2010/10/3 Graham Lauder <[email protected]>: > > That is your opinion, and of course unprovable.
Same as yours. You write a lot about how the naming and the colors ate away market shares. I never ever heard any Ubuntu user (nor even fan boys at events) talking about names or colors when describing the benefits of their distribution. Oh, and BTW: Ubuntu changed colors because a lot of Ubuntu users did not like the colors - how could they have been attracted by colors they don't like and want to be changed? What Ubuntu did very well and what made their success is based on 3 parts (and I do not mean lots of money to win tenders in the business world): 1. Give the users the illusion that it is their distribution and that it is what they are doing, not some company far away. With all appearances, all speeches and all publications Shuttleworth gave out one message: Ubuntu is you, you are Ubuntu. That was the top reason he succeeded to build a critical mass of organised users who became the most valued asset - a cost free PR system. 2. Ubuntu lets people download ISOs just as all the others. But it also sends you CDs for free - I tried that once and 10 CDs were delivered to my door within 3 days. For new users this is far more attractive than any downloadable - what's it called, ISO?. 3. PR, PR, PR, PR and then again PR. The media, print and web were flooded with PRs from Canonical, from local user organisations, etc. Ubuntu succeeded to have their name hammered into the attention of website and magazine readers, even non-IT media. Once started this is a runner. None of this is related to the color or some names. Ubuntu would have the same success, not one user less if they had never thought of those names.
