Slashdot Mirror
AOL For Linux Leaks Out
Thomas Charron writes: " CNet reports that http://www.techpages.com/ has leaked a *gasp* Linux AOL client. More info can be found here: http://new s.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-2520423.html. Note, this isn't the AIM messenger, but the whole hog of the AOL access software.." See our last story. Debian and AOL, two great pieces of software that go great together?
If you strip out the GNU tools, you can't use those wonderful beasts known as shell scripts. I think it would be very difficult to develop large-scale software without using shell scripts.
:-) They'd probably write all those routines in C. (Re-re-re-inventing the wheel.)
Then again, we *are* talking about "small" systems...
Deliver yesterday, code today, think tomorrow.
Based on Mozilla from the look of it, and it doesn't seem to work. Anyone actually using this?
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
On the other side, this may bring some better publicity for linux.
Even the samurai
have teddy bears,
and even the teddy bears
Even the samurai
have teddy bears,
and even the teddy bears
get drunk
i didn't read the silly article and won't. all i have to say is "AOL, nice try but why bother?" linux is about freedom and aol is free to use it if they wish. AOL is still the same heap of cow dung it has always been.
remember that AOL used to be QuantumLink, a long time ago (well, the '80s), and back then they were Commodore 64-only. M$ fans? hell no :)
and if I remember right, Steve Case was one of the founding/early people in QLink...
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
> Linux takes a giant step in the right direction
Does it, though? Does AOL still use proprietary software, or are they simply providing access? If they do use their own software, what are the chances of seeing the source code? If closed-source software draws millions to Linux, that'll be a giant leap in the wrong direction.
Disclaimer: I don't know what the deal with AOL is. I've never used it myself, but I've had to help friends' machines get over it. I ask these questions because there's a lot of discussion here which seems to imply that anything drawing users to Linux must be good, and to me Linux is more about freedom than a large user base...
I would say more like 99% of the postings here. Remember, though, Slashdot is read primarily by those with a technical bent. This would most likely include a few AOL'ers who are even now dowloading Gamera. (So they can try it on thier newly installed Linux partition.) I realize for the vast majority of both current Linux and AOL users this will not make the slightest bit of difference.
I don't think Joe public really sees the need to switch to Linux because the relative merits would be lost on him. M$ (for all its many faults) runs his apps and he gets loads of support by way of the huge user base.
For the most part, Joe public probably wouldn't switch. That's fine, his choice. I'm not advocating that anyone change anything they don't want to.
So AOL is on Linux - its also on M$ so why change?
Curiosity, the challenge of doing something new and different, possibly the need to feel "cool" or "1337". Who cares, as long as someone finds the combination useful for thier purposes, they'll use it.
Flame in indignant fury if you want but it won't change the fact the most PC/net users are NOT techies.
I never claimed they were. Most PC/net users actively fight the idea that they should learn anything in order to operate thier computers. Obviously, an AOL on Linux client will have no appeal for them. For some though, this is just what they've been waiting for.
Seriously. I was going to post much of the same.
It's refreshing that someone on Slashdot is able to see past their biases / hatred for AOL and see that in the end, this is an extremely good thing.
Mark me down as troll or flamebait, but it needed to be said. Get over yourselves, and realize that this is what Linux needs to reach a broader audience.
BilldaCat
He specifically points to the previous acticle before saying this
Check the link - it's not to the previous article.
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
Kudos on AOL's decision. This should at least double their average user's IQ.
You seem to forget that the US is HUGE compared to the UK. It takes a few DAYS of constant driving 65 mph to get from one coast to the other. It takes a few HOURS to FLY in a jet to do the same.and thats not counting Alaska and Hawaii. Alaska in itself is 1/3 the size of the contiguous US. national code?- ya right.
-- "Perceptions create reality. By changing your perceptions you change your reality."
What's really interesting is that AOL doesn't "get it". According to techpages, this was given to them from an anonymous contact, who think they is at AOL. They imply that this is not sanctioned software from AOL. (but perhaps they are wrong, and AOL is "getting it" and moving towards Linux support.)
ShoutingMan.com
I am a Linux user. I currently have one machine devoted to Red Hat 6.2, while my other machine multiboots Caldera 2.4 and Win 98.
For ISPs, I use both Earthlink and, yes, gasp, AOL.
Why do I still have AOL?
The sophisticated, let's see if I can show how smart I am, buzzword answer: network effects.
The practical reason: That is where *many* of my friends are. They are great people -- smart, intelligent, well educated, funny, caring, and perhaps most importantly for our purposes, diverse. Artists, musicians, political activists, attorneys, religious people, mothers, fathers, grandparents, and children.
A large number of these people don't know a lot about computers, and most importantly, they don't really want to know any more than they do. To the vast majority of these people, the computer is now, in addition to being a word processor, a communcation device -- a telephone, but without long distance charges. A way to talk about common insterests. A way to socialize. A way not to be alone at night.
In the past, I've tried to move these people to Earthlink + IRC. No way. Even with a graphical IRC client like MIRC, it is *way* too complicated for them. They don't want to learn. It's not as easy as operating a telephone. And why should they learn? Because *you* think they should? Please. Collectively and individually they learn, master, delelop and create an enormous number of beautiful, useful, and important things everyday. It just so happens they don't have any interest in doing so in the area of computers.
Can I communicate with them via the various AOL clients for Linux? I have, and do. (I use Tik. Indeed, I found that after I installed Tik I was spending a lot more time in Linux, and a lot less time in Windows.) But I discovered something important. It is not the quite the same. I'm outside the group discussion, and not quite an equal member of the group.
The horrible, embarrassing truth? It is worth $20 a month for me to be able to go into a chat room whenever I want, know that a number of my friends are going to be there, and talk with them. Yes, I also talk to friends on IRC. But these important friends are on, and only on, AOL.
Other advantages: E-mail is instantaneous. Plus, you can tell when somebody has received your e-mail.
The other surprising advantage: I frequently get better FTP throughput when connected via AOL than I do under Earthlink, or than I ever did under Mindspring.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
AOLers can barely use windows. I can't wait for the security exploits on this. A pop up message saying "AOL needs your root password" and people will give it to them.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Let us harken back to the days of ol', back when Compuserve and Prodigy were far ahead of America Online. Even though this was a different time, when the services were just connecting to the Internet, Prodigy and Compuserve, I believe, were far ahead of AOL, at least in subscribership. But eventually, AOL managed to dominate the market.
I'm not supporting AOL or MSN in the least, but i'm just saying it's not unheard of and is definitely within the realm of possiblilty that someone (MSN, in this context) could get the lead over AOL. I don't really care, though, I'll stick to my real ISP (school!).
I can't believe no one else has complained about this yet.
What are web designers THINKING when they require you to have flash to view a web page?? In lynx I get:
[EMBED]
Wow, that's nice. In Netscape, of course, it complains that it doesn't have flash. I even downloaded and installed it, and it now crashes on load. Wonderful...
What makes me maddest of all is that they probably use it just for stupid special effects like text that whooshes in and out.
--
Er no. I think you forget that there are multiple local phone companies in the US, and they aren't (for the most part) controlled by the government. Not to mention how the long distance and local providers are seperate companies as well. The closest thing we have to a "natonal" local code are the 8xx (800, 888, ...) series of phone numbers that are billed to the reciever instead of the sender. Since most people pay $0/minute in the US for local phone calls this costs the same as a local phone call from the end user's standpoint. The problem is 8xx numbers are expensive for the other end to maintain. I think AOL actually offers an 800 number, but it has additional per-minute charges that quickly add up even if you are just reading email.
I read the internet for the articles.
Point 5. is very valid... hell with windows you would be lucky to be able to remotely administor an NT box without pcAnywhere! BUT just imagine, trying to crack into your own damn box!!
Non-Deterministic Finite Automata
At least when you install it, it can't delete your current PPP scripts....;)
Syllable : It's an Operating System
It IS mozilla with an AOL skin and a special plugin that allows you to sign on to AOL
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
this has probably been posted before, but why the hell would anyone SMART enough to use Linux, do something as DUMB as use AOL????
and not "Linux" as a whole. Whether it's monetarily motivated or not, this is still a big jump for a company. I mean, AOL may not be the most popular software with Linux heads, but AOL is no light weight when it comes to programming (and I'm not talking about bloat).
Does anyone else think it's funny that after years of nothing, we all of a sudden have *three* "official" AIM clients (AOL standalone, AOL client, Netscape 6)?
A: Someone who doesn't know that they're running Linux... Like someone who is running an Internet Appliance. If you RTFA, you'd see this:
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
We have Linux turning into AOL and MacOS turning into Linux. Go figure.
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
Yep, good point - it's a big name draw, and I guess Linux kinda has that power to win people over once they start using it... this makes it a question of compromise - how much are 'we' willing to compromise the GPL/FSF ideal in order to proceed? If AOL on Linux does take off and become popular, get set for more Debian inclusion debates... and hope it's not going to be a turning-the-tables thin end of the wedge...
AOL was *much* less expensive than CompuServe or Prodigy.
And it was also much easier to use. I was on the Mac version in 1990 or so and it put CompuServe for DOS and the Prodigy Horror Show for CGA monitors to shame.
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
What are you talking about? There's no mention of Debian in any of the articles. Yes the last article was about Debian. But that hsa nothing to do with this one. Or is the AOL release only for Debian? If so where did you find this out?
-cpd
Cripes, there's something about the idea of AOLer's and Linux that just doesn't mesh. Isn't it enough that they did a number on the newsgroups?
Unfortunately, no one really knows the exact text of AOL's agreement with Microsoft. However, the Internet appliances will use Gecko, and I doubt that will change.
As for "high-value" content, I suspect that most things that are viewed as high-value for a mainstream audience are of absolutely 0 value for me. I'm not at all interested in the results of the latest football game, interviews with some Hollywood actor, or miscellaneous health and fashion tips. Anyway, presumably many people like such things, so AOL does have it's place, but it's probably not worthwhile for "the typical /.er", if that means a linux-using geek
(though I hear most /.ers run IE).
As for your bit about chat not being useful, well, of course chat is useless. It's a total waste of time and hardly anybody claims otherwise. Similarly, slashdot is largely a waste of time, but that didn't stop you from posting, did it :).
Chat, for me, is just another form of 'net entertainment,
where you get to talk to interesting people in
realtime. Of course, most people in chatrooms
are absolutely not interesting.
It is just a matter of finding a good chatroom.
Too bad this isn't really easy, since a lot
of them make an effort not to be found, in order
to avoid being flooded with spammers and idiots.
Not that I use it. ok, I used it once, about 4 years ago. But besides that...
The thing is, AOL for Linux opens the Linux door to countless people who need a stable computer, but don't know how or even want to know how to grep,vi,etc.
I have a friend who uses AOL and he hates his computer's stability. So I'd love to put him on a Linux system. Of course, that hasn't been possible. But the fact is, AOLites are a huge population. If a few of them start running Linux, they'll eventually want other Linux programs that they're used to. This paves the way for more apps/games/et al in the future.
I say, the more the better.
Yeah, sure, embedded devices. Okay. Right.
That aside-
1. Linux is for the smart, the patient, or the insane. Or some combination.
2. AOL is for idiots who call tech support every time Junior unplugs their box. [Keep in mind that 90% of everything is shit, which explains why this thing is so popular- majority rules, right?]
3. These two elements are mutually exclusive. I know a few linux users, and out of my entire pod o' computer friends, I don't know a single one that would be caught DEAD using an AOL disk as anything other than what it IS- a beer coaster.
I've had enough problems with linux when it comes to learning / installing / begging it to work. If you're smart enough to get linux going, you're smart enough to know better than to use AOL- so how is this applicable to the desktop market?
pronoblem
Steve and Company would have no qualms about using software and libraries that are protected by GPL and spoon-feeding it to the Army Of Lamers without releasing the source-code!
And, if AOL does release the source for the AOL-Linux client this will just help spammers circumnavigate the spam filters that are in place.
Basically, Linux needs AOL like Bill Gates needs money.
I decided to become an RN and keep computers and programming as a hobby. I do use GAIM often to talk to friends, but I also meet new friends in chat rooms. There are many Doctors, Nurses, Respiratory Therapists, etc who use computers without having the time to learn all the in's and out's of the operating system because they have other interests in life. As far as the service itself, using an ISP for $9.95 and connecting to AOL for $9.95 gives you 8 email addresses and close to 20mb of web space is you'd like to use it. You can change all but 2 of your identies at will. The total cost if very comparable to other premium ISP's.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
(just wanted to see how that sounded)
T
There is also a big impact here for Mozilla. Although there was no mention made in the articles, I think it is safe to say that Mozilla will be a big part of this package. Mozilla/Gecko has a shot at some serious market share in a very short time. And, if it is the default browser in AOL 6...
The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants. - Albert Camus
Hairy_Potter and I must be on the same wavelength.
thelocust[dot]org
I definately think it's a good thing! Why? More (l?)users on linux. Don't take this as sarcasm. I'd like more AOLers, that way a few years later game companies can see linux and say "Oh they have 25% market-share 5x what it is for macs, i guess we should develop our games for linux too!"
That way i could format my windows partition! =]
Does this mean we'll see a lot OF ALL UPPERCASE COMMENTS HERE ON SLASHDOT?
I mean, it's filtered out now, but who knows... if AOL makes up a significant percentage posts here, we might have to take that filter out.
ooh, The internet is on computers now. Good for it
--Homer Simpson
"This is not a company that appears to be bothered by ethical boundaries."
Attorney General Mike Hatch on Microsoft
Now all of those Linux geeks will be able to get online and flood usenet...
(Be sure to #include senseofHumor.h when you compile.)
RiotNrrd
HAS your CAPS key gone WRONG? :-)
I can't see that the physical size of a country has any impact on a phone code.
Rob.
I would have thought that this would have been obvious to everyone. They've been pushing money into the Linux arena for that set-top box they want to have.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Also, I'm sure that there's been quite a few downloads of the "Gamera" package already, mainly by those curious to see if it actually works.
As for your cheap netappliance, want to bet it will only come with phone and cableTV jacks? (Break out those soldering irons!)
I can just see it now...
Steve Case: "We would prefer if you would call it AOL/Linux instead of just Linux because without AOL you really wouldn't have anything there at all.. just the kernel. Don't get me wrong, I respect that Linus Torvalds guy and all, but we feel that AOL should be part of the name to give credit where credit is due"
My my my ...
Gotta love the soothing male voice!
Probably referring to the possibility that one can use Debian/Hurd as well as Debian/Linux and still call it Debian.
my exact problem also, tired of deleting lock files. also, lynx won't display the page either. maybe this is the reason.....
No kidding, techpages sucks.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I predict that a lot of script kiddies will be very disappointed when they get to Linux and are surrounded by free software. Already I've seen a few clueless groups proudly touting their "l33t 0-d@y l1nu>< d!$tr0z" on message boards and newsgroups, but there just isn't that much software people can pirate on Linux.
For more information, click here.
And that great support will only cost you...$35 per phone call. Good thing it's easy to use.
-- we'll eat the fat ones first
Debian and Linux, two great pieces of software that go great together?
:)
I'm sure you mean Linux and AOL, right? After all, Debian and Linux go togther quite nicely
Hey, if it gets more people on the net that's great. If it gets them there without windows, that's even better.
--
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
Hope everyone touting this as a good thing likes the idea of a completely clueless company taking over Linux.
This is just the first step toward the AOLinux distro. AOL wants to have leverage against Microsoft and this is it.
Well, Ask Slashdot has an article on cleaning your keyboard.
nal 11
A Linux AOL client gives those who've been holding off of trying Linux one less excuse. From those that like what they find once they convert, we'll get more people contributing to Linux. From those that don't, they'll go back to M$-Windows, and we'll just see a few more trolls.
I can just hear it now....
You've got Linux
I guess the script kiddies can run there scripts on the same machine they get there email on.
The question is, will aol collapse under the weight of "I got ROOT" messages?
Bob.
wrighty.
I showed this to a couple of Cow Orkers and they did understand why this is such a huge deal. Most of the opinions I heard were basicly "Why would someone smart enough to use Linux use AOL?" Let me break it down:
AOL is competing with Microsoft. Microsoft is yet again pushing MSN, which means that the two are in direct competition. One thing you don't want to do in business is give money to your competitors. AOL recognizes that Linux is a viable option, and are building a strategy around this.
AOL is also working on a set top box (with Gateway IIRC). The TiVo proved that Linux works on the TV, and AOL can't wait to get to the people too dumb to click Start. Remember, newbies are AOL's bread and butter. If AOL can break into the WebTV market, they're going to soar.
Now obviously they aren't going to set the user in front of a Login: prompt and expect the user to log in, type startx, and figure out how to start AOL and run pppd with a chatscript. They'll be using the Linux kernel, without most of the GNU tools that Linux users are used to. One of the things I could see them doing is distribute the AOL client with their own AOL distribution of Linux on those coasters^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H CDs that they give out to everyone in the US. Then you just boot from the CD-ROM and voila! Instant AOL.
I'm just glad that a big company finally "gets it" about what you can do with a stable, open source operating system.
--
Why can't I moderate something "Wrong" or at least "Grossly Misinformed"?
Below someone posted that Linux and AOL...oxymoron.. well the oxymoron is that the Linux crowd bosts about there system becoming mainstream and destroying microsoft but they realy deep down wanna keep there OS to themselves. Don't get me wrong I love linux. I like what the community is doing and the ground they're breaking, but believe it. If you wanna take on mainstream your gonna have to give into the pop culture (AOL). You guys are gonna start sounden like a rock band that just hit startem. "No we like to keep it real.", then release one POP single after another. AOL is a real and its a good thing for the mainstream movement of Linux, if thats what you want.....
-- Disclaimer: I can't really back up anything I post on
Did you know that AOL offers almost all of the services that any other ISP uses, and then some?
The only thing they don't provide (last I knew) was POP3 service, but they may offer that now.
I think I have missed the advertisements for the AOL shell account.
A shell account is something I look for in an ISP, IMHO any good ISP has shell access.
-d9
(please don't think I'm being argumentative, I'm just interested, that's all)
Whilst we have fewer phone companies in the UK, we do have several and none of them are under the control of the government. AFAIK they've agreed between each other (and OFTEL which is a regulatory body) to share billing information for national local calls. The owner of the number (eg the ISP) pays the telco an amount in addition the amount that the end-user pays, so in the end the right telco gets its money, no matter which telco the end-user uses.
And of course, that last paragraph shows me that I'm being dumb, since I'd forgotten that you lucky people don't pay for local calls. (what's the smilie for a lightbulb flickering over an idiot's head?)
