Macports needs a little marketing ....
russell.jones at physics.ox.ac.uk
Tue Nov 8 17:04:01 CET 2016
On 06/11/16 17:28, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2016, at 11:50 AM, Ken Cunningham <ken.cunningham.webuse at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> While MacPorts itself could certainly benefit from better PR, I do not
>>> see why we should do free advertising for upstream developers.
>> but you see - macports exists to allow people to more easily install the products of these upstream developers.
>> otherwise macports has no use.
> Taking on a labor-intensive editorial role does not make MacPorts better at installing open-source software.
>> If you want people to buy gas, you sell them cars. (Or electricity -> electric cars, if you're feeling green this season).
> A tortuous analogy. I don't see Exxon-Mobil or BP selling cars anywhere.
True, AIUI they've tended to oppose non-petrol cars rather than
advertise for petrol cars
IMO, the order of consumption is the wrong way around-- the software is
more like the fuel (the driving power), the package manager the car (the
vehicle that gets you where you want to go). But fuel costs money, and
you don't want to remind people of that when selling a car. Whereas
FLOSS doesn't explicitly cost money-- to install and run, at least.
The software is also like the journey and destination-- the sweeping
vistas you can purportedly zoom along through-- and car manufacturers
certainly try to associate those with their products.
More information about the macports-users