From owner-freebsd-advocacy Sun May 24 15:27:06 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA24158 for freebsd-advocacy-outgoing; Sun, 24 May 1998 15:27:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from dt050n33.san.rr.com (@dt053nd2.san.rr.com [204.210.34.210]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA24144; Sun, 24 May 1998 15:26:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Studded@san.rr.com) Received: from san.rr.com (Studded@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dt050n33.san.rr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA09152; Sun, 24 May 1998 15:26:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Studded@san.rr.com) Message-ID: <35689EB2.856DE36E@san.rr.com> Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 15:26:58 -0700 From: Studded Organization: Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2.6-STABLE-0507 i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" CC: advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: A proposal for focus. References: <15760.896002665@time.cdrom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > I've been watching the debates on this list ping-pong back and forth > for the last couple of months now, and it occurs to me that one thing > we're lacking here is even a reasonable consensus about what areas of > FreeBSD advocacy to focus on first. I think the problem is more fundamental than that. There is no clear consensus on what "freebsd" wants to be. You've expressed part of that here. Before you can do effective advocacy you have to have a group consensus on what you're advocating for. Unfortunately right now people are each advocating for their own view of what they want it to be, which leads to the circumstances you describe. Yes, I know that anarchy is part of the nature of the freebsd project, however not only does it not work in a promotional campaign it actually makes us look very foolish. > First, we agree to set aside, and strictly for the time being, all > discussion on "commercializing" FreeBSD I agree, but I'd like to see a clearer definition. I really believe that this is a good time to push forward on promoting freebsd as a "commercial" solution to ISP's and other server markets. People are starting to look past linux (momentum slowing, "ok, we've done that" attitude, etc.) and they are WAY disillusioned with NT. However our trying to promote anything that doesn't actually exist right now is overextending our limited resources. > My second suggestion is that we agree to knock it off with the > negative advertising. Absolutely. There is a huge difference between, "Let me show you how FreeBSD performs in comparison with some products that you are familiar with," and "Microsoft sucks, let me show you why." :) We need to stop bashing people and focus on the strengths that we have. Our concern is not taking market share away from linux, (or MS for that matter). Doug -- *** Chief Operations Officer, DALnet IRC network *** *** Proud designer and maintainer of one of the world's largest *** Internet Relay Chat server with 5,328 simultaneous connections *** Try spider.dal.net on ports 6662-4 (Powered by FreeBSD) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message