Slashdot Mirror
AOL in Negotiations to Buy Red Hat?
bstadil sent in this rumor. The Washington Post isn't exactly a rumor site, so there's probably truth behind it. Wow. It would make a great deal of sense for AOL/Time-Warner to acquire an operating system for leverage against Microsoft - same reason they bought Netscape.
Isnt this the beauty of the GPL, AOL already has the full source to RedHat.
-- the computer doesn't want any beer, no matter how much you think it does. NEVER, EVER feed your computer beer.
Somehow, that does not reassure me. At all.
Weren't Sun and AOL going to work together? Where does this leave them?
It's interesting: AOL has bought almost all of the coolest stuff on the Net: Netscape, ICQ, WinAMP. Don't forget that Gnutella came out of there, too.
And they've let all of them, so far, mostly be their own companies.
"...same reason they bought Netscape."
With Netscape being where it is, isn't this a bad thing for the future of Red Hat?
No more playing DivX movies on RedHat! ;-)
And remember kids: Never trust a computer you can actually lift.
is about what this here is worth for AOL.
What happened with Netscape?
Microsoft edged it out. Netscape lost its competitiveness. In a straight comparison, IE kicks Netscape's ass now. The innovation departed from Netscape.
The purchase of Linux by AOL will come with a big PR campaign about AOLinux or whatever. There will be a standard, SINGLE image of Linux in the brains of most consumers, and then AOL will take that up against Microsoft, which will easily defeat it in many consumer-level preference comparisons.
Then, the consumers will forget Linux, not knowing that there are dozens of different flavors out there.
I recommend keeping all linices entirely without involvement by non Linux corporations, for these cultural reasons.
Goat sex free since 2001
KPCB has a long history of leveraging his full constellation of companies to maintain KPCB influence - and this is why he is often referred to as the most powerful man in Silicon Valley.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You've got Linux!
Id say AOL, why? i dunno
Just like everything else AOL has touched softwarewise, it'll do down the shitter.
Netscape...ICQ...just to name off...
AOL/Time-Warner already owns pretty much all sources of media so this could be a way for them to really compete with the leviathan that is Microsoft. I suppose 2 can play at this game.
This is great and awful news at the same time.
While AOL could provide a huge shot in the arm to Linux (it wont make a huge jump to the desktop without being able to run AOL, sad but true), what geek wants to run an AOL OS?? Would AOL/TW put their icons everywhere, or try to include DRM in it?? AOL/TW isn't much better than MS after all, they cater to the lowest common denominator.
Oh well, if they do, I'll just go to another distro, I suppose.
Dose this mean that the AOL CD's will be given away with a linux install on it. Ya, more costers! :o)
~~~
Fight monopoly with monopoly. Wonderful!
Why do I have a sudden urge to start downloading FreeBSD?
-------------------------------------------------
charlton heston is more of a man than yo
The ramifications of this are potentially mind boggling.
Despite how much you may hate aol, the fact of the matter is that they have the hearts and computers of an incredible buttload of users, including someone in your family. It's just mind boggling.
If they decided to have an AOL operating environment (UFS mount partition or something) We could see an incredible growth in linux.
What does it really mean? Goddamn, they would do it because it would advance their business interests. How....
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
the rumor is that they're buying redhat, not linux. redhat is just a distribution. the worst thing that could happen would be that they screw the distribution all up and then charge for it. so what? beginners will just use something else.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I already have the Electrical and Water Utilities and hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place. I have a monopoly to maintain, dammit!
This would be my dream come true. Ahaha, I hope it happens, that would be funny.
They hate MS so they buy what MS hates. The Larry Elisonization of corporate strategy.
What the heck would AOL do with RH anyhow?
At least I could get a new RH disk in the mail every 2 months.
Table-ized A.I.
For some reason, that sounds . . . arousing.
~~~
Imagine opening up your mailbox at home to free copies of Red Hat Linux 10.0 -- "It's better than ever, 1000 days without a reboot!" Red Hat CDs in your magazines, at your pizza joint, and bundled with your new AOL-HP P5-3500 (maybe if I start that rumor, it just might make the Washington Post).
Now, forgetting for a moment the fact that the open source Linux is involved, if AOL-TW does indeed become a player in the OS field, I will feel like a peasant in the middle ages, watching a battle between the knights of warring lords on a nearby field: whoever wins, it's not going to do any good for me. :|
I'd rather toss John Katz's salad before I see the idiotic America Online be associated--or worse, be in ownership of--Red Hat.
"d00dz j00 ph33r a0l bcuZ w3 0wnx0r R3DH4T!@#!@" -- AOL "Hackers"
In Pine?
Or my "Buddy List" in BitchX? That's just not right.
Also not right is:
"We'll just download the changes to the user's hard drive when they log on. No, we don't need to tell them a thing."
Or "Just re-configure all network settings.They really just want AOL."
New message boards of with people saying AOL doesn't work anymore, nothing works. Why "Well I just deleted this vmlinux file, it didn't seem to be doing anything."
The article suggests that AOL would want to build it's own OS to compete with Windows. So maybe we'll see a linux distro on all those AOL coasters. The great thing about this is that AOL is probably the best vehicle to get Linux into the hands of millions of Americans. It will be quite a stark contrast to Microsoft's rather onerous XP activation.
Robotiq.com is heavily tested on animals
AOL won't really use Linux, just like they don't really use Mozilla, but it will give them something to hold over Microsoft. "If you don't intergrate us into Windows, we'll stop using it and take a few million users with us." Microsoft isn't stupid enough to let that happen. If there's one thing they're good at it's preserving their monopoly and they'll do what it takes to keep AOL from switching to Linux.
An AOL Time Weener Redhat Company...
Competition considerations aside, maybe it makes technical sense. AOL is having a hard time with it's new distro. Maybe they are looking to start from scratch with AOLinux for future versions.
Watching Cowboy Bebop in my jammies, eating a bowl of Shreddies.
AOL? Linux?? Sounds like Apples and Oranges?
Flame on...
~~~
In the past few days on Slashdot many a story has been posted about how your grandma can start using Linux.... this is another one of them.... even though I am not an AOL fan I think that this will expose linux to a bigger crowd of people that use AOL for internet access....
- Pimp
I like computers, women and computers... in that order...
To kill it?
- A.P.
"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?"
...Sony Corp.'s PlayStation 2 video-game console. Linux also runs the Sony product.
The Washington Post may not be a rumor site, but they are not exactly Scientific American, either. Playstation 2 is not run by Linux, of course, although some of their development tools are.
Think about it...to many people AOL IS the internet. How many of those people would by an AOL PC? Give them a machine that runs AOL, a basic word processor and spreadsheet, and what more do they need? To the great unwashed masses, it would be the ultimate information appliance.
Remember the days when people didn't want "PC Compatible", they wanted "Lotus 1-2-3 Compatible" and "Microsoft Flight Simulator Compatible". The problem with the various attempts at internet appliances has been that the target audience knows what they want, and what they want is AOL.
"same reason they bought Netscape"
...which is now the leading browser on how many desktops?
Personally, I'd hate to see RedHat turned into yet another media commodity, I would like to see them succeed, even if they never exceed the desktop penetration of Apple!
You don't have to be the biggest dog on the block to be profitable, and successful!
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I'm still in disbelief that AOL was able to purchase TimeWarner and not the other way around.
Considering how poorly they've handled their acquisiton of Netscape, this would certainly be bad news for Red Hat. I'm sure any 'hardcore' Linux users would simply choose another distro (im sure many already have), I can also see many companies no longer wanting to use Redhat due to this. IBM, HP, etc the companies associated with Redhat right now, all have a hardline tough as nails tech image. AOL, on the otherhand is known by everyone to be the lowest common denominator of internet service providers.
Of course a close look at the article points out some things which just seem absolutely silly, and make me question its validity:
The AOL online software, which consumers can install for free from the Web or a compact disk, is now designed to run on Microsoft's Windows operating system. But the AOL software could be configured to override Windows and launch a version of Red Hat's Linux operating system, sources said.
Somehow, I just dont see that happening.
In a straight comparison, IE kicks Netscape's ass now.
Netscape 4's perhaps, but with regard to IE 6 vs. Mozilla 0.9.8 (effectively Netscape 6.3; 0.9.8 is due to be released in a week), I have to hand this round to Mozilla. Mozilla starts faster than IE, supports more CSS, supports XHTML (as opposed to IE just bailing and dumping the XML tree), allows for Opera-style tabbed browsing (which saves Windows user and gdi resources compared to the one window per page paradigm of IE, especially on Win9x/ME where user and gdi heaps are only 64 KB), works on platforms other than IE's Windows, Mac OS, Solaris, and HPUX, and even comes with a rudimentary IRC client (which IE+Outhouse does not).
What does IE 6 have that Mozilla lacks (other than market share, which can change once the next version of Concept Virus hits)?
Will I retire or break 10K?
With a decent linux distro on it, you doubters might think twice before shitcanning that new hell-spawned AOL coaster in your mailbox.
Then they can finally rewrite Linux so it can support skins and built in ecommerce links. Then they can remarket it under Linux XP to catch up with Microsofts versioning schemes, and bundled hundreds of little AOL trial links in it. I can hardly wait.
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
...it's the entire "computer" to some people. I wonder how many people have machines that just run AOL?
...AOL software could be configured to override Windows and launch a version of Red Hat's Linux operating system...
I dunno about you, wouldn't you notice if after installing some software, your OS was different?
All I can think of for a reason for AOL to buy Redhat is that they need new group of employees to pit against "those damn Winamp guys."
I'm really not a fan of AOL (ever since they bought out Quack.com) but there's a lot of pros and a lot of cons to Red Hat being bought.
First the Pros:
hmm...can't think of anything =)
no, just kidding.
Ok, there could possibly be a lot more money towards the development and production of an even more user friendly linu> to non techies. It also means a greater spread and porting of more tools that could possibly maybe make it out to other dists (that's a statement not a question)
It's nice to have large companies push OS's, everybody knows that. Yes, AOL will push linux like mad(by association).
Now the bad points, I don't want to restate what other people are saying, but I really don't want Red Hat to go down the drain. Among geeks AOL carries an evil stench that permeates your desktop causing you to burn it just to remove any trace of it. Also, AOL could modify to the point where they just branch Linux off and develop it on their own and then charge lots of cash. Yes it violates the licences but they have money to buy the licences out.
In conclusion, it's good and bad but it seems to be more bad than anything else.
internet like monkeys'
if they buy RedHat they are buying a distribution and a service company - not an OS.
Would this make it aol timed hat?
This may be a prelude to the great battle of the set-top boxes.
.Net enabled XBoxes; TiVo patent lawsuits; embedded Linux.. yea, this could be big.
The positioning of the
"CNN watchers who haven't registered with Passport were left in the dark today as XboxTV blocked coverage, claiming CNN used incompatible digital rights management protocols. MSNBC was displaying fine though, for anyone who needed to see the latest news."
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
I really think that the market is going to be ready for something like this to materialize in a few years. If AOL did buy RH I think you would see a lot of GUI work (that wouldn't be GPL) go on top of the rest of the OS. I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being an i386 version of Mac OSX (similar, at least). Technically and aesthetically I think OSX beats Windows, imagine if it or something like it ran on cheap PC hardware...
It would be cool. But I'd still be a Debian man...
My Karma was at 49, then they switched to words. All that work for nothing!
Another problem: if one does attempt to "break" a distro in this manner, how can one prevent AOL from simply making its own improvements to the kernel, and putting its distro on top of that? In other words, if AOL's distro becomes standard, could AOL have more control over Linux than Linus does?
I wonder why AOL would be interested in Red Hat over Mandrake? Red Hat seems like it has more of a serious buisness oriented approach for a distro, while Mandrake is more user/home oriented, and actually has some name recognition too. Guess I'd feel a little better if AOL bought an "everything but the kitchen sink" distro they probably couldn't bloat any farther.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
On top of that, its not clear that RH needs to be bought. What are they missing? They seem to have decent capital available to them, and they are slowly cleaning up in the linux distro market. I would think IBM would be a better partner for them.
Wow, this is mind boggling. With Redhat Linux, AOL/TW will finally have enough power to compete head on with Microsoft.
This brings up another problem. Who will be the bigger monopoly five years down the road? As of now, MS controls a good majority of the OS/Business Application market and AOL/TW controls much of the content and media both online and offline. Now if AOL/TW w/ Redhat becomes a major competitor of MS, than AOL/TW would have a great monopoly.
With the AOL/TW purchase of Redhat, it would finally bring users to a linux environment. However, if you look at the general population of AOL users, do you really want them running linux? Will we have a bigger population of vulnerable computers? I mean a big problem during the mid 90s was people sending emails supposed from AOL to the users asking for CC # and a good number of them were ignorant and gave it anyways. Just some stuff to consider...
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
Alan Cox works for AOL?...Dude! You've got patches!
I can't believe all the negative feedback from this. What is so bad about AOL? They aren't for you and me, it is annoying having to delete them off a new computer for someone, and they sugar coat everything, but who cares? If there is one thing that could dramatically change the history of computing and put power back into YOUR hands, this is it. Quit compaining about the best thing that could realistically happen to computing right now.
This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
Its become patently obvious that Steve Case wants AOL to become an operating system in its own right. So this isn't entirely a surprise to me.
On the other hand... While AOL may be able to get Linux accepted more widely, it could bring problems. I don't mind the newbies, they may be frustrating, but we need them all the same. The problem is they may start equating AOL and Linux. Its bad enough equating the web with the net, Red Hat with Linux... but AOL with Linux??? That could be a problem. AOL, if they release a Linux distro, may cripple many of the advantages of Linux. Killing the license advantages would be difficult to impossible, but their distro will probably make installing another ISP difficult to impossible, make AOL the default player and editor for everything... I don't like that. AOL 7.0 has a media player that sets itself as defauly. I put a CD in my moms pc, AOL loaded.
If AOL does buy red hat, and leaves red hat more or less alone to develop linux, and only uses linux itself to build devices like webpads and such it shouldn't be a problem. And if AOL takes the opportunity to create an AOL for Linux, that could get us more users, and an opportunity to enlighten literally MILLIONS of sheep who stick with windows just cause of AOL.
Overall, I'm neutral... I can see this helping and hurting the Linux world.
"Think about it...to many people AOL IS the internet."
Yes, and if AOL would just break their network back OFF from the real Internet and let those people continue to think that, we'd all be much happier, I'm sure.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
The people would finally have a choice
If this happens, RH will simply get borged into a increasingly complicated conglomerate with no clear cohesive mission and declining financials.
Kind of makes you wonder if AOL considered purchasing Be instead. It certainly would have been a cheaper buy.
It also would give them a more user friendly operating system with a familiar, functioning, and coherent/unified WIMP interface (yes, Linux with KDE or Gnome is IMHO still not ready for the average user's desktop).
And finally, it would give them an OS that is certainly cutting edge multimedia-wise.
Julian
It's about time (sorry, pardon the pun...) that AOL figured out they need to back the competetion to Windows.
They half-assed it with a net device based on Linux with Gateway, but never pushed it.
Let's face it, AOL's customers are the kind of people who need a net appliance, not a Windows PC. They buy the Linux company with the most name recognition, and a solid embedded strategy and database play, and start whipping out AOLinux appliances that have Star Office, MP3 player, instant messenging, and a host of other goodies -- but they don't have to kiss Bill's ass anymore to get on the desktop.
Sure, they don't have to buy Red Hat to get Linux, but they can get a lot of expertise that way -- and I'm sure Red Hat is more than happy to talk to possible buyers.
I wish Earthlink and the other big ISPs would wake up and realize that M$ is NOT their friend.
AOL knows that the code isn't what they need to make money on -- it's a consistent monthly service -- and they can get the average person to pay $24.95 (or whatever) a month for an appliance that is self-updating (just like their client is now. Annoying, but it was one of the first examples of self-updating software...) and they have the infrastructure to make it work.
As much as the AOL-Time-Warner behemoth worries me as a media outlet (way too many media outlets under one roof) it could be the best hope for knocking Microsoft down a peg or two.
An AOLinux won't supplant Windows, but it'd sure as hell beef up the percentage to make it more even.
...oOOo..'(_)'..oOOo...
I'm not entirely sure my opinion on this matter.
.NET initiative. If they are successful, they will control nearly 100% of business online. It is definitely a scary concept. But are we to trust AOL/Time Warner on this issue any further simply because they deploy their system using Linux?
On the one hand, this could provide a huge step in mass-deployment of the Linux operating system among home computers. AOL is the largest ISP in the world, and their support and distribution of Linux would undoubtedly give credibility and power in the desktop market to Linux machines. I think many slashdot readers can agree that this is a good thing.
However, if this happens, are we not trading one monopoly for another? Microsoft is trying to corner the entire market with their
Either way, both companies are currently in very precarious positions. Growing their market share has become nearly impossible, so they have to set their sites on total control of the online market. It seems that both companies have grown to plateaus that leaves each of them with only two choices: down based on distrust of their software; or, they make the leap from their current plateau into the heavens, where they reign as the God of the "new world order" of online home PC's.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
After all, Netscape was dead. They had not shipped and they were falling behind rapidly in the browser market.
