OT:
linux-Hawk: I think you'll want to change your sig. dude. I'll explain:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by linux-Hawk
October 2007 ISSUE 162 PG: 13
|
... from your sig.
Your link does not point to the article nor the issue.
http://www.linuxjournal.com/issue/162
... is the issue in question. Can't seem to find the article, did this make the online edition?
Anyway, I felt sure there was a mistake in the quote so I looked further.
Searching the issues shows the passages you quote are in a list of noteworthy quotes in the magazine. It's not really a Linux Journal story at all.
The original interview is online at
All About Ubuntu, posted on June 26, 2007 by Len Sandy. The interview opens with:
Quote:
|
Sure, Dell is new to the Ubuntu PC market. But plenty of smaller PC suppliers have long supported Ubuntu. One prime example: ZaReason Inc., a PC maker made up of volunteers. I reached out to Cathy Malmrose, CEO of ZaReason, to get a feel for the company’s customer base and market position, and to get her views on Ubuntu’s longer-term prospects. Here’s a look at our conversation as it occurred over email.
|
Then follows the first question, which you have misquoted.
Quote:
Len (All About Ubuntu): How would you describe your customer base?
Cathy (ZaReason): Intelligent people.
You ask, “How can you siphon off only the most knowledgeable users as your customer base?” Good question; easy answer. Non-open source users typically use price as a factor in their decision. They think that a more expensive computer will be faster, more sturdy, and will last longer. That’s not necessarily true. It is definitely not true in software and it is becoming less true in hardware.
The more savvy users are attracted to our site because they recognize the actual parts we use and compare them to what other companies are using. They tend to be people fully in the FOSS mindset who have moved past the idea that cost = quality. We build high-end systems for a smaller price and they are capable of recognizing quality.
|
(My emphasis.)
Contrast this with your quote (at time of writing)
Quote:
|
Non-open-source users typically don’t use price as a factor in their decisions.
|
(My emphasis.)
The meaning is opposite, and, in your example, seems to build a negative impression (which, I suspect, you don't intend) when combined with the second part about "myopic".
Myopic = short sighted - if I described something you did as "short sighted" you'd take offence, right?
But Cathy seems to intend the statement to be taken as a positive.
Quote:
Len (All About Ubuntu): How would you describe ZaReason’s business at this point? Are you still a start-up? A growing small business?
Cathy (ZaReason): We’re a growing small business with a business plan that is built to last. While we spent our careers in the trenches, we are now surrounded by Econ professors and PhDs here in Berkeley and get plenty of unsolicited advice on how to follow this unique business plan that is fully entrenched in FOSS principles. Our goal is to serve the open source community. Period. Focus. No other agendas.
We believe that all our other worthy goals (such as gaining market share for Linux) will be accomplished best by a myopic, utterly self-absorbed focus on solid hardware and honest customer support.
|
(My emphasis) See?
Perhaps she's trying to be ironical in her juxtaposition of "myopic, utterly self-absorbed" with "solid hardware and honest customer support". I suspect that the reply was edited, removing much of the context. Or maybe Cathy now wishes she'd chosen her words differently?
Conclusion:
Make sure your quote does what you intend - remember, you have read the whole thing and know the context. If you edit too much, the context is destroyed and the intended meaning can change.
Make sure a link attached to a quoted passage takes the reader to the actual passage. Not everyone is prepared or skilled enough to go hunting like I did.
Technically, I should be dropping this in private, so I apologize for any embarrassment I may have caused. However, the actual article makes some interesting points (as well as some neat predictions for Ubuntu to compare with what actually happened) so a public discussion could benefit the membership. 'Sides, some people may have got the wrong idea already - best try put them right eh?
If this discussion looks like it may become involved, I'll fork off another thread.
Feel free to tell me where to get off
