Re: User oriented release notes

[Claus Schwarm <c schwarm gmx net>]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 12:57:43 +0200
Quim Gil <qgil desdeamericaconamor org> wrote:

> 
> Certainly GNOME does not sell (but see below). Does that mean that
> Apple (or Microsoft) are in a different league?

It just means that there's a need for Apple to write for ordinary
users. They interact with consumers directly.

GNOME interacts with consumers via third-parties: Either
enthusiasts (installing GNOME for grandma), or professionals
(installing GNOME for their companies and employees), or via PC
computer vendors such as Dell who could install GNOME for their
consumers.

If you also keep in mind that the diffusion process of Linux in
general is just starting to make normal consumers curious, you have
all reasons why we should bother about enthusiasts and professionals.

This does not mean why should ignore consumers. It just means we should
value their current importance appropriately. The 'users == grandma'
myth already hurt us several times (think Spacial Nautilus, GNOME
Screensaver, etc.)

I don't mean that we cannot compete with other desktops. It just
means we have no full-control on the whole stack, and we should act
accordingly. You may note that Microsoft has no full-control on the
complete stack either but it's still more successful than Apple.

>
> Also, it just depends on how constrained is your idea of Who Is GNOME.

...and sentences just as these are just the kind of sentences I
worried about: The other guys in the stack are not GNOME. They have
different and sometimes competeting interests. 

For example, Linux distributions have a strong tendency to use the
desktop as a means to differentiate themselves and thus fragment the
user interface. This is not what we want (hopefully).

They also have the tendency to use package repositories as a means to
bind users to their product althought it's in the interest of Desktop
Linux to have something like Autopackage used widely. 

This is not a big problem right now, but it might get one if we indeed
take the wrong approach and start taking *visions* seriously, loosing
the view on reality.


> 
> If someone thinks this is just bullshit, buzzwords or something not
> related to GNOME, have a look at successful free software initiatives:
> OLPC, Nokia 770, Ubuntu, Mozilla, OpenOffice, Mono... Add your
> candidates and you will surely find organization, development and
> marketing in place and well integrated.
> 

This is a perfect example of the problem of *vision*: Who says that
organization, development, and marketing are well integrated for the
projects you mentioned? How did you measure it? How would I be able to
refute such claims, empirically?

The problem is you didn't provide a proper definition of
"well-integrated". Your claim is meaningless althought it sounds good,
on the surface.

As a counter-example: Firefox, as a product, was developed *without*
any marketing in mind. The guy responsible for the Firefox campaign just
noted the potential of the existing product, and used it. There was no
integrated marketing plan in the beginning.

Another counter-example: 'Gfrempgf' was a project with a
well-integrated marketing plan. If you now wonder why you never heard
about 'Gfrempgf' before... it was a total failure. You see, integrated
marketing plans are no gurantee of success althought you small
list of projects indicate that it would be. ;-)

This is the problem of *visions*: The words consitute their own
reality and people stop thinking straight.


Cheers,
Claus