Weekly Edition
Return to the Front page
| |||||||||||||
On the marketing of free software
Please indulge your editor as he reminisces for a moment. Once upon a
time, the cool machines to get in the office were Unix-based workstations, and
the offerings from Sun Microsystems in particular. The first thing that
would happen to one of these systems once it came out of the box was
interesting, however: much of the software on the system would be
immediately replaced. The new systems would be loaded down with the GNU
toolchain, the X Window System, and various other goodies from all over the
net. This pattern was common enough that a small company called Cygnus
Solutions made a living from supporting free tools on proprietary Unix
systems.
The replacement software was often better, but that was not always the case. There were long periods of time where trying to build early X11 releases with early gcc releases was an exercise in serious pain. But your editor did it, and, judging from the traffic on the mailing lists, quite a few others did it as well. Many of us might not, at that time, have been able to explain why we subjected ourselves to this experience, even though Richard Stallman had already been trying to do exactly that for a few years by then. But now it's obvious: we wanted our systems to run free software. Loading them down with free code turned them into something more obviously oriented toward our needs, something we could fix if need be (and need often was, back then), and something which, in a palpable way, was more alive. Free software has obviously come a long way since then, and a far larger group of people is aware of its importance. But it is still a geek phenomenon. For much of the wider community, "free software" still means "you don't have to pay for it," and many people still wonder about what use they, personally, could ever have for the source code. As a result, many users may have learned that Firefox, for example, is a better web browser, but they do not know why. It's just another program they can download and run. So it is a little sad to see reports that the effort to market Firefox may emphasize features and downplay the fact that it is free software. Evidently the people behind these marketing campaigns have decided that it's features that "sell" the software, so that is what has to be pushed on users. For Firefox 2.0, this strategy might just help to drive usage statistics up a little higher. But in the longer term it does not seem like a winning approach. The folks at Mozilla Corp. clearly see themselves in a battle with Microsoft and its reinvigorated Internet Explorer product. Firefox was, indeed, able to out-feature Internet Explorer for a while, and that doubtless helped to increase its adoption. But the history of the computing field is full of examples of companies which tried to engage in feature-checkbox battles with Microsoft. One can say many things about that company and its products, but few would accuse Microsoft of being unwilling or unable to add features. It seems unlikely that Mozilla Corp. has the resources to compete with Microsoft on features, and it is not at all clear that the wider development community will be able to make up the difference. Where Firefox has a competitive advantage, instead, is in the fact that it is free software. This fact should drive what kinds of features are added: those which make the web experience better for Firefox users, with less concern for the comfort of advertisers or publishers. It should bring a higher level of concern for security - an area which can be slighted if the real purpose is to compete on features. It should make the software alive, interesting, evolving with the net, and not subject to stagnation just because the owning company loses interest in it for a while. It seems unlikely that World Domination will be achieved by trying to out-feature proprietary software companies. Free software is not better by virtue of having more checkboxes on the package. It is better because it is free. If that cannot be made into a selling point, then we may not get much farther than we have until now. There are precedents that suggest that freedom could be made into a selling point; consider, for example, the growing success of organic produce. Like organic food, free software is better for you - and it doesn't even cost more. When people understand why free software is better for them, many of them will insist on it. One can only hope that projects which are sufficiently well-heeled to have marketing efforts will market freedom as one of their most important "features." (Log in to post comments)
On the marketing of free software Posted Oct 26, 2006 3:26 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link] loading thos machines with free software was for several reasons.
1. cost (GCC was free, think about the cost of the commercial compilers)
2. features (the freely availabe versions of many utilities were, and still are better then the versions shipped with Unix systems)
3. freedom to modify
I'll argue that the vast majority of the people were doing it for reasons 1 and 2 and never modified a thing (and probably most of them didn't realize or care that source was avaialble unless they had to compile from source for the install)
now following your analogy to firefox
1. it's free (as in Beer), but as far as anyone else is concerned, so is IE
2. features, you addressed this well
3. freedom to modify. I don't think that many people care much about this, and the firefox codebase is hardly the thing you would want newcomers to OpenSource/Free Software to dive into.
as a result I don't see how a campaign about the free (or Free) nature of firefox would be a good investment of resources.
On the marketing of free software Posted Oct 26, 2006 4:55 UTC (Thu) by roelofs (guest, #2599) [Link] 3. freedom to modify. I don't think that many people care much about this, and the firefox codebase is hardly the thing you would want newcomers to OpenSource/Free Software to dive into.Freedom to modify doesn't necessarily mean _you_ modify it. It can also mean, for example, that you (where maybe "you" == a company) hire a contractor to build in a custom feature (or patch a security hole ;-) ). And in the case of users vs. advertisers, it can mean that other people you don't know--but who think like you and who can write code--are likely to add (and may already be adding) user-friendly extensions. Whether you could market it on that basis or not, I don't know. But I think there's a fair chance you could. Greg
On the marketing of free software Posted Oct 26, 2006 10:32 UTC (Thu) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] An example: http://portableapps.com/
Someone else may have other ideas on how to run your program.
On the marketing of free software Posted Oct 26, 2006 16:28 UTC (Thu) by pss (subscriber, #39291) [Link] I agree with most of the article and the fact that someone qualified and interested might be able to modify and improve things. We take this ability to improve/modify for granted and results are there for everyone to see. The point that it is *possible* for someone to improve is an important, perhaps the most important "feature" and until that is generally accepted or viewed as beneficial by society at large, it has to be marketed. Normal feature checklists are ok too and someone might on a case by case basis trade these features off.
-Pragnesh
On diving into Mozilla code Posted Oct 26, 2006 5:25 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > the firefox codebase is hardly the thing you would want newcomers> to OpenSource/Free Software to dive into.
I did. Barely made it back out alive (and never touched C++ again :-)
On diving into Mozilla code Posted Oct 26, 2006 17:57 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Mozilla isn't written in C++. It's written in a bizarre sub-language which happens to be compilable by C++ compilers. Strangely, the subset, defined only by "coding guidelines", specifically forbids almost all the features of Standard C++ that make the language a pleasure to use, and those that make it suitable for big projects. Curiously, the features that it does allow are those also found in Java.
On diving into Mozilla code Posted Oct 27, 2006 0:27 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > specifically forbids almost all the features of Standard C++ that> make the language a pleasure to use, and those that make it > suitable for big projects.
Probably because they're the hardest to implement correctly, and
> Curiously, the features that it does allow are those also
The Java developers chose features that were easy to
The thing I found hardest to get my head around was the Factory
On diving into Mozilla code Posted Oct 27, 2006 1:54 UTC (Fri) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Mozilla's bizarre sub-language might have made some sense in 1995, but it hasn't been 1995 for a long time now. Even Microsoft implemented most of ISO Standard C++98 years ago. Somebody needs to go through the Mozilla code base with a machete, starting with that bizarre inheritance hierarchy of string-like things.
On diving into Mozilla code Posted Oct 27, 2006 18:49 UTC (Fri) by graydon (subscriber, #5009) [Link] You'll be happy to know that systematic dialect modernization is on the agenda, is is stylistic simplification.
On the marketing of free software Posted Oct 26, 2006 6:11 UTC (Thu) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] 1. cost (GCC was free, think about the cost of the commercial compilers)Even fairly early (circa 1989 when I started using it) versions of GCC were much better than the contemporary commercial Unix C compilers in several respects: GCC took up full ANSI C features early on, whereas the competition at the time was usually the "PCC" base language + some bolted-on ANSI C features. It also generally had no arbitrary limitations on things like number of parameters, number of enum constants, number of fields etc. which even the better commercial compilers had. Of course the commercial compilers later improved, and I would say that GCC had a serious spurring effect here. They had to start offering better value than a free competitor.
On the marketing of free software Posted Oct 26, 2006 10:11 UTC (Thu) by Yorick (subscriber, #19241) [Link] Of course the commercial compilers later improved, and I would say that GCC had a serious spurring effect here. They had to start offering better value than a free competitor.Much as I would like to credit GCC for this, I think it was a fairly minor factor. The new, faster commercial compilers almost all came from hardware vendors who realised that having a good compiler is just as important for high performance (good SPEC numbers etc) as fast silicon designs. The hardware vendors did not make (much) money from selling compilers so GCC was not their prime competitor - the compiler+hardware combinations from other vendors were. Today these companies are giving away good proprietary compilers to encourage use of the own platform (Sun), selling them at low margins (which I suspect Intel is doing) - or they sponsor GCC with their contributions (Apple, Sony, IBM and others).
