[plug] Australia and New Zealand slow to take up Linux

[posix]

In relation to marketing, I submitted a bug to the Gnome project that
their logo should look more like a friendly gnome rather than an
ape-looking foot waving its toes at me.  As Gnome represents the simpler
interface that your grandma should be able to use, a garden or forest
gnome may have a greater appeal to grandma than ugly bare feet sitting
on my desk. :)

Too bad I have no education or experience in marketing.  I just thought
it might be more intuitive. ;)  Trademarks and legal matters probably
cost more than unix licenses.

If Australia had their own Gnome or New Zealander's with their own Kiwi
Gnome, maybe it would catch on.

[Bug 327974] Gnome logo should be changed to represent a more friendly
forest GNOME

Rodney Dawes changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |dobey at novell.com
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |NOTABUG




------- Comment #4 from Rodney Dawes  2006-01-23 16:50 UTC -------
I don't see any particular defined reason to change the logo. I don't think any
single logo is going to not have at least some people on the planet have an
aversion to it. However, this really doesn't belong as a bug in
gnome-icon-theme. The GNOME foot logo is trademarked, and simply changing an
icon in gnome-icon-theme isn't going to change that. You need to contact the
GNOME Foundation staff if you really think the logo should change. They can
then take your feedback and work to get it changed, if it should be changed.



> The way I see it if everyone used Linux or other *nix it would be a
> programmers paradise.
>
> I suggest we all come up with a good marketing campain to get the
> message out
> that Linux and OSS are good!
>
> But the message needs to be clear just what it is and why it's good,
> not like
> those OS/Warp advertisements that IBM must have spent a fortune on but
> no one
> knew what they were selling!
>