about what our future economies
will actually look like. As you say, paper-based commerce is rapidly
being replaced by electronic communications. I make a significant
proportion of my purchases electronically now, either by the net or by
phone, although I still prefer showrooms for some kinds of purchase.
Of course, remote trade is hardly new, nor is rapid communications;
in Darwin's time, he debated by letter with his peers, but he had 5 or 6
deliveries /per day/, even out at Downe House (just up the road from me).
Email now provides constant delivery, of course, but the logistics of
moving physical items hasn't changed very much.
I'm still 100% convinced that in order to do efficient streaming,
connection-oriented packet-switching is essential, and the internet is not
currently up to that, so when moving streams, it does it ineffeciently
and unreliably, which is not what streams require. Broadcast by radio
is far better, in fact.
On the final fud point - that you "get what you pay for", this has never
been true, as all economists know. Pricing has little to do with cost.
>
> Remember that once upon a time people feared cars, You had to convince people
> it was safe. Same with Open Source software. With experience and precedence
> (early adopters), there's exponential growth in acceptance,
>
Perhaps we need MCSEs waving Red Flags to stand in front of Linux
computers?
--
| Mark Kent -- 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/ |
|
|