On the marketing of free software Posted Oct 27, 2006 0:30 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] Much as I would like to credit GCC for this, I think it was a fairly minor factor. The new, faster commercial compilers almost all came from hardware vendors who realised that having a good compiler is just as important for high performance (good SPEC numbers etc) as fast silicon designs But the comment doesn't say anything about faster commercial compilers. It talks about new commercial compilers that match Gcc in standard compliance, limits on number of enumerations, etc. I don't see that the need for faster object code played a role in that. Gcc looks like a major stimulus. For me, it's often a balancing act to choose between a compiler that makes fast object code (the commercial compiler offered by the CPU vendor) and a compiler that makes software development easy (GCC).
On the marketing of free software Posted Oct 26, 2006 8:19 UTC (Thu) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link]
I am very unlikely to ever modify Firefox source code. The fact that anyone in the world can see it, modify it and share those modifications is of great importance to me.
On the marketing of free software Posted Oct 26, 2006 14:15 UTC (Thu) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026) [Link] Well said.
On the marketing of free software Posted Oct 27, 2006 15:05 UTC (Fri) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246) [Link] And what about the "get bored and walk away" issue? As in, Microsoft, with IE, got bored and wandered away from IE development for a number of years. IE 6 just sat there, largely unchanged, and there was nothing anyone could do about it other than lobby Microsoft.
If the Mozilla developers did the same thing, some other motivated people could pick it up and run with it. (And in fact, Firefox is a case where "some other motivated people" showed up when the first crowd hadn't left yet!)
On the marketing of free software Posted Oct 27, 2006 17:33 UTC (Fri) by oak (subscriber, #2786) [Link] > Mozilla must be forthright in dealing with users of Firefox, because> the source code is viewable, which leaves them unable to conceal > user-antagonistic "features" within the code. Btw. How do you in practice verify that the Firefox binary you download from the net doesn't have any extra compared to the source code available on the net?
On the marketing of free software Posted Oct 29, 2006 5:55 UTC (Sun) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link] The distributors usually (I have not seen a case where they don't) provide MD5, SHA1 or SHA256 hashes of the binary, for you to compare with. Run the binary through the hash calculator and compare with the provided hash. If they don't match, something's up. Easy enough.
On the marketing of free software Posted Oct 29, 2006 9:09 UTC (Sun) by oak (subscriber, #2786) [Link] The argument was that having the source code available somehow makesthe binary end result less likely to contain something malicious. This is faulty/lazy thinking. Hashes can be used just to verify that the downloaded binary corresponds to the original binary, not that it corresponds to the available source code (which hopefully has been reviewed to required extent by some trustworthy person(s)). If you (or somebody you trust) would build the binary out of the source code and get exactly the same binary, then you could trust the binary to match source code. However, the build environment affects the resulting binary too, so this could be hard to achieve (especially with something as huge as Firefox). Note also that you would need to have this verification also for everything that the binary links statically and the toolchain used in this (there was once a toolchain that built a backdoor into every binary compiled with it). And for the environment where you run it... Because in practice this is impossible, basically this falls down onto trust. In the MicroSoft case it's centralized, in Firefox case distributed (toolchain, browser etc. come from different projects). Trust comes from: - Previous experience or close relations to the provider - Wide usage of the software with large+varied user base (including e.g. security professionals) - The SW provider is well established and has a large (financial, credibility...) stake on not screwing the SW users - Reviewing the product commit, build, recruitment etc. procedures - Binding legal contracts (in the case of MicroSoft with its subcontractors) and laws which ban certain activities + have severe enough punishments for breaking the law etc.
On the marketing of free software Posted Oct 29, 2006 14:12 UTC (Sun) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link] Please point to where such an "argument" was put forth. I can't find it.
On the marketing of free software Posted Oct 29, 2006 16:24 UTC (Sun) by oak (subscriber, #2786) [Link] It was this comment:> Mozilla must be forthright in dealing with users of Firefox, because > the source code is viewable, which leaves them unable to conceal > user-antagonistic "features" within the code. I interpreted that to really mean not having the misfeatures in the binary end-product either as fairly few people compile their own Firefox... Was this a faulty interpretation?
On the marketing of free software Posted Oct 29, 2006 18:27 UTC (Sun) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link]
It was. It also seems to be quite a stretch to attempt to create fear, uncertainty and doubts about the binaries available from Mozilla, when anyone may audit the source code Mozilla provides and compile a binary. The assertion that "fairly few people compile their own Firefox" does not alter the fact that anyone may examine the code and compile their own. There are no numbers presented to illustrate what "fairly few" means. There are no numbers presented to compare to the number of people who are permitted to compile their own IE.
