Hari's Corner

I'm currently downloading SUSE Linux 10, which is a hefty download of 5 CDs. I'm at the second CD and I think it would take a few more days to download the rest of the CDs since I'm on a slow internet connection. I'm quite excited about trying out SUSE because it's a distro I haven't tried before and it would be interesting for a change to try out a "user-friendly" distro as opposed to distros like Slackware or Gentoo, which are supposed to be "power-user" distros.

SUSE will be the fourth distro on my system. I already have Debian, Gentoo and Slackware installed (in that order) and it's probably overkill. But then, I am always itching to experiment and experience something new as far as Linux is concerned and SUSE seems to be the logical choice because it's something completely new to me and should be a good learning experience. Secondly, I have plenty of hard disk space to "kill." This is a time when I can revive my enthusiasm for Linux because it's been quite a while now since I've experimented with Linux. It's always fun to install hardware drivers, configure system settings and config files and just generally play around with a new distro. It brings back all that I've learnt before and reinforces knowledge gained earlier. I believe that without this element of freshness, it's all too easy to allow whatever little Linux knowledge one has gained to rust away.

Why SUSE? For one, I was not interested in yet another "do-it-yourself", manual-configuration type distro like Slackware. I am not really in that kind of experimentation mode. After my unfortunate experience some time back with Arch which messed up my Debian system and caused me quite a bit of data loss, I'm wary of trying out something which has a difficult or tricky installation procedure (that's one trouble with maintaining multiple distros on one system!). At the same time, I'm not a big fan of Fedora either, since I've been there and done that and it wouldn't really be something new to me. In the end, it was a toss up between Mandriva and SUSE and I chose SUSE because I was interested in checking out YaST - the all-in-one system management tool. So SUSE it will be. It will be an interesting exercise to compare SUSE with the other Linux distros that I have experienced so far. In particular I would be keen to see how YaST measures up to Debian's package management system. Keep watching this space for updates!

I am doing quite a bit of technical documentation using LaTeX of late. I was searching around for some good LaTeX editors and I discovered Kile, which is an excellent LaTeX IDE with great features including autocompletion, syntax highlighting and a host of rich features which really allow productivity. Its help system also has some basic documentation on LaTeX. I find an IDE like Kile much more suited to my needs than LyX, which is a WYSIWYM editor. For instance, it's much easier to type in the math commands by hand than by using the graphical palette and the mouse. I guess that's the real strength of LaTeX: to prepare high quality technical documentation quite easily without having to worry about visual formatting (most of the time).

While Kile is a Linux-only tool, there is another LaTeX IDE for those using Windows called TeXnicCenter which should work well with MikTeX. While I haven't downloaded and tried it yet, the screenshots are quite similar to what Kile looks like. I don't think that autocompletion is a feature of TeXnicCenter though. For those of you who are interested in using LaTeX as a solution for your document preparation needs, you might want to take a look at these IDEs. It sure enhances productivity for me.

If there is anything that the recent Johnnie Walker Super Series between the ICC World XI and Australia taught us, it should be that 11 great players do not necessarily maketh a great team or even a good one for that matter.

Cricket has been the sort of game where great individual performances tend to get noticed a lot more than good, solid team performance. In the overglorification of the individual performer, we sometimes forget what makes a team tick. It's the ability of the players to contribute not only a 100% as an individual but to be a team player: somebody who takes responsibility for the team's performance and helps in pushing his other mates to perform to their full potential. And building this team spirit doesn't happen in a day - or even a week. The World XI certainly went in with a lot of expectations and came out without winning a single game against a powerful, well-balanced Australian outfit. Theoritically the World XI batting line-up featured some of the most exciting talent in world cricket today. The bowling was no less impressive, at least on paper. Yet, this team of players failed to measure up to expectation. Even Andrew Flintoff, the hero of the Ashes, couldn't quite produce something magical to upset the Aussies again. It was disappointing, to say the least - especially the Super Test which didn't go the distance.

