Linked by David Adams on Tue 3rd Aug 2010 16:05 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Linux As we mentioned in a previous article, Red Hat advocate Greg DeKoenigsberg claimed that due to the much larger amount of code it's contributed, Red Hat is a better open source citizen than Canonical, adding, "Canonical is a marketing organization masquerading as an engineering organization." A Computerworld blog retorts that that's no insult; and that marketing Linux could be just as important to the cause as contributing code. Updated
Thread beginning with comment 435198
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Marketing is good? Maybe...
by satan666 on Tue 3rd Aug 2010 17:04 UTC
satan666
Member since:
2008-04-18

marketing Linux could be just as important to the cause as contributing code.


Marketing is good but it depends on who is the target. If the target is Linux users that use other distros, then there is no gain. It's just altering the Linux ecosystem (and I tend to believe that this altering is for worse). If the target is Windows users then Ubuntu contributes with all this marketing.
Since Linux market share on the desktop for the past 5 years didn't grow much, if at all, but Ubuntu's market share (within Linux market share) grew tremendously, then it is safe to conclude that Ubuntu didn't help Linux gain more users, Ubuntu mostly moved the Linux users from another distro to itself.
It is definitely a good thing to have the best distro represent Linux, but is Ubuntu the best? I may be wrong but I don't think so.
And imagine for a second that Shuttleworth decides to stop pumping money because Ubuntu is not profitable. The void left in Linux ecosystem would be huge.

Reply Score: 8

RE: Marketing is good? Maybe...
by Lennie on Tue 3rd Aug 2010 17:40 in reply to "Marketing is good? Maybe..."
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

The marketshare of Linux might not have grown that much (it did a bit though), but the market as a whole did grow as well.

So Linux might have been at a little below 1% of the desktop market, it's now a little over 1% of the market.

Which means in absolute numbers Linux did grow quiet a bit. Not as much as Apple obviously.

Edited 2010-08-03 17:48 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

No it didn't grow based on statcounter:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-ww-monthly-200907-201008

I think Ubuntu has actually been bad for Linux due to it having zero corporate appeal. A weird brown er.. aubergine OS that sounds like a curry dish is not going to go far with the typical CTO. Name and presentation mean a lot and Ubuntu doesn't have either.

Linux Mint has a much better name and comes with a complimentary theme that results in a cohesive offering. People have heard of Linux, Mint is associated with value, and green has wider appeal than brown or pretty purple. Shuttleworth should fire his design team and hire the Linux Mint guy.

Reply Parent Score: -1

vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


So Linux might have been at a little below 1% of the desktop market, it's now a little over 1% of the market.


< tribalism >
In Finland, it's at 2.67%.
In USA, it's at 0.72%.
< /tribalism >

Reply Parent Score: 4