Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 12:59:14 -0700 From: Donald Wilde <dwilde1@thuntek.net> To: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@americantv.com> Cc: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD emulation for linux Message-ID: <36F7F292.38877227@thuntek.net> References: <local.mail.freebsd-advocacy/4.2.0.32.19990322194937.03ee4600@localhost> <199903231936.NAA10667@free.pcs>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jonathan Lemon wrote: > > Okay, I just have to stick my oar in here and add my two bucks. > A while back, I might have just beaten on Brett, but I've been > taking a couple of (gasp) Marketing classes at the University, > and they've been umm, interesting. Not to mention that they > contain many of the same themes that Brett's been pounding on, in > his own way. > [snip] > On one hand, Brett is correct; why should businesses target FreeBSD > when they can target Linux, and get both? This effectively records > FreeBSD emulation sales as Linux sales, and contributes toward the > Linux mindshare, which is what I perceive Brett is mainly concerned > about. > > Step back a moment, and realize that businesses exist for one reason > only: to make money. (paying developer salaries and buying nice > toys is just an incidental benefit, not the primary goal of the company) > > In order to make money, they need to sell their product, and at the > same time, reduce their overhead. Why would a company want to target > the FreeBSD market, when by targeting the Linux market, they also > incorporate FreeBSD? To a marketer, it's a fairly clear ROI (or bang > for the buck) decision. > > Now, if we took our Linux emulation out of the picture, the decision above > *DOES NOT CHANGE*. FreeBSD still does not have the numbers to register > on a marketer's radar screen. All it would do is reduce our pool of > available software _and_ put up a larger barrier to gaining new users. > I view the latter as being more significant, in order for FreeBSD to > grow, we need more users, so we should be focus on making the transition > for new users as easy as possible. One way of doing this is to guarantee > software compatability (yes, it will still run your Linux software). > > I agree that we need to attempt to raise the FreeBSD mindshare, > however, a FreeBSD emulator for Linux does not make a compelling > business case at all. > I think a better advocacy target would be to gat them to a) add the FreeBSD logo (works with) and also to add a category to their registration databases for FreeBSD users who buy the Linux version. This, I believe is achievable. > Marketers are already analyzing the _Linux_ community, and targeting > their software towards one distribution or another. Red Hat seems to > be currently "winning" the marketing competition in the Linux community. > If the other Linux distributions (Caldera, for example) can't convince > companies to make a binary that will run seamlessly on their Linux > variant, why should FreeBSD be able to? > > Microsoft has the viewpoint of "Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish". For > FreeBSD, emulation is the portion of "embrace". Now, we need to move > on to "extend" - provide a _MORE_COMPELLING_ reason for people to use > FreeBSD. Note that I still get lines in my HTTP logfiles that say: This is important. We should talk about it. What's good 'killer app' or capability we can develop for FreeBSD? > [snip] > > What Brett seems to be (indirectly) suggesting is that FreeBSD add > a new segment, (casual user x desktop), since this is where the Linux > emulation seems to be primarily used. While this might raise the > mindshare of FBSD, I don't see this as a good fit for FreeBSD's current > strengths, as it moves us away from the server market, and our existing > targeted user base. > I think 'user desktop' is too nebulous a target to be a killer app, although we definitely should support the GNOME and KDE work going on. Too many of us are passionate about our existing setups to even be willing to uninstall an OOTB configuration. > This is not to say that we shouldn't address this segment at all, if > only as a "flanking" move, to prevent erosion of the current market > base. However, my opinion is that FreeBSD would be better served by > focusing on a slightly different, but still related segment: > (Unskilled Admins x High End Servers). > SOlaris and SCO have a head start on that. I think we need to be different, not just better. > As an ancedote (and I'm sure I'm not alone here), I just installed > FBSD onto a customer's high-end Compaq machine, for duty as a web > server. The customer had ample Novell experience, but has very little > UNIX experience, but was willing to learn (and had a