On the marketing of free software Posted Oct 29, 2006 19:38 UTC (Sun) by oak (subscriber, #2786) [Link] My comment was generic[1]. Having source code available doesn'tdirectly mean that some more or less related binary has less misfeatures (see the earlier comments). [1] I cannot comment on IE because I haven't used MicroSoft products in last 10 years (except for a brief period 4 years ago at work). At home I use Konqueror, not Firefox, so I hardly can comment on that either. > The assertion that "fairly few people compile their own Firefox" does > not alter the fact that anyone may examine the code and compile their > own. There are no numbers presented to illustrate what "fairly few" > means. The generic argument about just having source code providing more security (which I was criticizing) was suggested for marketing Firefox i.e. intended at people using browsers in general. I'm fairly certain that most of the people browsing internet do not compile their browser themselves. Of my workmates only one builds his browser himself. I don't. What about you? Having source code means that there's a possibility to fork it if the existing version contains misfeatures (this of course assumes that somebody has noticed these misfeatures first).
On the marketing of free software Posted Oct 30, 2006 0:43 UTC (Mon) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link]
Generically, there are lots of words, but they may or may not congregate into coherent thoughts.
No such "generic argument" was made and you have now twice mangled my words in an attempt to fit them to your "argument". Care to try for a third reading?
Exactly how did you confuse "source code [...] code" with "binary" for your first mangling? Exactly how did you read the above and come up with a "generic argument" about "more security"? Firefox users do, in fact, enjoy a higher level of security from the availability of the source code in this particular circumstance, as compared to IE users, but this does not imply anything "generic" about either open source or security. This particular feature is a distinguishing characteristic of FOSS as compared to closed, secret source software. The point I made is very specific and concerns the relationship of the user of the code to the producer of the code. Mozilla shows the code. Microsoft jealously guards the secrecy of their code. Since any user of Firefox has the opportunity to verify what the program does, there is no requirement to trust Mozilla. Since any user of Internet Explorer, outside of a very select few, is precluded from verifying what those source code instructions are, users must rely completely on trust in Microsoft that the program does not contain anything that acts against the user's interests. This trust has been violated multiple times by closed software vendors in general and Microsoft in particular.
The only relevancy this has to my comment is that with Mozilla Firefox each and every user has the opportunity to compile from source, while Internet Explorer users are denied this opportunity. Whether you, I, some, few, many, or most choose to take advantage of that opportunity has no bearing on the existence of that differentiation.
Having the source code does not mean there's a possibility to fork it. The license under which Mozilla Firefox source code is provided grants the opportunity for forking. Forking the code has nothing to do with the portion of my comment that you quoted. This has nothing to do with the relationship between Mozilla and Firefox users, and nothing to do with the relationship between Microsoft and IE users. Mozilla Firefox users are not required to accept the software based on trust. Microsoft IE users are not permitted to examine the source and must therefore accept the software based entirely on their trust of Microsoft.
On the marketing of free software Posted Oct 26, 2006 14:52 UTC (Thu) by pj (subscriber, #4506) [Link] >3. freedom to modify. I don't think that many people care much about this, and the firefox codebase is hardly the thing you would want newcomers to OpenSource/Free Software to dive into.
Creating Extensions and Themes is a fairly painless way that even newcomers can tweak Firefox a little closer to their idea of the perfect browser. Or as mentioned before, they could hire someone to do so.
On the marketing of free software Posted Oct 26, 2006 8:08 UTC (Thu) by ortalo (subscriber, #4654) [Link] Nice remark! Users without knowledge of computer science may really be interested in knowing *why* hackers sometimes build so useful software for them. (And sometimes so obscure software for them.)Furthermore, maybe it is time so switch to a more clever marketing (better than companies') overtaking this feature race. Time to say that we have the *best* features. Maybe too that we have *only* the best features. And maybe even that they are implemented the *best* way. Users are not so stupid (even if sometimes they'd like us to think they are) they'll certainly notice. Nowadays, most of them have enough maturity with computers to believe or at least to listen to our facts and decide critically.
On the marketing of free software Posted Oct 26, 2006 8:19 UTC (Thu) by dd9jn (subscriber, #4459) [Link] Thanks for that article.
