Server messaging issues

> > Jeff Waugh wrote:
> >
> >> So, I tend to think we need to strongly link 'Ubuntu' and its
> >> applicability
> >> as a server so this kind of confusion doesn't set in. Here's my
> >> suggestion:
> >> We should always list the server CD as a 'flavour' of the official
> >> Ubuntu CD
> >> set, much like the LiveCD. For example:
> >>
> >>  * Ubuntu 5.10
> >>
> >>    - Desktop Installation CD -> a complete desktop environment with
> >> all the
> >>      applications you'd expect... and more! Includes a full office suite,
> >>      web browser, email and groupware client and even a few simple games.
> >>         - Desktop Live CD -> a 'live' demonstration version of the
> >> Ubuntu desktop
> >>      that you can safely run on your computer without changing your
> >> existing
> >>      operating system. A great way to show off Ubuntu to your friends!
> >>       - Server Installation CD -> built specifically for server
> >> administrators,
> >>      this modified CD installs a minimal Ubuntu server system and
> >> includes
> >>      installable packages for many popular Open Source server tools
> >> such as
> >>      Apache, MySQL, PostgreSQL, etc.
> >>
> >> That way, hopefully, our users don't think it's a totally new thing!
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> - Jeff
<snip>
> > Is the point really only to clear the confusion? In that case, another
> > option *could* be to just have the "Ubuntu provides a full featured
> > server system, which can be installed from the Desktop installation cd"
> > advertisement wherever the server-cd would be listed (
> > http://se.releases.ubuntu.com/5.10/ , etcetera). It would have a similar

> I think the piont here should be how to avoid confusion, because there
> are already many ubuntu-branches, deriviates etc.
> People need to know that Ubuntu is behind Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Edubuntu,
> and their respective flavors. That this is not fracturation of the
> community, and that these are not 'seperate', they're all working from
> the same base, to the same goal, through a different means.
>
> It is not unlikely that if this trend continues unstructured, the amount
> of 'brands' based on ubuntu will explode, and people will get lost in
> the meriad of options offered.
>
> I say we need to provide a definitive resource, prominently listed on
> the site, listing all the projects, their featureset, intended audience
> and featureset, as well as the fact that one can easily turn an
> ubuntu-minimal install to a kde-desktop or an edubuntu-server-setup with
> about 2 mouseclicks.

One lazy solution would be to have one installation DVD. Yes, this
would work against the philosophy of one CD = one distro = an easier
download than distro XYZ with its [four/eight/fifteen] CDs, but, it
would protect the Ubuntu brand from being diluted -- you'd have one
brand with a few flavours available on CD.

Right now I see most pundits recognising the distinction between a
flavour and a spinoff (and, if [frequently] ill-informed pundits can
see the difference then I'm sure most users can) but I do also sense
that kubuntu, edubuntu and now server ubuntu are diluting the brand
somewhat. They're not fully different distros but they are viewed
(rightly and wrongly... KDE-only apps will run under kubuntu but not
'stock' Ubuntu) as "somewhat" different. Ubuntu != edubuntu !=
kubuntu.

I guess this is something for Canonical's marketing folks to consider.
Where do your VARs (more like VAsupporters) expect to be able to earn
a living? Where do your users' needs lie? Is the GNOME-KDE dichotomy
on the F/LOSS desktop (Linux, BSD, etc.) something that Canonical
wants to get into (obviously not given the focus on GNOME=Ubuntu)?

Do your users need a distinction between Ubuntu on the desktop and
Ubuntu as a server?

kubuntu, edubuntu and [gnome]Ubuntu are the same distro, with
different packages but they all perform as a desktop for most users.
Is a server concept sufficiently different to require a separate
"brand"?

One danger with kubuntu (and, I'm sure this is rehashed regularly) is
that that particular 'brand' DOES dilute Ubuntu's mark. Software that
runs on Ubuntu [gnome] does not necessarily run on kubuntu and
vice-versa. This is the age-old issue of toolkits for KDE vs. GNOME
but it's cropping up in Ubuntu as two differently branded sub-distros.

Apple has OS X and OS X Server. They're different beasts that are the
same ;-P. Obviously the paradigm isn't quite the same since there are
licencing issues involved in OS X Server and they don't have to worry
about GNOME vs. KDE, but it works for them (plus, Apple has a much
bigger marketing budget at its disposal).

Anyway, I think I asked more questions and offered up few suggestions.
Hopefully someone else can do the hard thinking for me ;-).

Eric.