copy of Greg's > "The Complete FreeBSD"). In short, probably an ideal convert for us. > After I had finished the installation, the first question that he asked > was "Are you going to install X-Windows on the machine too?". > ROFL! > Lesson 1: The Customer Is Always Right. > Lesson 2: Listen to your Customer. Lesson 3: Make him your customer by wowing him with impressive demos and slick sales lines. Emotions win for Microsoft, they can also do the job (in a smaller way) for us. > [snip] > This brings up what I feel might be an organizational weakness with > the FreeBSD side of things: there appears to be no "company" that > pushes FreeBSD. > > Not Walnut Creek; they are not in the FBSD business, they are in the > CDROM business. Not Yahoo; they are not in the OS business either. > Not FreeBSD, Inc.; this is a non-profit entity which doesn't seem to > be interested in being a business partner. > See http://www.freebsdmall.com. They are becoming what you seek, without the singlemindedness that's driving a wedge between Red Hat and the rest of the Linux community. > I imagine that one reason why RH got Linux onto IBM servers was that > they approached IBM with a business case. They probably demonstrated > that there was a market, offered channel support (advertising, offloading > technical support, free media and documentation, etc). In short, they > provided IBM with another potential market (Unix servers) while reducing > the risk to IBM by absorbing the support costs. > Yes, this is entirely correct. I actually think targeting hardware vendors is so much more appropriate than ISVs at this point. We need to make obvious system sales FIRST. > On the other hand, an advocate's recent request to IBM to "consider > bundling FreeBSD" was met with a polite request for a business case. > In my view, IBM doesn't really care what OS they sell, as long as > they can make money out of it. Present a good business case as to > why they should sell FBSD (complete with target market share and > expected sales volume), and they will probably do that. However, I > don't quite see the support infrastructure in place yet, so this is > an area where FBSD isn't currently competitive in. > > >It is not even POSSIBLE unless an emulator exists. > > unless the hardware market is perceivable. As you state below, we need to raise the profile of our _installed_systems_. > >>Companies will say "sure there's this FreeBSD emulator for Linux, but they > >>have roughly 1/6th the number of installations _and_ can emulate Linux. > > > >The latter is the bigger problem. Again, Linux emulation has been a huge > >blow to the platform. At some point, after Linux emulates FreeBSD and FreeBSD > >wins native ports, FreeBSD's emulation of Linux should be deprecated. > > But I fail to see how a "Linux emulation of FBSD" will provide a > business case. "Why should we write to this API, when it's not the > native market, has resistance in the Linux community, and is opposed > by our channel partners?" > > I think a better approach would be to focus on the number of BSD > installations, until at some point the equation shifts - we reach > a certain critical mass at which marketers take notice; at that point, > perhaps, the Linux emulator will start falling into disfavor. > > I would suggest that a better "bang for the buck", as well as possibly > getting more technical interest, _and_ have the possibilty of getting > more PR, would be a "FreeBSD upgrade" of a Linux system. Just imagine, > taking a FBSD kernel and a few support files, moving it to /vmlinux (or > whaetever) on an existing Linux system, and then rebooting. Presto! > The user now has a working system without changing anything else! > Yuk, yuk, yuk <evil grin> . > This would provide: > 1) a fairly risk-free method of experimenting with FreeBSD, > 2) a method of converting users (hey, this system works _faster_ now!) > 3) coolness factor (necessary for early-adopters in the business cycle) > > But would also risk: > 1) tarnishing FBSD's reputation if it doesn't work, or doesn't do > better than Linux (hey, my device is not supported now!) > 2) alieniating the Linux community > 3) draining developer resources possibly needed elsewhere. > and it would have to be able to switch back as well so we don't break their comfort zones. > Gah, I think I've rambled on long enough, and I'm not sure where this > is going anymore. > [snip] Actually, there have been a few useful nuggets on this thread, and some new advocates have emerged from lurkerdom. Donald Wilde "Bringing the Internet to everyone!" Wilde Media 1380 Rio Rancho Blvd. SE #117 voice: 505-771-0709 Rio Rancho, New Mexico 87124 e-mail: dwilde1@thuntek.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?36F7F292.38877227>