Lack of Linux Advertising

[ST0RMCHASER]

I am very curious as to why Linux OS platforms don't ban together, and create their own advertisements for radio and TV? I see advertisements of all sorts for Windows OS, but none for Linux. Wouldn't Linux be doing itself a favor by advertising on a grander scale, instead of a few selected areas? Cost could be acquired from all the major flavors of Linux, thus not putting the burden on just one of them. Because of everyone's misconceptions of what Linux is, I believe Linux needs to get good advertising habits now, and teach the public just what Linux has to offer. I am sorry, I just don't get why they don't get the ball rolling on this. Linux is not all free. So can anyone shed some light as to why they don't advertise better? Or did I miss something somewhere?

 

[krale]

---Or did I miss something somewhere?

Very much so. Programs written under Linux are NOT linux programs. They'll run under any *nix environment that has the suitable libraries. Those programs are done by hobbists who want a tool they can use. Many of them DONT CARE for users. That's not entirely bad, as they only are offering the source code if anybody cares. Smaller programs are written only for the developers themselves.

Then you end up with camps who what different experiences (for lack of better MS slang). Why's there a KDE desktop and a Gnome desktop? For one reason, the libraries of KDE wern't always Open Source. Many didnt want to code for a closed project, so they used GTK (from gimp) and created Gnome.

That's part of the reason nobody "advertises" linux. Everybody's working on pieces that affect the whole.

And there's still one thing you're missing: What's the BEST form of advertising (hands down-bar none)? If you can answer that, I'll gave you a cookie.

 

[sleipnir214]

You're missing a lot.

There's nothing in common to market. The Linux distributors aren't selling Linux -- they're selling their support services. And in that, they're in competition.

There's no money to market anything. Most of the software in the Linux world is written by some poor schlub with a dream and no cash to spare. Even the big commercial distributors aren't making a lot of money. Particularly not to combat a big Mi¢ro$oft marketing campaign. It would not suprise me if Mi¢ro$oft's annual marketing budget were greater than the total assets of RedHat, Mandrake, SuSE, and Debian combined. Blowing money on marketing Linux versus improving their distributions? I'll take the latter.

Linux isn't ready for Mi¢ro$oft's demographic. Give it a year for the desktop productivity suites to mature, then we'll see. But not now.

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!

 

[tanderso]

As the others have said, linux isn't a company, it's an open-source community. Nobody owns linux, thus nobody directly benefits except the users. So, what you should do if you would like to see more people using linux is to found a linux users organization and collect dues and donations to fund an advertising campaign.

Companies like IBM advertise linux only because they are touting it as a competitive advantage over other Unix OS's and Windows. Really they are advertising IBM services, and linux is just a reason why they are better and cheaper.

Sure, maybe some of the distros like Mandrake and Redhat, and some other linux software manufacturers like Ximian could band together to advertise outright, but as others have noted, that is quite expensive. They DO currently advertise, but using more guerilla-like tactics than the brute-force $10-billion ad campaign. For instance, Lindows made a huge marketing gain when they teamed up with Walmart.

For now, the support market is mostly limited to enterprises (hence the IBM ads). That is where players such as Redhat are directing their marketing. They would have no driving reason to advertise to consumers, since most consumers do not sign huge support contracts. Lindows is playing that market with their $100/year contract, but most users scoff at paying for a free OS, even though they say they want more support.

The biggest way linux is going to get to the average consumer is through preinstallation on new computers. Several distros have tried partnerships with hardware manufacturers such as Dell, but they weren't too popular. The Lindows/Micron/Walmart deal is an example of this. And of course the biggest proponent of this theory is Microsoft, who mostly became as big as they are simply because of preinstallation.

So, I hope that sufficiently answers your question why you don't see commercials on TV advertising the features and ease-of-use of a linux desktop computer for consumers. It'd be a cool idea, but if you want to see it happen, you'll have to do it yourself. It's sort of a catch-22... the distros can't afford it until linux gains more momentum, but the quickest way to gain momentum is through advertisement. They're doing the smart thing though and finding alternative ways to increase momentum.

In the meantime, feel proud that you are smarter than the average consumer, and spread your wisdom to others. As krale implied, that's the best form of advertising. The word about linux spreads virally from one satisfied user to the next. This is something that Microsoft fails to understand, and cannot combat even with a constant barrage of commercials. It is based solely on the quality of the experience and the desire to share it with others.
Sincerely,

Tom Anderson
CEO, Order amid Chaos, Inc.

http://www.oac-design.com