Thanks,
Rob.
This is incredible news. Now I just have to find one of the 400 free hour disks, install AOLinux and remember to call up the service center at the end of every month:
They can likely even trademark that.
The funny part is that I can see AOL pulling a boneheaded move in v7 or so when you install AOL for Windows, it reformats your hard disk and installs Linux. I can smell the resulting class action lawsuit already.
See my reply to the other message. I realise I was being stupid. Just ignore me, I'm tired.
Sorry.
To answer a few questions.
It's for x86. It uses Mozilla engine for the browser. It's nowhere near functional. I thought about posting from it's browser, but I couldn't log in. I uses gtk for the widget. It comes with the same annoying you've got mail sounds. You apparantly can't log in to aol with it unless you're a beta tester(if it's available for that yet). I do like the design better than the win version, as it uses multiple windows (separate ones). It is very far from feature complete (exetremely far). The only buttons that work are write mail and get aol 5.0. I'm sure if I could actually log in more would be activated, but I have no way of checking this. Also there seems to be no dialup capability. After looking at this, I'm sure that is a testbed for future internet appliances.
Personally, I can't stand aol, but I do welcome their push into the linux arena with open arms. It's possible that this and the recent team-up of sun,ibm,hp... will start to move more people away from microslop.
What this has done for me is renew my interest in mozilla. I just might go play with it again.
Screenshot of my KDE desktop with the AOL client running is here.
Only shows the login screen since I don't actually have an AOL account.
THe initial page crashes every linux browser, so goto the inner page, http://www.techpages.com/linux.html to download,
THis should be a good laugh
That's a good point about big user base vs freedom, but I don't think the two are in conflict necessarily.
;)
The point is that AOL is _provided_. Perhaps not open-sourced, but I think they key is that it's there for use. Any given user can choose not to use it, and certainly can voice conerns about its closed-source nature, but I think it's a great advantage for Linux to _have_ it available, regardless of the availability of its source code..
Think, Linux newbie installs the OS because he can access AOL. Linux newbie wants to learn Linux, and learns all about open-source, the GPL, etc etc. Linux newbie learns how evil AOL is because they don't provide their soource, Linux newbie gets a new ISP and joins the crusade
Something like that, anyway.. I think having AOL available is a great thing.
jack's bicycle is music to my ears
Remember, FreeBSD at least has "linux emulation", so this *should* run fine on FreeBSD at least...
XenoWolf The Original - Since 1993
Debian has a GNU HURD distribution AFAIK.. ;-)
It would be rather off topic to just ramble on with fine quotes from Star Wars.
I've been waiting for the shoes to drop, around Linux, for some time. It seems there's an octopus on the bed. Shoes which have fallen/are about to fall:
AOL for Linux
IBM embraces Linux (whodathunkit?)
Red Hat's IPO
Oracle embraces Linux
What next? Even tho Linux is a threat to the M$ empire, there once was a M$ flavor of Un*x, what's to stop them from co-opting Linux in the same manner they attempted with Java? Hm?
Introduce M$ XLinDow$
Crank out M$ office
Code bloat the hell out of M$ versions of every application and utility
Discredit the whole heap when it collapses
Claim Window$ superiority
Vote Naked 2000
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
of course, we would have to get rid of thos AOL logos.
"you get hit and your head goes ping" --rocky horror picture show
Maybe their next project could be:
Training wheels for the Hells Angels
Guitar lessons for Eric Clapton
"Door to Door in 21 Days" for JaBobas Witlesses
Dead Horse Kicking 101 for Jon Katz
What I ask you is, what if people don't have a choice?
We know about the AOL/Time-Warner merger -- and that AOL plans to offer its service over cable modems. What if the only way you can get that service is through an AOL client? Before, people would complain, "but AOL won't run on Linux" and have a point. Now, they do -- and if they're smart this won't be x86 only. Suddenly, thousands of Linux broadband users will have to use the AOL client. For that matter, who will say that this client will allow NAT?
Just some thoughts...
and not the browser of the evil empire. I had to switch to plain old text formatting or end up with a messy post. Thankfully I'm not getting tagged with redundant, though that will happen.
This is for the embedded/appliance market. It is unlikely that AOL cares much for the relatively small number of Linux desktop users (compared to their 50 million Win/Mac users or whatever they have). This not only gives MS a preview, but the Netpliance et al guys a look at what their biggest competition is going to be in a short time. If those guys can adjust quickly enough, they might be able to grab some of AOL's big slice of the pie.
What I am wondering is whether we will see anyone try to do with full client software what MS and others tried to do with AOL IM - make a client that can connect to AOL's networks. That would be a big step forward in getting people to switch from AOL to something else.
-------------
The truth is out th- oh, wait, here it is...
"Debian and Linux, two great pieces of software that go great together?"
I know *I* never use Debian without using Linux.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
AOL for Mom, DOS for Dad, and Quake for the kiddies. Boo ha ha ha ha!
2) As GNOME Linux is visionized, and we move towards having a true out of the box install of Linux that is geared towards home users, those home users with AOL accounts are probably going to want to keep them, and the AOL/Linux client is a necessity for this given some of the protocols AOL uses.
3) AOL still offers unique content to members only. Some linux people may really want to access this (I don't see *why* myself :D).
4) This could be related to the lawsuit on AOL regarding blind and vision-impared people unable to use AOL. Many of the web-to-speech programs exist for Linux or such, and maybe this is AOL's way to try to accommodate that.
5) Maybe they want to see how cross-platform compatible their software is. Of course, considering how fast AOL 5 was out for the Mac compared to the PC version, this is very doubtful :D
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Well, if they strip out all the GNU tools, which they probably would for a net appliance, then this would be justified.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
This is not a gift to the Linux community, but instead a way for AOL to line their pockets with more money and get more control. Do I think it's a good idea? No. Why?
Do we really need they're junk running on a Linux box? Clueless Fred's next headline will be "AOLinux sux".
How many people are actually going to use it?
Do you really want your next toy that hooks to the net running AOL and with no other choice? Don't think so. I built my Linux machines to have a choice..not give it away to some corporation that makes the decisions of what is best for me..including a manditory use of their service. I'd like to stay as far away as possible from that one.
If you use it for traveling, that's your choice..but if this is your daily means of getting on the net..you need to get a clue.
Its pretty funny that slashdot linked to www.techpages.com, which was a totally flash site (what morons put no other alternative).
So I was forced to use my Windows 2000 box to check out the site. Anyways you can view the information on the Linux AOL Client by clicking
Then you can download it too! (by clicking)
Linux is gearing up to take over the desktop in a big way. When it does, it is going to need to be accessable to Joe Random User, and that means, in this day and age, AOL on the desktop. Every copy of windows and macOS comes with AOL's client, as does every other cd produced (lots of computer and game magazines with CD's are including the latest AOL Cd with them.
Potatoe came with the AOL web server, and they had open source devel team ala Gnutella.. it was only a matter of time...
Ok, here is one experience that I have had with AOL to use as an example...
I was building a computer for my friend's mother. She had a 386 at the time, and I was upping her to a Pentium Pro 166. As you can see, this was several years ago. For some odd variety of issues (SCSI scanner I think), I was forced to install Windows NT for her. Oops, AOL is not supported for WinNT.
Now I have to try Win95. I set her all up, and boom, AOL crashes in Win95. I call them up and the dolt tells me that the version that I have is old and there is a revision available for download. I explain to him that I cannot download unless I can connect. My firend's mom cannot wait a few days for the new CD to arrive because she misses her 'AOL Buddies'. (The chat people on her 'Buddy List')
I go to the store, buy the CD (only $1 tho), and take it back to install it. New errors! At least this time it works enough for her to chat with her buddies. Mind you, this is a brand spanking new install of Win95!! WTF?! The AOL dolt tells me this time to wait for the next version, it will work. When is the new version due out? Oh, just a few months!
I never did find out if that thing ever worked...All I know is that it was slow, it was bloated, and it was not flexible at all.
I will never understand what is so difficult about setting up a simple PPP connection to an ISP...but people want it to have fancy pictures and neato voices telling them that they have mail...
Oh, another thing about AOL. I am willing to bet that it automatically turns on the Caps Lock key, and it induces the users to join in flame-wars that they have no clue about. Just my opinion though..
Yep - the same functionality as Windows, except without the support,...
... without the depth of applications available,...
...without the polish,...
...without the ease...
...etc. etc. etc. :)
- IBM, SGI, Red Hat, SuSE, etc. provide commercial support.
- You mean breadth. I can replace all the functionality I need in Windows with *nix software, [Ff]ree or not
- UI polish? try Helix Gnome - very shiny indeed. traditionally difficult tasks such as printing are abstracted can be abstracted to easy point-and-click interfaces, and most already have been.
- My hates-using-a-computer-and-would-rather-cheerlead sister uses StarOffice on one of my Linux boxes, and has no problems doing so, either.
-Keep em coming
XenoWolf The Original - Since 1993
Or maybe,
"Anyone know any exploits for linux, I forgot my password and I need to get my mail."
Bob.
So if AOL is such a nightmare, what browser do you use? Most of us Linux users are using the AOL-owned netscape browser. Maybe AOL has already taken over?
Brought to you by Frobozz Magic Penguin Fodder.
Yeah... "NOTE: This software must be installed as 'root'"
1) "R00t? Who is that? Did they put his number on this CD?"
2) "Ok, sure."
equally clueless, equally dangerous...
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Throwing in a few million of lusers with ipv6 stack changes the balance drastically. And AOL will have much less problem with MS calling for a standard.Standards, sure, here is a standard, but it operates via IPV6. Oh you do not support it. Sorry, you lost...
Just random thoughts, but that is what I would have done with this boxes...
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
I don't care if you hate AOL or not this is great news.
All the AOLamerz will start to think Linux is a more viable option and that is a lot of lamerz.
While you might not think changing the lamerz minds is a good thing if you think about it, it is. Remember these are the people who actually pay for software and in turn could potentially help fund all these Linux distributions for us.
Exactly. I keep a couple AOL freebie offers around just in case I have to go traveling and want a network to my machine. Having Linux will make it easier for me to suck my mail down from my home machine using an AOL preview cd.
...for such a system as you describe, that wouldn't be unreasonable at all. Certainly no less appropriate than Tom Christianson's BSD/Linux.
DNA just wants to be free...
opening my mailbox (in real life) and finding an AOL and Linux disk. wouldnt that be something?
Think about it...
Take one Coollogic box, running Linux, add AOL, give away the box for free with the AOL service.
With control of internet entry and enough revenue from internet commerce and advertisement, heck give away the service for free too.
As long as I don't start getting AOL Linux CDs in the mail... I can't put a Linux CD to use as a coaster... I just can't... =P
Did you know that AOL offers almost all of the services that any other ISP uses, and then some?
The only thing they don't provide (last I knew) was POP3 service, but they may offer that now.
We're all glad to hear you're "savvy" enough to setup pppd and "savvy" enought to rip on AOL.
Get off your high horse.
Sure AOL is not the ISP of choice for most Linux users, but it certainly has its place.
One of the most overlooked features of AOL is its widespread availabilty. If you are anywhere near a moderate to major city in the US, you are basically guarenteed to have a local AOL dialup number. If you are in a rural area/small town, you still have a good chance of having a local dailup. This means when you travel/go on temporary assignments, your AOL account can follow you. Even better is that AOL will automatically find local dialup numbers for you, so you don't have to scrounge around the phone book or anything.
Of course you have to put up with all of the lamerz on AOL, but if you are just using it for dailup access it isn't so bad.
I'm sure many of you are sitting with your cursor over the reply button ready to flame me. "What about the FreeISPs!" you might say well if you know of one that works in half as many areas as AOL, I'd love to hear about it.
Disclaimer: I only use AOL when I travel (my parents account), so YMMV.
I read the internet for the articles.
I agree that nationwide access points are a great reason to use AOL. I've found much better luck using services like splitrock.net, those fine folks who are building a nationwide infrastructure of FREE (as in beer) access points. The catch, of course, is advertising. Every 15 min you have to click a banner. I think compared to the slow dialups and the lamerz it's worth it though.
"You'll die up there son, just like I did!" - Abe Simpson
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
as they try to hack something that can remotely compete with AOL's "You've got mail..."
Non-Deterministic Finite Automata
It's funny, but you make a valid (and scary)
point. Have a bootable CD that sets up a
harddrive, installs a ver of linux, include
Gnome, and the AOL client...They'd never know the
difference....just have to find a good version of
Solitaire, and they're set...
Check out my sysadmin blog!
SPAM, nearly unending amounts of spam! Let's put this perspective, my own mother has been on the internet with AOL for the last 18 mos, doesnt sign up for anything free on the internet, and gets 15-20 spams a day, a majority of which are pr0n. I have been on the internet for nearly 5 years now, I sign up for all the free crap I find, and I still don't get the caliber of spam that is generated by AOL's quest for revenue.
This wasn't meant to be a rant against AOL and their marketing practices, but I guess it turned out that way. I guess what I was trying to say is that AOL's type of business does not in any way shape or form belong in the 'linux' model of business. Linux/*BSD/whatever has been successful because it has not adopted AOL's business methods, let's keep it that way.
that, and I pity the first poor schmuck who puts AOL on their linux box.... :-)
"See, we plan ahead! That way, we never have to do anything now."
The general gist that I received from AOL's little side project is that it could be used to run a cheap networked AOL computer.
Something like a Net Appliance for the home.
Linux is an obvious choice because cost is the most important factor for people who just want to get on the internet.
These types of people won't know Linux from Minix.
Me? I'm just happy with Cable modems at home, T1s at work, school, etc.
How soon until AOL buys a few Linux related mailing lists and starts sending out the AOL for Linux CD-ROMs with 238478239742356237403 free hours of service? I could really use some new coasters.
*disclaimer* I cannot stand AOL client, it is a disgusting mess. Furthermore, I really do not care for AOL in general, and I would even feel sorry for my worst enemy if I discovered that person used AOL. So there.
Now, with that out of the way, I would like to express that this might be what we are looking for. Kinda. You see, many of us want Linux to become a nice mainstream desktop OS for the average user. Many average users use AOL. Now this might work well to bring the average users to Linux.
Ok, not that the average users are starting to use Linux, they realize how nice it is to not crash all the time. As time goes on, they progress to better users of Linux and realise that they do not need AOL anymore. Thay blow the client away and start using regular PPP connections and there ya have it, the desktop userbase that Linux needs so desperately.
What we (the developers etc out there) need to be aware of is that people like a pretty GUI, ease of use, intuitive controls, and NO TECHNICAL JARGON! If Linux distros can evolve to include even MORE internet tools that have an emphasis on ease of use while still containing the flexibility that a power user can use (some are getting there already!) then I really see Linux becoming a great desktop OS in the next year or two. Like I said before, the AOL thingie might be a blessing in disguise because it will look familiar. The scared average end-user will like this familiarity and be that much more comfortable with this OS.
Note: this may just be for net-appliances, and if so, you may throw everything that I just said out the window...
OK, this is actually some cool stuff if you stop vomiting and think about it. Serious repurcussions too:
Like I said, big impact on the whole internet industry. This isn't directed towards any current Linux users, but to the NetBox potential users (the 80% of population w/o the internet). Next they will have an effective replacement (or custom modification) to the desktop of your choice. Instead of KDE/Gnome/ActiveDesktop you will have AOLdesktop as your Window Manager.
This is a massive step into AOL making sure that they own the internet, the connecting client devices, and all the traffic that is on it.
Look like Linux will get that 'killer app' that will bring the unwashed masses to it's doorstep.
Yup. If it's anything like the Win32 client, it'll be a real killer...of productivity, resources, and the system in general.
DrQu+xum: Proof that the lameness filter doesn't work.
- "I want to use my tricked-out Land Rover as a golf cart."
- "Recompiling the kernel was no big deal - but the Internet is really hard."
- "At last! I can pretend to be a 12-year-old-girl and hang out in the Britney Spears chat rooms."
- "You've got stale."
www.ridiculopathy.com politics, technology, stupid stuffAOL already has a net-appliance imaginitively titled AOLTV. I don't know much about the specifics of what it runs, nor do I care very much, but I do know that AOL has licensed TiVo's technology for use in their boxes and guess what TiVo runs on right now? That's right, Linux. That's not to say that TiVo couldn't port their service to some other OS (and they would if AOL asked them to as AOL owns a good chunk of TiVo), just that this tips the scales even more in favor of AOL using Linux.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
Linux is an operating system akin to Unix first written by Linus Torvalds and worked on by thousands of programmers around the world. There are many different distro's available in all different flavors. I use it as my main OS, but has Win95 to talk to my friends on AOL, as do my kids. Partitions divide a large hard disk into smaller disks, so one can use multiple operating systems, or even back up data. With Linux, the drives are numbered HDA, HDB, etc...with the partions numbered HDA1, HDA2, etc. The kernel is the workhorse of the operating system. It's maintained by Linus, has regular snapshots available, and I'm looking forward to 2.40 "not test" being available in the near future.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
I've actually been looking forward to this. Hoping that AOL would someday make a linux client.
Not for me. I have a DSL line myself, but for my family.
My family dosen't know much about computers, but they spend a lot of time on AOL. If I do the administration of their machine, and all they need to do is click the AOL icon, what does it matter what OS they run?
Time to see exactly how far along linux has come. Time to perform the "mother" test.
Heres how to 0wn a few linux boxes in under an hour.
1. go on irc and whois users, find people with the name RHS Linux User
2. See if they are running redhat 5.1
3. See if imap is running
4. Instant r00t access
Look at the amount of trojans and viruses spread by AOLers with something as simple as windows. How many people are going to keep up with bugtraq and install the latest patches? Hey I just thought of something, steal someones aol account and use the linux client. DoS anyone you like.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
They work even better as drink coasters!
I know that this is off topic, but I keep seeing all of these posts along the lines of "This brings x number of new users blah blah blah and this is good for linux!" -- How is this good for Linux? What value is there in having millions of people doing the same thing you are? Here are the obvious arguments and my replies:
1) support -- There is already plenty of support. The user base is already sufficient to support any size project you care to start
2) more Linux apps -- Who cares? Most windows software is comprable to the useless consumer goods found in infomercials. Why would I want more of that?
3) hardware -- Once again, who cares? It has been my experience that the hardware that is working with linux is, with a few exceptions, best of breed anyways.
4) down with m$! -- I really doubt we'll see a dent in the desktop market, The only real advantage will be in the appliance market - and this is a good thing.
5) CmdrTaco said so! -- This is acceptable. Bow to the Taco!
Politics, Culture, Food?
how many people actually think this software "leaked" out of AOL? This is more likely a beta release that AOL doesn't really want to take credit for because they know it's gonna be full of bugs.
Why the hell does linux NEED commercial acceptance?
F /...
Why has practically ever new linux/bsd user in the past two years decided their favourite flavour of unix clone HAS to dethrone microsoft?
I for one don't give a rats ass about Microsoft. I have to use them at work, but you know what its not so bad to use windoze to fill out expense reports or look at badly formatted documents. I'm directly responsible for about 60 servers running mostly equal parts solaris and linux (with some osf and freebsd thorwn in for good measure). They *ALL* have their place.
You people really need to stop looking for some new war to fight everyday... if you got that much energy to spare why not waste it on something that matters almost as much but is more fun, sports teams. Or better yet it spend it on a PERSON you care about.
hope this helps,
---
Solaris/FreeBSD/Openstep/NeXTSTEP/Linux/ultrix/OS
--- I do not moderate.
It's obvious AOL needs a product to compete with
WinCE. How about a palm device preloaded with
AIM. Boots into Linux to bypass the WinCE
licensing fees. AOL sells them for $150
to get get them in people's hands and build
market share. AOL did a similar thing before
with their $9.95 internet offer. Makes sense
to me. I might even consider buying one.
I use linux, my fiancee uses AOL. Now she can get to AOL without rebooting my machine. Also if I get a NiC from www.thinknic.com and put AOL for Linux on it I will have a nice cheap computer for her.
Her parents also use AOL, it crashes alot with Win95, (GPF) hopefully this will be more stable.
They misunderestimated me. -- George W. Bush
Sounds good, right? Well, what's the common denominator here? Except for Transmeta, it's all AOL. This could be just a shift from one behemoth (MS) to another (AOL). It's a shame that probably the only way to beat MS in the home-user market is with another potential monopoly.
But at least now I will be able to get all the Time-Warner content I've been lusting after! ;-)
www.poak.net
Did a Yahoo! search on 'techpages.com' and found numerous links containing the URL.
Try http://www.techpages.com/news/ to bypass the welcome page.
There are other sections too...
I absolutely hated AOL users when they first started appearing on the Internet. Now I couldn't care less. I am hooking my grandmother up to AOL for one reason only - complete US coverage for local dial-up. She travels extensively and would like to save money on long distance charges by using local exchanges to do email and browse the web.
I'll admit, there is alot to dislike about AOL as an ISP. Nationwide coverage is about the only thing going for them (for me, at least). If I can get AOL on my grandmother's laptop running Linux, then there will be TWO things going for them.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
This could be good, in that I could switch my girlfriend's computer to linux.
"Debian and AOL, two great pieces of software that go great together?"
If you posted that in a comment, it would get moderated as flamebait.
So, it looks like the appliance might be running on a Transmeta chip, running Linux, and connecting to AOL... (Just what the Microsoft/Intel cartel wants to hear
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
I definitely agree. My family is semi-computer literate, and my younger brother has expressed an interest in learning Linux (cool!). My family uses AOL exclusively for connectivity (parents are dumb) and they couldn't care less which OS the use, so long as AOL works. AOL for Linux would allow me to give them a much more stable machine, and let my brother screw around with Linux as well.
We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked.
The distant rumbling sound you hear is simply the average IQ of the Linux user base dropping to half its former value. There is no cause for alarm.
to increase market share. The question is what media they start sending it out on. I mean, I have enough coasters, I've finished tiling the bathroom.
Start sending DATs!
Bob.
Btw, I just want to point out that I REALLY don't like AOL or steve case. I just dislike the idea of a market bound in chains by its very nature even more. Now I understand that AOL does this to a certain extent, but I have my doubts that it has a stranglehold on the market. I know a number of people who left AOL when cable modems became available. (I'm on a T1, so I am better than them anyway :) Okay, /rant
Jaeger
www.JohnQHacker.com
GodHatesCalvinists.com
Look like Linux will get that 'killer app' that will bring the unwashed masses to it's doorstep.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
Hmm. I wonder ... if you install AOL for Linux, does it 'accidentally' un-configure your eth0 and ppp0 interfaces, leaving only 'aol0' active?
--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
If you are in a rural area/small town, you still have a good chance of having a local dailup
Do you not have a "national" local code in the US? In the UK we've got 0345/0870 and others that denote a call to be charged at the local rate which makes connecting to an ISP quite simple, anywhere in the UK.
Just curious, that's all.
Rob.
Debian and Linux, two great pieces of software that go great together?
Speaking from personal experience, I think everytime I install Debian on a system I'll also install linux with it. It seems to compliment Debian quite nicely, and I noticed a 42% performance increase between a Debian system running linux and a Debian system running NT.
"You'll die up there son, just like I did!" - Abe Simpson
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
I'd feel safer that way for sure. Of course, if I used AOL I'd probably dig up a 500 MB hard drive, install Win95 on it and give AOL its own drive to play on. At least then I know it's not mucking where it shouldn't be.
"You'll die up there son, just like I did!" - Abe Simpson
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
As someone who has become passionately involved in the open source world of Linux and GNU, I can honestly say that what Linux requires in order to gain a decent amount of mindshare in the desktop market is a way to connect to the internet with the minimum possible hassle for the average user. This, despite the negative reactions often heard on this site, is AOL.
Whether you like it or not, Steve Case is a visionary, and without his influence in getting Mr and Mrs Sixpack onto the net it would have remained a backwater of ivory tower academia, without the public and commercial opportunties of today. After all, without AOL, how many of the dto-coms many of you work for would exist today? Not many, I can tell you.
Anyway, Linux does need to become more and more user friendly. I've been getting deep into its internals using my handy Corel Linux distribution, but this is probably requires a bit too much tech-savvy for Mr and Mrs Sixpack to use, especially for setting up the internet. AOL have the experiance in getting people onto the net no matter how much experiance they have, and if they decide to push Linux, it can only be a good thing.
As a consultant working in the field of b2b and b2c companies, I'm seeing many of the smaller outfits using Linux as a platform for their mission critical enterprise solutions. Unfortunately, this seems to be it's only real area of expertise in the eyes of customers - on the one hand they worry about its lack of scalability at the high-end, and on the other hand they worry that it's only for long-haired "gurus" with Grateful Dead T-shirts at the lower end. Much needed developments like this will take Linux's image away from pasty geeks and into the family home.
No matter your views on AOL, you can't deny that this is an important step towards the triumph of Linus Torveld's free software vision.
And if they like it, and find it's more stable than M$ stuff, they might be more amenable to considering Linux in the workplace. Which can only be a good thing.
Why? Haven't they realised that Linux is for people that actually know what the Internet is? and want to use it to do what they want rather than what some prepackaged for idiots, company says they want.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
When will webmasters learn to test their websites on as many platforms as possible before deploying? I bet these bozos just loaded it in IE 5, said "Yup, looks good," and headed home for the day.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Well as the father of 4, 3 of whom use StarOffice for school/research and GAIM for IM, I would like to see AOL on Linux. Then I can finally get rid of one more Win9x box. We have a small network 3 laptops and 3 desktops runing RH6.2 (1), Win98(4) and Win3.11(1). Any excuse to get rid of another Win box is OK by me. My kids like the fact that they can use StarOffice on any PC and get access to their files from any PC. It reduces arguments over whose turn it is to use the PC. I would only have to have 1 Win PC for the kids games. Reader Rabbit isn't available for Linux, and I am just to lazy to write something.
And when America Online started, it was Mac-only (based originally on software licensed/purchased from Apple).
My first post at Slashdot for whatever its worth.
This has got be the funniest story posted onthe slashdot.
Why would any linux user have a need for AOL client ???
--sticking up feathers in your butt doesnt make U a chicken !!
sticking up feathers up your butt doesnt make U a chicken !!
I'd have to assume that the software uses netscape (remind me, who owns netscape again? (: ) will be the browser.... Might be tough to pitch Linux reliability if your browser keeps crashing. Much as I love linux, we need a better browser.
...but it is just going to seem funny having Linux users running AOHELL.
Stop talking about who's to blame when all that counts is how to change --"Born of Frustration" - James
Why the hell are you using AOL? If you know anything about computers you would know that AOL sucks.
And you can use just AIM to talk to your friends.
that does it
I'm switching to FreeBSD.
the need to be l33+
Oh the humanity!
why didn't some one mention that earlier. My fingers are now all sticky :)
-
As cunning as a fox, which has just been appointed professor of cunning at Oxford University. http://www.kinlan.co
I really hope you're joking about AOL being good. It's the worst online service I've ever seen. Doesn't AOL use IE? How the heck will it do web browsing from Linux if there isn't IE for Linux?
So, no, i don't think this is aimed at you or me, but perhaps the iOpener crowd.
thelocust[dot]org
wrighty.
Maybe this will get Microsoft to port IE to Linux.
Has AOL's contract for Internet Explorer with M$ expired? Last I heard it still had a while to run, but the terms might specify that if AOL has a client for a platform, it must be Microsoft Internet Explorer based.
AOL with Internet Explorer for Linux?
I get a couple of warm fuzzies at the idea of AOL for Linux. They dissapate nicely when IE gets added.
Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
I can't believe Linux is gonna be soiled with a shitty online service.
Hopefully someone will read this considering I'm posting this after the first 20 minutes...
My parents are sick of windows crashing and would desperately like to move to linux, however, the big thing stopping them is they really like some of the things AOL has to offer (its saturated with non-techie content people)... AOL in WINE has been a flop really, so I'd really like to get them over to this.
The problem lies in the fact that techpages.com has blacked out their webpage (my guess is due to AOL lawyer emails) and I cannot download this software...anyone got a link to it? Please?
Also, is anyone going to post anything besides jokes about the level of intelligence of AOL users? There are maybe 4 comments about how this will lead to the AOL settop box, and the rest are flames that are all modded up. Personally, I'd like to see the ability to select several fields in a moderation (flamebait, funny, offtopic) and maybe add a "lack of useful content field" but then again, I'm just complaining.
The browser works. Click on get AOL 5.0 and the AOL browser (Obviosly Mozilla based) pops up to the AOL page. You cannot enter a url but you can get wherever by entering in a search.
I am writing this now in the AOL browser.
TOP reports aolbin is only using 260Meg... hehehe bloat... then again M17 is about 170Meg... while nutscrape is nice at ~ 10Meg.... Kinda neet. I may soon be able to upgrade my sister with her AOhelL to a real OS.
Just port AOL to Linux, put it into a sealed network appliance with a few neat user apps like greeting card printing and a few games, and voila!
Microsoft has lost a significant portion of their audience.
AOL is planning to control the internet in the next 10 years.
A year ago, while working at 'the first Caldera Authorized Support Center' as the (ARG!) only tech supporting OpenLinux I helped one of the AOL engineers connect his OpenLinux box to AOL's network (they use radius servers for ppp auth...). I asked and he said (off the record of course) that yes, they were working on creating a linux client. And since they developed it on OpenLinux (think lineo) its a sure bet that linux will be their embeded (sp) platform.
Just a little note...
-IslesFan
This is interesting, and probably one of the signs that the apocalypse is upon us, yet something about it doesn't sit quite "right" with me... How many people that run linux have aol accounts? Do they think that this will make people that use linux signup for the service? I'd think by the time you run linux, you already have at least heard enough about AOL not to get it...i dunno though. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it will fly, but my disk space is too precious for their bloated software...
Check out my sysadmin blog!
AOL and Compaq announced a while back that they'd be releasing a Linux based net appliance to run AOL if I remember correctly. This is simply AOL's part of the effort. Nothing to see here, move along.
I wonder if AOL really knows it's market?
The AOL client software is meant for the non-technically oriented computer *user* that wan'ts to connect to the internet using a simple front end application that will guide and "assist" them.
That's absolutelly as far as it can be from the typical Linux user.
If I were to use Linux on a day-to-day basis (I'm BSD, folks), then it surely wouldn't be for their AOL access.
Wow does this mean that I will be getting AOL skeet shooting fodder (CDs) in the next Linux mags that I get? I will have to say that excluding stand alone AOL boxes this is probably not a good move on AOL's part. What user that uses Linux on a normal basis would pay for AOL's service?
Ohh well at least it is a token gesture from the worlds largest ISP.
Telcos have alot of dark fibre in the States. Most people assume that's optical fibre...but it's actually moral fibre.
What Web browser does it use? Navigator? Mozilla?
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Don't you see what is going to happen? If this is released, it will open up the doors for average users to come in and use linux. AOL = Average. The market share of linux will go way up. Is that good? You will no longer be elite for using it. You will no longer be 1/1000 of the customers, allowing your voice to be heard loud and clear. You will no longer be able to say "Man, get Linux, Windows sucks." Linux will suck. Linux will become bloated. The next port will be the blue screen of death. A lot of people use Linux for their ego's. They don't want AOL to open up the Linux platform, that's why their bitching about the quality of AOL. Everybody knows AOL is the greatest ISP ever conceived. And damn, they must be good, they send out personalized CD's to everybody in the continental United States. So why don't you want AOL on Linux? Because you want to be cool. Well, so do I. As of this writing, I am switching to FreeBSD. HAHAHA. RTFM. No more wimpy average joe Linux.
Laugh, it's funny.
"Lazyness is the first step towards efficiency." -Patrick Bennett
Seriously though, I think cheap pc's are an excellent way for Linux to break into the market. It certainly has a price advantage over windows, and there's no reason one couldn't provide a complete internet ready Linux box for $500. So what if it's AOL, anyone who's buying at that level probably won't know the difference, and if they do they probably bought it to hack up for some personal project, in which case they'd most likely format the drive anyway. As for the former, maybe their kids will grow up and know the difference, not just between AOL and the internet, but between M$ and a stable operating system.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
it has nothing to do with being superior...i used to use AOL, and i still use windows. around here, it is tremendously difficult to have a superiority complex whilst running windows. now, if we look at the crowd running around here, they seem to never like anything that makes things easier for the general computing public. and those grandmas that you so grandiosely refer to a.) are not the people i am addressing, and b.)with the current state of the OS, i dont htink those grannies are likely to use *nix in the first place. Furthermore, i acknowledge that i sortakinda misunderstood the article, and did not read as much into the "embedded OS on an appliance" application of this thing. however, that is scary in an entirely different way. ooh, let me give a monolithic media conglomerate access to my refrigeration habits, so i can havbe the advertisements that flash on my shitter specifically targeted at my taste in mustard (boar's head woohoo.) I dont like it. But then again, i dont have to.
"They think its sexist"
"They think its sexist"
"Well, whats wrong with being sexy?"
I think the release of AOL for Linux is more about buzzwords now than anything else. When they release their netpliance, they will already have their (soft|bloat)ware ported to Linux so that's a plus, but as for right now, they just want to be able to toss the "LINUX" buzzword around.
This is supposed to be great art. So why does it look like a bunch of decapitated naked people? -- Calvin
I had the same thoughts at first. But if you read the article, you see that the primary purpose was to indisputably show security holes in AOL software which AOL refuses to acknowledge (allegedly). To whit: "This proves AOL has done very little to fix there security problems." But there could be larger implications. Many are complaining about "AOHell" and "AOLusers" and such. It's this narrow-minded, pseudo-elitist attitude that prevents Linux from becoming mainstream more rapidly. When Linux offers mainstream solutions to mainstream problems, then mainstream users will be interested. You can't get any more mainstream than AOL. Until then, it's just another bit player losing to the commercial big boys
ShoutingMan.com
AOL is the internet
RedHat is Linux
Al Gore invented them...
Microsoft owns them
right?
Right! and Jason Schumaker wasn't naked on the cover of Linux Mag Python Supplement.
* "Uncle this droid is malfunctioning" -- Luke Skywalker
AOL Keyword - linux
Yeah yeah.... your post reeks of 1337ism and smells of self-rightous pious'ism and the like. But... it's sad to say that you also have scored a few points for the cold hard truth (which will get you modded down BTW)
I'll have to admit that part, a very very very small part, of me likes to use linux because of the 1337 computer hacker nature of it all. In fact I loved my first bloody install (years ago) where everything went wrong and I spent a few weeks researching and hacking and learning... until I was finally staring at the localhost login prompt. Comnpare that the my latest install of Mandrake 7.1 where all I had to do was point and click.. and half an hour later was "surfin the net" I honostly belive that my mom really could install Mandrake.
But I digress... the main point here is that...you are corrct NO SELF RESPECTING LINUX USER WOULD PUT AOL ON HIS BOX... but.. there are many normal users out there on earth who might like to try linux and who also might like AOL. So.. the 1337ism is now almost officially over and linux is headed for true mainstream. Ah well.. maybe it's time to look at Plan 9 or Inferno or something.
/*drunk.. fix later*/
This could have one important side-effect: AOL could make self-booting CDs. A user could literally turn on their machine and be runninng AOL off of the CD. Forget about installation problems, OS corruption, or anything else. AOL could even use their own distribution if they wanted. This would be a tech support dream: Doesn't work? Boot a new CD.
--
Forward, retransmit, or republish anything I say here. Just don't misquote me.
I'll go one better here. AOL disklikes Microsoft in a pretty big way, and the feeling is mutual. First, they co-existed in a sort of uneasy way. Then, Microsoft rolled out MSN, which competes directly with AOL. Then, AOL bought Netscape, even though they were ostensibly pushing MSIE, a move which couldn't have given the Redmond crew many warm fuzzies. Next, we had the Instant Messenger Wars, which enabled us to witness the bizarre spectacle of Microsoft calling for standards.
What chafes AOL so badly is that no matter what they've done , they've been stuck with Microsoft, because the vast majority of their clients use MS operating systems. For the first time, it looks like they may have the opportunity to change that.
If I were Steve Case, I'd be thinking very hard about funding Linux development in a highly public way, or making an alliance with some OEM which sells Linux systems. That would pave the way for OEM boxes running Linux, preconfigured to use AOL.
In fact, now that I think about it, I'm starting to scare myself. Little Linux boxen, stripped of their "nonessential" functionality, all set to connect the average joe into a world of happy AOL-Time Warner content. I think I'm going to curl up with some milk and cookies.
Okay, so you don't like AOL. I completely understand.
But so much discussion here focuses on how to get Linux into the limelight, into some serious competition with MS in terms of desktop.. Isn't this a great step in that direction? Despite the fact that you're a l33t hax0r, 90% of desktop users are not, and having AOL for Linux can draw a whole new crowd, and perhaps greatly help it into the mainstream.
Man, Linux takes a giant step in the right direction, and everyone screams about it...
I don't get it.
jack's bicycle is music to my ears
When I travel in Europe I have to bring a windows thinkpad running AOL to get TCP/IP juice from wherever I'm at. Now I can get around with my 240 running 2.2.14. For me this is a great development.
"AOL for Linux Leaks Out"
Jeff Goldblum: Basic chaos theory suggests that it is impossible to restrain nature. Put up fences, use sensors, it doesn't matter. Information will find a way.. It will be free.
Steve Case: Nonsense. We have state-of-the-art NDAs and we have totally obscured our security procedures. No software could possibly escape.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
I realize there are a lot of people on /. who won't be able to see through their "l33tness" to realize how this will benefit everyone, but this is exactly the kind of thing that Linux needs to begin to have commercial acceptance.
I want to use linux. I want to be able to buy games on linux in a store (not choose from 6 3 year old ports I have to mail order) and other software.
To get all of this to happen, Linux needs a larger user base. The number of AOL users is huge. I know several, and almost all of them use AOL because it is the only affordable choice in their area.
The worlds largest ISP (isn't it?) is going to begin to support Linux. Other companies will see this, and have no choice but follow. You'll soon see PC makers just starting to realize they can actually make money selling linux machines to the masses, not just servers.
This is a major victory for linux, and anyone who is intelligent enough to quit the "redhat sucks, aol sucks, newbies aren't worth pissing on" bullshit attitude which is so prevalent here, and in the Linux community, (and has done more to hurt Linux than anything else ever could) Should be really exciting at how big this step is, and how broad the benefits will eventually be.
I'm no AOL fan, and certainly the first few versions of this will be buggy and broken, but in the perspective of things which can happen to benefit linux in the long run, this is well up on the list. Put away the elitist geek comments, and look at the big picture here.
________
It's not an official AOL release. It's a secret release from un-named sources. AOL does not acknowledge this software's existence (according to the techpages.com info). It's to show AOL's lax security.
ShoutingMan.com
I dont think they expect the current linuxcrowd to use it, rather they'll use it with internet appliances running linux + the aol client, and nothing else, thus getting rid of any OS license cost.
[] distribute the AOL client with their own [] Linux [distro] on those [] CDs [.] just boot from the CD-ROM and voila! Instant AOL.
Considering that Linux doesn't support many winmodems, that might not go over very well...
If there's one company with enough pull go get the Winmodem manufacturers to do a Linux driver, or at least release enough info on the chips, it's AOL.
Maybe we'll get Winmodem support out of this. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
There is AOL for Linux! There is AOL for Linux! There is... ummm... AOL... for... ummmm... there's..... ummm... oh crap.
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
*sigh*, too bad you're so simple minded you can't say anything good about this matter. You're giving the typical knee-jerk reaction I'm confident many posters will give, and it's sad, it really is.
Don't you see, a huge provider with millions of customers is now supporting Linux. Love or hate AOL, it's things like this that are helping to bring Linux into the mainstream.
Now you can go over to mom's house, granny's house, even your niece and nephew's house, install Linux, Star Office and AOL and they have the same functionality as Windows!
Don't knock AOL because it's for "dummies" or anything like that, look on the bright side. This has the potential to bring millions of users over to Linux.
Pardon my skepticism, but the first thought that crossed my mind when I saw this guy's site is "how can I trust this binary? I don't know him or his site, why should I believe he isn't trying to root my box?". He brags about releasing AOL 6.0 2 months ago, but perhaps that is a typo (or not). Besides, what would anyone gain with a 9.4 MB download, besides clogged chat rooms, ALL CAPS PEOPLE WHO CAN'T SPELL, and an AOL stain on your tux? Yes, the net appliance angle is a valid point, but personally, I'll stick with my dial-up.
I give it ten years before you see this tattooed on that damn penguin's forehead. Oh, brother that's scary...
-----
"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." - Salvador Dali (1904-1989)
Why would any selfrespecting linux user put AOL anything on his box?
It's not necessarily for linux addicts, but if granny talks to her family via AOL, and you want to setup a system for granny to use that she will be familiar with and you do not have to worry about paying an extra Franklin+ for an OS.
Anything that takes Linux a little closer to mainstream, anything that makes one more person standup and say "now linux has everything I use, I think I will try it," anything from a major internet company that makes people take notice of Linux is a good thing for the Linux community.
Who knows, this may attract the next Linus who currently is 8 years old using AOL to check email to let Daddy show them Linux and open their mind.
I really doubt I'm going to run out and sign up for AOL just because they have a linux product - but I will have a little more respect for them and I will definately consider them the lesser of two evils (in comparison to MSN).
Wheeeee
Anyone who voluntarily uses AOL doesn't even know what Linux is. Or partitions. Or a kernel. Or...
I, like several other people on slashdot, believe the general stereotype about aol users (slack jawed, knuckle draggers, idiot druggies, rednecks, take your pick).
:P
But I'm willing to see this on both sides. AOL has a subscriber base of how many million users? 20-30? (or so they claim at least) With such a large user base, one of two things will happen..
1) Many users install linux, if even on a second machine and have a good time with it and keep it installed, and post good comments on forums
This people will of course want all their games and major programs ported over to 'this awesome new os!'
2) Some or Many (there will always be someone who can't get this to work) people will post negative comments on forums saying this and that about 'that geeky antisocial linux program'
These people will rant and rave about how hard it is to setup or that there are no games for it and that they deleted their bin folder 'to get rid of all those files in that garbage Bin' and complain that they can't run any of their programs and their computer crashed and now they can't get it back, etc
All I'm saying is be extra polite and helpful on the forums and the linux community may end up twice the size with many new games being developed for linux as well as that other os.
And remember, people don't want to think for themselves... so rtfm won't work
I do confess, I find the idea of AOL for Linux slightly... ah.. discomforting.
/. and email cravings was to sign on through one of our teammates' connections to AOL.
;)
But then again, and I can't say as it really shames me to confess, I use AOL with a BYOISP account. I'm sorry that people think of the content, chat, and groups on AOL as complete drivel. My major reason for using it - that I think is good enough to pay for! - is the huge, varied, and almost completely freeform roleplaying community that makes its home there, in AOL chatrooms and forums. Also, the medical forums on AOL are very good, well organized, and the feedback that you can get about problems of various drugs and illnesses; I know my father still uses AOL in his cancer research, especially, because there are many easily accessible "Survivor Forums" and new drug research articles. The AOL stock portfolio, as well, is very user-friendly and organized.
When the nerdier people at my school (including to some degree myself) went to national science competitions in backwards places in other states, and the internet connections in the dorms didn't work, the major way for them to ease their
And then there are all the younger teenage Linux users who are forced to use AOL as their connection to the internet because it is more convenient for their entire family. With AOLinux they could switch over the computers in their household to Linux and most likely, their parents would barely notice at first.
Hmm... "Linux: The Family OS."
Anyway, while I acknowledge that some of the effects will be winceworthy and... distasteful, to say the least, AOLinux could be what it takes to start weaning some potential new Linux blood step-by-step off of Windows.
I know that almost anything and any information that can be had on AOL can also be found on the real internet (and AOL does, in fact, link to a lot of web content). Truth of the matter is, AOL is, for the non-tech-oriented community, more efficient in a lot of ways. On the one hand, I can see how people who are concerned only with efficiency and not with spending time learning about what they're actually doing "have no right" to use Linux. On the other hand, if Linux is only "The Superior OS for Superior People," then what's the point? Most people will never have the time, energy, brainpower, and dare I say, personality required to be a "power user." And in that case, MS will always hold a definite edge over Linux, regardless of the comparative quality of the products. Linux can be intimidating as hell for the new user, and it seems to me that a lot of people out there are saying, "And that's how we like it..."
You'll now see the following showing up all over the place:
d00d - | jus+ 1n5+@113d @ 1|nu>< p@r+|+|0n 0n my 1337 C313r0n m@ch|n3! #0w d0 | 63+ +h3 A0L +h|n6 n0w?
God help us all.
DrQu+xum: Proof that the lameness filter doesn't work.
AOL on Linux will put a dent in Microsoft's business. Of course it will help AOL become a bigger monopoly, but I guess the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
.net offering. Would anyone be surprised if .net happened to work better with MSN? Isn't that the signature marketing tactic of Microsoft?
.net, only without the hassle of a computer. You want a word processor? Use AOL's! You can access it right from your TV. Microsoft is keeping a very close eye on AOL.
MSN was pretty crappy to start out with, much like all things Microsoft. But if there's one thing they know how to do in Redmond, it's how to throw money at crappy things until they get better. Also, remember Microsoft's
I wouldn't worry about people's peripherals not working. AOL is most likely going to roll this out for set-top boxes, not personal computers. Think Application Service Provider. Think direct competition with
I think this is a good thing for Linux because it'll be an argument against "Linux is too hard for people." GNU/Linux distributions may be, but Linux is just the kernel, and can be used in a more situations than just on servers and desktops.
This winds up being good for Linux in general for a couple reasons. The first is you'll see more legitimacy for Linux. You won't see as many uniformed people spouting misinformation that they heard from a friend, because companies like AOL are deploying Linux. The second is that you'll see more software for Linux. If AOL wants a minesweeper game (for example) for their set top box, they'll have to make one, and then there'll be a minesweeper game for Linux. Now take reread the last sentence with the words MS-compatable Office Suite in place of minsweeper game.
--
Why can't I moderate something "Wrong" or at least "Grossly Misinformed"?
