Sorry for another desktop thread, but I thought this was an interesting data point. This is an interesting data point because I think it's about message and not so much about technical data.
I was talking with a user who did not want to look at Fedora or an EL on the desktop where they work for the following reasons, and was looking at using Ubuntu. Naturally knowing that really there is almost no difference in these (Gnome is Gnome) and they didn't even need the non-free codecs, I figured I would pass on the comments in hopes that this would be useful to someone else.
Their Comments:
(A) Fedora is too much of an upgrade process every six months. This is interesting to me because Ubuntu comes out at about the same rate. I did not think they were talking about LTS releases, but are we pitching the ease of things like preupgrade enough? How do we get more desktop footprint out there -- not just in home users, but also in companies where there is mindshare (and future contributors) to be won? How do we make Fedora seem less fragile even as it tries to be the "best of what works now"? It's clearly a fine desktop. Not much is required in a desktop. The whole phrase is kind of silly even as I mostly just want a web browser and an editor, and most everyone else does too :)
(B) Comments that Red Hat, not Fedora, was disinterested in the desktop -- therefore they were less interested in Fedora as they didn't see an investment. Clearly not true. I don't see this being applicable because it's a capable desktop, we invest well in it, and Fedora cares very much about this. Again, how do we pass on that message? Again, nothing technical is IMHO required, it's mostly about dispelling those statements.
In the context of fedora-marketing, I'm wondering how we can deal with this image that -- as far as I can not tell, is not descriptive of the distro.
The user in question also seemed a bit burned by Fedora 9's upgrade process, which I'll agree -- I got burned too.... something slipped in that one and it's not my job to say where, but I think that left a bit of an impression. (Namely, my grub getting removed/mangled, which is a now closed bz).
I have no inspiring conclusions but thought I'd pass on the data points.
I want to see Fedora everywhere, corporate desktops and making Microsoft go away seems to be a noble goal (it's free) with huge advantages to Fedora (huge contributer and mindshare base). Let's figure out what it takes to make that happen.
--Michael
Michael DeHaan wrote:
Sorry for another desktop thread, but I thought this was an interesting data point. This is an interesting data point because I think it's about message and not so much about technical data.
I was talking with a user who did not want to look at Fedora or an EL on the desktop where they work for the following reasons, and was looking at using Ubuntu. Naturally knowing that really there is almost no difference in these (Gnome is Gnome) and they didn't even need the non-free codecs, I figured I would pass on the comments in hopes that this would be useful to someone else.
Just in case, codecs are the issue, I am working on something:
http://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-developers/2008-August/000894...
Their Comments:
(A) Fedora is too much of an upgrade process every six months. This is interesting to me because Ubuntu comes out at about the same rate. I did not think they were talking about LTS releases, but are we pitching the ease of things like preupgrade enough?
Preupgrade up until recently and perhaps not just yet is not something that just works. It came in late during the Fedora 9 release cycle and it had a few bugs in it still. It was slightly different from the regular Anaconda upgrade experience. It was also a not easily discoverable command line application. All of that is changing
* PackageKit has the ability to notify users when a upgrade is available and preupgrade is going to be hooked up to it. The user is something like this:
http://www.packagekit.org/img/gpk-distro-upgrade-notify.png
* The whitelist/blacklist magic in Anaconda is split out into yum plugins which Preupgrade will use making the experience more consistent
* Number of bugs have been fixed and we should be able to promote this feature to non-technical end users more.
In short, I have high hopes that this will resolve one of the classical pain points so far.
(B) Comments that Red Hat, not Fedora, was disinterested in the desktop -- therefore they were less interested in Fedora as they didn't see an investment. Clearly not true.
Well, the Red Hat press on this was easily misquoted and there was some amount of dramatization around it.
I don't see this being
applicable because it's a capable desktop, we invest well in it, and Fedora cares very much about this. Again, how do we pass on that message? Again, nothing technical is IMHO required, it's mostly about dispelling those statements.
In the context of fedora-marketing, I'm wondering how we can deal with this image that -- as far as I can not tell, is not descriptive of the distro.
We recently rewrote our overview to highlight the amount of desktop infrastructure we are investing in.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview
Also
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RedHatContributions
Hope that helps.
Rahul
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Michael DeHaan wrote:
Sorry for another desktop thread, but I thought this was an interesting data point. This is an interesting data point because I think it's about message and not so much about technical data.
I was talking with a user who did not want to look at Fedora or an EL on the desktop where they work for the following reasons, and was looking at using Ubuntu. Naturally knowing that really there is almost no difference in these (Gnome is Gnome) and they didn't even need the non-free codecs, I figured I would pass on the comments in hopes that this would be useful to someone else.
Just in case, codecs are the issue, I am working on something:
http://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-developers/2008-August/000894...
Their Comments:
(A) Fedora is too much of an upgrade process every six months. This is interesting to me because Ubuntu comes out at about the same rate. I did not think they were talking about LTS releases, but are we pitching the ease of things like preupgrade enough?
Preupgrade up until recently and perhaps not just yet is not something that just works. It came in late during the Fedora 9 release cycle and it had a few bugs in it still. It was slightly different from the regular Anaconda upgrade experience. It was also a not easily discoverable command line application. All of that is changing
- PackageKit has the ability to notify users when a upgrade is
available and preupgrade is going to be hooked up to it. The user is something like this:
http://www.packagekit.org/img/gpk-distro-upgrade-notify.png
- The whitelist/blacklist magic in Anaconda is split out into yum
plugins which Preupgrade will use making the experience more consistent
- Number of bugs have been fixed and we should be able to promote this
feature to non-technical end users more.
In short, I have high hopes that this will resolve one of the classical pain points so far.
(B) Comments that Red Hat, not Fedora, was disinterested in the desktop -- therefore they were less interested in Fedora as they didn't see an investment. Clearly not true.
Well, the Red Hat press on this was easily misquoted and there was some amount of dramatization around it.
I don't see this being
applicable because it's a capable desktop, we invest well in it, and Fedora cares very much about this. Again, how do we pass on that message? Again, nothing technical is IMHO required, it's mostly about dispelling those statements.
In the context of fedora-marketing, I'm wondering how we can deal with this image that -- as far as I can not tell, is not descriptive of the distro.
We recently rewrote our overview to highlight the amount of desktop infrastructure we are investing in.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview
Also
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RedHatContributions
Hope that helps.
Rahul
All true, I am definitely aware of the Red Hat Contributions page (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RedHatContributions#Emerging_Technologies). and we were misquoted somewhat on the desktop front.
The ultimate question is what else can be done regarding that /message/ (not features) that we are not already doing.
--Michael
Michael DeHaan wrote:
I was talking with a user who did not want to look at Fedora or an EL on the desktop where they work for the following reasons, and was looking at using Ubuntu. Naturally knowing that really there is almost no difference in these (Gnome is Gnome) and they didn't even need the non-free codecs, I figured I would pass on the comments in hopes that this would be useful to someone else.
There is a ton of things beside GNOME: the amount of included drivers and hardware support, the amount of tutorials and screencasts spread all over the web, the configuration tools etc. Even the hype.
Their Comments:
(A) Fedora is too much of an upgrade process every six months. This is interesting to me because Ubuntu comes out at about the same rate. I did not think they were talking about LTS releases, but are we pitching the ease of things like preupgrade enough? How do we get
I don't think preupgrade makes a difference. If they need to to an upgrade, preupgrade or not, they still have to do the upgrade work. Maybe you have a better change emphasizing that the life of a Fedora release is in fact longer, at about 13 months (release N does not obsolete release N-1, but N-2).
more desktop footprint out there -- not just in home users, but also in companies where there is mindshare (and future contributors) to be won? How do we make Fedora seem less fragile even as it tries to be the "best of what works now"? It's clearly a fine desktop. Not much is required in a desktop. The whole phrase is kind of silly even as I mostly just want a web browser and an editor, and most everyone else does too :)
By the contrary, desktop is hard, it needs a lot of polishing and fine tuning.
(B) Comments that Red Hat, not Fedora, was disinterested in the desktop -- therefore they were less interested in Fedora as they didn't see an investment. Clearly not true. I don't see this being applicable because it's a capable desktop, we invest well in it, and Fedora cares very much about this. Again, how do we pass on that message? Again, nothing technical is IMHO required, it's mostly about dispelling those statements.
Sorry, but you lose here. Beyond all misquoting, see this relatively recent answer from the Red Hat CEO:
"They're [Canonical] primarily a desktop provider. We're primarily a server provider. Those are pretty different skill sets. I welcome Ubuntu everywhere. Let them get desktops all over the place."
Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10002150-92.html (but it was all over the web).
In the context of fedora-marketing, I'm wondering how we can deal with this image that -- as far as I can not tell, is not descriptive of the distro.
I am afraid that even fedora-marketing does not have a clear definition of what Fedora is. Quote from our front page:
"Fedora is a Linux-based operating system that showcases the latest in free and open source software. Fedora is always free for anyone to use, modify, and distribute. It is built by people across the globe who work together as a community: the Fedora Project. The Fedora Project is open and anyone is welcome to join.
The Fedora Project is out front for you, leading the advancement of free, open software and content. "
I want to see Fedora everywhere, corporate desktops and making Microsoft go away seems to be a noble goal (it's free) with huge advantages to Fedora (huge contributer and mindshare base). Let's figure out what it takes to make that happen.
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org