Team selection was certainly a problem. And selecting a World XI can involve a lot of sensitivities and pressures that go beyond the cricket realm. Political correctness demanded the inclusion of certain players. Again, it was important to give as many nations a representative as possible and the formula certainly wasn't easy to decipher. The Inzamam episode showed how selection could be touchy at the best of times and especially when selecting a World XI. But I think the issue goes beyond selection alone. Once the team was selected, it was supposed to be the best of the rest, right? So this team should have seriously challenged Australia. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in life or cricket. There was almost no way you can build a team just by naming the players. And that was the basic problem of World XI - it remained a paper team till the series actually began. Australia have been a close-knit team for years together now. Their recent Ashes setback made them all the more determined to prove a point or two. There was little chance that such a collection of assorted players from around the world could beat such a strong team and in their own backyard as well! And so, the World XI was faced with immense odds. One thing was that the series was too short to really give these players a chance to get seriously involved. By the time the World XI could get its bearings right as a team, the series was already decided! I would have loved to have seen a couple of extra one day games and a two-test match or even a three-test match series instead of a single Super Test.

Ultimately, rather than blaming the individual players of the World XI for this poor performance, I would only question the ICC's poor planning of this series which made it meaningless in the first place. It was just a snapshot of an event and not a serious cricket series. And ultimately I think that would quite clearly explain why this Super Series was not so super after all.

In this day of instant communication, mass media and an extraordinarily powerful press worldwide, I wanted to talk about a very pertinent issue. It's about freedom of speech. We hear this term used almost every other day and especially on occasions when the media feels outraged at what it believes to be an infringement of its right to free speech. Free speech, to be sure, is one of the fundamental pillars of a free society and a free press is almost always essential to the survival of democracy. It's like the physiological need of a democracy. Like breathing. Democracy could very well pull down its shutters when the right to free speech is restricted or curtailed.

So I do not question the fundamental basis of free speech. In fact, I am a strong believer that freedom of speech is essential to the survival of grassroots democracy. The question I want to raise is really this: does this freedom begin and end merely with the right to express anything and everything that one feels like without restraint and without having to be worried about the consequences or the results of actions which arise from that freedom? I sincerely question those who believe that.

For in the ultimate analysis, what is free speech but the freedom to be heard and to be accepted by the rest of the world without restriction? Figuratively speaking, it is not merely about screaming out loud at the top of your voice, but about making others listen and understand. Democracy cannot survive when people are merely allowed to talk their minds freely. It's also about how effectively those expressions can be communicated and conveyed to the rest of the world in a credible manner. There lies the heart of the matter: Credibility is the pillar of free speech. Without credibility, free speech becomes nothing more than hot air. Theoritically it exists, but the living force of this freedom has been lost. Take the simple example of extremists. Do we really care about what extremists from all walks of life scream about day in and day out? Although they enjoy the same freedom of speech (theoritically) do they have the support of the mainstream media? We can say that they still enjoy free speech, but can their speech really be called "free" in the sense that I mentioned before? They may enjoy being noticed by everybody and they may enjoy high-profile coverage by the media, but do they really benefit from all this? What do they lack then? The answer is quite simple: credibility.

Unfortunately, one of the biggest problems of the media today is that they do not understand their biggest asset. They think that their freedom to write, speak and express what they believe in without restraint is their biggest asset which should be preserved at any cost. While they want to reserve the right to question the credibility of others around them without any restrictions, they resent the suggestion when it's directed at them. Personally, I believe that they're barking up the wrong tree. Their real focus should be on preserving their credibility. A media that has lost its voice due to censorship can really strike back with a vengeance. Today, with the advance of technology and the advent of the internet and electronic media, they are so powerful that they can literally destroy the forces which dared to try and gag them. The opportunities to break the shackles of restraint have grown so rapidly that censorship is becoming an increasingly dangerous weapon against the ones who wield it no matter how powerful they may be. But a media that loses its credibility cannot survive. For when credibility is gone, they have lost the biggest thing that made them what they are: their audience. The very people who watch, listen or read the news and give this media a life force: the ability to influence public opinion and the ability to mobilize the population. I think all those involved in the mainstream media should seriously think about this.

I think that the most popular newspapers, the most powerful television channels and the best news websites enjoy one thing which is far more valuable than their freedom of expression: it's their credibility. And credibility is not something that gets handed on a platter on day one. Credibility is earned by taking responsibility. Credibility is earned by standing behind what you speak and speaking out responsibility and with a commitment to that audience which you serve. Credibility is about owning up to mistakes and in accepting the consequences of your words and actions. Credibility is about publishing news without blatant bias and without serving vested interests. Credibility is about being reasonable and firm without being harsh and vituperative. Credibility is about transparency and honesty. Last, but not least, credibility is about longevity and staying power. Any newspaper reader will tell you that he gives more weightage to the opinion of a long-established writer in a reputed newspaper than the new kid on the block. In the media, the building called reputation can only be constructed using the bricks of credibility. And let me tell you that while it may take time and painstaking effort to build credibility, it can be destroyed in a single day. That's why I stress on the fact that the media today aren't defending their most vital asset.

I honestly believe that responsible speech is not contrary to free speech. On the other hand, responsibility is very much about free speech. For responsible speech is the living breath of free speech. The full benefits of this freedom can only be enjoyed not just by being noticed, but by being accepted as a credible source of news and views. Opinions can be made, changed and influenced only by those who are accepted as credible by their audience. A person who is allowed to speak out on the podium only to an empty hall doesn't really benefit from that freedom. He has the freedom to speak out, but then nobody is listening. Ultimately the media has to realize that their biggest assets are their customers. If the customers who really matter to them stop watching their channels, buying their newspapers and visiting their websites, they might as well shut shop. No doubt they might be able to sustain themselves on past credibility for some time, but that effect wears off pretty soon when they start misusing that privilege.

Let me conclude by saying that we should promote "responsibility of speech" rather than "freedom of speech". While the latter is the basic foundation of a democratic society, the former is the one which gives life and meaning to that democracy.

Finally, I've started my new Linux community, Hari's Linux Cafe as a way to interact more with the Linux community and get to know them better.

I'm sure many of you would ask me why I started "yet another Linux forum". Well, this is not going to be just another Linux forum, but I believe a Linux community with a difference. My vision for this site is that it should become a platform of Linux hobbyists, enthusiasts and experts to share on not just Linux-related stuff but interact as a broader community on more platforms than just Linux.

You will notice that I have started with just a small number of forums. There is a reason behind this. I don't want to over-emphasize the Linux aspect and try to imitate other successful Linux support boards. That's not the idea. Rather, the idea is to bring together Linux enthusiasts to interact on not just Linux but participate in serious non-Linux debates as well as indulge in light-hearted community chat. I'm sure many Linux fans have felt the need for such a forum where they can come together without necessarily having to talk Linux most, or all of the time. The idea was to start a broader "community" site of Linux fans rather than just a support forum for issues with Linux. The emphasis will be on the members rather than on the subject. I don't know about you guys, but I sure felt that on other Linux boards, the broader community feel was missing. So after long consideration, I decided to launch this site. Today is the official launch day. Feel free to register and participate in this forum!

Being an MBA student, I'm just beginning to learn the ins and outs of a subject called Marketing Management. There is a book written on this subject by Philip Kotler which is supposed to be a bible on Marketing and a reference for students on this subject. (by the way, I'll be posting a review of this book on LiteraryForums.org soon).

It's an interesting subject and in many ways, it has helped me solve a very complex issue that was perplexing me. Sure, I've talked about this in my Reverse Elitism essay, but that's from a totally different angle altogether. So why is it so hard to change perceptions about Linux, even though it is painfully obvious to any (honest) lay user that Linux has been continuously improved by the community over the years to a point where its superiority over commercial OSes is so marked? Why is it that people prefer to pay a hefty price to Microsoft even when the quality of their offerings don't match that price?

I think it has a lot to do with some of the marketing concepts I learned. Here are some of my observations. Though a detailed discussion on each concept is beyond this blog, I think Linux enthusiasts could gain a lot from reading Kotler.

Quality and price are not everything

Sad, but true. This is an established theory of marketing, not just my general observation. Quality and price are just two of the factors in a complex web that influence purchase decisions among consumers. Add to that, the fact that different kinds of markets and market segments exist for a bewildering range and categories of products, the quality and price of the product become mere variables in the complex marketing equation.

Linux suffers from a lack of "positioning" or marketing focus

Many people have criticized that there are too many distros and too many choices in Linux which make it so tough for a newbie to adopt Linux. This is only partially true. It's not about too many or too little choices, but too little focus in highlighting the very best aspects of Linux at all. Many Linux enthusiasts today make the mistake of touting Linux as a solution for all ills, when marketing principle says that you should really target and focus on just a couple of Linux's best USPs (Unique Selling Propositions) and ignore the rest. The consumer doesn't want to be bombarded with an array of information. That just confuses and bewilders him. Hammer away at a couple of simple points till they are firmly entrenched in the mind of the target audience. Products which are touted as "jack-of-all-trades" end up being a "me-too" or an "also-ran". That's why it's so hard to change perceptions on Linux on the desktop, because Microsoft is clearly entrenched in that market firmly and it's so tough to dislodge that position.

Moral? Stop trying to attract every possible user to Linux and just focus your efforts on attracting the ones who are clearly most likely to adopt Linux based on a study of their requirements. In other words, converting a user who is well entrenched in Microsoft Windows to Linux is probably not such a great idea. Try focussing on the groups who are most likely to adopt Linux, for example new computer users.

It's about perceived value, not just about true value

There is a very different concept called "value" in marketing. Consumers attach value to a product or a service which is very closely related to the price and quality of the product. "Wait a minute" you might say. Linux is zero-price (well, mostly) and the quality is so high. Surely, Linux offers such high value to the end user. Well, that's the difference between true value and percieved value. In an ideal world, perception matches reality. Unfortunately in the real world, sometimes perceptions can be so far removed from reality. Marketing is about dealing with consumer perceptions and managing that rather than focussing on realities. This may sound cynical and it probably is, but that's what the so-called "free-market capitalism" does to you. The market is consumer driven and the average consumer typically thinks:

"Hell, this OS is zero cost, but there must be a catch in it somewhere. Is there anybody to provide after-sales service? But then there's no sale at all, so nobody's responsible for the product! How can I use a product for which I can sue nobody to claim damages for malfunction/inefficiency? It must be a low quality product then, if it's free!"

This may sound like total crap to Linux zealots, but that's perception. Educating them about Open Source, Free Software and the concept of community support may just be like teaching calculus to somebody who's totally new to math. It's just a big effort with little returns and a waste of time and energy.

How to solve this problem? Unfortunately the answers aren't simple to this one. Perceptions are traditionally so hard to change. However with the growth of the commercial, Linux-oriented software service industry, this aspect might well be addressed and it will surely help enhance the perceived value of Linux as opposed to true value.

Stop talking about mainstream and stay in the niche segment

Mac is a case in point. Mac doesn't want to be a low end computer. Apple has always targetted the high-income group and Apple positions the Mac as a superior product for an exclusive market. Microsoft has gone the other route and made a computer a reality for the ordinary man. Both enjoy high brand recognition and customer loyalty. Both clearly recognize the market they serve. Mercedes will never make a car for the man in the street. The day they do that, they will lose their carefully built image as a "status" product and possibly even lose a large share of the high-end market they serve.

It may sound politically incorrect, but Linux really should disdain the "mainstream" or "average Joe user". Bad-mouthing is a very negative phenomenon. Marketing theory says that you stay clear of the segment that is least likely to accept your product. But Linux being a free OS cannot really choose its customers and that's what makes it that much harder. But we can always stop trying to "hard-sell" Linux and hence attract that very negative publicity which "hard-selling" brings.

This does two things: one is the negative publicity of the new users. Second is the disgruntled segment of the "traditional" users who consider their product as above the range of the average consumer and hence detest the way it is becoming a mass product. Imagine how a Rolls Royce owner will behave when he finds out that the product is now being mass produced at one-twientieth of the cost and is being sold at one-tenth of the price he paid for it. Not only does he feel disgruntled about the price he paid, but more importantly he loses that sense of "exclusivity" that means so much with a product like that. It might also show the company in bad light - "they either made hefty profits earlier or are now cutting corners in quality to lower the costs."

Moral? Never try and project Linux as a mass OS! It is almost always a way of playing right into the hands of the opponent. Maybe it's time for Linux to go back to its traditional Unix roots.

There are probably many more technical points that can be raised, but being a blog and not a book, it's hard to try and fit all that into the scheme of things. Nevertheless, I have given some of the more important points.

So why did I write this somewhat long article? Because I believe that many of us are falling into the same trap of trying to defend Linux from hostile propaganda without really understanding the psychology of how the market works. Linux, to be sure, is not a commercial product, but it still exists as a product - and any product (whether commercial or otherwise) requires savvy marketing on the part of "seller" so to speak. That's why we should stop hard-selling Linux because Linux simply is not that kind of a product anyway. Today most of the arguments countering anti-Linux propaganda almost always fails to understand these psychological issues while focussing exclusively on realities. A very good example of a pointless discussion is this one and it's typical of a thousand such Linux vs. Windows debates.

Unfortunately reality and perception will never meet in an imperfect world. Otherwise there would be no need for a subject called Marketing at all!