They were in the "portal" market -- whatever that is.
I never understood why they didn't charge for their server and PUSH it. It wasn't that bad and it was one of the few products they had they could generate revenue with. On the other hand they had MS IIS on the one side and Apache on the other -- both free and currently the #1 and #2 web servers out there (owning a vast majority of all sites -- all other web servers are bit market players).
Netscape shot themselves in the head with their lack of a viable business plan, knowledge of the competition and no plan on how to directly compete, etc.
Wow. It would make a great deal of sense for AOL/Time-Warner to acquire an operating system for leverage against Microsoft - same reason they bought Netscape.
Yeah, and look what AOL did with Netscape. Too little, too late. To paraphrase a Robin Williams line, if its being done right anywhere in the online world, its NOT being done by AOL. Any Linux supporter with even a tenth of a brain does not see this article as good news.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
It's been proven before that AOL can take a perfectly good product (Netscape) and turn it into a nice pile of crap, mainly due to complete and utter failure in keeping up with IE. They dropped the ball, and now MS has their iron grip on the browser market, probably for good. Even Mozilla won't be able to penetrate now. Sure, the techys could switch, but the mass-market computer-illiterate folk (95% of the client base) have their IE and ain't changing.
:)
Anyway, the thing with Red Hat is different. RH may be one of the more well-known (dare I say most used?) distros, but there are a whole buttload of others, many damn near exactly the same as RH.
So big deal. If AOL/TW buys Red Hate and drives it into the ground, as I suspect, another distro rises up and takes their place. There is no Linux equivalent of 'netscape vs IE', where you get one of the other. In the Linux distro world, you have a whole lot of choices.
Hey, this might even be a good thing. One less distro to pay attention to in a fun filled 'my distro is better than yours' war.
Just a reminder - one that seems to be needed often - RedHat is not an operating system, it is a distribution of an operating system. One of the beauties of open source is that AOL can't 'buy' Linux and take it over. It is specifically forbidden by the GPL.
They can buy and change a company and a distro, but they can only make it better. Imagine this - AOL buys RedHat, makes it more user friendly than ever and drives Linux to the masses. That is the good scenario. Worst scenario is the AOL generates interest in Linux, but drives RedHat into the ground. Linux still survives. Only bad for the hardcore RedHat fans, who switch to their next choice and move on. What is there to lose?
Suddenly, AOL has Red Hat and it all changes. For the geeks of the world, all of us /.'ers, running an AOL/OS is absolutely absurd. Yet, there's millions (millions of millions!) of people without a clue. AOL has 33 million users? They start pushing computer systems running their OS (33million person marketing base? wonderous). What happens?
Well, this: New computer buyers get systems with AOL/OS standard thru shopping on AOL. AOL/Time Warner is able to use their influence bringing entertainment to AOL/OS (while keeping it central to their version, and not running on other Linux setups). They won't phase out the geeks, that's impossible; but Linux will become synonymous with AOL because word-of-mouth is king, and user base is only slightly behind.
- DaftShadow
I just installed FreeBSD 2 days ago
Given that (for better or worse) RedHat is one of the cornerstone linux distros out there, forming the basis of Mandrake and many others, and Given the 'pay per view' mentality of cable combined with the 'enslave the idiots' mentality of AOL, do we have a potentially explosive mix coming together?
Just suppose that this transaction went through -- given the millions if not billions that AOLTW could piss away on legal fees, would this pose a serious challenge to the GPL? I don't doubt that the FSF, EFF, RMS, and a whole bunch of people would get ticked off about it, file suit, and generally raise a lot of hell. But when push comes to shove and RedHat becomes AOL 8.5, closed source, $xyz per copy (or per view) -- what are we going to do about it? Heck, they could just stall long enough to buy politicians, not unlike how MS has been behaving lately.
On the other hand, perhaps it would just cause RedHat to simply stagnate, too busy integrating corporate systems and dealing with lost employees to do much of anything else. Certainly the Netscape buyout hasn't exactly set the world on fire yet.
And lest I be branded an eternal pessimist, maybe they will instead piss away the budgeted fund earmarked for legal fees related to destroying linux on Free software development and contribution back to the community. To their credit the Mozilla project is still going.
"But actually trying to use m4 as a general-purpose langage would be deeply perverse" --ESR
Even if AOL bastardizes the RedHat distribution in one way or another, there will be no effect on other fine distributions such as SuSe, Mandrake, etc. If AOL makes a serious effort to compete with Microsoft using RedHat, that could mean a lot of resources being poured into Linux development, which would benefit all distros. We could see more current device drivers and compatibility.
The more you learn, the more you discover how ignorant you are.
I'm reminded of this because this will be the situation for many AOL asses if AOL decides to be a Linux-only ISP. The asses would have to make the heartbraking decision about whom they love more, AOL or MS. Some might choose AOL, if RedHat is reborn AOL'led down by a few notches.... maybe. You might think this is the only way to draw people from Microsoft, but I actually doubt it would work. M$ has enough $ to run a huge M$N advertizing blitz right about when AOL becomes Linux-mandatory (offer it free for 6 months to people switching from AOL, a "free" OS upgrade, etc.) I'm almost certain if AOL'lers are forced to choose, they will join MSN instead of ditching Windows.
After seeing the successof OSX, maybe AOL wants to take linux the way that apple took BSD, although the situations may be different between apple and AOL but the underlying idea would be the same, they have a huge (loyal?) userbase that they can control, and present something that is secure, easy to use but also very powerful... buying red hat may be just buying the developers and brand name... the most important thing. The impications of this are huge. If it provided OSC like features, i would fork over $100 anyday!
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
AOL depends heavily right now on Windows. Their whole platform runs on it. What better way to beat MS than to sever relations and get its own OS?
Developing AOL on Linux, and then distributing AOL+Linux on a CD would give ANY person access to AOL without need for MS! If they could do this, then they would own the ENTIRE user experience (Internet + OS) -- much like MS is trying to do. MS is trying to do this with MSN, and they have a head start. AOL gets RedHat, and AOL gets their own OS too.
Customer: I can't connect.
Tech: What's your operating system?
Customer: AOL.
Tech: (trying not to laugh) No sir, that's your browser. I need to know what comes up when you turn on your computer.
Customer: I told you. AOL.
Tech: Maybe AOL is in your startup folder. What comes up before AOL?
Customer: It's the first thing that comes up.
Manager: Can you put the customer on hold?
Tech: Can you hold please?
Customer: OK.
Tech: Sorry this is taking so long. I've got a real idiot. Thinks his OS is AOL.
Manager: Didn't you get the memo?
Tech: What memo?
Tech 2: Hey did you see that guy go postal in cubicle 6?
Tech 3: No. By the way, there's some kind of memo. Have you read it?
Tech 2: Nah. I was gonna wait until break...
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Heh. Time to finally bite the bullet and trademark AOLinux: Alexandre Oliva's Linux. Yuck!
Red Hat has claimed such big clients as Amazon.com Inc. and International Business Machines Corp., providing software and support for IBM servers that use the Linux operating system.
International Business Machines Corp _IS_ IBM.. something is definately fishy here.
However, I think this would be disastrous for the Linux community at large.
Part of the cachet of using a Red Hat distribution amongst the fringes of 'our little group' comes from its perceived independence -- I know it has plenty of investment from other computing companies, but it's a whole new ball of wax to consider the media giants of today.
Ultimately, it is this part I dislike the most about the rumour. I understand that Linux going mainstream means a move towards some form of meme shift. What I am worried about is the perception will be when America's biggest Linux firm becomes part of that media machine. Do we really need to have a Linux vendor in the grip of a media company?
On the other hand, this could represent AOL's desire to pull an OS X shift in the minds of x86 computer users. It's a flawed idea, not least because they have no 'sophisticated' computing experience to draw from, but an interesting one.
Unfortunately, the thought of it makes me quite ill.
========================================
Death will come, and will have your eyes
-- Pavese
They could easily afford to dump all kinds of money into making Linux a great desktop OS. What about some kind of "AOL station" for home users that's a cheap PC with AOL/RedHat installed? Could be good for spreading Linux to the masses.
-nate
What if they decided to buy OSDN?
Heh heh...
-- My Weblog.
If AOL buys RedHat and destroys it the press will report that Linux is dead.
To the press RedHat=Linux. To the general populace RedHat=Linux. If RedHat dies or, either by suicide or acquisition, it will reflect NEGATIVELY on the perception of Linux being a mainstream OS.
This is a perception -- not a fact. But CIO/CTO and CEO work on perceptions that are built powerfully by the media they read as well as their advisers. RedHat would win the battle for survival but present a significant loss in the overall war.
I dont think anyone has anything to worry about. People wont know they are using linux. They will probably just make some really used friendly environment much like the ones in internet appliances. It will just simply be using the linux kernel and redhat technologies. I seriously doubt aol would sell linux as we know it. Maybe it will use the mozilla/netscape interface mentioned on slashdot not long ago? (about the internet appliance that ran linux and netscape interface)
Think about it. If AOL were to hypothetically make AOLOS or something (based on RH), then that's an automatic leverage to use when convincing hardware companies to open up specs (or write drivers of their own). Becuase right now there's no quantitative measure of number of linux users, but becuase of ad revenue, you can bet your ass Steve Case knows exactly how many users he has. A user base of several million is just nothing to sneeze at.
Whatever you have to say about AOL, it is easy to use for millions of people that can't spell Linux.
If AOL took Red Hat and ran with it, this community might end up with the source to the most easily installed OS in history.
To bad about all the pop-up ads you will see while booting.
Transcript show: self sigs atRandom.
chance.
Of course since less than 1% of our targetted web users will use it for the forseeable future we probably will invest less than 1% of our corporate resources for programming our web site to support it.
We support standards.
The standard for browsing web pages is not Netscape, it's not W3XXX, it is IE(4,5,6). It is what 9x% of our visitors use. We will degrade gracefully on the other platforms and freely distribute IE (free to distribute after all) to those poor users who don't have IE today.
Reality -- it bites but you've got to live it some time.
RedHat is doing a great job concentrating on the corporate market, releasing stable, tested, supported distributions and getting third party vendors to support Linux.
It would be a great loss to have those resources "focus shift" to an unknown market with little to recommend it apart from being bankrolled by AOL/TW until they get bored of this whole linux thing.
Mandrake makes much better sense, as both companies are have the same aims, but with different technologies.
---
Silence is consent.
Ugh.
========================================
Death will come, and will have your eyes
-- Pavese
Is an "AOLinux" really feasible?
For the most part, AOLers are not tech savvy people. What will Mom do without her Microsoft Word? How will Dad play the latest Deer Hunter game if he's running Linux?
In order for AOLinux to succeed, it seems to me that application support will need to be their biggest priorty. Since this operating system will (presumably) be Linux-based, the rest of us Linux users benefit too, right? Perhaps, finally, we will get the application support that has been missing for so long. That would be nice. And if they fail: I don't think we'd be much worse off. Linux development will always continue. That's the beauty of open source.
So I say: Good luck AOL/TW.
What happened. I was just sitting down to go through more exercises about how to program with C++ in linux on my Redhat 7.1 box when BAM! I open up slashdot and there it is:
AOL in Negotiations to Buy Redhat
Oh God. This can't be. I have AOL coaster everywhere woth the CD face scratched out so on one would be able to actually load the software. I have ripped the labels off of the floppies they used to send and formatted for later use. We even send a letter to AOL thanking them for the free floppies.
Please not AOL. Please please please Redhat Do NOT sell your soul to AOL. Please please please with sugar on it. I swear I will subscribe to the Redhat network. AOL is bad bad bad. Anything but this please.
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
So, Microsoft starts off with an OS, and then moves on to development tools/languages, application suites (office), a browser, and then internet-enabling apps.
AOL started off as a browser, moved into other internet-enabled apps (Netscape, ICQ, etc.), and now Linux (an OS).
As these behemoths try to grow ever larger, their markets will overlap more and more. What's next for AOL? My guess: a move into the application suites market.
Well, that, and now they'll be sending out lots of free Linux CDs in the mail! Seriously! That would put a real thorn in Microsoft's side, and they'll get their revenue by selling access to the on-line updates. They've already shown they can make money giving away trial AOL CDs; the additional cost of shipping RedHat CDs is relatively small.
If AOL wants a Linux distro why don't they just make their own? /.ers, I never understood how in the world AOL ever became so widespread and probably never will.
Just a few boxes down we see the Sorcerer distro being discussed. It's not as though there aren't already scores of distros to choose from.
AOL could make a proprietary download system that only worked with an AOL account. That would seem more AOLish than teaming up with Red Hat which provides you with plenty of net access alternatives.
After all, AOL has been all about limiting the broader potential of the Internet and charging more money for less real net access and in exchange offering lots of useless cluttery crap. It's a ridiculous premise, but they pulled it off so far. Why would they suddenly get cozy with a distro that makes their core business irrelevant?
Of course they could make a version of Red Hat that only worked with an AOL account, but that would certainly be a big change for Red Hat. They'd probably have a hard time getting the existing user base on board with that kind of strategy.
I don't know though, like most
Today at work the Corp MIS folks say they are sending my site XP and I'm "GOING" to like it and now RH is going to AOHell. Gotta go move my home net to Mandrake right now!
My other car is a motorcycle!
AOL is not about to create AOL client software for Linux... well, they will, but their main project will likely not be an AOL client, but an AOL Appliance based on Linux.
Their primary user base is VERY happy with Windows. (They are too stupid to know any better) These same users wouldn't come near a PC running anything BUT Windows... maybe Mac but I kinda doubt that is the majority case. If, however, AOL linked up with, oh... say, Compaq and used their IA-1 machine to host a Linux-based dedicated Internet Appliance, their currect success model becomes even more successful.
A $100 device running a locked-up version of Linux? What could be better or cheaper? And of course, RedHat just happens to be among the most profitable Linux distros around anyway... not like it's a huge risk to AOL/TW.
I cast my vote for embedded Linux for an AOL internet appliance. It's a plan that makes more sense than anything else.
If there is one thing to remember it is the fact that Red Hat has kept most (if not all) of it's efforts within the Open Source community. They also pay Alan Cox for his work on the kernel. If AOL/TW purchases Red Hat then we *MIGHT* loose a portion of our development but there is a good chance that Mandrake, SuSE, Turbo, Slackware, etc... might pick up the developers and thats one of the great things about OSS and developing OSS.
Really, if you think about the companies ideals and what they have been doing it seems like this is more like a casual what if talk and not a plea for purchase.
The masses aren't going to install AOL themselves. If they ever switch to Linux, it will have to come installed on their machines.
Mindshare. Perception of momentum. Perception that Linux is a contender.
Linux was at the forefront of the tech revolution and the stock market bubble. That died and several "Linux" companies died.
If AOL kills RH then the only strong company behind a distro dies.
Public perception: Linux is dead.
It claims:
The longtime competitors have fought over an array of rival consumer technologies lately, including online subscription services, instant-messaging systems and Web-based video and audio players.
Implying that AOL has its own video and audio players (winamp may be owned by AOL, but it has never been a point of dispute; and Real Audio is not an AOL product)
AOL Time Warner could use the deal to couple its America Online software, the market leader with more than 33 million Internet subscribers, with Red Hat's operating-system technology, sources said.
Nevermind that not a single one of those users uses "Red Hat's" operating system, and few would be likely to switch.
the AOL software could be configured to override Windows and launch a version of Red Hat's Linux operating system
Though technically possible, this would be illegal, and marketing suicide. Wipe your hard drive clean with new AOL 2.4.11!
An even graver challenge to Microsoft would be for AOL Time Warner to develop a rival operating system that works exclusively with the media giant's own Internet service provider, its Web browser or proprietary content
Pure speculation. But, of course, if it were based on Linux, it would be easy to circumvent, unless vi becomes an anti-circumvention device under the DMCA.
AOL Time Warner has already tried to counteract Microsoft on other fronts, including rebuilding its Netscape Web browser business to better compete against Microsoft's dominant Internet Explorer.
Actually, AOL has all but killed Netscape.
Netscape technology has been incorporated into a Gateway Inc. tabletop Internet terminal and Sony Corp.'s PlayStation 2 video-game console.
Does Netscape run on PS2? I don't know.
Linux also runs the Sony product.
If they had said "Linux also may run on the Sony product" it would be true, but still misleading.
thanks to an initiative by a programmer named Linus Torvalds who organized volunteers to write the original source code
This doesn't give Linus enough credit, or the "volunteers" who still write the source code.
Linux has yet to be adopted widely by consumers, largely because it requires some technical proficiency to install.
Actually, this is a common misconception, but installation, these days, is the easiest part of using Linux. Administration can still be a bear, though, to newcomers.
Red Hat has claimed such big clients as Amazon.com Inc. and International Business Machines Corp.
I don't even know what this statement is trying to claim.
consider this.
aol is buying and merging with media companies.
it buys a browser and then completely reshapes the way it works, from the ground up.
now they're buying a linux distro.
do i smell a wireless thin client coming soon?
FREE YOUR CONTENT!!!!
Seriously, we would all be better off, and AOL would benefit greatly beging a bonified member of the "hardware faction" rather than the "content faction". It would almost certainly put them up there with ATT and IBM. It may even make it so that geeks would like AOL, and promote open standards thru AOL? (Something I never thought I would concieve of in my lifetime, but what can you say - I never thought I would see the fall of communisim either)
When AOL and M$ were really duking it out about 6 mos. ago, I was telling anybody who would listen that what AOL should do is create an entire new desktop with the AOL interface being the GUI and Linux being under the hood. My assumption was that they'd go after the Corel assets or maybe Mandrake; I never expected RH. Their biggest issue? Winmodems. Although AOL is probably big enough to license the DSP specs from the various vendors, and just distro binaries like the Lucent chipset does. This is definitely one of those events that has the potential for extreme change (for good, bad and maybe both at the same time). Remember that M$ considers Linux to be THE threat, and it may now be sponsored by their largest competitor. May the bowels of Redmond run fast and loose at this news!
That'd be those guys that do that "Internet For Idiots" service? They advertise it on TV claiming it somehow gives people soemthing that other ISPs do not. What? Like AOL's own web site? When you've got the entire Internet and a dozen or more search engines and 100's of portals what could they possibly bring to the party then? That'd be why I'm not a customer.
On top of that - it doesn't appear to actually provide full network connection to the 'net - odds on if a Quake2 player turns up for practice, and they start locking up and complaining - the answer to the question: "sigh - you're using AOL aren't you?" is "yes". (if it's not the next question is "you have a software modem don't you?").
So - I can only forsee darkness down that road. It would be an incredible irony though wouldn't it? An idiot product driven by a geek OS?
Someone else pointed out that they can already have RedHat (the OS) under the GPL so why bother?
Well - I guess the question is almost it's own answer - they don't give 2 figs for the OS - they just want the name - they need any old OS to avoid Mr and Mrs AOL having to load windows just to get AOL going, RedHat is probably the only Linux based OS that Mr and Mrs Denominator have heard of, so they attach themselves to the RedHat name, and then quietly drop it - leaving AOL the OS that just does what Joe punter mostly wants - browse the web - watch streaming video/audio, do stuff with Joe's home vids and photos, and so on. Most of these people buying PCs these days for home, don't give a sh*t about MS Office - forget it! They just want to browse endless eye candy sites, from a nice "day-Time TV" themed Portal. It's a stepping stone to the next generation - "The AOL Appliance" which will sit on top of your ageing VCR. MS has the X box to play with for that - the Tivo has been out for a while and I'll be surprised if Tivo II doesn't have web/email capabilities - so no surprise that AOL TW are making moves to come up with their own box.
This means very little to those of us with serious computing tasks to do - so if this does come to pass, I'll be switching our servers away from RedHat to one of the others.
The main difference between this deal and the Netscape one is that it doesn't matter if AOL screws this one up. There are plenty of other linux vendors today, while back then there was really only Netscape and IE.
Sorry, but I can't help but question the credibility of the reporter who wrote the artical.
so, does this mean we will have to run redhat to use aol, or be on aol to use redhat
-TubaMan / ThE_DoOmSmItH
Netscape 4's perhaps, but with regard to IE 6 vs. Mozilla 0.9.8 (effectively Netscape 6.3; 0.9.8 is due to be released in a week), I have to hand this round to Mozilla. Mozilla starts faster than IE, supports more CSS, supports XHTML (as opposed to IE just bailing and dumping the XML tree),
My webpage is Fully Compliant XHTML 1.0 Transitional and renders better in IE 6.0 than in Mozilla (as text and images not this "dumping the XML tree that you speak of). Mozilla is a great browser but when I see people spreading lies in an effort to spread its usage I feel disgusted.
Let the browser stand on its own merits instead of spreading FUD to promote it. This sullies the name of Mozilla and all that work on it.
... when I see an announcement put out by both RedHat && AOL. Not before.
Oho, so you're the guy that coded the Olympics site!
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
This is what should happen. AOL should enter into some kind of agreement with Apple, SGI, Palm, Sun, a bunch of audio and video companies, and whatever remaining large ISPs there happen to still exist.
These companies would put together an army of programmers who would pick out the best bits of Mac OS X, Solaris, IRIX, BeOS (which Palm just acquired), Linux, the BSDs, and all the free embedded OSs out there. They would put together a bulletproof operating system that supports every standard out there and runs on just about any kind of hardware. This would be optimized for lightning fast performance and would have dazzling graphics and sound. Bundle with that a browser that supports all the standards, an office suite more complete than Microsoft's ever was, audio, video and graphics software capable of professional results, and a ton of games.
After doing this, AOL and the rest of the ISPs would remove their icons from Windows and heavily market the new software and crush Microsoft! Microsoft will go out of business within 6 months and everyone in the world will live happily ever after.
It'll never happen. Oh well.
unix shell gets banner-ads, film at 11. =)
The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
As a huge market power AOL could make a big impact and push Linux ahead.
e _archive.html#8288170
See "Linux needs focus not whiners"
http://crocolyle.blogspot.com/2001_12_30_crocolyl
<excerpt>
there is no unified Linux vision. There is no strategy, no marketing -- not even a targeted market segment. Who is leading product development for Linux?
</excerpt>
Unlike Netscape, I don't see any reason for AOL to invest in RH unless they are going to run with it for profit. They bought the Netscape web portal...the software was a bonus.
Red Hat already seems to be the McDonald's of the Linux industry - fast, hot food for the masses, but not really all that tasty. It wouldn't be much of a stretch for it to become an AOL product. More power to 'em!
=================== Pretty? Feh. Shiny? Feh. A Jedi craves not these things.
the Public does not care. The public uses IE.
Get over it.
Design for your users.
Degrade gracefully.
Enable the users to upgrade.
Get on with life.
Wouldn't it be great to get stuff like the latest RPMs on those free AOL CDs?
What about free security updates for AOL members - goodbye CodeRed-style nuisances... (Something like Apt-get on connect...)
If they can discourage members from running as root, they'll virtually put an end to a lot of the nonsense that we've had to put up with from email trojans, and VB Script crap.
Yes, they'd probably not let people run a lot of services on the network - telnet, smtp, etc, but isn't that a Good Thing for end users as a group?
Plus, wouldn't it be nice to be able to SSH to your mom's/uncle's/friend's machine to fix something, rather than have them drag it out at Thanksgiving?
Just some thoughts...
Cheers,
Jim in Tokyo
-- My Weblog.
Richard Stallman will go on a shooting rampage when he hears about this:
It's not GNU/Linux anymore! It's AOL /Linux!
So whats the chances of the DoJ and MS filling a anti trust suite against AOL for using their monolopy in the internet market (Time Warner Cable, AOL Online) to force users to use their OS (a dumbed down Redhat)
-Jon
this is my sig.
Take a look at this. In particular, look at the chart on the right, and this post
So, assuming that this large trade really did happen, it looks like something that ought to be investigated.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
OK, so they're AOLusers...other than that, this is FANTASTIC GREAT NEWS. And there's always hope for AOL...
Frankly they didn't seem that interested... why now? Internally, they didn't even seem to believe that they could get people to switch browsers, let alone operating systems.
This sounds to me like AOLTW has quite the monopoly game going...AOLTW --they own cable (and want to charge $230 a month for it), they own IPS's, and now looking into an OS...
It'll be like landing on the boardwalk with a hotel on it...
We need those you've got mail kernel patches now.
I think they are most likely doing a technology License.
Remember the only people who can sell a Official RedHat Linux CD is RedHat, everyone else sells whatever they call the copied/cloned/cheap/improved cds. AOL is most likely buying the right to use the name Redhat.
Get a free ipod.
If they configure a window manager to look exactly like Windows 98 / ME / whatever, the average AOL user wouldn't notice. Not immediately, in any case.
;-)
Maybe they'd see an AOL startup screen with lightblue/white clouds and a rotating palette on the bottom of the screen, but they'd probably just be amused at seeing a penguin instead of a flag.
They can't kill the penguin! Don't let them kill Tux!
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
Take a walk down to the pharmacy and re-fill your prescriptions... please.
Your Spanish is as good as your English.
HOLY FUCKING SHIT!!!
Given enough hydrogen, just about anything is possible.
Imagine the new AOL disk that will reformat your hard drive and install Linux automagically.
Exec: No, I didn't install AOL, why do you ask?
IT: Well, it's just that I noticed you have Red Hat Linux installed instead of WinXP. And since you have trouble finding the Start button, I suspect you're lying to me.
But:
...I guess AOL isn't doing too bad, I've got nothing bad to say about WinAMP or Gnutella =)
1) Netscape on Windows since version 4.0 has been unstable, slower, and less compatible than Internet Exploder.
On Linux (Mandrake w/2.4 kernel), I had the same experience and both Mozilla and Konqueror were better than Netscape (and Internet Exploder).
2) ICQ had become quite bloated with ads and other nonsense the last time I used it. So much so, that I don't use it anymore. There are better, compatible OSS alternatives (licq, etc).
3)
If AOL makes Red Hat big, then hardware and software people won't be able to ignore linux, and while the general sentiment will be to avoid the "sell outs" linux as a whole might benefit
--------
It's OK to be social, just don't tell anyone about it.
AOL would bring a lot of new users to Linux and that's the most important thing.
.com crash. The mood became less optomistic and ambitious. Sure, Linux adoption is still growing but it's not growing as it could be. Linux needs to be shaken up again.
Linux was hurt with the
AOL would make Linux easier.
AOL would make Linux less '1337' and that's a good thing.
AOL is more serious about making money than other people are. They are willing to be humble and give people what they want.
Current Linux users are less likely to be humble and do the nasty work that isn't 'l337.' For example, Linux users claim to have the best programming tools available and that their software can be used by major financial institutions and on the main frame. But at the same time, Linux doesn't have a Cobol compiler.
AOL and Linux would also be good for the computer industry as a whole.
Let's be realistic here. Linux zealots constantly state that no one can implement copy protection on Linux because anyone can work around it. Since programs can not easily distinguish sockets to other programs from sockets to sound cards or video cards (although I suspect to some extent one can) anything is theoretically copyable, right?
The biggest recognized Linux brand name known to the public-at-large is Red Hat. If AOL was able to convince Red Hat to incorporate a binary-only security system into their distribution, then Linux-loving people could not easily cry that their favorite operating system could not support digital rights management.
One of the easiest ways to "convince" someone to do something is to be their boss. Note that Winamp (another AOL acquisition) already supports multiple secure formats, and bypasses insecure output/effects plugins as appropriate.
No, I am not trolling. This message was written using a Linux box. Trademarks used in this message belong to their holders; yada yada yada, etc.
I for one am opposed to this. We have a grasp of where microsoft shows weaknesses versus linux at the momment, the server side mainly, but in a few other areas (Default media players that can burn MP3 CD's without a non-fee plugin anyone?) But with AOL purchasing RHAT, we are going to see a major problem, AOL can't sell redhat 7.2 to their 33 million users now without creating a massive negative perception of linux in the non-tech world. AOL's other option is to spend 2-5 years working on UI, stability, and application support, only to see interest in Linux has wanned in favor of *BSD, some Palm/BeOS hybrid, AtheOS, or some unknown OS being cooked up in a computer lab somewhere tonight. I'm not sure we can trust AOL any more than we can trust M$FT, but if it was IBM/Dell/HP buying, I could be for such a merger
Read my plan to save the Bengals
Even though I hate AOL like the plague, they ARE the ones who made the net grow in popularity w/ Joe Sixpack (it's up to you whether or not that's a good thing). They MAY bring Linux to the unwashed masses. I'll just make sure i DON'T use that distro. :)
Although, it may be that AOL wants an in with the server market. Since Redhat is more a server than a Desktop OS. If they wanted the desktop market, they should've pitched to Mandrake. I'm pretty sure AOL runs on UNIX. Can anyone verify that? Do they runs Suns? Or is it HP?
If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
has been ditching stock at a fairly good clip. He doesn't want to benefit from all those millions ... Srangely though there are few other insiders selling so perhaps.
I don't use AOL but are they actually making use of Linux in any fashion already? They don't use it and RH has minimal earnings and lots of competitors.
Any insight as to their motivation?
Okay. So far I haven't seen this view addressed:
It's quite possible that AOL wants to make a thin client/small cheap desktop a la the nifty web-browser-based PC people are finding over at Fry's. AOL has a browser, already, remember? Just not the underlying code to run it on. They may have no plans to "fight Microsoft" (they need to go buy some office suite from Gobe or someone in order to do that), they may just want to embed something they can control into grandma's new set-top AOL box.
Even if they did do this in order to square off against Microsoft, why is everyone screaming that Linux will die as a result? Okay, admittedly Netscape is now even more grossy bloated and useless than before they got bought, but everyone is missing one important difference: Red Hat is not synonymous with Linux! Linux was around before Red Hat, and there are other commercial distros around (compare Suse market share in Europe to Red Hat). If anything, this will stop people being so Red-Hat centric. Besides, if Red Hat gets bought out, then I'll bet at least some of the open source programmers on staff will rake in some big bucks for staying, etc. Sounds like a great thing to point out to our kids... sometimes, the good geeks do win. =)
One more thing... I'm sorry, wasn't this what you wanted? If it wasn't AOL, you'd be happy. Unless, of course, it was Microsoft. =)
Get off my launchpad!
Try this for yourself:
Fire up Netscape. I've done this with 6.2.
Go to support.microsoft.com. Pick a product, type in something meaningful, search. No results.
Close Netscape, open IE, do exactly the same thing. Results. (I just tried again, using Access 97 as the product, "filter query" as the search string).
I have done nothing to the settings of Netscape that would cause this. This happens on my Win2K machine at work, and my Win98 machine at home. I haven't tried it in Linux, because when I'm using Linux I have little need for any MS info...
MS. What a bunch of wankers!
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
There is no way for AOL to destroy the modular design of Linux/GNU software. To do so, they would have to custom modify and maintain far too many packages. Why would they go to such effort and cost? The average AOL user never ever bothers to venture furthers that far, so "digital rights management" and advert cramming will be maintained by default, just like they are on M$ platforms today. AOL useres actually use AOL's client and browser there and they will under Linux. You will still be able to replace bogus packages and use the ones you want.
What this is going to be, is AOL being able to send out a shiny new CD when M$ breaks their customer's machines. The customer can sit happy knowing that they won't have to buy a new computer and that they can get the things they expect from AOL. My mom is a good example. She has used her computers for three application and only three applications. She has used AOL, Word Perfect, and Quicken. I'm not sure she uses Quicken any more. She uses AOL's instant messenger and email. The rest of her computer means nothing to her, and could be running anything. When ME meets it's two year obsolescence and her flaming nice PIII laptop starts spitting chunks, I hope AOL sends her a nice Red Hat CD. The other stuff, like Netscape, Electric Eyes, Gimp .... might have her actually use her machine some more and definatly enjoy it more. If AOL bought Correl, she would be very happy indeed.
This could kill Microsoft. It's one thing for my mom to have some friends and her son using Linux, it's another thing when she gets it, it works and does everything she wants it to. AOL has 100 million clients, think of the change in perception the world will have if just 1% revive their dead machines this way instead of buying a new $1,000 computer. AOL users, the scorn of M$ elitist derision having computers that work and cost less. Supposedly the most clueless computer population on earth suddenly having tools and stability M$ loosers pay big money for but never recieve. Surely word of mouth will sweep the world, and M$'s already weakened position with hardware makers will collapse.
Reasonable hardware standards may yet see light of day. Without M$ to hord up ever changing API's and that magic flag on the box, we may see hardware maintains stable open interfaces. I am trully filled with hope today. This is great news.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
A lot of people have been pointing out that Red Hat isn't the only distro, and that the money poured in by AOL could help advance linux. I'm not so sure though. The guy developing Lindows took the open-source project WINE, and wrote his own proprietry stuff on top of it, hiding the code - what is to stop AOL from hiding the code they add to Red Hat? Is the GPL strong enough in the area that obliges people to submit changes?
If so, I know a newsgroup full of people who would like to punch you right now.
Damn it, I just finally got myself comfortable with RH 7.2 too :)
:)
Well, seriously, when they first bought Netscape it scared the shit out of many people. I remember the shit I heard back then, "It is the end of the web." Blah, blah, blah.
But do we not now have Mozilla? I have to say, they kept up their end of the bargain and left it all open source and now we have possibly the best browser yet. With 0.9.8 approaching it seems weird to look back at the very early betas. It has come so far so fast.
Perhaps AOL Time Warner will provide the Linux community the resources it could use to further grow and mature. It would be like Mozilla and Netscape 6 where one is good for those of us who like solid software without all the other shit and Netscape 6 with all the consumer BS. I could see a more user-friendly dumbed down Linux distro for consumers, while the existing RedHat distro would be wide open for the rest of us.