"Folks, if people wanted to use Linux because it was open source, they'd be using it by now."
but they do. linux spreads like fire.
(that does not mean it's because of the opensource nature of linux)
erik
...all excited, don't know why...
:Don't knock AOL because it's for "dummies" or anything like that, look on the bright side. This has the potential to bring millions of users over to Linux.
/sbin/sh...
But does it have have the potential to bring millions of users educated to safely run linux?
I mean millions of ddos machines waiting in the wings is a BAD thing IMHO. Not to say if aol started releasing ao-linux machines it would not be locked down but new exploits come out all the time and especially newbies wouldn't know an xterm from a
Nick Lange nick.lange@SPAMTASTIC.hushmail.com
Time to play the devil's advocate here...
To all of those who say, "AOL on Linux will help us destroy the evil Microsoft that we must all help to destroy," don't get too excited yet.
Let's face it, MSN really was never a viable competitor to AOL. MSN started out rather quickly, hoping to capitalize on all of the new Windows 95 users (remember the MSN icon on the desktop?). But they ended up getting hit by all of the problems you'd associate AOL with: busy signals, poor service, etc. MSN has finally gotten their shit together and made themselves into a decent service, but they will never be on the level that AOL is. They came into the arena when AOL was ten years ahead of them, and they're still paying for it.
And BFD if we get AOL on Linux, that's NOT going to bring more newbies over to Linux's side to warrant a dent in Microsoft's revenue. Do you want to dent their revenue? Rather than drooling over having some 15-year-old lamers using Linux because it can run AOL, focus your attention on the office suites out there. StarOffice anyone? While it's true that a lot of people use AOL, a lot more use Microsoft Office. And while Johnny Q. Newbie can check his AOL mail on Linux, he can't open, and work with, his Word documents or Excel spreadsheets on Linux either.
Let's not forget getting support for all of Johnny Q. Newbie's peripherals either. Sound card doesn't work? Video card doesn't work? Digital camera doesn't work? Scanner doesn't work? Printer doesn't work? Then what's the point of jumping to Linux if your major components don't work?
Now, I expect that people will tell me, "But Linux is OPEN SOURCE, so people will flock to it!" Folks, if people wanted to use Linux because it was open source, they'd be using it by now. Pardon me if I sound inflammatory, but a lot of people out there couldn't give a shit if the OS they were using was open source (or free as in speech, depending on what distro you use). They want to be able to get their work done, to be able to do the same things they could do on Windows.
I'm sorry to bust your bubbles, but while AOL on Linux is certainly a good step, you've got a long way to go before Linux can become comparable to Windows in the home user market.
Think about it.
--
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
"That's no moon, it's a space station"
Nah it can't be. It's too big to be a space station. Must be a HD space hogger.
In other news, huge droves of Linux users were noted to have download the new AOL for Linux client and subscribed to AOL. Said AOL spokesman, "We are really alarmed at the blatent disregard these individual have for our intelectual property. We choose only to distribute our software to a small select clientele..."
One word: chatrooms. Especially in the m4m arena, irc just doesn't compare by ten million miles - the avaialable pool is just so big on AOL. Maybe the hook-ups won't be tech-savvy, but quite frankly, tech-talk is not what I am looking for at those times.
I'm serious. I am sure that a little analysis will show that AOL got big enough to buy friggin! Time! Warner! not because of shopping or links to Oxygen pages, but teen chatter about Britney and adults looking for sex.
Now it's gonna be on a stable OS. Who knows, maybe some more geeks will get laid. Can't be a bad thing.
The AOL client will just be another one of those closed-source linux applications, that they will not want anyone to look at and tweak with. Also, who in the Linux community would want to use, let alone play around and tweak with AOL?
--If only there was a license required to use a computer.
I can see it now - OpenBSD the last bastion of defence against the (other) evil empire!
hey dumbass, don't quote star wars if you don't know it, the correct line is:
"That's no moon, it's a space station"
-
-
This Post has been brought to you by the letter "E".
Why would any selfrespecting linux user put AOL anything on his box? - They don't, they buy an embedded internet device that runs Linux on a StrongArm. But the user doesn't know that, they just see AOL. As a self-respecting linux user making a wireless tablet I see it as a Very Good Thing, as long as I can get source. -> snotnose
i can't get to www.techpages.com, nutscrape and mozilla crash on trying to pull up the page. can someone please post a direct URL to the download, either on techpages.com or another site? much appreciated, thanks in advance.
ERiAN
-
-
This Post has been brought to you by the letter "E".
It seems that AOL has made itself known by it's "easy to use" client software for accessing the internet, giving computer-illiterate users confidence in being able to actually use that "3000 dollar machine they only know how to turn on". I'd like to see a poll. How many linux OS users currently use AOL, or would like to. As for the factor of speed and reliability, other ISP's have been rated over AOL by many review zines. Even local ISP's can offer a just-as-good if not better dialup connection as AOL's.
How can the biggest ISP user-base, which I am assuming 99.9% of it's userbase is either using Windows or MacOS make any benefit over a Linux client? While Linux *does* rock, it is definitely not ready as a desktop replacement for AOL user-types. Perhaps the only use of this software would be for script kiddies and carders to spoof through AOL accounts using linux instead of windows. Doesn't seem like a big move for AOL in my opinion, however releasing it's messenger client (and netscape for that matter) for the linux platform was a smart move, but is totally irrelevant to compare it's client software to.
- Slash
heh, this is old new actually...I am surprised that slashdot is just now getting it. I heard about this about 2 months ago. However, think of what AOL has brought to the net. Now think about what it will bring to Linux...
sleep == good;
If a user is technically proficient enough to install Linux, then what would he want with AOL? Besides, Linux users would be such a small market for them that I wonder why they are bothering to release this client...unless we can expect some Linux Internet appliances from them in the near future :-).
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
I dunno about you, but personally I think that porting the AOL software to Linux is a very good idea. Not because it gives Linux users access to AOL but because it gives AOL's existing client base the opportunity to try a great OS that has the ability to do great things without having to get a whole new ISP connection. If done right, AOL could score HUGE browny points off this one.
Think about it this way. Right now people are less likely to switch to Linux because everything they do and all their data is on Windows based systems. With StarOffice going OpenSource (read freely available to EVERYONE) and the ability of StarOffice to be able to open with pretty good accuracy a document from MS Office, thats one thing out of the way. Now that AOL is porting their software, a much larger user base is going to have one less excuse to swap to a much more secure and stable system than Windows.
The biggest thing that could hold this sort of process up is the "elite" attitude of so many vocal Linux Users out there. I know many people that have been put off trying to use Linux because when they ask someone online for help, the only response is RTFM. Newsgroups, IRC and even a lot of web based services are like this. They don't help people because if you're using Linux (or pretty much any *nix for that matter) you're expected to know it already. Its this sort of attitude that is causing the most detrimental harm to the advancement of Linux in the desktop space. I'm not saying everyone does it, but I've seen more people turned away from Linux because of it than those that have stuck with it.
AOL porting to Linux offers users the chance of having a well known and well supported ISP that will help them get their brand new Linux computer connected and won't just respond "RTFM". This is something that needed for Linux to grow beyond just a server platform and be recognised as something more than just a gimmick for script kiddies to use to cause havoc and DDoS attacks.
Seeing as most linux users are intelligent enough to avoid AOL like the plague, I don't think this sill get much of a subscriber base.
"Linux? Looks like a thousand monkeys at a thousand keyboards to me. Of course, they also throw feces"
If they are savvy enough to use Linux they should be savvy enough to use a real ISP.
I think this deal with AOL being for linux is great. Sure, I've used about 20 minutes of AOL ever at a cousins house, and don't use it at home, but seeing AOL starting to work on the linux operating system means a much bigger user base if this project does indeed take off.
I downloaded the file hoping I could try it out on my Debian based linux system, but was dissapointed to find a bunch of RPM's. Now I understand this file wasen't even offically released, so we should not all expect it to work good, or work at all, but I just hope they don't plan on making it RedHat-only based.
I am unable to use AOL due to not having a local access number, but if I did, I honestly think I would at least try it out. Heck, they've probably given me a million hours of free service, why not? I see this news as something really good for the linux community, because now, all of those people who use AOL and want to try linux, can do both!
Secondly, think about the number of users who are itching to use linux but have AOL straining them back. I know for sure the linux community will benefit greatly from an AOL client for linux. I know there is the fair share of people who hate AOL with a passion, but you have got to admit, after this client starts to get rolling, there will be the snowball effect with the positive side facing AOL.
* Just a side note, can someone explain to me why AOL dosen't want the linux client released before it's offically done? Besides the small security concerns, AOL should be glad the client got out and have it's blessings that we're trying to improve their product.
--
Scott Miga
suprax@linux.com
The idea of AOL for linux for me is ok. Since AOL a giant ISP is noticing linux. Maybe this will go down in history as the first program to crash linux? Well, anyway I can't even get onto the internet because I have a stupid Winmodem. DSL rules! Getting it!
if there are people who use aol when using linux, i pity and do not ask forgiveness of their souls.
"Charlie don't surf!"
-LT Colonel Kilgore
So no, the intended audience is not the already installed linux user base but rather those who want to be able to access email/web without a large hardware startup cost, and don't care what software comes under the hood, just as long as it works.
James
That's no moon...
That's the deathstar!
What next Microsoft Office?
Vote Naked 2000
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar