Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 08:36:03 -0800 From: Dave Yost <Dave@Yost.com> To: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bsd vs. linux and NT chart Message-ID: <v04104400b3084cf07936@[205.219.69.138]> In-Reply-To: <19990302132052.C18602@orcrist.mediacity.com> References: <4.1.19990302134418.00a12530@localhost>; from Brett Glass on Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 01:48:13PM -0700 <4.1.19990302132445.040f6d40@localhost> <Pine.HPP.3.96.990302153710.22218Z-100000@hp9000.chc-chimes .com> <4.1.19990302134418.00a12530@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 1:20 PM -0800 1999-03-02, Gregory Sutter wrote:
> The FreeBSD project is _not_ driven by marketing, and I will certainly do=
my (albeit small) part to ensure that it stays that way.
Sure it's driven by marketing. You can't avoid being driven by marketing. =
It's just a matter of how conscious it is, whether it's done by separate=
"marketing peole", and how well it's done.
In the case you cite of the reasons for the 2-floppy install, the product=
happened to be driven by great marketing:
Marketing Requirement:
Make the system be as easy to install as possible.
Engineering counter:
But you have to make a choice:
1. install from a single floppy, but there will be several
different ones depending on how you're installing the
system, or
2. install from two floppies, the same two floppies no matter
how you install
Marketing clarification:
The user sees the choices this way:
* complexity - universal two-floppy set vs. having to figure
out which single floppy to use depending on various factors
* menial labor requirement - two floppies to manipulate vs.
one. The extra complexity outweighs the extra menial labor.=20
Alternative #2 is easier, so implement that.
This exchange could go on, with Marketing insisting that engineering excise=
absolutely every bit of code that isn't needed for the install so it can=
still fit, but then Engineering might say, sure we could do that, but it=
will cost you X person-months, and Marketing might say they have something=
more important for you to work on. because installation is only a tiny part=
of the whole experience.
You might have said:
The FreeBSD project is _not_ driven by bad marketing, and I will
certainly do my (albeit small) part to ensure that it stays that way.
You don't have to be a "marketing person" to be doing marketing.
To go a bit further, I'd say that rather than rebel against the entire
concept of marketing, the project would benefit most if it were to
embrace the concept of marketing and be more conscious about doing
a great job of it. You do have a user community, and you do hope to
satisfy them. That's marketing.
It would be best to have an explicit set of agreed-upon marketing
requirements for the project (read: user experience goals) and
use it to guide what gets done and how it gets done.
Here's another angle: Why are there separate projects called NetBSD,
OpenBSD, and FreeBSD? Isn't it fair to say that at least part of the
reason is that the different teams have chosen different priorities
in their "marketing requirements"?
There are always the two goals in great marketing:
Do the right thing.
Do the thing right.
(as formulated by Guy Kawasaki)
Marketing is concerned with both. Engineering is concerned mostly
with the latter.
Of course, in an open source situation, you'll always have wildcats
working on what they want to work on, rather than what some hashed-out
master list says is the priorities. That can be good, but it's also
useful to have some people working on what's most important according
to the marketing thought process, and it's certainly important that
there is someone deciding whether the thing has been done right, and
rejecting or altering it if it is not.
Dave
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?v04104400b3084cf07936>