Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-buildservice (206 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-marketing] Re: [opensuse-buildservice] Proposed OBS rename / + BRETZN name
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 7:52 PM, Jos Poortvliet <jospoortvliet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wednesday 02 February 2011 19:50:24 Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Nelson Marques <nmo.marques@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 3:46 AM, Helen <postmodernhousewife@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I personally have mixed feelings about this - the fact that OBS has
openSUSE in its name helps to get the openSUSE name 'out there' as its
use becomes more popular, but I agree that there is a strong
implication for users that it is only for openSUSE. The other reasons
raised by Gumb are also valid ones.

OBS is the beating heart of openSUSE, I don't see any problem in
having 'openSUSE' on a platform as OBS.

Agreed

I personally don't see it as a big issue directly - the only issue with it is
that people clearly assume the "openSUSE Build Service" is there to "Build
openSUSE Software".

If people see it that way, maybe it's marketing failure? As you state
and I quote:

«hat people clearly assume the "openSUSE Build Service" is there to
"Buil openSUSE Software".»

This only points failure on marketing practices, marketing efforts are
failing in passing the message, but in reality, it's not actually far
from the reality. OBS plays it's role, it enables all the contents
distributed in openSUSE Linux distribution.

Maybe before we can be attractive to developers we have to be
attractive to end users, so that they ditch their distribution
repositories and use ours (which isn't supported by any distribution).
So for you to succeded this is probably one of the issues that needs
to be worked out first... Make OBS a repository of reference to other
distributions.

The discussions and chats I've had at several conferences
including the latest LCA clearly brought that forward and I think those of you
who've been at conferences have heard the same sentiments. Now the scope of
the Build Service is much wider than that and this misconception is hurting at
least some of our uptake. The marketing team is fighting this perception all
the time.

From a talk I had with someone I met on OSC, I actually asked him why
they didn't used devel snapshots through OBS. The answer I got was...
every distribution has packagers, they do that for me, why would I
want to waste time on that? I don't package, I do other more important
things.

The brand is currently usually abbreviated as OBS - and known (in writing)
like that. MeeGo actually calls it 'open build service' already, as do many
other people. I wouldn't argue yet that 'open build service' is already the
de-facto name, but it's going in that direction.

Once more, this could indicate severe marketing strategy failure.
Careful with such statements.

So there is a reason to rename it: do something about a misconception which is
hurting uptake.

The reason to rebrand and reposition a well established service is
based on an hypothetical marketing failure?

Maybe it's time for you to drop Darwinism and maybe be more mindful of
Smith/Drucker/Kotler, as they will provide an answer for your
problems.

Reasons not to do it:
1 we diminish the link between openSUSE and OBS
2 we loose some brand value due to the repositioning

1 & 2 - will only happen if Marketing doesn't take action to support
the whole repositioning (this is where the fat budgets play there
role).

On 1, I don't see this as a real issue as OBS is and will be principally
developed by openSUSE - and as I wrote before, the culture of 'credit where
credit is due' in FOSS protects us in this regard as well.

Unless you want to make of OBS a fully commercial product, that makes no sense.

2 is really minimal - OBS is the name most known and won't change; moreover
many people already call it open build service (or even just 'the build
service' which is actually really good for us I would say - saying OBS is the
de-facto standard build service).

Interesting... A "build service" builds something, that's how someone
probably will face it. As I face it, it's an outstanding distribution
platform, to feed or distribute contents. There is a difference, and
if you think closely, it might be more benefic for OBS to be promoted
as a distribution platform, at least it sounds far more appealing to
me, and the fact is has a HUGE 'OPENSUSE' in it's name can only
benefit openSUSE as a Linux distribution.

Hence I believe the reason to do it eclipses the reasons not to do it.

Just trying to prevent a situation like the one portraited partially
on [1]. If you look carefully, that entry is quite a powerful example.
That entry suggests that picking KDE as the default Desktop actually
didn't brought the expected user base to openSUSE. And changing back
to GNOME will only hurt us more, because you are endangering hurting
users and paint us like if we don't know what we're doing. I hope OBS
will not be the subject of such changes every once in a while. It
kills consumer trust, and we want to build relations with users based
on trust so we can build loyalty. Changing all the time will only hurt
what we're trying to build.

[1] - https://features.opensuse.org/311023

On the facebook thing, I doubt our number likes on facebook for openSUSE have
much if anything to do with uptake of OBS. Not to say we shouldn't try to
increase that number...

Depends... you are only seeing one side of the problem, you neglect
still that we work to provide contents to people and to show people
that our contents/software is a reliable option. It makes all sense to
me that the more contents we serve, the more attractive we will be for
those making the contents.

I'm sure that making such a risky maneuvre because a group of people
call it something else is rather naive.


This email expresses a personal opinion and therefore there is no
right or wrong, just a point of view.

NM
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >