[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Sun, 2008-01-20 at 00:36 +0000, David Bell wrote: > On Saturday 19 January 2008 23:29, Neil Williams wrote: > > On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:53:29 +0000 > > > > David Bell <grimpen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Saturday 19 January 2008 22:03, Neil Williams wrote: > > > > 1. Money - who do you think pays for the wages of all those > > > > footballers and Hollywood-has-beens? Ads are incredibly expensive, > > > > especially for a prime-time blitz on lots of channels / media. M$ have > > > > plenty, let them spend it. > > > > > > I don't see the relevance of footballers and hollywood-has-beens. > > > > They receive the majority of the advertising budget of > > FTSE /NASDAQ companies. > > Still don't see your point. I don't watch or support them anyway :) ? The majority of money coming into any football club is from TV deals which comes from the TV company selling advertising space within the schedule and the most expensive schedules are the ones around popular matches. So getting ads into that section of the media involves a lot of money because the audience for the ad is so large, similarly for big budget films. Whether this is a sensible situation or not, whether you or I see the ads or not, that is where an ad will reach the largest audience, overall. > Only by the big players with either with money to burn or are seeing their > sales dropping. They are high because there are those willing and able to > pay. The first thing that goes out the window when times are hard is > advertising. As ITV shareholders will know only to well. > > > Why use > > > television and subsidise all the hangers-on connected with it? There are > > > ways of advertising on the web and printed matter which wouldn't cost an > > > arm and a leg. Ads on the web just annoy people. Why advertise a piece of software on the web that includes software to remove ads from web pages? (Besides, Sun do advertise on the web - and HP.) What would you want a GNU/Linux advert to say? Who do you want to reach? (and is the software ready for use by those people?) > Who cares if it gets dirty, M$ deserve it. My silent prayer is that, one day, > the Orient will develope (in more than one sense) a strong dislike to MS. :) Microsoft is not the sole enemy - the enemy is proprietary software in totality. As more hardware gets free software support, more devices become supportable by default. The key is to get *new* hardware supported by free software *before* launch. > > > > More hardware manufacturers need to publish their source code, not just > > > > make proprietary binaries for the Linux kernel. That way, we all get > > > > stable, free, code for all devices instead of a proprietary mess where > > > > the same device name has a different chipset in February to March and > > > > the same chipset appears under a random assortment of names. > > > > > > A hurdle to overcome by increased usage of OSS. > > > > > > > Most of the work needs to be within the scope of the hardware > > > > manufacturers and the hardware packagers - *not* the retailers or the > > > > ad agencies. > > > > > > To hell with "ad Agencies". Retailers will push what they can sell. > > > > Agreed. Retailers will only stock the items that customers request - > > customers (for better or for worse) are susceptible to ads and ads ... > > Precisely - "WE" need to advertise OSS (Glad you agree :) ) Customer requests will tail off if the hardware is unsupported. Advertising only works if the product works. Our problem is that not enough Windows-users care about freedom because changing consumer demand will impact on the hardware providers who will have to support free software for their latest hardware devices at source. Add to that the fact that GNU/Linux still has problems working with a variety of other proprietary hardware in the form of peripherals and you get a chicken-and-egg scenario. We need mass consumer demand to change the mindsets in the boardrooms of hardware corporations; we need hardware corporations to support free software drivers to fuel consumer demand with devices that work. Note that this is *not* about simply getting support for GNU/Linux with more proprietary crap - that is the NVidia method and it just causes problems elsewhere in the OS. GNU/Linux works best when the entire software stack is free software because problems in one device can lead to an instability in the kernel that can only be fixed if both sides can see the source code. The Broadcom wireless drivers are a case in point. 2.6.24 will have free software support which will replace the flaky proprietary firmware and widen the usage of the bcm driver. That only happens when the chipset is supported with free software drivers. Freedom is the most important element in the whole mechanism. Compatibility is insufficient because only free software can provide support for the future. That is the message we need to get across - it's not easy to fit that into a radio ad slot. It would be very easy to come across as either "just another charity begging" or as some kind of rant (which would be rejected). > > .... generate requests which generate orders which generate stock-on-shelves > > which generate sales wich generates more stock-on-shelves. > > Selling cheap low spec' boxes with oss installed. "Didn't somebody who became > awfully wealthy once say "pile it high, sell it cheap" The product has to work or you're left with a pile of unsold boxes. > Ergo what you say next. How are "we" to do it. Advertising perhaps? > > > Customer requests are the best weapon to undermine blinkered OEM > > contracts and anti-trust non-disclosure agreements. > > > > > Advertising, making the public aware, in what ever manner is practical > > > and effective, will create a (hopefully growing) demand. Even your local > > > shop can afford to advertise. > > > > No doubt. > > Well :) Just what do you want to advertise? Ubuntu isn't a product, it is a concept - it's about freedom, not bums-on-seats. Merely increasing market share without increasing the understanding of *why* Ubuntu et al are important will get nowhere. (All that would happen is that the % of Ubuntu users needing the Restricted Drivers section would outstrip those who don't, concentrating effort on the wrong part of the stack.) OLPC are having a hard time against Intel because Intel are just concerned with units-sold. Currently, the way to sell more units is to make things proprietary - *that* is what has to change. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html