From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 16 02:56:51 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 237E016A4CE for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2005 02:56:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from makeworld.com (makeworld.com [198.92.228.38]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4099943D48 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2005 02:56:50 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from racerx@makeworld.com) Received: from localhost (localhost.com [127.0.0.1]) by makeworld.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A8C06129 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:56:49 -0600 (CST) Received: from makeworld.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (makeworld.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 59654-10 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:56:45 -0600 (CST) Received: from [198.92.228.34] (racerx.makeworld.com [198.92.228.34]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by makeworld.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B25D56122 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:56:45 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <4212B690.4040404@makeworld.com> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:57:20 -0600 From: Chris User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050101) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org References: <42125E71.30804@tbc.net> <200502151655.43509.krinklyfig@spymac.com> <42129CCB.5030203@makeworld.com> <1728728975.20050216034021@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <1728728975.20050216034021@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by ClamAV 0.75.1/amavisd-new-2.2.1 (20041222) at makeworld.com - Isn't it ironic Subject: Re: Assuming We Want FreeBSD to Grow: Who Is It For? X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 02:56:51 -0000 Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Chris writes: > > >>To me? They are users that are: >> >>1. Fed up with the MS upgrades >>2. Fed up with paying too much for software (apps and OS) >>3. Looking for a viable alternative to the MS empire >>4. NOT your average Windows user. > > > All the wrong people, generally. FreeBSD is not a solution for people > who hate Microsoft. It is not a viable alternative to MS desktop > software by any stretch of the imagination, except for a handful of > geeks. About the only group above that might be in the market for > FreeBSD would be the "non-average" Windows user ... provided that > "non-average" means "computer geek." Not intended to implicate a hatred for MS. Pure and simple, people get tired of a company that puts out an upgrade to either an app or an OS and must pay a somewhat healthy price. Home folks and companies alike are hit with these high costs. That's why OpenSource is looking more attractive to your "non-average" user and company IT nuts. I never mentioned a "hatred" to Uncle Bill and his empire. Simply people growing tired of the same old, same old. > If you aim at these markets, FreeBSD will never go anywhere. Even Linux > is unlikely to ever make a dent in Windows, and it won't be for lack of > trying. You can't be successful with a slogan like "anything's better > than Microsoft." Somewhat true however, Think of Porsche. Certainly there is a market place for the auto - albeit somewhat limited, but yet there still is a demand and a market. So I say, why not? Target the people that want to do more with the PC, that happen to be a bit more sophisticated in "geek-dom" > Most computer users don't love or hate Microsoft; they don't care about > Microsoft at all. Trying to market to people who hate Microsoft is thus > a waste of time. And even of those with an irrational hatred for the > company, only a fraction have the technical knowledge required to try an > alternate desktop OS like UNIX. Again - I never implied a "hatred". I specifically said people whom are tired of (insert reason). >>As a desktop environment, we would need to ensure that the average >>Windows user is aware that it's an OS NOT for him/her. > > > Not a problem currently, since even sysadmins who could be installing > and benefitting from FreeBSD on the server side don't know about the OS. > > >>Do we really want to develop FreeBSD to be used by these groups of users >>(No offense intended)? > > > No. But neither do we wish to target Microsoft-haters, either. Trying > to get someone to adopt an OS just because it's not from a certain > much-hated vendor is a very, very poor way to market the software. > Hatred is not synonymous with technical competence, and many people who > hate Microsoft (particularly some of the most rabid MS-bashers) don't > know enough to use any other OS, whereas many people who are very > computer-literate and could profit from FreeBSD do not harbor any > irrational hatred of MS. Again - I never mentioned MS-Haters. Linux users tend to be that. Re-read the wording I typed. >>I think not - for when you start to create an OS for the masses, you >>are doing nothing more then creating a Windows Clone... > > > Yes. Here we agree. -- Best regards, Chris Performance is directly affected by the perversity of inanimate objects.