Open Source, Linux and the importance of marketing and public perception
As the final deadline for my thesis on Open Source approaches fast, I’m hard-pressed to find conclusions and projections to be made out of a full 5 months of academic work.
Most of the conclusions are not Earth-shattering revelations, but things we already know — mainly, that we’ve got all the assets we need to make Linux world domination happen.
But there’s one particular thing you and me know for certain… yet we’re doing practically nothing about it!
Anyone could have guessed that my undergrad thesis work is centered on Open Source; more accurately, we deal with devising strategies for Linux and Open Source adoption and penetration growth in the SMB sector of Guayaquil, Ecuador.
By the way, you can get the info and (of course, Ogg Theora encoded) videos from the site itself. As a matter of fact, the thesis is being done using a fully open source methodology underpinned by MediaWiki. Too bad most of you won’t be able to read it, since it’s in Spanish.
A fairly sizable part of our work was identifying Linux and Open Source weaknesses, and finding out how they fared in practice. Mind you, we fare pretty poorly, guys. We’re all tech, and no heart.
Do you know what my thesis’ first and foremost conclusion is? Linux and Open Source lack marketing. Ergo, we lack brand recognition. Ergo, we lack public trust. Ergo, misconceptions abound.
One of our interviewees said (in connection with Ubuntu) during a focus group: Oh, I see what they’re doing, they’re offering the software for free, so they can later change their policy and start charging us for updates. I’d rather pay a set amount of money upfront than having “them” change the game rules on me later on.
. Being that we were conducting a focus group, the methodology forbid me from evangelizing on the true philosophy underlying Ubuntu (or Open Source). But I felt this nearly uncontrollable fit of anger when I heard that comment.
Almost all of our interviewees found Ubuntu Linux easy to use (no surprises there). Most of them were truly astonished as to how much punch Ubuntu packs in a single CD. A large portion of the interviewees were actually willing to try it, especially if the BSA threatened to crack their businesses down (that they were using pirated software is, of course, not a surprise as well). Just a single person, who seemed to hate computers, did not find anything to like about Ubuntu (and this person fits the reproductive learning profile — she memorized procedures instead of learning concepts about computer usage).
And it’s our fault. We’ve failed to annihilate public perceptions. We keep preaching to the choir, and continue with our inbreeding, collectively patting our backs as we marvel at our technical prowess, while blindingly ignoring our utter failure to generate double-digit growth and adoption rates. Our biggest competitor from the proprietary camp is having a blast while convincing everyone that Linux is shady and all things free are akin to viruses and other types of malware. They’re deftly playing into Joe Sixpack’s confusion about computers. By now, you should have learnt the lesson: technical or moral superiority doesn’t win the battle — and it never has. Marketing is paramount — good tech plus zero adoption just doesn’t count.
So, what are we doing about it? We can’t pool our resources into a single, giant marketing machine. Sure, great strides have been achieved in that direction… for single, niche OSS projects such as Firefox. I’m probably sure something like it can be set up for Linux — your favorite distro or Linux in general — but so far, we’re going nowhere fast with that approach.
Yes, our marketing sucks. That’s one of the conclusions of our work. The recent trend in large OSS projects that focuses on marketing is relatively new, and hasn’t made any public impact yet. And this kind of model simply cannot work for smaller projects, or unfocused efforts. Decentralization — one of our biggest strengths — simply doesn’t help.
In reality, the single most powerful and leverageable resource we have is time. We should be out there, pushing Linux to people; heck, even adopting friends’ and family members’ computers. I’m currently adopting my best friend’s computer. He double-boots Windows 98 and Ubuntu. He always gives me the crap that Linux suxxx; if I had Windows XP installed, this or that program would work, and I wouldn’t have this or that problem
; but, you know what, everytime I visit (two times a week) he’s running Linux, not Windows. He even got hooked on Amarok and hates the fact that he can’t run Amarok on Windows. That means the drug caught on. But someone had to get him hooked on the dope. That was me.
You can clearly see I’m not blabbing about “do as I say, not as I do”. I work exclusively on Linux and Open Source. It’s in my best financial interests to push my platform like a street corner dope dealer. By doing that, I’m trying to secure my financial and computing future. Your inaction is preventing me from galvanizing my (and your own) dreams.
