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 435206
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Marketing is good? Maybe...
by Lennie on Tue 3rd Aug 2010 17:40 UTC 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

Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

Ubuntu has tons of corporate appeal. The engineering, the name, the color of the icons doesn't matter; only the ability to buy a support contract does. Linux Mint has zero marketability in the corporate world due to it being a community project.

Ubuntu has been good for corporate Linux. It's really pushed the idea that Linux has a place outside of the server room. There's not another company that does that. Red Hat sells desktops licenses, but they would really rather sell just server licenses.

On the other hand, Ubuntu hasn't done enough. They really need to start looking at the entire ecosystem corporations need. They need to make deploying and maintaining a Linux only network easy, and they really need to create a first class development package.

I do agree with you about Mint being better then Ubuntu.

Reply Parent Score: 3

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I think Ubuntu has actually been bad for Linux due to it having zero corporate appeal.

Now that is an outright false statement.

Reply Parent Score: 7

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

Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

"
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 >
"
Where did you find those numbers? I'd love to see what they are for us here in Sweden.

Reply Parent Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


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


Yea but the creator of Linux left your tribe for the placid burbs of Beaverton, Oregon. He even blogs about shopping at costco. Assimilation complete ;)

Reply Parent Score: 4