Server messaging issues

On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 07:16:13AM -0400, Eric Dunbar wrote:
> > > 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.

I beleive this was actually propsed already. Not sure if theres a BOF or
what (iirc i remember something about a 'variants' bof)

Trent

> 
> 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.
> 
> --
> ubuntu-devel mailing list
> ubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

-- 
Trent Lloyd <lathiat at bur.st>
Bur.st Networking Inc.