So, do your part, damnit!. How much does it cost you to burn ten copies of Ubuntu or Fedora live CDs, and hand them out to your friends, family and co-workers? It surely beats helping them out with illegal copies of proprietary software. This may end up benefiting yourself — as I said before, we’re going nowhere fast, with slow or zero adoption rates. If you truly care about Linux, Open Source and want to preserve an open future for everyone, you should be spreading Linux like mad.
One million Linux users… five Linux installations for each one of them. Lofty, yet modest, goal. We can put a huge dent in Windows’ numbers. What are you waiting for?
Update: apparently someone else shares some of my points of view.
Sound off using the comments area below, or blog about this article directly on your site. I also encourage you to use the Digg button at the beginning of the article — while recognizing that would be preaching to the choir.
September 20th, 2006 at 21:43
Lose the shades.
September 20th, 2006 at 23:26
Hi Jim,
September 21st, 2006 at 0:24
Business works with two kinds of software : the generic browser, wordprocessor, spreadsheet, email stuff, and software written for specific business needs, including in-house and contracted software. I create specific software.
I am a commercial developer, with apps deployed in many businesses. Linux is absolutely hostile to me and my customers, because it cannot:
provide a binary install mechanism which works across all distros.
give me binary compatibility over time.
provide APIs which let me manage system needs at a high level and across all distros.
provide an identical user experience across all distros.
Linux does not provide a life support system for business software- so the software is not available and won’t be. A lot of this is Linux political, and a failure to listen to the customer, and marketing won’t fix it- the OS needs to change. Linux people just don’t seem to understand how business software works.
September 21st, 2006 at 3:56
I understand the arguments given, but -as usual- the foucs is on Linux as a product just like any other, it always sounds as if there was a company behind it wondering why it doesn’t sell like sliced bread.But that is not the case in gnereal; of course there are companies like Novell and Fedora who have products and services to sell, but for the majority of Linux developers and users, selling or even spreading a product simply isn’t the point.
I’m using Gentoo Linux. It doesn’t get any less commerical than that. Or it does, Linux from Scratch is even less marketable. But both systems work for lots of people. I’m as happy as the next guy doling out Linuxes to my friends (Ubuntu these days), but it’s not a business interest; it’s a ‘have fewer problems and don’t always bug me with unsolvable Windows questions’ kind of interest. Anyone doesn’t want to listen to reason and see the light, fine. Just don’t come crawling to me when your Windows system dies next time. And I suppose that’s how it is for most of us. Linux will continue to exist even if vendors such as Novell and Fedora up and die. Their input might be missed, but it’s not so crucial that Linux itself would falter.
I personally don’t want Linux to work the way Roger in the comments here wants it to work; anyone who wants to sell binaries should stick with Windows because that is part of the basic problem of Windows: the need to keep compatibility with various processors and various Windows versions within a single binary means going with the smallest common denominator, whereas Linux (at least of the Gentoo variety) is so highly customized that I compile software specifically for my processor and my system, it won’t run on any other computer. But that’s what open source is about: choice. Instead of choosing the lowest common denominator and living with its short-comings I choose to max out on my options. Software programmers who want to embrace Linux have to understand that they can only win with open sources. Closed source on Linux will never have much impact.
Robin
September 21st, 2006 at 9:48
you are right, and the sarcastic responses by others to this entry proves how right you are about how blind most people in the OSS community are to the need for marketing. Far too frequently, engineers and other technologiests think that marketing is just spin and FUD. They are mistaken - marketing is about education first and foremost, and there is no central place where SMB technology buyers and influencers can go to get clear, vendor-neutral open source business case material. In an article that was published in LinuxWorld magazine last year, I argued that the OSDL ought to create a marketing working group who’s task would be to collect, and where it doesn’t exist, create, this material that would concisely present the Linux business case. But it never happened, unfortunately. It’s still needed - great work Rudd!!
September 22nd, 2006 at 14:44
You are very clear and accurate about this need. Help me and several other developers start http://spread.freeculture.org which has this goal in mind. Please contact me if you are interested.
October 29th, 2007 at 18:01
[...] would go a step further than Rudd-o’s statement that Open Source’s weakness is lack of marketing and PR by stating that this is a problem for the superset of Free [...]