(Frankly, I'd like to see that article available to all earlier than usual)
On the marketing of free software Posted Oct 26, 2006 8:53 UTC (Thu) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link] Actually "organic" food is exactly the triumph of marketing over substance that the article criticises Mozilla.org for.
Since we're at risk of careening violently off topic let's take a single example, a very famous breakfast cereal in my country available in organic and regular varieties. What is the difference? The organic variety costs more, it supposedly uses wheat grown on special "organic" farms, but otherwise essentially indistiguishable... except that all the vitamins have been removed because they aren't "organic". So the customer pays more for a product that they perceive as being more healthy but which is actually /missing/ important ingredients for their health. It's not about healthy eating, it's about buzzwords.
If Free Software is just a buzzword then we're wasting our time here.
Free Software does compete on features. A lot of things Microsoft is delivering in Vista for the first time have been a feature of the best Linux distros for months, or even years. It's tempting even to say that we have them on the back foot. If they can't deliver the next major version on schedule and with a bigger proportion of its intended features, a lot of people, probably including shareholders, will be asking whether Microsoft should get out of the OS business.
So yes, "Free Software" needs to be in the marketing message, but it's not a problem to mention _better_ software too, when that's what we have.
Off the topic completely Posted Oct 27, 2006 0:45 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] If someone's diet lacks variety to the point that the supplementaryvitamins in their processed breakfast cereal are "important ingredients for their health" then organic food marketing campaigns are lost on them.
The organic-variety processed food is just a big manufacturer ticking a
A big reason for the popularity of organically grown food is not to do
How a product is made contributes to its worth just as significantly as
Off the topic completely Posted Nov 2, 2006 10:31 UTC (Thu) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] I can distinguish organic ("biological" here in Germany) vegetables and meat quite well from conventional one. It clearly tastes better. But I agree, that's not the point with cereals. However, high quality bred here generally uses organic wheat, while low quality uses conventional, and I also can taste the difference here, too. However, the other reason, the feel-good factor, is just as important. It's also that the food tastes better, because the organic farms care about the food and what they do (not just about the money), and have a much closer customer relation than conventional ones. Since organic farming is unconventional, the people who do it are self-selected, and as such more motivated and more capable than conventional farmers. The same is usually true for free software as well - self selected hackers just care more about their product than work-for-money whores ("professionals") in the industry. However, Firefox is a bad example here: Most of the code base is written and maintained by exactly the same sort of professionals that work elsewhere. Not self-selected hackers. And you see that, especially when the open source Mozilla started. It's a mess of ugly code. And even though it improved over time, it still is a mess, compared to self-selected hacker browsers like Konqueror. That's why Apple selected khtml as base for Safari, and not Gecko. And that's also why the khtml team has a tough time to reintegrate the "professional" work done at Apple back into khtml. It's like an organic farmer and a conventional farmer working together on the same farm. The organic farmer has to fight over the chemicals the other farmer wants to use.
On the marketing of free software Posted Oct 26, 2006 8:54 UTC (Thu) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link] > It seems unlikely that Mozilla Corp. has the resources to compete with Microsoft on features, and it is not at all clear that the wider development community will be able to make up the difference.
> Where Firefox has a competitive advantage, instead, is in the fact that it is free software.
This is a very important message, that needs to be repeated in as many ways (and about as many free software products) as possible. Thank you for a well-considered piece.
On the marketing of free software Posted Oct 26, 2006 9:52 UTC (Thu) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] I have to disagree on a couple of points:There are precedents that suggest that freedom could be made into a selling point; consider, for example, the growing success of organic produce. Actually I think it has nothing to do with freedom, it's all about features, or rather about loss of features - i.e. no genetically modified food, no antibiotics, etc. There were long periods of time where trying to build early X11 releases with early gcc releases was an exercise in serious pain. [...] Many of us might not, at that time, have been able to explain why we subjected ourselves to this experience Altough I haven't built X11, I tried to build other software with gcc on UNIXes and it was sometimes painful, but the reasons were quite simple: the university didn't have money to buy the other C compiler or to buy software with similar features to the one I tried to compile. And an other reason - when some people started to use Linux at home (around mid-90s), they've found the environment (the GNU tools) more comfortable than the ones supplied with the UNIX variant, so they've built the GNU tools for themselves. Evidently the people behind these marketing campaigns have decided that it's features that "sell" the software, so that is what has to be pushed on users. Maybe they are right. I'm a software developer so I'm supposed to be able to modify the softwares I use, still, I have not a single software installed on my desktop that I've modified (of course I've customized them, but that's an entirely different thing). It's easier to find an other alternative that works that way I like, than modify an other. Free software is not better by virtue of having more checkboxes on the package. It is better because it is free. I'm afraid not. Software is just a tool, like a hammer, maybe a little more complicated. There's one thing that really matters - does it do its job or does not. Of what use could be a "free hammer", if you couldn't hit nails with it? There were (and are) political systems in the world where tools, procedures and even people were judged by ideological grounds instead of practical reasons. They looked good in theory, but in practice they were not nice at all, the "free hammers" couldn't put the nails into the wood and the wooden houses collapsed onto the "free people". However, there are reasons why free software could outperform non-free software. It's "sexiness" could attract better developers (we know the kernel developers by name but have no idea who's coding IE) and it's the developers who could make the difference (in my experience a good developer could create up to ten times more features than an avarage). The availibility of the source makes it easier for 3rd parties to give (security) support.
On the marketing of free software Posted Oct 26, 2006 11:07 UTC (Thu) by MathFox (guest, #6104) [Link] it's all about features, or rather about loss of features - i.e. no genetically modified food, no antibiotics, etc.If you s/features/misfeatures/ I can fully agree with you. Does a customer want flash-ads, pop-ups and spyware? Software is just a tool, like a hammer, maybe a little more complicated. There's one thing that really matters - does it do its job or does not. Of what use could be a "free hammer", if you couldn't hit nails with it?Yes, software need to "do the job"; if it breaks in a way that it can't be fixed it's useless. This goes just as hard for Open Source as commercial software. However, Open Source software can be tried cheaply. If the Free program has the features (and quality) the user needs, it will win competition with a commercial product on price. There are some intrinsic advantages to Open Source Software:
On the marketing of free software Posted Oct 26, 2006 19:04 UTC (Thu) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] Does a customer want flash-ads, pop-ups and spyware?As far as I know, Firefox provides flash-ads, pop-ups, and IE does not provide spyware by intention. Yes, software need to "do the job"; if it breaks in a way that it can't be fixed it's useless. This goes just as hard for Open Source as commercial software. That's true. However, most of us don't have the skills to fix our broken tools. I definitely can't fix e.g. a hammer if it's handle is broken - but I have the option to bring the hammer to someone who can fix it. Open software definitely has an advantage in this area, usually it is possible to be fixed by third party. But wait a minute - if I buy a tool, I get a warranty card with it, so if it's broken, I bring it to the supplier and the supplier is supposed to fix it (or replace it or give my money back). In fact, the suppliers are bound by law to give warranty - the problem is that somehow most commonly used softwares are an exception to this law. I believe that's the real problem (for the end user) and open source is just a workaround in this case.
On the marketing of free software Posted Oct 27, 2006 0:54 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > > Free software is not better by virtue of having more checkboxes> > on the package. It is better because it is free.
> I'm afraid not. Software is just a tool, like a hammer, maybe a
I'm with Corbet on this one. Of course whether the software does
We could add some caveats -- is it actively developed or is it
On the marketing of free software Posted Oct 26, 2006 13:58 UTC (Thu) by jsarets (guest, #39560) [Link] We know that software users base their preferences on features, this perhaps the most important of several obvious factors including cost, performance, compatibility, etc. However, as you note, the degree to which software freedom affects preferences is highly debatable. In fact, focusing on software freedom when marketing free software would be a mistake.
The free software movement must balance the needs of both contributors and users. Contributors include active forum members, artists, translators, testers, and other contributing parties in addition to developers. While contributors value the transparency and community of free software in addition to the software itself, users see software as a means to an end. The issue of software freedom means a lot to some, but much less for the majority of computer users.
This strikes at the core of the FSF/OSI debate. Just as software is a means to an end for the typical user, so is the license. The FSF people base their philosophy on the assumption that software should be free for the good of humanity, whereas the OSI people base their's on the assumption that free and/or permissive licenses facilitate the efficient development of quality software. As much as we like free software, it is tough to argue why software should be free without relying on the empirical evidence that free software has been a successful development model.
Free software has fostered communities of contributors and put itself in a position to attract users. We have mastered the art of marketing to contributors, and the crumbling user communities in the proprietary world serve as a testament to this fact. However, we suck at marketing to users, because we are still operating under the assumption that software should be free and that free software benefit users. On the contrary, users benefit from free software only when it offers better value than proprietary options.
Free software increasingly competes against gratis proprietary software that offers similar TCO. Accordingly, user-oriented marketing materials should focus on the areas where free software outshines its competition, and the easiest way to do this is through feature comparisons. If Mozilla can't improve Firefox faster than Microsoft can improve IE, then we have a serious problem. Suggesting that being free software makes up for its shortcomings is not a viable solution.
On the marketing of free software Posted Oct 26, 2006 14:34 UTC (Thu) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link] As much as we like free software, it is tough to argue why software should be free without relying on the empirical evidence that free software has been a successful development model. I disagree. And you're right about the divide in the Free Software Foundation and the OSI. But the big thing about 'freedom' is not just that you can build a better hammer -- it's that 'freedom' is a good in and of itself. I sympathize greatly with Stallman and some of his excesses in what you might call public relations, because it is sadly clear to me that 'freedom' isn't being taught these days either by software or society. I hope that the growth of free software can do its part in showing and reminding the citizens of our world why freedom is important. And yes - it often includes talk of practical advantages, but tossing the ethics out of the picture is a bad way to go. I agree with Mr. Corbet here 100%.
On the marketing of free software Posted Oct 26, 2006 14:54 UTC (Thu) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026) [Link] However, we suck at marketing to users, because we are still operating under the assumption that software should be free and that free software benefit users. Many people (apparently including the author of the LWN article) believe that assumption is true. Beyond technical characteristics free software offers transparency and reduced barriers to competition. These are decisive long term advantages for software just as they are for markets in general. Choosing the project with the better fundamental approach avoids substantial investments in alternatives that won't be as effective in the future. Sometimes this means a free software packages is a better value than a more polished proprietary product. You have not demonstrated otherwise by pointing out that most people who are not software experts don't take this into consideration. That is a marketing problem we must solve, not hide from.
On the marketing of free software Posted Oct 26, 2006 16:07 UTC (Thu) by mcopple (guest, #2920) [Link] Jon, your last paragraph comes right to the heart of the matter. By remaining Free Software, *and* by remaining completely dedicated to the user experience, Firefox can be successful. These two items should be the "features" of Firefox.
As you said, folks buy organic produce all the time -- despite the fact that it costs more and may not be as uniform or tasty as its mass market brethren. Folks pay more for it because they consider those circumstances to be features worth paying for, rather than defects. A lot of folks pay more for an Apple Computer, despite the fact that parts cost more, applications cost more, and it has a rather limited application set (esp. for the business world). They know that when they purchase an Apple product, they are getting high quality and value. The "cachet" of owning an iMac outweighs the possible inconveniences of buying a non-Microsoft operating system.
Sure, everyone may not want a copy of Firefox. But then again, software that is made for *everyone* usually ends up satisfying *no one.* One of the reasons I support Free Software is because I know I can make it fit *my* needs, rather than the needs of a focus group which may or may not resemble me.
Thank you for your insightful article!
A "devil's advocate" argument Posted Oct 26, 2006 17:39 UTC (Thu) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link] Freedom is one motive among many, and its place within the "motive set" may slip from first as the sample space increases.>It seems unlikely that World Domination will be achieved by trying to out-feature proprietary software companies Why is World Domination an explicit goal? Consider, if you will, the printing press. Prior thereto, (and with little research to back me up :) the literacy rate was Really Low. Literacy and knowledge were among the keys to power. In modern times, people who want to can learn to read (at least, I'm not aware of significant barriers to the determined). The spectrum of F/OSS licenses, similarly, make it easy for people to explore and gain technology literacy. The proprietary vendors, like the power structures of old, are seeing their grip loosened. My argument, however, is that, surely as the power structures of old have remained, diminished, the proprietary vendors we love to curse are going to hang on, too. Sure, the need for vigilance on the legal front remains clear, as does the need for pressure on hardware vendors to be more open about specifications. I'm contending that F/OSS is naturally going to expand over time to encompass the "right" amount of the market, and the whole World Domination thing might be a distraction.
On the marketing of free software Posted Nov 2, 2006 9:55 UTC (Thu) by anton (guest, #25547) [Link] I applaud you for focusing on the importance of freedom in free software again. I was somewhat worried about losing you to the dark side when I read the "Similar in Spirit?" article, that called for a compromise on the GPLv3 between the FSF and Open-Source people like Linus "Linux [...] has never been a "Free Software" project" Torvalds.
|
|||||||||||||