HERE is the New Voice of Linux

Never too late steeprockmedia. Brilliant edit!

I would have to say you are spot on about the bottom line. There needs to be something that enables people to act on this new information. We have another project that will in a limited capacity(to start) put free Live CDs into their hands. 1-877-Linux-Now We also have http://www.linux-now.info for a web based campaign.

We were hoping to add a finishing tag line to a shortened version of this radio commercial. It seems you have provided the shortened version. Now we just need the tag line.

Great job bravo!

Make sure that you keep all versions around (voice and script). I liked
the current versions and maybe a 1 min 12 sec spot will open up
unexpectedly.

Also, we should link up the scripts with the recordings (if that hasn't
been done). And make sure we have them dated (though if we increase
version numbers as we go that might be enough).

I think the FOSS community should all work together. What we have
really is a product of a multitude of licenses. However, I don't feel
the license choice is insignificant "as long as it's OSI approved."
Here is a blog on this topic. My views are in a comment dated the 25th
Sept. http://blog.linuxtoday.com/blog/archives/070920-112241.html .
I'll quote:

****
The GPL offers a stronger (more responsive) feedback mechanism for the
community of coders to maintain a check on each other than does the BSD.

If a BSD codebase is taken and exploited to the detriment of numerous
members of the community (eg, by being added to products that control a
market), what can the members do to place a check on this while
continuing to develop with the BSD license? There isn't much.

Consider the same scenario with GPL code. In that case, the only way to
close off the code is by the owner of the copyright (probably the
commercial company hosting the project) or someone that received
liberal licensing from the owner. Whether the monopoly position
threatens the copyright owner or not (and acts or not), the rest of the
community is threatened and they can respond by forking. A
well-supported community fork will surpass and diverge from the
original codebase thus significantly limiting the ability for the
monopolist to continue to get a free ride with the (new) superior code
base.

The GPL's power comes in because it gives the copyright owner extra
power. If this power is abused, the solution is to get new copyright
owners (through a fork) and thereby leaving the original troublemaker
cut off from the growing development. Yesterday's hot features just
aren't enough to carry the day against today's new features and
improvements.

It's because the GPL reserves rights that it can be used to combat
rogue members of the community by cutting off their ability to close
things off. When members behave, however, the community generally backs
them, even if they produce closed products.

GPL is carrot and is stick. It is carrot to those that behave. It is stick to those that abuse.

The BSD is just carrot no matter who you are and how much you misbehave
(talk about bad parenting .. and I'm not implying that a *real* stick
is needed by human parents "to maintain discipline").
****

As you can see, I take a defensive position for generally prefering the GPL vs. the BSD.

************

Related to this are views on Microsoft's licenses submitted to the OSI:
http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2007092101626NWMSLL . The comment
is titled "The name game." [maybe this links to it directly:
http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2007-09-21-016-26-NW-MS-L...
]

As a brief clarification, if I were Microsoft I would start the process
of crowding out the GPL by providing a license that was almost
identical to it. It would naturally also be copyleft. This is what I
meant with the statement, " I would want a license that was not
compatible with the GPL to try and crowd the GPL out."

The rest of the post roughly explains other steps to be taken to
finally extinguish the GPL.. Along the way, Microsoft could gain a lot
of goodies, so extinguishing the GPL would be icing on the cake.

************

Also related are my views on Microsoft efforts to make OOXML an ISO approved standard: the following link is the second part
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20070910110639612&ti...
. The first part is the parent post which can be reached through the
"parent" link at this previous url.

This relates, not to the GPL vs. BSD discussion directly, but serves as
an example of why you can't just look at the license in question (or at
the standard) to judge if it is worth using because the copyright
holder of the actual license text (or the entity controlling the
standard) and the marketplace context are VERY important.

The GPL (and in particular "GPL version X or later") works because the
FSF is trustworthy [but I am not a fan of the "or later" clause.. I can
always simply relicense the original when the time comes.. but for
large group GPL projects, one would have to make sure to stay in touch
with all contributors that don't use the "or later" clause].

************

If it weren't for the potential to divide and alienate, I would start a
topic for discussion on licensing. We could also look at the flavors of
CC since we have been using it and probably will continue to do so.

It has been my personal experience that the "freedom" aspect of Linux/FOSS isn't something easily understood by the average user. It needs to be but what we've done until recently is just start bludgening them over the head with the freedom part. Wallpapers like "FREE YOURSELF" and "Freedom Forever - Linux" has just acted to confuse people. It's the same with GNU/Linux. I can't begin to tell you how many people have asked me:

"I'm trying Linux now, but what's GNU linux?"

They obviously perceive it as something different and distinct from the Linux they've heard about. Then when the few that do go look see how we are verbally slaughtering each other over the different philosophies, they just walk away shaking their heads. on Lobby4Linux, I make it a point to explain the GNU part and further explain how important GNU is both as a concept and as an everyday principle. The last thing we need are a few purists (and there is nothing wrong with that camp, it's just a name I've attached to them) demanding that Linux be referred to as GNU Linux. RMS does it before he agrees to an interview and then he wonders why he gets so few follow throughs when he's approached.

This is an important aspect to be sure...we just need to make sure the average person knows that it's not a prerequisite to joining the club. Asking people to only refer to linux as gnu linux is like telling people you can no longer use the term "chevy" and you must always refer to it as "Chevrolet".

People just aren't going to do it.

h

Too often it's the unsoiled hand that feeds The Critic's mouth.

Remember that suggestions are welcomed AND we aren't doing just one commercial.

These are working ideas for name

7th Symphony in A# Major (commercial is too simple to be a symphony .. do note 17th sept, 137 (see below), 2007, lucky seven,)

The Big Secret

The Secret is Out

The Big Secret is Out

Turbulence

How Do You Spell Disaster? (not for us)

How Do You Spell Distress?

How Do You Spell Destruction?

Sound and Fury

Splash: No More Flippers

Splash: Out to See (misspelling intentional.. or fix it .. maybe drop the "splash" altogether)

Splashing Out to Sea

The Big Splash

The Mass Awakening

Waddling on Broken Glass (windows shatter)

Happy Flippers

Happy Feet

Lawsuit

137 (see helios post below)

Tux137

The Ugly Chickling Gets a Voice

Desktop Roasting on an Open Fire

Call of the Wild

Xtinguish

TuXtinguisher

Tux for a Song and Dance

I frontloaded it into audacity and started playing with it and while I was doing the experiments, it dawned on me.  Here is the first line.

 Your software isnt working?

 It should be, "your computer isn't working?  

Here is how we fix this.  We have George say:

Your computer isn't working?  That's because your operating system is sub-standard.  It's not your computer, it's your software...

NOW, he goes into the part where says, "so what is the industries solution...?  

Bingo, I now see how you thought it was vauge...yes.  Maybe not vauge but unclear or at least there is a better way to say it.  Let's give this a listen then report back here and get into the nuts and bolts of this first 15 seconds.  it is by far the most critical.

and theobrama...how about the LIRN project (Linux Is Ready NOW)

h 

Too often it's the unsoiled hand that feeds The Critic's mouth.

>> The beginning is very vague. Only near the end can you
understand that the first half of the commercial is about Window's need
for anti virus software.

I'll listen to it later again, but I generally liked it. If what you
are saying is how successful commercials should be made then there are
a lot of companies blowing millions on bad commercials. Yes, some are
blowing millions, but it would seem the industry as a whole has not
learned.

With that said, I don't imagine anyone not being opened to the idea of
creating variations on the script. Someone can volunteer the words and
others can give it voice. Testing out different variations helps to
reveal which are more effective in which markets. We'd have to
formalize some things though (and we should) if we were going to do
this sort of testing/feedback.

At this point, I don't know what the intentions are for the commercial,
but we would need to have some sort of survey or way to identify who
heard the commercial, paid attention, got it, etc.

Even without the more precise/formal approach, we can go by gut feeling
and low-key informal surveys. Not surveying doesn't mean we would have
failed; it just means we'd be less likely to know if we did... making
it likely we'd repeat similar mistakes again.

And the commercial is about more than just Windows needing antivirus
software. In fact, the whole (in)security issue and high costs of the
Windows platform is part of what is communicated.

[Helios, make sure to do some informal testing (if you haven't) with
people near you. To increase the authenticity of the tests, get a radio
tape to play that commercial unsuspectedly when people are around.]

I just reheard it, and I stand by my assessment that it's good. The
commercial mentions/infers that (a) many respectable groups use Linux,
(b) Linux is more stable than Windows ("crashes" "BSOD"), (c) Linux has
less "problems" than Windows, (d) it's cheaper and comes with what you
likely will need to be productive, and (e) it's cheaper indirectly
because of savings in hardware. There may be more things, but all of
these items are important and differentiate with the Windows
alternatives... and none of these have anything to do with antivirus.

Try listening to the longer second version (that's what I used to build the list above).

>> but they won't understand *why*

This commercial brings a message not a dissertation. Yes, dissertations
are important for step two. The Internet is full of dissertations. And
yes, a very good and perhaps better commercial may be made by answering
more "why's". But as is, this commercial should be effective in helping
to build name recognition and have members of various target audiences
look to find out more. Noteworthy is that it's clear we are talking
about something called "linux." Google is our friend when all we know
about a product is one word (esp, when the word is its name).

Don't think I am shunning your view. There is room for experimentation.
I say both. We need to test alternatives anyway so why settle for fewer
to test when we can test and resolve the issue? I am one that does have
a positive view of this sample we already have.

[Helios, any plans to test this out online first to get some feedback
from various sites? We have to keep in mind that every decent idea will
obviously make a few Linux companies (and Microsoft of course) a little
edgy. I like online testing, but we have to do real live testing
primarily.. or skip it if we can get free air time on the radio (but
there's hardly such a thing as "free").]

...another plus for the commercial is that it should be easy to
understand. It hardly uses any jargon. Of course, the voicing adds a
dimension to the commercial that would make up even for some faults in
the script. Hearing it, you have an idea where its going even if you
didn't catch or understand a word here or there.

...another plus is that the message is given before the listener is
given the opportunity to hear "Linux" and tune off (for those that
would do this).

...another plus: the rep talking gets on our side right away. It's us vs. the greedy "industry."

good point and it is understood.  There will be another "voice" once we taper this down and get the impact at full velocity.  There will possibly be "a clarifying voice before AND after Georges narrative, so it should be crystalized by then.  We ran this by 137 people at random prior to calling it a finished draft.  Shopping malls, supermarkets...anywhere people had a couple of minutes to talk with us, we asked them to listen to it and judge it for quality, clarity and impact.  They were asked to give us a one sentence answer at the end when we asked them "what did you think this commerical was saying to you?"  Every one of them got it right.  Yes, we will add another voice for the full 60 second spot.  Possibly a female if we can get someone to work with us.  And remember, this isn't the only script...we have an entire section here where we can present our ideas and polish them  enough for George to record.  And by the way...George did alot of editing of my original script and showed a remarkable talent for cutting through the crap in doing it.

h 

Too often it's the unsoiled hand that feeds The Critic's mouth.

OK, so how do we follow up on that? ..with an url or something, right?

First, this has to hit the public airwaves. Not the internet...I mean, as a way to let other Linux organizations know it is available, yes but as the main medium/venue for delivery...no. Producing a commercial and then just running it on the internet is a waste of talent, resources and time. It is just another script used to preach to the choir. Our target needs to be the person that

1.) has never heard of Linux

2). can identify with the problems we talk about in the commerical.

Having worked tech support for way too long, I know for a fact that people are sick to death of microsoft windows...however, the average american consumer is extremely slow on the uptake and deathly frightened of change. Those are two formidable obstacles. Many people who have tried Linux have eventually went back to MS for the lack of mentoring or (and is probably more the case) just didn't feel comfortable in the Linux environment. Putting commercials like this on the public airwaves not only gives it immediate credability, it tells people intrinsically that others are going to be trying this at the same time they are.

Trust me...The day Linux hits the commercial venues is the day Microsoft dreaded coming. They don't expect it for another 2-4 years. Surprised abound Redmond...stay tooned.

Too often it's the unsoiled hand that feeds The Critic's mouth.