Comments on: Spreading the Ubuntu Brand Too Far?

By: Linux News from Linux Loop » Blog Archive » Branding Every Appication

Linux News from Linux Loop » Blog Archive » Branding Every Appication — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:35:48 +0000

[...] recent post on WorksWithU warns the new branding-ubuntu package team that, while making minor tweaks to the back of solitare [...]

By: Robin

Robin — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:38:15 +0000

If I put my name on someone else’s work in school, that would be called PLAGIARISM and I’d get a failing grade. I don’t understand why it’s accepted as perfectly okay in some parts of the Linux world. It’s very distasteful either way IMO.

By: Phil

Phil — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:07:45 +0000

Where are these other “much better distros”?? I always see people knock Ubuntu and swear there are much nicer distros out there. But when I go looking for them I find that they are all Linux. Some are geared towards particular types of users and others are just changes in “scenery”. I’m comfortable with Linux on the desktop and I really don’t see anything worth switching too besided Debian and maybe Fedora. The rest are not bad by any means. Most of them are great. They just aren’t worth making a switch.

By: Ubuntu hasta en la sopa | Un Mundo Libre

Ubuntu hasta en la sopa | Un Mundo Libre — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:42:43 +0000

[...] busca convertir Ubuntu en una marca reconocible para lo cual se está planteando medidas que pueden ser poco inteligentes. La primera de estas medidas pasa por crear un paquete especial denominado branding-ubuntu que [...]

By: Alan

Alan — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:00:38 +0000

Thinking out loud, branding could be used in an actually useful way, not just to plaster the logo wherever it can be plastered.

For example, branding on a software application could be used to indicate packages officially supported by Ubuntu (as opposed to Universe or Multiverse packages), or packages that have been modified by Debian or Ubuntu from the original upstream sources (OpenOffice, e.g.).

By: kyo

kyo — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:00:28 +0000

I tried linux mint and it’s a good distro but I found the branding distasteful so I didn’t use it. It doesn’t seem fair to me that they are taking credit for other people’s work. I’d hate to see ubuntu do the same thing.

By: Erlik

Erlik — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:29:50 +0000

IMHO the branding of applications is something that can be beneficial to Linux if done correctly. One of the weaknesses of Linux is that some applications don’t always have a look that is consistent with the OS. This can be badly perceived by some users. In the Windows world IE, Office and most third party applications look perfectly integrated in the OS, why should things be different on Linux?

A good visual integration of the OS and core applications also go a long way toward giving a professional look to the OS, which may convince otherwise reluctant users to try Linux.

And here is is one final argument for consistent branding: it is more beautiful!

By: Robin

Robin — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:39:53 +0000

Branding can be useful and harmless, I suppose. My only issue with it is please, GIVE CREDIT WHERE IT IS DUE. Canonical gives huge acknowledgement and thanks to Debian on it’s site, for example, since Ubuntu is built almost entirely from Debian. I think it helps BOTH projects.

Others, Linux Mint for example, gives no credit to Ubuntu for it’s success (and Mint IS Ubuntu for the most part, with added codecs and artwork and a few cool “Mint tools.” Very nice. But not a word of acknowledgement or thanks to the people on whose backs Mint is built.

I could take Ubuntu, change the artwork, add a few codecs and tweaks, and release it as “SuperLinux,” then do what Mint did to Firefox’s Google search to make a nice profit for a few hours of work. “Oh yeah, I built this all by myself, ain’t I wonderful?” Pft.

You’re taking issue with the wrong people on this branding stuff.

By: Toshio

Toshio — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:31:08 +0000

When will people realize that having an Ubuntu quasi-monoculture in the Linux world is almost as bad as having an OS quasi-monoculture in the general computing world?
Ubuntu does a great job of introducing people to a Linux distribution, but it also has a knack for dividing communities over certain issues (see the Mono-included-by-default issue and now this).
Seriously, if you find you get along with Linux, leave Ubuntu behind, there is a whole world of (much nicer) Linux distributions out there.

By: Jef Spaleta

Jef Spaleta — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:23:29 +0000

Where’s the line between distributor branding and individual project branding? That’s the real question here.

It’s really not fair to poke Ubuntu specifically over the issue of branding. No distributor has the man power to develop all the bits that go into their integrated operating system experience. That’s sort of the whole point of how the open development ecosystem layered over the linux kernel works.

So taking the fact for granted that there is absolutely no way you can give equitable credit to each and every person who gifts development time or organization which pays for development time into all the code that makes up a linux distribution…. what is a fair way to brand such a collection that gives recognition to the upstream software project as well as the integration work done by the distributor?

Maybe the best thing to do is ask each of the upstream projects to specify their preference as to what UI elements are co-brandable or re-brandable as part of a set of integration best practises. Best practises..as compared to requirements. Some projects, most notably Mozilla, already have trademark licensing requirements which cover this sort of issue. But most projects probably don’t need to be that heavy handed and can get a way with setting down some guidance for distributors as to what elements are encouraged to be co-branded or replacable.

If for example OpenOffice as a project is okay with their splash screen being modified to carry a distribution co-branding then it would be good to document that as guidance for all distributors. That way all distributors can work within that framework so the OpenOffice.org brand is consistently portrayed. Same goes with something like KDE or GNOME. Having the expectation that downstream integrators are going to need to co-brand, and providing guidance for that could go a long way in avoid any sort of perception problems.

-jef