Re: "LSB 1.0"
Thanks for your comments; over all, I think you've made some very good
points.
> 1. Severely downplay the LSB. Absolutely no hint of hype. (Until world
> domination is clearly in ones sights. Then all is fair of course. ;>)
> The only LSB related releases I've ever read do the reverse of this.
> This is a very dangerous move in terms of long term marketing impact due
> to the short term effect of disappointment.
Yes. The LDPS press release did have a bit of over-exageration in
them, in the typical style of such press releases. But perhaps we
should tone down the press release for when we roll out the LSB.
The real problem is that we'd really like to have one press release
for the mainstream media ("the mundanes"), and another version for the
Linux community. Unfortunately, I don't know a good way of doing
that; invariably the wrong audience looks at the wrong version of a
message. Maybe someone who has a bit more expertise in
public-relations can suggest a way of doing such a thing, if there is
a way to do so.
> 2. Work hard in marketing materials to clarify what problem the LSB is
> tackling, and especially what problems it is not. Have your points honed
> for the linux press and linux public before you write the press release
> for the first release of LSB. (Don't worry about the non-linux savvy
> press and public, because they will misinterpret anything you say
> anyway.) The key objective is to do your best to preempt or at least
> dampen speculation and misunderstanding and spurious but load complaints
> in the first weeks of release.
Hmm.... perhaps an FAQ that helps to explain the scope of the LSB
would be helpful in this regard.
> 3. Leave the beta tag on as long as possible at least as far as public
> consumption goes, and in particular, as far as claims of compliance by
> distros and ISVs. If you must remove the beta tag to send the right
> message to distros and ISVs, don't call it LSB 1.0, but instead call it
> something like LSBA1.0 and let them all know that while the LSB is
> deemed ready for them, the term "LSB 1.0 compliant" must be held back
> for a few months to make sure that any early minor issues don't fatally
> torpedo LSB's reputation among the user public. At some date, the LSB
> will declare LSBA1.x equal to LSB1.0. (Incidentally, this will cause the
> distro's and ISV's marketing floodgates to simultaneously open, creating
> the oft sought after marketing big bang.)
We're going to be very careful about specifying what application
vendors and distributions will need to do before they're allowed to
claim conformance with the LSB. The work to create a test suite for
applications and distributions is certainly going to be a key part of
that effort.
You're certainly right that if there are instances where applications
which are claimed to be "LSB compliant" fail to run on "LSB complaint"
distributions, it will be a rather unfortunate black eye to the whole
LSB effort. For that reason, it's almost certain that the release of
conformance, testing, and certification program the by which distro's
and applications will be able to claim LSB complioance will lag 1.0
release of the LSB by probably at least a few months.
Personally, my feeling is that we should try to get 1.0 out as soon as
possible, but we should take the time to get the comformance/branding
program right, since that's going to be critical.
> Perhaps I'm being too paranoid. Success for the LSB looks all but
> inevitable because it was the right thing to do, and it is clearly being
> done right by talented people up to the task. But it's better to be safe
> than sorry...
Didn't you know; even when you're paranoid, sometimes they really
*are* all out to get you. :-)
- Ted
Reply to: