Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 00:38:05 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The Merger, and what will its effects be on committers? Message-ID: <4.2.2.20000317001756.040fd470@localhost> In-Reply-To: <200003170017.RAA18542@usr02.primenet.com> References: <4.2.2.20000312154517.04127580@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 05:17 PM 3/16/2000 , Terry Lambert wrote: >I realize that Linux has used the unity of the idea of "Linux >is not a distribution" in order to effectively "Cross the Chasm", >as Geoffrey Moore of Regis McKenna, Inc., has succinctly put it. > >But do not forget that in his book, "Crossing the Chasm", and >again in his book "Inside the Tornado", and in general, in the >apparent public philosophy of Regis McKenna, Inc., and other >high technology public relations and marketing firms that are >not as famous as they are in Silicon Valley, there is only one >"Chasm Crossing" per stregy, and each new attempt must use a >strategy different from that of its competitors. > >The BSDI press release on the merger emphasizes brand unification, >as did Jordan at the last BAFUG (Bay Area FreeBSD Users Group) >meeting. I don't think brand unification will be enough to cause >BSD to "Cross the Chasm" to commercial profitability between the >"Early Adopters" and the "Early Majority". > >There are issues of brand involved here, but I don't think it's >safe to claim, like BSDI, Brett, Jordan, and Paul, that brand >divisiveness caused by forking caused by a trademark usage >policy, is necessarily the only obstacle to a "Chasm Crossing". I agree with you. However, I think that it is an important obstacle in that it provides may within the Linux camp with a weapon they can use to hinder the crossing of that chasm by BSD. Why would they want to prevent BSD from making the crossing? Partially because of their adherence to the doctrines of Richard Stallman, who preaches the extinction of commercial software by the use of open source as a weapon. (BSD thwarts that strategy through fair licensing.) And partially because of the combative nature of adaptive memes. To achieve dominance, a meme must contain instructions to oppose others. >Certainly, people could profit greatly from another FreeBSD >distribution, which disdained the current installer, and provided >a replacement. I think this could be accomplished with a two >CDROM set, one a FreeBSD disk image, unchanged, and another >with the installer, a FreeBSD kernel, etc., all bootable, called >"The Install Disk", or even with a single DVDROM -- though the >mass market for that isn't there yet. Possibly. However, to make the product more available and less expensive, it'd be nice if there were one disc. >But this all begs the point of overall market strategy for the >FreeBSD project itself, and whether the project itself even has >the will or desire to "Cross the Chasm", or, as stated above, This may be the real problem. There are too many people even WITHIN the project who oppose the crossing of the "chasm," perhaps out of some sort of fear that success necessarily corrupts or ruins all endeavors. >mere brand unity would even be a factor, one way or the other, >as much marketing and public relations talent in the Silicon >Valley claims it would not. "Brand unity" is a factor, but you are correct in that there are others. I've mentioned these on the various BSD lists and have been flamed viciously for pointing some of them out! >There are a lot of fine engineers here, but there are not a lot >of fine marketers, and certainly no great ones, or new PC-grade >hardware would be shipping with "BSD 2000", or its moral >equivalent, not "Windows 2000", and not Red Hat Linux. An attempt >on the chasm will require fine marketing, and it's likely that >the FreeBSD community as it currently stands will not tolerate >sufficient "dumbing down" for consumerism for that to ever happen. I, personally, don't believe that "dumbing down" is a requirement for success or even for ubiquity. Many products which are successful today are quite complex, have great subtlety and/or require effort to master. Saxophones, band saws, and sports cars are examples. Even Windows is a reasonably good example. The problems with Windows stem not from a lack of complexity or subtlety but from criminally careless implementation. Terry, how would you propose that FreeBSD and/or the BSDs as a group "cross the chasm?" --Brett Glass To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.2.2.20000317001756.040fd470>