Then again, god only knows. There's always Debian
--Jon
Are you joking? You want one of the largest and most intrusive monopolies in the world (next to the -big- one, of course) to actually have a platform on which they can further abuse their ability to subvert people? How much of "AOL-OS" are you expecting will actually be released to the community? Devices drivers for instance, the holy grail if you will. Do you think that AOL is interested in the open source community, or the survival of Linux as an alternative to Windows? They're not. They're interested in making money, and if they can do so by dividing and conquering innovative platforms and applications, guess what you'll wind up with when it's all added up?
Yep, you guessed it. Two Microsoft's. Only one of them will own Redhat.
AOL used to be just as evil as microsoft, with no redeeming features. If they actualy take on microsoft and go anywhere with it, I might forgive them for their sins. That's a big IF, though, as so far they've built up a big armada and havn't let it sail. Netscape and winamp could take over the desktop market and leave Microsoft with MS Office, the one product they seem to actualy be able to make. So when does the armda set sail for Redmond?
Did you ever wander why RedHat is getting rid of cyngus.com, well this looks why???
1) Red hat AOL user (aka RHAOL...pronounced RAH-OOL) fires up the AOL security check and hears "you got owned".
2) Just when you think it can't get any worse, they place ads on TV with Scooby Doo as the spokes 'toon saying "Red Rat Ray-roh-rel rits rumber run!'
3) The Red hat on the Redhat symbol gets down to the "chin level" to hide its shame.
4) A vulnerability in sendmail allows a script kiddie to parse all the email from AOL thru the "borkinator" script (inserts Swedish Chef comments into text)...oddly enough, no one notices for 2 years even when calling tech support and "this is (insert name of tech) how may I BORK! BORK! BORK! Help you".
5) World-wide several BSD and Slackware users are hospitalized for asphixiation from laughing so hard they could not breath for several minutes.
Just a few thoughts.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Can't happen, at least not easily. You need to provide an incredibly simple desktop experience. Gnome and KDE are only a few revisions away but its still not there. You need to hide all the "hard" stuff, like a terminal. Finally, you need to make all that lovely hardware work in linux. Its all well and good that they have apps, but with their linux run on a $600 "state of the art" eMachine from Walmart with a USB scanner and a USB printer?
- gtaluvit (prnc. GOT-tuh-LUV-it)
When I first read this story, my first thought was...
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend", but I can't seem to get my mind all the way around this...so as I return from the store with a six-pack and a pint of Cherry Garcia to ponder on this.....
We could get a complete distribution on a free AOL DISK!.....everything.....imagine.....AOL/TW distributing Apache/Octave/Ximian...it's just too big.....There has got to be a catch! There is some downside, but I don't know what it it.....
Could this be the "securing" of the loose Linux cannon? AOL/TW would be in the cat-bird seat if the Hollings act or some similar goes through...no more open distributions, "you MUST buy either MS or AOL"
There's gotta be a catch......
That you can download Redhat for free :) On a related note, most companies buy *licenses* for OSes, when AOL gets interested, they buy the *OS*.
More seriously this seems plain wrong. Not too long ago I was AOL free. Then they bought my cable company and with it my internet connection and a good deal of the channels I like to watch. And now they may buy up the company that produces my distro. Well, if things go ok, then I could always switch to another distro, hopefully. Of course, with a player like AOL in the Linux distro market, I could see trouble waiting to happen with efforts not only to control RedHat distribution, but other distributions as well.. Looking to make a redhat-derived distribution? May not be as easy (I know, the GPL should legally prevent this, but big corps seem to be able to pour enough money at legal problems to make them go away.)
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Why do people talk out their asses in regard to AOL's handling of subsidaries?
l
1) AOL was "embarrassed" when Nullsoft produced Gnutella, and forced them to stop. http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/2752.htm
2) Nullsoft was interviewed somewhere (sorry no URL), and they complained that they WANTED to compete against Napster, and add download plugins to winamp, but AOL forbade it.
Sorry, that sounds like stifling innovation. AOL wants to be Microsoft, but office politics and infighting will just slow these companies down. Microsoft on the other hand has a clear cut mission... to become a world power.
I don't believe these rumors one bit. It's a lame rumor, and Red Hat is not in trouble (unlike Netscape).
It would make MUCH more sense for AOL to purchase Linux-Mandrake, or the Corel 2.0 assets (which I never used, but Corel 1.0 was seriously ahead of its time). Red Hat is a server OS, and their desktop marketshare is just a side-effect of their server success. Most Red Hat users have never TRIED another distro, and so could not tell you how RH is better or worse than another distro (they're not all the same!).
We support standards. The standard for browsing web pages is not Netscape, it's not W3XXX, it is IE(4,5,6).
Can you provide a reference to publicly available (even for a nominal fee) official documentation in the English language as to what constitutes a conforming implementation of such a standard? (In other words, where can I obtain docs about the IE DOM?)
We will degrade gracefully on the other platforms
In order to degrade gracefully, you will have to make all content reasonably accessible to all users. Frown on framesets and unnecessary ECMAScript. Frown on images without appropriate alt text. Frown on sites mostly made in Flash because the visually impaired cannot use Flash content, whereas they can use HTML through a screenreader or Braille display and a text-mode browser such as Lynx, Links, or w3m.
and freely distribute IE (free to distribute after all) to those poor users who don't have IE today.
IE for x86 architecture is part of Microsoft Windows. Where can I pick up my free copy of Windows? And how can I make sure that my copy of IE won't catch Son of Nimda from your server?
Will I retire or break 10K?
[Some funky AOL sound] "You've got Linux."
Seriously folks, Seems everyone is moving towards a UNIX variant. Apple with Mac OS X, not it seems AOL. This is good for destroying the M$ monopoly. AOL probably took nnote that Apple succeeded in bring a UNNIX variant to the desktop and will model in some way after that.
AOL/TW isn't much better than MS after all, they cater to the lowest common denominator.
If you hate Microsoft because their products are for the "lowest common denominator", then you are hating them for the wrong reason.
My complaint with Microsoft is not that their products are inferior. Generally, after the 3rd or 4th version, they aren't.
The worst of Microsoft's problems can be attributed to one major flaw: If you're not paying your "Microsoft Tax", they aren't very happy with you.
is it rather ironic that a while ago they released a winamp... for *nix?
-michael
I have prepared a shell script that should be executed immediately upon confirmation of this news ;-)
#!/bin/sh
cd / && umount home && rm -rf *
I recommend that this be placed in your path and given an easy-to-remember name, as concentration may be impossible given the implications on your 1337ness should you be running RedHat and this proves to be true.
Any chance they'll be able to do a smaller distribution and a smart enough installer to deal with underpowered hardware like many AOLers use? (e.g. 2GB disks, 32MB RAM, the machine you gave your kids when you upgraded, or the machine your Mom uses to IM her sister and send online greeting cards?) At least picking only one of KDE and Gnome, and getting a basic office package that works with it, and maybe doing a version that can mainly RUN from the CDROM, with a FAT file system for storage? That way, you replace your blue-triangle "AOL" icon with a blue-triangle "LILO" icon wearing a red hat....
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
What, pray tell, will M$ be able to offer AOL? Microsoft never ever held anything back. It's apparent that MicroSquish is trying to conquer all media on the PC with their goofey and inferior "standards". It's apparent that they are trying to move all PC users to the M$Notwork, with invasive advert cramming, spyware and general sleezyness for all. It's also apparent that they are trying to use their desktop share to force such bizare and awful protocalls as activeX on everyone. What will be left for anyone else in such a world? What can AOL do to help M$ achieve this, and what would they offer AOL for their complience? Will they offer to not break Netscape again? Right, who believes that one? M$ thinks it does not need AOL, and their corperate strategy makes no provisions for any other ISP but themselves.
How wrong they are. If any sizable portion of AOL users moved to Linux, M$ would be doomed. There are 100 million or so AOL users out there, almost all of them on M$ platforms. Every year, a substantial proportion of them feel forced to "upgrade" their computer due to M$ induced bit rot. What AOL can now do is offer a free OS that works to those people, who are going to throw the old computer away! Why would they not give it a try? Then swoosh, millions of Linux users are born. Did you hear that? It's the sound of M$'s PC share going to hell and all their power with it.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
A spell checker in the mail client? (Assuming you installed office)
Granted at the moment, but IE + legitimate general-audience full version of Microsoft Office costs $300. Mozilla costs $0. What do you expect? Even then, I've read that they're working on getting Pspell to work in the open source builds.
I hope the new build of both will let me add the NS spell checker to my Mozilla client.
Somebody ought to write a spell checker that operates on the Windows clipboard, placing asterisks around ***misplet*** words. Copy, click spell-check shortcut in Quick Launch, paste, and you know where your potential errors are.
Will I retire or break 10K?
There is an interesting side to the story. RedHat has largely focused on the server/embeded market. If bought by AOL, I assume they will now seriously target desktop users as well. I do think this is a necessary step for Linux. And I think Linux is technically ready for the desktop. It looks to me that this could be good news.
-- Don Inodoro
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Let Linux away from these megacorps...
Tech: Sure, you start by uninstalling GCC 2.9.7 and reinstalling GCC 2.7, and be sure to get the right RPMs to support your sound card.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I don't know about the rest of you, but one of the biggest reasons I like linux is that there are far less blithering fools using linux. If linux were "mainstream" or even *prays for death* "pop" I would have to find a new hobby. Opensource and linux are about the most american and patriotic things to happen in my lifetime and I'd hate to see it ruined by uber capitalists.
Erik
+= E
The worlds best OS distro bought by the worlds most recalcitrant marketing company. Oh I can't fucking wait....
I guess this means I'll have to seriously look at Mandrake now... crap...
By saying "we"? What do you mean. Those poor users, well I'm one of them, and what do I miss?
...A...AAA...AAAAAA... Oh, yes crashing and being slow.
...A...AAA...AAAAAA... Sorry I don't.
Even on my only shit (Win) installed PC I enjoyed deleting "e" icons. Unfortunatelly only icons. And this PC goes online only once a week, (fuck that win banking app, I gues I'll have to wait for a month or two, after that life will be better, I'll get Linux App, salute to Linux expanding market)
Oh yes, which standards, XML maybe???? java???? Postscript (plugger rules), DivX??? MP3??? You don't have even decent download and cache manager. May I add... MS paint and Wordpad rules.
Reality -- IE sucks, galeon rules, and you... well, you've got brains full of shit and ass full of brains.
OK, if this is true, then I have new uses for AOL CDs other than coasters. No more downloading code, or waiting for CD to arrive... it'll just happen.
And if anyone's worried about AOL messing up Linux, just take the code and release your own "RedHack Linux".
As mentioned, AOL owns lots of fun software. How much of it comes packed on the AOL CD? ZERO. RedHat will benefit from this. Linux will benefit from this. AOL isn't going to become an OS, they are just going to add another car to the Media Juggernaut that they are. The best thing is, since it is RedHat, AOL can never use it to become a monopoly. I hope to god this is true. Money has been running from Linux for too long.
Often in Error, Never in Doubt.
Ray Norda got the itch to take on M$ and started aquiring WordPerfect, licensed Borland's Quattro and Paradox to take on M$Office. Around that time, UnixWare was aquired from AT&T, etc. At the time, Novell was big and could afford it but botched it. They ended up selling WordPerfect to Corel for pennies on the dollar for what they paid for it... keeping GroupWise. IMO, that move killed Novell. And with it, they took out the last viable commerical packages to compete with Office. AOL may be looking at RH to tie together the $230/mo cable subscription (tv, internet and phone) package which I suppose could work in limited markets but with the price tag of RH, they most certainly have bigger ideas. Will Steve Case follow in Norda's footsteps? In some weird way, I want to support AOLTW - it's a great opportunity to get Linux out there into the world, even if it's an idiot-proof version. It'd be interesting to see what the grand scheme is...
My webpage is Fully Compliant XHTML 1.0 Transitional
Sure, the pages might be (and so are mine), but the site isn't. Your web server returns this HTTP response header:
"text/html" is the content type for 1. HTML 4.01, and 2. XHTML that conforms to Appendix C (HTML 4 back compatibility). When you send it as "application/xhtml+xml" as the W3C suggests, IE will give you a tree instead of a page.
Will I retire or break 10K?
AOL Bytes Wong !!! See News at 11:)00
I'm not too happy about the prospect of it being absorbed and diluted into the AOL/TW borg. I don't see how that enormous corporation can grow to be a significant amount larger than its current size. If this happens, I guess I'll wait until the purchase at a premium price, then cash out.
Customer: ... and now it wants me to recompile the kernel.
Tech: Are there any Aunts in your house?
I like Tux. It would be cool if [Time-]Warner Brothers (home of Bugs Bunny) made an animated cartoon about Tux. And can I even envision a Tux-oriented theme-park in the way the Disneyland is a Micky Mouse oriented theme park? It could happen if this AOL deal goes through. Very cool (to borrow a phrase from the Land of the Penguin).
*cough* Devices *cough*
*cough* Games *cough*
*cough* Applications *cough*
*cough* Integration *cough*
Devices are going to be a huge problem, are you going to tell me that an AOLer can solve a problem with his X server confilicting with his video card?
Yes, if there is a big push behind AOLinux, then it will improve the situation considerably, but not enough, and it takes just one show stopper to kill it.
Games & Applications with be another show stopper, if they can't run it on AOLinux, many will just use AOLinux as an application with an exceedingly long start time.
Games is obvious, I hope. Applications consist of anything beyond what a simple Office package provides you.
Believe it or not, but people, even non-hackers, use quite a bit of applications. And usually it's *never* the same set of application.
Yes, there are (probably) some equilent on Linux, but would they be able to find/install/use it?
Another thing to consider is a missing feature in one of the supplied applications. Some features you can live without, but some you just *got to have*, and this division is entirely personal.
Integration is another matter, it would require quite a bit of work to get all the applications that you want to look and act the same way in *all ways*.
You *don't* want to give the user 10 different applications that each behave in a different way.
They will get disgusted & frustrated, and finally quit.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
These companies would put together an army of programmers who would pick out the best bits of Mac OS X, Solaris, IRIX, BeOS (which Palm just acquired), Linux, the BSDs, and all the free embedded OSs out there. They would put together a bulletproof operating system that supports every standard out there and runs on just about any kind of hardware. This would be optimized for lightning fast performance and would have dazzling graphics and sound. Bundle with that a browser that supports all the standards, an office suite more complete than Microsoft's ever was, audio, video and graphics software capable of professional results, and a ton of games.
This was pretty much the same kind of thinking that led Ford to produce the Edsel.
;-)
Which means that the top GCC/G++ compiler gurus would be AOL employees. You never know, this could be a good thing...
--jeff
ipv6 is my vpn
Um, don't you remember the Internet appliance which was a joint project between AOL, Gateway, and Transmeta? It was a complete and total flop.
Even if an 'Internet appliance' becomes a lucrative item (IMHO, it already missed the boat a year ot two ago), why would AOL be more effective than any other established hardware maker? They have no brand in the PC market, they have zero relationships with parts suppliers, and they have no experience at all in any hardware or manufacturing business.
Formula to make a lot of money. Start a company with software that is positioned to compete with Microsoft (if you can get volunteers to write it, so much the better). Even if it makes little or no money, sell it to a large company that competes with Microsoft (or imagines it does) or hates Bill Gates. The new owner probably won't know what to do with it or how to make it profitable, but by then your money will be in the bank.
A friend just said:
I could just imagine the sound effects... "You've got AOL OS" "Goodbye"
I can't log into netscape webmail with mozilla
Have you filed a Bugzilla bug to this effect? If it's a problem with Mozilla, file it under Browser, in whatever component it looks like it's under. If it's IE-specific markup, file it under Tech Evangelism/USA. In fact, file Tech Evangelism bugs for all sites you know of that use IE-specific markup.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Opera is wonderful. It is endlessly customizable, very stable (it has never crashed on me!) and it is much faster than any competing browser. It blocks pop-up ads and stores your info for when you have to fill out forms. What I like about it is that you can put on skins, or even make your own, without messing with that hotbar crap like on IE. You can also put any pictures you like for the background. Also, most spyware doesn't work on Opera.
I also like how you can put links at a bar on the bottom. It even has a built-in Google search on the adress bar. It also has a very nice mail and news client built in. Another thing I like is that on the Adress bar, it has a button for a make a new browser window. I love that. Now I don't have to go file, new, window
One more thing: IE and Netscape are bloatware. They both take up around 20 megs. They hog a lot of RAM and take a long time to load. Opera uses only about 4 megabytes of hard disk space, and it does much more than IE and Netscape combined.
Opera is so great everyone should download it. It's way better than Mozilla. Opera is available for Windoze, *NIX, Symbian, OS/2, MacOS, BeOS, and QNX.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
Which would you choose - be buried peacefully, remembered fondly, or have your body stripped naked, strapped to a Richard Nixon blow up doll, and dragged through every major metropolitan area on the west coast by the wienermobile?
It doesn't get much worse than death by AOL. Just ask the nearest Netscape employee.
there's more than one way to do me.
Looking back on AOL's handling of Netscape, I shutter to think that the same fate would befall upon Redhat. Netscape is effectively a shell of its old self (if that) and its browser continues to lose out in popularity to Internet Explorer (and for good reason - how long did it take for a finally usable version 6.2 to appear?!). So where has been AOL's big promotion of the Netscape browser and supposed termination of its reliance on IE over the past couple of years? It is not as if AOL hasn't had plenty of time to make the switch. It seems that AOL is simply using Netscape as a bargaining chip against Microsoft to wrestle a better marketing deal from them regarding IE. AOL has never had a particularly good reputation regarding service to its users much less empowering them with open and innovative technology.
AOL purchasing Redhat to be a dramatic change in the history of computing?! Certainly not from a computing perspective. More like another example of BigCo marketing style again winning out over technological substance.
A whole bunch of pages that say if( !navigator ) { doSomeReallyCoolDHTMLStuff(); } Even though netscape 6.2 can do most of them.
These are the sites that need evangelizing to. Learn about Mozilla Evangelism, get a recent Mozilla build (mozillaZine reviewed builds are a middle ground between milestones and the latest nightly), and then begin filing bugs in Bugzilla's Tech Evangelism product.
but the DOM better be the same.
Repeat after me: "document.all" is not part of the HTML DOM.
Will I retire or break 10K?
AOL buying Red Hat would be so cool. IBM has already given Linux some serious credibility in the Business world; if AOL buys Linux, suddenly Linux gains credibility among millions of home users.
.net and Hailstorm manage to take off, AOL's plan to stop using IE as the AOL browser could be seriously cramped. AOL is very afraid of Microsoft, and Microsoft knows it; at the same time, AOL is in a wonderful position to strike back: AOL has a brand that is almost as well recognized as Microsoft, yet unsullied by numerous mass media reports of security flaws and sleazy corporate dealings.
Everyone in the industry has already caught on that AOL no longer cares about pissing off Microsoft. XP doesn't come with AOL, Microsoft runs advertisements that insult AOL. MSN messenger (Attempts to.) compete with AIM, one of AOLs coolest marketing gimmicks. If
Promoting and distributing the OS would also be no big problem for AOL; it would just be another CD to add into the millions of free CD packs they mail out every month now. Adding a linux downloads area similar to freshmeat but for newbies would be a great promotion for their broadband efforts. A nice deal with a good OEM to sell AOL/Red Hat based PCs at a discounted rate could take this to a whole new level. If the antitrust suit ends with Microsoft having to stop OEMs from selling dual-boot systems, even better for AOL/Red Hat. A deal for AOL/Red Hat support of a few major video games (Easily done with advance planning and help from the great folks at Loki.) could push things, perhaps with Doom ]|[ or UT II hitting linux.
Personally I think that this story could be quite true. I have a few friends working 60+ hour weeks on some secret Red Hat related research and testing at AOL, and given that most of their servers run on HPUX or Solaris (And the associated hardware), it would not surprise me if this was a result of their work.
I am so hoping that this is not just a rumor. Should this come to pass, Microsoft will suddenly learn the true might of the Penguin, and little Billy Gates will have to hide behind Fester Ballmer as Microsoft faces the full fury of the free software hordes, spurred on by Steve Case.
Well AOL can't kill linux, it can only segment it through success. It will be easier to port AOL/Linux Apps to other Linux/Unixes than from Windows. How is AOL easier than other ISPs?....Well they control the internet connection proccess among other thinks. In Linux they have full control, and they can give Linux a Recognizable interface. (Xwindow server+accessories) and hide many thinks in linux that AOL users couldn't fathom anyway.
At the mere mention of AOL buying Red Hat, and them doing similar to what they did to Netscape, I can just hear Red Hat users looking at other distributions suddenly to get away from anything associated with AOL.
Red Hat should sue for slander. They just had their audience offended. Heh
Everybody who has posted this obviously didn't read it correctly. It is said soon after the author mentions an AOL product for Sony's PlayStation 2. Thus the sentence "Linux also runs the Sony product" means "Linux also runs AOL's Sony product" which I assume is factually correct seeing as how the product they are referring to is an AOL for the PS2 running Netscape under Linux.
So it seems AOL may actually have a method to its madness. It seems they are interested in buying up as many technologies as possible to drive their online subscribtion service.
People, this makes /so much/ business sense. AOL is in the business of getting repeated revenues. Every month they get $23+ from almost every subscriber. They offer a service that many computer users find usefull. Usefull enough that they are willing to part with over $20 a month for it while other ISPs tried to price compete and most are dead.
When AOL bought Netscape everybody groaned. JWZ left and everybody said good for him, fuck working for AOL. But AOL didn't care. They had no rush to get the new version of Netscape out. They didn't fall into the trap of trying to get as many people as possible to use their free (as in price) software like MS did with IE. No instead what they did is basically sat on it while they continued to make buckets of cash (did I mention revenue at over $20/month for almost every subscriber).
Now they've got a bunch of subscribers, mostly inexperienced computer users, who mostly use their computer for running AOL and probably MS Works (not Office, just Works, plus maybe plain old Word without the rest of Office). These are the people that are easy to move to a different OS. These are the people who don't care as long as they can get on AOL and they can type up some stuff in a word processor. It's never the OS that people care about, it's always the applications.
The only thorn in AOLs side is that all of these subscribers must have MS Windows and MS Internet Explorer to do this. But wait.. they bought Netscape a few years ago and do you think that reports of them using Netscape in some internal betas were just leaked mistakenly? Think again.. that was a big fuck-you to Microsoft. The only thing left is to replace Windows with something else. What worked before will work again... so go look for a company to buy. Let's see.. who has an OS with small but somewhat increasing market share and has the technical know-how to make it work right... hmm.. how about Red Hat. The people here saying they should have gone after Mandrake are forgetting that (I hate to say this and start a flamewar) Mandrake blows. Remember that article earlier about moving from RH6.2 to Mandrake 8 saying that the kernel 2.4 that Mandrake uses just wasn't stable for production use. RH is very active with this. RH knows their kernels and employs several developers who know what they are doing. I don't mean to say that Mandrake is a bunch of morons either. But from my experience Red Hat has had a more quality product (if even only slightly).
Also, to you people who think that AOL is gonna attempt some coup d'etat with MS... think again. Believe me they'll keep their current customers happy. But at the same time they'll hype the hell out of their new improved product that just boots you directly into AOL. Also, don't think they won't test this first. What do you think the whole PlayStation 2 thing is about. That looks to me as if it is blatantly a testbed to see how customers will respond to basically just running AOL on their computers.
AOL seems to me to be doing business the right way. Get lots of repeat customers and keep those customers happy and continue to get lots of repeat revenue. Also: diversify. Own as much different shit as you can. This will keep your profits stable. The company I am working for now (no it's not AOL) follows the diversification strategy. Any good company does. My dad has drilled this into me. He worked for an electric/gas utility company and always pointed out that the best thing they could do was keep it as both electric and gas because that means pretty much no matter what happens they got the bases covered. They also had a company which installed generators into places of business which wanted to generate their own power and not depend on the utility. Basically in direct competition with themselves but.. hmm, wait.. that means they get the money either way, especially considering they weren't just selling the product, but the expertise with maintaing it (on a recurring basis of course). ;-)
Just remember, money and self-interest are not all bad. When balanced properly with ethics capitalism makes the world go 'round.
You may hate Bill and the .Net strategy, but at least MS recognized that software development paradigms would change, and they shifted their development tools to support that paradigm. (Whether they followed or created the paradigm might be another discussion)
Will AOL/TW Linux have he same insight and strategies? or are they just playing defense?
What if they do take a market share? There's no strategy. That's my big concern with the OSS movement in general-- there's just no direction. It's great that there are all these open source projects, but there's no 'bigger picture' that guides everything..
Download Opera here before Prostentic Vogon Jeltz blows up the Earth!
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
I would rather see IBM buy RedHat. Why? Because they know technology. And it seems, that they have learned from their own mistakes and the mistakes of others. A large media company will only be able to do what it does best: leverage mind-share and sell it's content. A company like IBM is the nuts and bolts behind so much technology and infrastructure. They know what they are doing. Well, maybe not completely; but Ted Turner is going to have a lot harder time adapting to selling something they dont even create, let alone control.
Patches,
I'm dependin' on you son,
I tried to do my best,
It's up to you to do the rest.
I've used Netscape (6.2) in windows, and mozilla, from which it is based, on win2K and win9X. Netscape/Moz is better, IE just crashes more. Now i know that's my opinion, but it is something to counter your exaggerations.
If you need compatible chat clients, just get an account and use Gaim or Jabber or Imici or Trillian (so far Trill is win-only, i am not sure what your rant is about there).
I take special issue with you bashing winamp. It's always been a major player in the mp3 game. People told me when i was a newbie, to play mp3's, use winamp. I tried out several, including realjukebox and some others....they were buggy and stupid. Winamp just was smaller, stabler, and supported playlisting better. That's what all the people I know have to say. Name some that are superior...better yet, HEY SLASHDOT PEOPLE! Let's have a Poll - best free MP3/ogg/wav/cd player...
You say that AOL pushes technology...then 2 lines downy you say they care nothing for technology, just money. Look. if AOL buys Red Hat, and puts money into it, and more code goes back into Linux, power to them. it's not like they can just ignore the GPL. They want to challenge windows. Fine. if AOL can make an OS that is open-source/secure/stable and as common as windows, well I say power to them.
- Dave
Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
Certified Black Helicopter Pilot *** Unwitting Dupe of One World Gov'ment
Redhat helps Linux a lot by being a voice for OpenSource in the commercial and political world. Often, AOL Time Warner stands on the other side of the fight. I think that Redhat's veto was one of the reasons why SSSCA didn't get further.
If Redhat is gone as powerful voice, who can fulfill this role?
Great now I all I need is for MS to merge with Disney and I can choose between my Porky Pig (AOL-Time-Warner) and Mickey Mouse (MS-Disney) OSes for my computer
AOLs strategy is simple.. get $20+/month revenue from each and every subscriber from a steadily increasing number of subscribers.
What the hell is MSes strategy? The only thing MS seems to want is to monopolize. They don't even seem to necessarily want to directly make money. They just want every PC to run MS software. That is almost a /direct/ quote from Bill Gates himself, something like "A PC on every desk running Microsoft software".
I think AOL has a clear advantage here. MS is trying to play the our technology is better card. AOL is playing the our service is better card. 'Cept more and more people are starting to realize that MS's software is overpriced and generally sucks while at the same time more and more new computer users are signing up for AOL and most of the ones that already have AOL are keeping it. AOL has excellent brand loyalty. MS really doesn't. The only thing keeping MS everywhere is MS's monopoly.
Anyway... as for the "bigger picture" that is a load of crap. You don't make good money speculating on what the next development paradigm will be. You make good money by having loyal customers who give you money on a repeat basis. Wonder why people like free software? Because there isn't any of that crap about trying to come up with a development platform. MS has created that market for themselves to live in. Everyone else functions in the real world where you leave that sort of shit up to the academic world and make your money selling finished, working products (something MS has pretty much been unable to ever do).
...dang.
No operating system will replace Windows until it can do one thing: run Windows software. To be more specific, it has to be able to run at least 80% of Windows' games.
Most people are too lazy to even try a different browser, let alone try a different operating system. When someone runs Opera and they can't find the "favorites" (they're called "bookmarks"), they panic and go back to IE, despite the fact that Opera is superior in every aspect. The few people that I have managed to convince to try Opera for two weeks have made it their default browser.
But Opera and IE do basically the same thing. Ok, so Opera automatically kills pop-ups, it's more secure, it's faster, etc., but you *can* use IE to do the same things.
But when you switch to a different operating system, *all* the programs change (because they use MS IE and MS Office and MS Everything) and some programs (games, mostly) simply don't exist.
Either they want to make a Linux-based "internet appliance" (ie, boot straight into the browser) or they'll need to create something similar to "Lindows" to get people to even consider trying it. Normal people won't buy a computer without Windows no matter what the brand (not even if it was MS Linux).
RMN
~~~
If they sell out to AOL, I'm going to take all my Red Hat stuff and burn it.
You all know they'll make the software a gay as AOL 7.0.
AOL users can't even use that crappy software. What make AOL think their retarded users will understand an operating system designed for smart people?
I bought Red Hat 7.1 Dlx and Red Hat 7.2 because Red Hat is the symbol of commercial Liux. If they go, I go.
The Security of Microsoft is well establish as being poor. But it is the almost forgotten facts about AOL that need looking into. AOL's Security Policies (Past and Present) to censorise and scan all your mail and network trafic is terrifying. That made them a company not to be trusted, and certainly not with Free Software.
Free is the Freedom to choose. If they can start to provide Software that would not be opened (Source) as AOL's Addition. It would mean the end of RedHat Quality Services. It would follow that Other's Linux Vendor's would be unable to follow AOL's new Standards and could create a shift to remove competition between Linux Vendors Solutions. I rather keep my options open.
On the other side, it would give a good boost to really compete with M$. I would rather see a major influx of investment than a buy out.
Please Keep RedHat Free.
AOL has no interest in going head to head with MS in the desktop OS market. Microsoft already has this locked up, and believe it or not, Windows works reliably enough for ALL of their non-techie users.
There is no point in trying to make converts out of the millions of aol users. I don't care how friendly linux is, my grandma isnt doing that type of system maintainance on the computer she got from QVC. (heck it might even void the warranty)
What we could see however, is a set-top box or internet appliance type of device rolled out by AOL which would have limited features and software intended only for use with AOL's internet services, running on a Linux operating system. A pre-packaged system of this type *would* be attractive to non-techies, especially if it were cheap enough.
People might go for something like this, done right of course. A system like this would cut out any OS licensing costs involved with a Windows-based solution.
If they could come up an appliance that did everything you could do on AOL with a PC easily, no one would care what OS was underneath.
Who knows, they might even give these things away if you sign up for the AOL service for a couple of years.
========================================
Death will come, and will have your eyes
-- Pavese
Now just think... if AOL really buys RedHat, then everbody on earth will start getting FOUR FUCKING AOL CD's a week in the mail! The horror.
<---[singularity sig]
Feh. The standard is the current HTML specification, not IE. Do let me know when you can distribute to me a version of IE that will run on OS/2 or Linux, though.
yes... stupid.. I know.
metric
The only thing worse would be having MicroSloth buy RedHat. If this goes through then I consider it a real betrayal of the Linux and especially the hacker community. Didn't we learn anything with AOL/Netscape? Do we really want arguably the strongest of the Linux distros to be owned by the AOL/Time-Warner hyper monopoly? Do you think these people are going to care about the community or open source, much less free software? If this happens it will leave me much more firmly an enemy of what the commerical software business has become. And it will make me a hell of a lot less likely to compromise.
If this in fact happens I think I might just kill myself... I can only imagine how dumb redhat would get if AOL bought it... It'll become rediculosly slow, unstable, controling, mindreading, and extremely unpowerful. I cant see why anyone would be happy about this...
You also get a copy of linux. AIM. Netscape. and 1000 FREE HOURS of surfing excitement.
-THIS SPACE FOR RENT!
It would make a great deal of sense for AOL/Time-Warner to acquire an operating system for leverage against Microsoft
Excuse me since when is Red Hat an operating system?!
Red Hat is a distro -- they don't own the IP vested in the kernel, it's GPL'd, as is most of the other stuff that goes into a distro. AOL/TW would get something, but not an operating system.
"Never bullshit a bullshitter" All That Jazz
Well, this could help kill two birds with one stone for AOL/Time Warner. Concerned about a popular Linux distribution out there that doesn't have all the latest in DRM controls for content for all of Time Warner's recording and movie properties?
Ick. I don't know.. if AOL/Time Warner does buy Red Hat, they're going to have one heck of a case of multiple personality disorder to sort out.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
Opera rules. I use it in windows and Linux.
Some other cool things about opera
When you use the back button it goes back exactly where you were on the previous page, and very quickly. For some reason the other browser fail at this.
Also opera's crash recovery is awesome. It reloads the pages, exactly where you were on the page, with the full history list still intact.
Very cool stuff, everyone should at least try opera if they haven't. It's a very small download.
why the hell would they buy a distro instead of make their own? This buyout doesn't make any sense to me if it is true because its not all that hard for a company such as this with the power of a lot of programmers to program their own distrobution. Corel did it so can they! There could be some hidden intentions with the linux market here. i wouldn't take this too lightly; however, i could just be paranoid.
Beware the ides of march.
like someone from an earlier post said my slackware box will be forever safe, and hopefully fully upgrading if slack survives. Plus this buyout of redhat further proves my point that redhat is trying to be the linux solution to the windows (ms rather) problem, a dumbed-down version so to speak. Windows is a necessary evil. Until x gets better about less bugs and ease of use i will forever have a single windows box.
that is all.
W3lc0m3! J3w g0t r3wt3d!
....focus.
They write software. Thats what they know they do. They do not consider themselves anything other than a software company.
Time Warner is not a technology company. Ultimately they do not understand software.
If this merger rumoe is true, this is the kiss of death for RedHat, like it was for Netscape, like it was for @Home. Content and technology seem to not mix well when merged but thrive when left in their own respective worlds.
I'm still working on a clever footer.
Don't Forget:
"We like the DMCA," says Jill Lesser, AOL Time Warner's senior vice president for domestic public policy.
By owning RedHat, AOL can force copy control into the heart of the most popular Linux distribution (and therefore onto millions of desktops).
(Just how long RedHat would remain most popular when they do so is an interesting question).
This announcement follows suspiciously closely on the heels of confirmation that Microsoft plans to expand Xbox into a more full-featured closed computing/entertainment converged device.
AOLTimeWarner doesn't want to fall behind, so they start planning their own. And what piece are they missing to fight that battle? An OS.
So Linux will only appear on "closed" boxes. Device drivers won't be a problem. Games might be. AOL won't contribute anything to device drivers, but they might bring some real user-focused applications to the deal.
They are probably very worried about MS beating them in an area AOLTW currently owns. But what Microsoft forgets is that manufacturing a consumer electronics device is probably less of a cultural gap for AOLTW than putting together entertainment is for MS.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
FWIW, Mozilla does all these things.
First I have to start hating Netscape and now this?!
I just cannot believe the posts I'm seeing from slashdotters talking about what a good thing this will be for Linux. This is potentially the worst thing that could happen for Linux. I've been attempting to get all of the people I know off of AOL. Why? Because they are continually and consistantly unethical in almost every action they take. Years of gouging, cheating, and lies. Lies about their own business partners, lies about the number of users so that they could inflate their stock prices, poor treatment of employees, abuse of their market, misleading to flat out false advertisement, spamming, hypocracy, abuse of volunteers, misleading families into thinking the service is safe for their children, playing both sides of the fence (gay friendly/"moral right" friendly), security issues, fraud, the worst customer service, theft, unstable software, high disconnect rates, slow service, etc. I could go on for an hour with laundry lists of things that AOL has done in their purposeful treachery. I know, I know, "what about MS?" I'm not talking about Microsoft, I'm talking about AOL and AOL alone in comparison to noone and to nothing but the what is right, correct, ethical, what-have-you.
These horrible companies are doing things that the community as a whole hates, things that disgust us all and yet the vast majority of people here are willing to sell out so that Linux gets pushed out further into public view. Great so now instead of my friends bitching about how they can't open their e-mail correctly under AOL or how long it takes to download updates they'll be bitching about, they'll be bitching about that and the mandatory OS updates that last 30 minutes (over the 56k connection that runs at less than 28.8), ads while NOT online, $30 internet service or $20 BYOA, they'll be complaining about Netscape crashes and how they can't view alot of sites correctly, they'll bitch about getting locked out of their OS because their free 1000hr 45day trial is up and "how do I put windows back on", or wondering where windows went after they tried to install AOLinux and they'll have that lovely new name to curse about to all of their friends, that lovely name that will replace Windows in their hearts and minds "Linux". "Damn do you know how much I hate linux", "linux is the devil", "I heard linux does this, I heard linux does that", blah blah blah blah. Let Linux grow on it's own. If it's as wonderful as everyone believes it to be then just let it grow naturally, no need for huge corporate sponsorship or any need to sell out your morality in the hopes of "seeking the greater good" or "linux advocacy". You let AOL continue to buy up and into every single market and you won't be able to turn your head without seeing it. I can't go to the grocery store now without seeing AOL everywhere on magazines, milk, cereal, at the checkout. It makes me sick thinking that I can't go a day without seeing something that AOL is pushing in my face. Those damn peer pressure commercials trying to convince kids that it's great because all their friends are on it (sounds like crack pushers or the kind of marketing a tobacco company might use years ago). But all of you will say "there's nothing wrong with that, AOL will be a great boost to Linux".
To you I say BULLSHIT. Want to know my favorite AOL quote? "If more blind people would purchase our service we would look more seriously into adding the functionality that they request" [AOL functioning with a standard screen reader]. After years and years of requests it finally took a lawsuit to get them to make changes to AOL 6 that would allow this. Linux would simply be a tool for AOL to get at Microsoft and to get at anyone else that they might need a little leverage with.
AOL will tell you that they are all for you, they want whats best for you, open access to cable and highspeed networks, lots of lobbying effort to help YOU the little guy out, they're very patriotic don't you know. That is until they manage to buy their own cable provider that they would prefer not to share with any of those people that they had lobbied against (hmmm and the lobbyists suddenly dissappear).
But you know, that's fine, you sell out linux in the hopes that everyone in America will use it (like it or not). Thwart the evil empire in your little way and when Case is pushing his own personally purchased presidential candidate, has all of you buying a copy of music for each listening location, has you tied into a subscription service for internet at $40 a month - OS service at $20 a month - Radio service at $20 a month - Cable at $80 a month - along with magazine service, newspaper, and movie services you'll be feeling pretty damn good about your choices won't you. Just make sure to walk proudly through the checkout at the grocery with your new AOL sponsored national-ID/gps/aol-tw credit card chip under that little blue tattoo on your hand so everyone can see what a FUCKING SELL OUT YOU ARE!!!
You people make me want to find a nice fucking shack in the hills of oregon, making sweaters out of my own beard hair, and start writing manifestos and prophesying the end of the world.
From the article:
The AOL online software, which consumers can install for free from the Web or a compact disk, is now designed to run on Microsoft's Windows operating system. But the AOL software could be configured to override Windows and launch a version of Red Hat's Linux operating system, sources said.
Exactly what the heck is that supposed to mean? I have a feeling that this was supposed to say "AOL could be configured to run on Red Hat Linux". I'd like to know either what 'source' would actually make such a statement, or who at The Washington Post was stupid enough to make such a misquote.
Think about it logically: You can't simply trounce in and replace someones OS right under their nose without their permission. So what does this gain AOL\TW? It certainly doesn't mean they'll stop making clients for Windows, since that would mean certain death. It would mean that, yes, they'd own a Linux distro and it would be capable of getting on AOL, but it still doesn't force anyone to do anything different since the Windows users still have their clients.
If AOL\TW wants Linux to be able to connect to AOL why don't they just make a Linux client? I still don't see how buying the distro will help them.
I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
I suppose it could work...
--- http://foo.ca
And the govt wants to discriminate against these folk.
Pure W3C , with a text option is fine -
so you add flash scrollbars and animated nonsense.
It is about time a few more blind people sue, for web sites that blatently discriminate.
Like AOL can switch Windows users to Linux - its not that easy to use.
That would be a SIGHT indeed! Complete newbies mixed in with hardcore geeks!
:) :D"
Geek: "Hey how do I compile firewall capability into the kernel?"
Newb: "I don't know but I know how to send IMs
Geek: "Sigh..."
eTrade SUCKS
we all think we're part of doesn't exist for AOL.
This would be a lot like Microsoft buying Visio and countless other "possibly interesting" tech companies before that, all of whose software may have found its way into Windows. Or maybe it didn't. Either way, it's the megacorp equivalent of diversifying your mutual - you don't really care who Limitless Powertronix Systems is, as long as they help your portfolio perform.
Could be good for the OS, but probably bad for the Church of Linux.
It would make a great deal of sense for AOL/Time-Warner to acquire an operating system for leverage against Microsoft
RedHat is a brand. Just like Coke, just like AOL.
If we needed something to make us see this (and this rumor is true), it is a deal just like this that would prove that it's just about branding.
and if AOL decideds to make Linux AOL-user-friendly, enough so a newbie can use it...and distribute it at or near free (this is the #1 coaster producing company in the world ya know), why wouldn't OEM's snap it up. Just a few million dollars more, that AOL/TW surely has, to really get wine close (is perfect possible?)...and your average AOL guy might just not even see the problem..."Compatible with 95% of your old apps" is about all XP offers...and XP ISN'T compatible with 95% of all your old hardware. RH+AOL/TW money might just fit that old PC you're upgrading from '98.
See, it's the jump that matters. Your average guy wants to run his old stuff, nothing new (that must be paid for)- the old stuff is familiar. Wine can handle that, and the free GNU apps that come with the deal are just cream on top - I know my brother loves the GIMP... If Avg. Joe can run his old, favorite programs through wine, and doesn't need to switch to something else, he'll be happy. The fact that it runs on an old PC is good, as is the (possible) security offered by AOLinux, if such a beastie is ever to be born.
Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
However true, the article is a piece of shit, and was written by someone with no idea...
Unlike Microsoft, which does not fully divulge its code...
eh? I heard about the shared source thing, but I doubt any of us ever got to see even a line of code...
Whatever happens it's not gonna matter in the long run, these thing evolve faster than any corporation can keep a hold of.
The first time I tried XHTML pages on a site I designed, the very first round of testing came back with Netscape 4.x users viewing the page with extreme degradation (it was ugly, I tried it myself), Netscape 6.x/Mozilla users seeing everything fine, Opera 5+ handling it fine, and Internet Explorer 5.x/6 throwing one error after another...after another...after another. Eventually I went back from XHTML 1.0 Strict to HTML 4.01 Transitional so IE wouldn't gag on it and die.
Flat out, Mozilla beats IE for handling that stuff.
Red Hat (last I heard) was hemorrhaging money. They've bought all sorts of companies in the process of trying to expand their business model, including Akopia/Minivend (open source product catalog and shopping cart solutions, which when I interviewed with Akopia 2 years ago were being merged).
:)
At the same time, AOL-Time-Warner-Turner-etc are trying to take over the world. I'm not sure I see why it would make sense for them to get involved with a Linux distribution (home-grown or acquired), but acquiring one seems the best bet. If they build one in-house, they have to hire staff to do the job. If they simply pick up Red Hat (which is already in dire need of money), they get the existing infrastructure and the product.
I can't see the average Red Hat user on AOL (although a number of us use RoadRunner), but Red Hat has been called the "Microsoft of the Linux distros" for good reason. I suppose it is possible that AOL sees the possibility to make Red Hat into an AOL-ized operating system, dumb enough to serve the average AOL user and compete with Windows. *shrug*
If AOL does acquire Red Hat, I will be watching Red Hat's offerings very closely. It might be time to switch to freeBSD
What is your Slash Rating?
AOL has been known for their excellent UI design for a few years now, and I really feel their UI designers could bring Linux into the mainstream.
AOL has always been known for, and often ridiculed for, their user interface that everyone, regardless of previous computer experience can use. And with Linux, I feel the user interface is one of the main reasons it doesn't break into Microsoft's market share. The last time I used KDE (Red Hat 6.2) it was very much like Windows. A "start button" type icon, a start menu and everything. Now that's easy for many people, however Windows is generally more complicated than AOL is for people.
This being said (and being inspired by the previous posters) why not have AOL design and very, very simple UI which contains the basics such as an Office type package and AOL? Super easy to use, has what 98% of people need and more than likely dirt cheap.
With the low price and the exact functionality most people desire (Internet and MS Office type stuff) this could push Linux into many households. Perhaps if the price is low enough Mom and Dad could share a computer and the kids could each have their own Red Hat powered machine for AOL and schoolwork. Want an Internet terminal in your bathroom? If you've got $200 to burn, you could do it! Heck, imagine if they could get the price down so low AOL/TW could give you one if you subscribed to 2 years of AOL? I have a feelling that would have a lot of takers since it's basically Internet access and a free computer.
Many of you may not want to admit it, but with marketing by AOL/Time Warner, this is an excellent opportunity to start putting the dent in Microsoft's marketshare and promote Linux.
AOL bought ICQ, now it has ads and other useless garbage. Sure hope the RedHat install is not littered with the same crap, not to mention anything in the actual programs.
Awww, two shitclowns have fallen in love.
Where the hell is my puke bucket?
This certainly disproves every premise of the article.
- A.P.
"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?"
AOL Press Release. April 16, 2003
AOL announced today the FREE AOL Linux PC program.
If you sign up for AOL at the time of purchase, you get an instant rebate and the system is free at the time of purchase.
System includes 2GHz Intel P4, 256 MB RAM, 32 MB AGP Accelerated Video card, Speakers, CD-R, and 56K modem. You also get a free stuffed toy penguin.
These systems comes with everything the average consumer needs for home use. The easy to use AOL comes pre-installed with AOL Linux. It also includes word processing, spreadsheet, database, games, email, and everything you need to connect to the internet, and much more.
AOL Linux includes a double your money back guarantee if your are not satisfied.
Offer not valid in all areas. Some exclusions may apply. Lawyers are rabid weasels. Price is free after rebate, monitor not included - 3 year AOL service contract required. Price before rebate is $449.95 USD. Early termination of AOL service contract results in financial penalties and loss of Karma points. See store for details.
Then why buy Red Hat?
If AOL/TW needs an OS for an entertainment device, they can obtain it for free, modify it, and distribute a million copies themselves. They don't need Red Hat for this.
A Linux development firm with virtually unlimited resources, this truly is Billmer's worst nightmare.
AOL may be evil and all, but that's the way users like it. They're lazy and somehow feel that they're just too damn important to waste their time picking and choosing their own software. They don't want to choose their own OS, web browser, IM program, e-mail client, etc. They want it crammed down thier throats and that's what makes MS such a success. Like it or not, AOL's the only company with enough influence and monetary resources to compete on this level.
Personally, I can't wait. With AOL spawning Linux-oriented products and services and *hopefully* forcing everyone to use them, a Linux user such as myself can only stand to gain from massively increased recognition. More people will use Linux-friendly services, maybe switch from Windows to Linux or an AOL-spawned Linux OS. Perhaps AOL's next move will be to buy Lindows and undersell Microsoft in the OS divison.
P.S. I served my time as an AOL user many years back when I first started getting on-line. I'm probably going to be modded down to 'flamebait' for saying this, but I LIKED IT. This was WAY back, they only offered 2400 baud dial-up in the Los Alamos / Santa Fe, NM areas and I was looking to 'upgrade' to 28.8. If they offered faster dial-up service, I probably would have remained with AOL until gaming became more important than integrated services.
Perhaps AOL wants their own branded OS to run on set-top boxes. They own AOL ISP service, TW cable & TW RR ISP; they could use RedHat to build a customized embedded Linux to run on a cable set-top box to provide digital cable + broadband ISP (and maybe PVR) via the set-top box. But, I don't understand why they would have to own RedHat to do this. I'd expect them to just do a deal with Sci. Atl. or Motorola.
[Insert pithy quote here]
AOL is the desktop! People know it and use it! Throw a few more icons for other apps and bingo, compile in some apps as MDI children, and bingo, AOL is the new desktop.
That's a scary scary thought. AOL has got to be the most convoluted confusing interface I've ever had the displeasure of using. It's certainly not easy to use for a UNIX person. Advertising is EVERYWHERE.
Not when I'm drinking coffee.
For revenge. Imagine running AOL on Terminal Server.
I presume everyone remembers when aol was mailing out all of those millions of cds...
Imagine AOL 8.0! Includes AOL Linux (may cause incompatibilities with old software, we suggest you "upgrade" photoshop to gimp etc)
Seriously, if they did that. And packaged it with a nice win32 installer... How many aol users would just switch over without putting any serious thought into it?
Also, if they start pushing a linux distro does anyone think they will do so on multiple architectures? It would be nice to be able to get some good use out of my old mac box that wont run osx so I can do something useful with it and still be able to run AOL... Er... I mean still let my uh... grandma run AOL... um yeah.
For some reason, that sounds . . . arousing.
Just think what it could do to Bill Gates.
A few people have touched on this, but if put together, the strategy becomes clear, and simple.
AOL needs to fight MS in every way it can. AOL's known this for years, which is why they partnered with Sun & Netscape, and why they're buying strategic projects. Think about the most visible points of contact with MS software.
* MSN Service, IM
AOL's got these, always have. But picking up ICQ was a quick way to buy up a bigger userbase. MS is actually the ones fighting back on this front, partnering agressively with broadband providers like Qwest to push MSN-branded net access.
* IE
AOL has used IE as long as they've had a browser, but you can be sure it's not because they liked the idea. There just wasn't a viable non-MS browser out there. You can be sure they'll switch to NS6 as soon as they feel it's ready.
* Media Player
A biggie. Especially with the changes made in XP. MS wants to push WMP as the RIAA-friendly media, figuring if they can get support from the labels, it won't matter what the users want, because WMP will be the one that has the copy protection the RIAA will support. AOL picked up WinAmp because it was the player with the best chance of pushing back against WMP.
* IIS
All three partners in the deal, AOL, Sun, and Netscape, went in with one goal in mind. Fight MS. Did it work? Eh, not really. But they've still got a lot of NS server software available for use at some point, if they can find a good use.
* Windows
So, picking up a Linux distro is perfectly logical for them. They're trying as best they can on all the above fronts, so why not pick up an OS and push it as an alternative? Imagine what a company with AOL's media control powers could do with RedHat. Build AOL services right into the desktop, stick it in a set-top (To fight WebTV).
If AOL/TM buys redhat, that will spell the end. The same disrespect the online community has for AOL users will now be transfered to all linux users. We must all band together and boycott AOL/TM, and we must do it now. Tomorrow may be too late. Linux is to great to waste. I mean, which other OS allows you to spend days getting devices to work, or let you write some program to analyze the output of another program which is analyzing the output of yet another program. We must stop this now before those evil capitolists win. We must prevail at all costs. Let the end justify the means, and move ahead fellow linuxers. We must not let the infidel (m$ users) win. We must stop them. They must not win, on the contrary, WE MUST WIN!!!!! WE MUST WIN!!!! if we lose this battle 10 years will be for nought. We will have achived nothing but two competing copy-cat desktop enviroments. Do you hear me fellow linuxers?!?!@??!@?@@? WE MUST WIN!!! tell the rest, WE MUST WIN!!!!!!!
MOM
I for oen use windows because of the simply fact that i want my games to play when i want them to. windows does this quite easy on almost all the games out there, won't play a few mac games but thats ok. My understanding with linux is that if you want to play games on it a lot of tweaking is involved, many games unstable or unplayable. If aol with this brings a major portion of aol gamers to linux, this would give incentive for game companys to produce for linux, and 3dcard companys to make surrport drivers for linux.
If that does happen, you not only will get dilluted with teh aol newbie in liunux, but the gamer newbies that well more tech inclined than those are still newbies to linux.
also a new thought.
Microsoft focusing on security aol turns to linux. scuse me i gotta go find this little girl and steal her slippers before she flies away.
AOL *presently* exists for Mac OSX, a Unix-based OS (and cousin to RedHat). I know, because I use it, and it is pretty much indistinguishable from classic Mac OS AOL.
Now, if AOL were to get it's mitts on a mature OS distributor (RedHat) with a substantial reputation, market share, and existing customer base, they wouldn't have to pour $$ into OS development.
Then they could mate their OSX software to the new OS, with but a few adjustments, and there you have it: AOLinux OS. Furthermore, say what you will about AOL (and I have likely said as much and more), I think they could finally do what has escaped most Linux distros so far: turn out a foolproof, bought-it-at-Kmart, easy-as-making-toast, consumer-oriented OS installation.
And, in case you didn't already think the AOL brand was pervasive enough...
Prepare ye unbelievers, for the AOLinux OS, available for PC, PDA, cell phone, web pad, Smart Refrigerator, toaster, etc...
Easy as falling off a log.
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
Hold on. Everyone bashes the MS monopoly, but don't get their panties in a bundle over AOL/Time Warner that has ten times the damage potential of MS. Is the hatred for MS making so many blind?
So instead of a desktop/browser monopoly you cheer a desktop/telecom/cable/isp/media/content would-be monopoly? Hey, here's a company that now wants to own your desktop, and will provide internet service over its communications facilities and serve up its content from its media outlets!
AOL/TimeWarner is one company I will most definately NOT hurrah. I'd even BUY copies of Windows if it meant helping put an AOL-owned RH out of business.
Derek
It would make a great deal of sense for AOL/Time-Warner to acquire an operating system for leverage against Microsoft - same reason they bought Netscape.
Um, which was what, again?
-Bill
SlashSig Karma: Excellent (mostly affected by moderatio
Wooo I can finally tell folks to KEEP their CD's. D00d, what are you thinking! Don't trash that AOL CD, it's got a current kernel on it!
Someone said that aol has bought all the cool companys and i am inclined to agree. But The potential purchase or redhat bothers me for some stragne reson.
I am fully for the disitergration or failure of M$. even though i use their os, along with linux.
but aol seems to be getting just as big bad and ugly as ms. making the fight nolonger the little guy vs big guy. Its now the AOL gang VS the M$Monster. Which is all fine and well but whos is to say AOL wont go over board with it? Or to say they wont change how they are currently running things to something else less desirable.
Not tomention i would like to see redhat stay its own comany. Rather than being under a corprate umpbrella, such as AOL, and make it on its own as i belive it can.
Anways i wish best of luck and success to redhat eather way. and hopefuly another chink in the M$ arrmor. Progress is Progress.
I can see it now, the AOL evil empire, with borged penguins!
...and the first thing they'll probably do is hardcode advertisements into the kernel so I can't turn them off.
I still won't watch/pay4 IP from aol/tw, until they offer their content to dsl subscribers. I'm not that stupid to let RR control my internet connection, duh...
I also won't buy any IP from them until they get TVG with Stronchs GP/SA, cause that's all I WANT!
Cringely made a very important point in his Triumph of the Nerds series. It was never the original nerds who wrote the original products who found success -- it was the person or company clever enough to come along and exploit that invention. Usually leaving the original developers out in the cold.
It happened with spreadsheets, it happened with GUI operating systems. And now it's going to happen with Linux.
All those people who put all that time into the idealism of Linux will now see it powering one of the world's most powerful media corporations!
The revolution will be over soon enough. Not wanting to gloat, but an honest question: I saw this coming a long time ago; didn't everyone else?
AOL Time Warner will perhaps be the third big monopoly after IBM and Microsoft.
Go beyond... Think about it. They could run the angle that an AOL subscription will get you -all- the software on your computer both legally AND free. Not to mention that the public would be more receptive to a subscription-based-service becoming an OS/software supplier than a OS/Software supplier trying to become a subscription-based-service. And since the software is still free, there's no 'lost profits' from people 'stealing' your software.
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
Netscape 6 wasn't really ready for a final release until Netscape 6.2, which is *very* stable.
Throughout history, religion has spurred a great deal of social change. Recently, religions have been quite vocal about internation treaties. Some churches even organize protests on the topic. If the media were ever corrupted, religion would be one of the few remaining avenues to keep people informed.
My biggest complaint about G.W.'s faith based initiative, is that it gives a federal agency power over churches. If a church has to decide between closing a shelter with 500 homeless people, or canceling a protest on globalization, what would the church's leaders do?
The gist of this may have been posted already, so forgive me if I'm being redundant, but looking through the posts, I haven't found anything that is really close to what I think, so here goes.
This is probably one of the best things that could have happened to linux, as long as AOL handles this correctly. As some have already mentioned, all the average user really wants out of his or her computer is word possessing and, for lack of a better term, a way to waste time (via surfing the web, e-mail, chatting, AIM, mp3s, whatever). Obviously, some users may want more, but the point is that everything the average user wants can already be found for Linux, and typically for free. However, there's a caveat, most users also lack the knowledge and/or the courage to make anything but the most trivial changes to their computer. If you ask them to install a new OS on their machine, you might as well ask them to perform brain surgery while their at it. If AOL is going to succeed with a Linux distro bundled with their Internet software, the whole process is going to have to be incredibly simple. If the user has to do anything more complicated than put a disk in their cdrom drive and press the reset button, you might as well forget it.
After installing the OS, everything had better work. This is a good thing for the Linux community in general, because currently, everything does not work, there's still a great deal of hardware out there that's not supported. AOL has the resources and the clout to either make these things work, or pressure the hardware manufacturers into making them work.
If something doesn't work, however, AOL techs have a wonderful tool in ssh to fix things. Now that the techs don't have to rely completely on a customer describing the problem (the Internet is broken!), can you imagine how much time their going to save? AOL wins because they don't need as many techs, and the customers win because their problems will tend to be solved much more quickly and easily. I suspect that this alone would drive up subscriptions, especially if AOL is supporting the entire OS, not just the Internet connectivity.
Finally, if this leads to more people start using Linux at home for the ease of support (not to mention the added bonus of free software and greater stability), how long do you think it will be before Linux finds greater acceptance in the workplace? CEOs and the like are users too, and if they start seeing how well Linux works at home, they might start pushing their IT departments to migrate to Linux as well, especially if they're getting hammered with licensing audits for Microsoft software.
AOL is to make money, their objective as said by is Fouder Mr. Case is to build a unique mailbox to all the mail we get, electronic and voice, and to build a solid support for that. So they are interested in Comcast and other. I don't see RedHat here. Only if they think that RedHat is a good acquisition for network know-how.
AOL at this time is more powerfull than MS and doesn't have the same problems they have (bad publicity, DOJ, bugs and more bugs).
------I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either.------
Hey, remember this story about how Redhat was planning to give copies of RedHat for free in order to make the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement more valuable to schools. All of a sudden, I am seeing evil in the air again....
Cool! Amazing Toys.
AOL trying to have everyone using Red Hat distro is just a plain stupied idea. Atleast at the moment. What do people use their computers at home for. In my experience mostly for the following things:
* Surf the web
* Play computer games
* Download music and movies
You can do 1 and 3 on linux, but still not 2 (not very well, atleast for average joe, or actually average joes children)
So what have AOL to gain on this. People will call them wondering, how do I play this and that game?
Sorry to say, but Linux wont hit the home market for a while still
Does that mean we could see a working ICQ-client for Linux in the near future? Does that mean they will stop fscking with the protocol? If yes, how delightful...
Cheers
I feel so sig.
Yes, and they've really done a sterling job with that, haven't they?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
AOL buy RedHat, become the dominant Linux retailer and within a few years Microsoft are effectively dead just surviving on revenue from joysticks and keyboards.
But then what happens? AOL don't want to spend money improving the OS and the Open Source community has far less people wanting to work to support AOL. Linux is now just a platform to support the AOLTW services platform and everyone is paying them $200/month for those services.
So software is effectively dead in the water. With no companies making large sums of money from it no one wants to put money into R&D. Why buy Windows when you get AOL/Linux free on CD? Why support Opera when you get AOL/Mozilla free on the same CD?
So software becomes a platform to generate revenue for services and hardware companies. This is why Sun is so keen on (some aspects of) open source.
AOL is hated for some very good reasons. At least Microsoft funds Microsoft Research and puts money into software R&D. AOLTW is a marketing company and Linux will become just be one more way of leveraging their monopoly in Internet services.
This could turn out to be a good thing for Linux. Why? AOL can infuse their vast resources of capital into the one thing Linux sorely lacks, namely a decent set of true-type fonts.
:-)
X11R6's default font set is so atrocious it's no surprise it repels PC users weaned on Windows' splendid set of TT fonts. Fund the development of a LGPL'd set of core fonts [similar to Microsoft's Core Web Fonts] and you have cleared one of the biggest obstacles in the way of Linux's widespread adoption.
I'm sure the zealots wouldn't mind this too much either
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
Please mod me up because this IS going to be something alot of people will discuss.
First, Lets talk abou the situation between AOL and Microsoft. Remember, AOL and Microsoft are practically at each others throats. There was a Memo, which mentioned possible strategies to handle Microsoft.
They tired ot make a deal and it failed.
They are supporters of Mozilla, Netscape and Microsoft is against them on every single application.
AOL is known for buying the "Cool" companies, Mirabilis, Nullsoft,
I'm surprised AOL didnt buy Napster, and I bet if there wasnt such a bad legal situation they would have.
They compete with Microsoft on the ISP market, on the Instant Messager, The Media Player, The Browser, The only thing left for AOL to do, is go out and create AOL Linux.
Now we all know, A Company who wants to create an OS is NOT going to start from scratch. They also arent going to compete with the industry leader (the mistake Corel made against Redhat in the first place)
What they will do if they are as big as AOL, is Simply buy the market leader, and then create AOL Linux through Redhat.
They could also fund KDE or Gnome Development, and Xfree86, and perhaps edit the kernel a bit.
To create a competiting desktop OS with Linux, AOL would only have to invest a few hundred million dollars to buy redhat, and maybe 100 million more to fund development of the Linux interface until its on OSX levels.
AOL funds Mozilla, its not hard to believe AOL will do this.
AOL is also in the situation now where Microsofts next version of Windows may put them out of business on the desktop market, They are backe dinto a corner, most companies when backe dinto a corner, fight back in desperate ways.
Buying redhat would be a move anyone who knows Business would expect AOL to make.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
and buys red hat first ? ;)
wouldnt that be like... fun ? heh
dont worry... at the end of the day you still have 3 friends potato, woody and sid
Smile... tomorrow will be worse.
Linux ready for the desktop? ... YES!
If AOL can do what they need to do to make AOLinux work,
So that AOL can protect their customer base from virus/worm/whatever, something drastic is needed. Anti-virus software is good for protecting against yesterday. Useless for protecting against tomorrow.
Does this mean we can bug A.C. to stop them from sending CD's to us? :)
*Moderators, note the smiley*
-=- I heard rumours about an OS called "Social Life", heard of it? Is it stable? -=-
I think everyone is focusing on the idea of an "AOLinux" way too much. In my mind, this is all about fubaring .Net.
Think about it. .Net must scare the hell out of AOL and it's Liberty Alliance pals. AOL is apparently developing its own version of web services called "Magic Carpet."
I read a research report by Gartner that labeled Linux as the most serious impediment to the success of .Net, since it runs on Windows servers.
I think this whole thing might be about AOL supporting a (largely) server-side distro in order to stymie .Net in favor of it's own version of web services, which will not have silly platform restrictions.
I think AOL sees that MS is making a mistake by trying to move into a new market (web services) by building off of a market in which they don't have anywhere near a monopoly (web servers.) God knows they're not technically competent enough to pull off that sort of thing without a monopoly to support themselves.
AOL-Time Warner is a content company, fundamentally. However, they have enough money to be able to be a software company IF they can leverage that software to improve the channel delivery of their core business.
They've proven that this is an effective strategy for them, and they've even been amenable to making their software open source. AOLserver used to be NaviServer before AOL bought it in the mid-90s. In the late nineties, AOL open source the system (http://www.AOLserver.com), releasing perhaps the most high performance web server on the net. This has been remarkably effective for them, regardless of the systems popularity among programmers.
The acquisition of RedHat would provide them with an already mature linux company with a very firm reputation. They've noticed that Apple has done quite well leveraging an open source operating system. AOL is not a software company like Apple with a strong stable of software product engineers, but there's no reason they can't become one.
But remember, this is all about CONTENT and getting it into homes in any way possible. Linux is highly portable. AOL-TW probably has visions of using it as the OS in desktops computers, servers, net appliances, setup boxes and the family dog. Anything to provide, control and deliver the massive amounts of content that they produce.
The can GPL the AOL browser first, use standard TCP/IP instead of Its special drivers.
AOL needs RedHat because it's had enough of WinXP
Well I dont like this. An AOL monopoly wolud be even worse than the current Microsoft one:
AOL not just only owns AOL, AOL is in our cinemas (LoTR is an AOL Time Warner production), it's in the press (Time magazine, and 50 others), it's my browser (guess who owns Netscape?)...
Having GNU/Linux AOL 7.2 on my PC scares me a bit...
And nevermind all the pop-up-ad-blocking features, it comes with its own ad bar.
There are very few games for linux at the moment.
But other then that... yeah I think AOL/OS would be a good thing.
Then there would be two major desktop platforms... thats atleast one more then we have now.
But what are the advantages for european users like me. Making an all-in-one package for AOL users is good for them, but not for me. I have no use for AOL software here. So ultimately you should get two distribution: an AOL version and a no-AOL version.
1) Since Linux distros are largely made up of GPL'd software, that means AOL is tapping into a large base of software that Microsoft can never touch nor copy. Microsoft has even made it a point to tell its employees and partners to never look at GPL'd code.
2) What happens if AOL "wins" the OS war, using Linux? Now we are replacing one monopoly with another.
I have been a RedHat user since 2.0, a Looonnnng time. I like it for a lot of reasons and can live with its problems compared to other distro's. Redhat has flourished where other early distros failed, Caldera, Yddsgrail, Slackware, there are still users for all (well maybe not Yd :) But redhat has done better than ALL linux distros when it comes to reckognition, they bought the right people up (Cygnus) and played with their $ right. They put out a quality product and I think have the best support of ANY of the early distros. They have been coppied more than any other , and downloaded than any other.
:)
Look at what AOL did to netscape, no I could care less about mozilla, thats open sourcing was in the works PRIOR to the AOL acqusition,
AOL is in for the BUCK period , they care NOTHING of Open Source. This would spell complete disaster for RedHat in my opinon. AOL has dragged ass on Netscape because it didnt do what they thought it would for them INSTANTLY. RedHat would be no different.
Although it would be kinda neat to get a new distro in the mail every week.
Not to mention about 10,000,000 Linux CD sent out around the world, I can see it now, people are stupid enough to load AOL, Make it overwrite their windows install with a Linux Disrto
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
Just some points, things I dont know/understand:
/on/ a Playstation 2, but is Linux actually a part of the thing? I thought it was just a sort of 'mod' for it.
:/
1) If AOL wants in on Linux, wouldnt the first step be to have products which support linux, rather than buying a Distro? Most people at least buy one car before starting a car factory.. Does AOL actually have some software which runs on Linux?
2) 'Linux Also runs the Sony Product' [regaurding the PS2], now this seems like something I would have heard previously. I had heard of people putting linux
3) And finally.. "Red Hat has claimed such big clients as Amazon.com Inc. and International Business Machines Corp., providing software and support for IBM servers that use the Linux operating system"
Okay, now "IBM" and "International Business Machines", I could have sworn that was the same thing, is there a seperate company? different divisions of the company? what?
blah. somebody clarify
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Interesting... I guess they can give RH linux away for free on those AOL CD.
== And a newbie friendly AOLinux.
AOL has a history of making computer stuff easy to do. What if they pulled a slick, easy to use Linux out of this? Look at the interface Apple put on Unix, and they have to keep happy a much more broad user group than AOL...
So if AOL bought Red Hat and poured a lot of money into development of a GPL OS, would they fight against legislation that might outlaw that OS on DRM grounds?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Wow. It would make a great deal of sense for AOL/Time-Warner to acquire an operating system for leverage against Microsoft - same reason they bought Netscape.
Yeah, that's right, and they did what with netscape? Nothing. What are they going to do with Linux? Build a consumer operating system and browser combo to go up against Windows? Not likely.
BeOS is a great, failed OS. It's Intelligence Copyrights and innovation are just waiting to be bought. Begging, really. The only reason for going with a Linux based OS is that it provides more leverage over Microsoft than a lesser known BeOS would.
Whats going to happen is, the old fashioned, "buy and dump"...they buy it and dump it...just to get rid of it!
Aol could care less about linux nor do they have any plans for it.
The more redhat users they can wipe out,the better. Im sure miscrosoft has its little dirty hands in the plan somewhere....the only good thing about this is,there are plenty of american linux distrosbutions to take its place.
~Later~
>You can either buy it, or use someone elses serial number..
;-)
Wow thanks, that banner just dissapeared somehow!
(I do plan on purchasing it, but not the windoze version. I'm waiting to get my parts for my new PC, which will probably be using RedHat)
and therefore it is the standard.
The current HTML specification is what will run on IE -- not what some third party says the standard should be.
This is the world Netscape started (Netscape compatible) and Microsoft won.
Bigtime.
/.wpo2000 folder in userland and delete the dead socket. Although it's not that hard, it's dumb, and something I would feel awkward about inflicting on a nontechnical user.
When Xandros axquired the codebase to the Linux distro from Corel they deal didn't include the Corel Office 2000 suite, which might be of interest to AOL if they're looking for Linux acquisitions.
This would give Steve Case the customer base for Wordperfect, Quattropro, Paradox, and Corel Presentations, along with the helper calendar and address book applets.
Assuming the Red Hat deal moves forward, AOL would have developer talent from that division to clear up the arguably minor, but critical glitches in that office suite and have an application of unique marketability for Linux corporate desktops.
CO2K relative pathing in the installation script is sloppy. I got around that by installing from root logged in as real root, but that shouldn't be necessary.
That FATAL ERROR dialog box on launch has gotta go. The fix isn't that elaborate: simply go into the
Some kind of simple GUI utility is needed to adjust the font size for the screen display in the WINE implementation CO2K uses.
Looking ahead, the overall dependence on WINE is controversial, and something AOL might want to consider eliminating in a future release, given the availability of a budget and other resources. The WINE implementation is a resource hog, and results in CO2K on Linux running as slow as it's Windoze counterpart. The suite is needed on the market now, however. Waiting for the length of time it would take to create a pure Linux version would be arguably counterproductive.
On the plus side:
Import and export filters for Word and Excel are the best I've ever encountered.
Paradox forms created in Windoze (or win-os2 in my case) work in Linux without any modification whatsoever. (The exception would be if I had anything coded internally that references a specific path.) The entire application programming language was ported successfully.
Offtopic request: If anyone has any insight into getting a mysql ODBC connection working in Paradox for Linux, please let me know.
give me a
RedHat is the PUBLIC company that represents Linux. Other than IBM (which leverages RedHat among other distributions) they are the public standard bearers for Linux to Wall Street and to the CIO/CTO and CEO public at large.
If RedHat dies it is another nail in the coffin for Linux in public perception -- and in Wall Street perception.
The public is not the geek readers of Slashdot. The public are the 99% of real users.
When you use the back button it goes back exactly where you were on the previous page, and very quickly. For some reason the other browser fail at this.
konqueror & IE both do this (minus the speed)
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Folks have been bemoaning "Linux on the Desktop" for a few years now -- you want Linux on the desktop? RHAOL, bundled with StarOffice (or Open Office) ... stick it on an inexpensive Duron platform and the AOL terminal is reborn ... it connects to the internet, does 'Office' stuff, comes installed on your computer and has a low price point --
You're wish is granted. Are you happy now?
and I believe there are 37337 geeks who can tell an OS from a lossy small-sized jpeg button.
That said, how clueless do you think clueless folks are?
Some people live in different universes where computers matter far less -- not just dumb people, think brain surgeons here...
Heck, some people would use Linux and call it Windows!
In fact, Bill could profit this and launch a Windows version that really was Linux, with different users login etc.... Hey!
:^)
I guess depriving Opera Software of ad revenues is alright then?
You are enjoying their hard work, aren't you?
oh well. it was too good to last. I guess I'm going to now get coasters for linux as well as windows.
While I love opera, I have to concede it's less feature-rich than IE or Mozilla in alot of areas. Of course, the ones it does have that they don't, I really like, like toggling images with a single keystroke, and it beats the pants off all them in speed and footprint.
i am of the belief that mozilla (what the unwashed masses would refer to as netscape6 and up) has an incredibly hackable UI. if AOL were to buy red hat, and they already own netscape, wouldn't that possibly lead to an "AOL OS" distro which bundles RH, X, and a copy of an AOLified mozilla? (much in the same sense that AOL the AOL software today is just an AOLified MSIE)
they could set up a tweaked version of X and a tweaked version of mozilla (using mozilla as the UI) to do *nothing but* run their aol client. it'd be the world's most overpowered dumb terminal.
personally i'm all for it in the fact that AOL probably has the financial resources to persuade people to write better winmodem drivers.
-c
"I hope I don't make a mistake and manage to remain a virgin." - Britney Spears
If AOL buys REDHAT... I suspect about the same thing will occur.
It's unfortunate when huge companies get their greedy hands on great and novel technology.
Pretty sure most of their infrastructure is FreeBSD-based. (a company i worked for was in talks with AOL - my company's infrastructure was FreeBSD; this was a reason for the proceedings)
No rebooting for service packs, already.
The move, for AOL, seems a good one to get better client software out there for users. Create the One-Stop-Shop distro for the AOL crowd.
...embrace and extend!"
If they really wanted to have the same platform across multiple machines, with just a little extra work they could port RedHat to PowerPC.
AOL Owns Linux. (yes, I know it's inaccurate)
Now, what if AOL/Red Hat began releasing a slew of very high-quality, free (as in beer), yet closed-source binaries for their distro in categories like IDEs, Desktops, Office suites, etc, and began making these packages the default installs of its distro.
Over time a great many Linux users would come to use and depend on these free, yet closed source alternatives, simply because they are good and free. Sure, there will still be Debian and folks out there who will continue to use nothing but OSS on principle, but a great many folks would begin using these superior and free alternatives. Also, the overall motivation for producing open-source alternatives would decrease because the "burning need" would not exist. Sure, you could spend the next 3 years developing your own [insert app here], or you could simply use the free and high-quality one already there for you. Most folks would choose option B, and far fewer would select A (though of course some would as a pet project, etc).
The penultimate example of this would be if Microsoft released MS Office for Linux, and made it free (and closed-source). If they ever did that (and I agree they wouldn't, but it makes my example clearer), you would quickly see all other options for Linux office suites atrophy - yeah, there might be pockets of folks working on them here and there (all paid by some company, like Sun, with an agenda they can fund) but how many individual programmers out there would volunteer their time to work on such an OSS competitor when they could just work with MS Office for Linux (not just for the standards - I feel MS Office truly beats the pants off all other office suites (Office 2000 anyway))
So, the bottom line is I'm a bit fearful of AOL getting hard-core with Linux, releasing a distro with like 60% closed-source apps, of admittedly great usability and quality, and slowly gaining control over the vast majority of Linux users out there who come to depend on their closed, yet superior, alternatives.
Please Rate my comment (and help support Fre
And the chances of AOL attracting skilled Linux people from scratch are...?
I don't get it. Everyone (well maybe not everyone) who is against this says is worried about one company monopolizing the market. Well guess what... That's what we have now. If a second big company with the marketing ability to match MS's gets into the market, don't we have competition.?. The opposite of what some of you are worried about. Who says that one company must dominate. I know it's a possibility, but how can you be against the opportunity of having a truly ,or mayby just a slightly more, competitive OS/Net-Access market? Now before everyone starts flaming me... Please remember this is my oppinion, and I am not a qualified economist but I think this will lead to better products and value for the consumer. BTW thanks for reading my first post on slashdot... err I mean "first reply to the slashdot message board." I know slashdoters hate "first post" kids.
Business News and Resources: www.usasource.net
RH has nothing AOL doesn't already have or can lay hands to.
If they want to hire O.S. programmers, no point throwing $1.5b at it.
Just hire a few college grads and experienced O.S. gurus.
To combat m$, AOL should have bought a slice of AT&T.
Cox & charter bought AT&T and m$ has a big say in those cos.
This explains why regulatory authority over tech mergers and acquisitions is rumored to be being shifted from the bipartisan FTC to the party-in-power-controlled DOJ so that Microsoft can call the White House and get them to tell the DOJ to veto the acquisition on the grounds that it would create "too great a concentration of power" in the hands of a giant like AOL. Move and counter-move.
AOL picked up WinAmp because it was the player with the best chance of pushing back against WMP.
Except WMP came out after AOL bought Winamp.
AOL, with Gateway, have used Linux in the past for embeded, AOL-branded, Internet devices. Expect more of this in the future regaurdless of what (if anything) happens with AOL/TW and RedHat.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
2) Nullsoft was interviewed somewhere (sorry no URL), and they complained that they WANTED to compete against Napster, and add download plugins to winamp, but AOL forbade it.
As much as I don't like taking the side of a superpower like AOL/Time-Warner, I have to say your point is pure bunk. Nullsoft is OWNED by AOL/T-W now. No one twisted their arms and said "Take this stock and cash for Nullsoft or we'll kill your children!". No.
Nullsoft lost control of WinAmp when they sold it. That is the point of selling something, and that is what AOL/T-W was buying - control. If WinAmp is crying now because they can't 'innovate', maybe they should try buying their company/software back. If they do, I wish them luck.
----- rL
So AOL can run ANOTHER company into the ground? I think most of us can remember all-too-vividly the crash-fest that was (and is) Netscape 6. Lamentably I find myself using IE, but not because IE is so good, but because Netscape is so bad.
You are making the assumption that given sufficient marketshare, AOL/TW wouldn't act exactly like Microsoft and try to gain as much control over their users, and that revenue stream, as MS ever did.
... competition. In one move, AOL will have solved the problem the DoJ hasn't been able to do anything about: Make MS into a non-monopoly.
And if another 800 lb. gorilla went toe-to-toe with Microsoft, that would be
We all know coroporations act in their own interests. As long as they are all fighting against each other, they keep each other in check. (In theory.)
Nope, no sig
Except for the fact that it sucks endless amounts of RAM and chrash 5/10 times when you switch to a window with a Buddy list open...
:)
But otherwise I think Netscape 6.2 is pretty
Colin Powell is a board memeber of AOL/TW. His son is the head of the FCC. His son approved the merger between AOL and TW.
AOL can do pretty much what it wants, and will do what the US Gov't wants.
I don't like it one bit.
No linux distro has the clout in the consumer market to get a name brand pc on a shelf at the local Best Buy pre-loaded with Linux and not windows. AOL however does. I predict AOL would partner with a hardware company such as Sony, HP, or Compaq to put Linux pc's on the shelf at the local Best Buy/Comp USA. They would run promotions that would give large rebates to anyone who purchases an AOL Linux pc and signs a multi-year service agreement. The AOL distro of Linux will be crippled so that the user cannot easily reconfigure the networking, and AOL will provide only one desktop environment to keep things simple for the masses and easy for AOL's support people. Crippling the distro would also enable AOL to lock the average user into AOL service, since the average user can't/is afraid to do things like install their own OS or perform some simple hacks to regain control of their computer. A simpler set top box would also be likely.
All together I think it would be a very good thing for Linux. Competition heats up in the consumer desktop market. Hardware vendors probably step up their Linux efforts. Everyone wins.
Actually it's been because the deal with MS mandated it. We get our userbase on their browser, they put our icon on their desktop. At least, until that deal expired and talks to renew it broke down.
Build AOL services right into the desktop, stick it in a set-top (To fight WebTV).
http://www.aoltv.com
-BK
Chemical Blog
Now I can start my new collection of AOL/Redhat CD's
If they change the standards, they'll have to release the code, which means interoperation will be trivial. Don't like the AOL standard's? No worries, don't use them, just means you won't be able to communicate with the AOL users.
SO that means we get a constant supply of free coasters... Seriously though, i can see the public's opinion of linux going down the tubes... "you have garbage".... I know myself, for one, have little respect for AOL/TW....
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I, like many others, see this as a good thing because I believe that AOL will be able to compete better with M$.
Even if M$ weren't so powerful, it would still be good, be AOL could offer a more complete service.
My only concern would be that the RH advantages that we have now, would be lost if there is a take over. However, I don't think that that would be too significant, because it isn't as if AOL could force people to not have certain features.
After all that's the beauty of Linux.
testing out my trending skills
My biggest fear is that 15 year old teeny-bopper N'Sync fans will start using Linux. The thought of them having to unzip tarballs, and compile programs just sends chills down my spine.
The big problem is whether the Linux desktop is intuitive and usable enough for mainstream consumers.
AOL probably wants to go into the PC business or to collaborate with a PC maker catering to the home market. They could simplify the interface and the setup and say that for $200 you could get a good PC/appliance and an office suite and an email client, and AOL ready to go and an instant messager. (Of course, all of these are pretty much ready to go already and free for AOL, so all they need to do is tidy up the interface and installation). I wouldn't be surprised if they hide a command prompt from users.
It's possible they might be able to give the PC for free in exchange for a 2 year commitment with AOL.
If I were AOL hatching this plan, I would hide the fact it was in fact linux. Why do the consumers really need to know?
People have been discussing IE v. netscape as far as xhtml and css support. What about plugins? I think netscape/mozilla's support of plug ins is lousy.
Robert Nagle, Idiotprogrammer, Houston
Same reason they bought netscape... and then *what*? AOL should make a first start of using mozilla instead of IE.
OK, maybe they do already and I haven't heard about it. Wtf will they be doing with RedHat?
certron
fair.org counterpunch.com truthout.com indymedia.org salon.com
eff.org guerrilla.net debian.org gentoo.org
I could think of at least two distro that'll make better purchase for AOL then redhat.
Sure redhat is the biggest and it has alot of good things going for it. But if AOL buys RedHat redhat will bring alot of baggage in support contracts and their current focus on servers don't make them the best desktop distro.
I see buying Mandrake or what's left of corel's distro being a better choice. First off you already have a nicer interface then what redhat has. KDE still beats gnome when it comes to first time users.Also without so much business as redhat has distros like Mandrake could be easier to mold into what AOL wants and so on.
However dispite all this i still think AOL buying any linux distro instead of say investing and supporting our development is a bad idea.
Very true. I've worked on (non-techie) friends PCs... installing drives, upgrading RAM, that sort of thing. Even after showing them the greater capacity, better performance, all they cared about was AOL. If AOL does redo a users PC into a Linux-based information appliance, this could do great things for the Linux Game industry ( Lokisoft ) as well. Users do care about games.
A Human Right
Good thing Sorcery Linux really has my attention, and I have been feeling retro slackish lately too, I can ditch Red Hat if this happens. I kick myself everytime I remember Netscape is already there's.
I can handle mozilla being slightly connected to aol, I can handle being on AIM for the appeasement of all my friends who don't grok irc, but no way in hell is my operating system gonna be "so easy to use, why the fuck isn't it number?"
--Nuintari
slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.
What to do with all the pesky winmodems?
Yeah, but Opera is fast and stays running.
I won't try to argue about which browser supports what better than the other (since everyone else is doing that), but I just want to point out one area where I think Mozilla wins hands-down: improvement.
I've used IE on my Mac exclusively back in the days of IE 3.02. It was small, sleek, fast. Yes, it didn't render everything perfectly, but neither did Netscape 4.x, which was twice as bloated. Then IE 4 came out, then 4.5, then 5 - and what was new? Nothing. They just kept adding more features I didn't need, doubling the RAM requirements on each release and making it slower and slower on my old mac(s). I switched to Netscape 4.7x at that time on classic MacOS and never went back.
The same thing is happening with IE on Windows. I began using IE with version 4 on Windows 98. It was so surgically-grafted to the OS that it started fast as hell and was really lightweight. Then they began releasing more and more versions - 5, 5.5, 6. What was new? Again, nothing. They just keep adding more and more useless stuff on my toolbar (like a Radio toolbar or a Media button in IE 6 to plug Windows Media Player in), making it gobble more and more RAM and making it start and run slower and slower on my high-end PC (damn, I have a 1Ghz Pentium III at work and it still starts pretty slowly compared to IE 4 on my 266Mhz K6-2 running Win98 here are home).
What about Mozilla? Well, to tell the truth, the first Mozilla releases sucked, plain and simple. But what are they adding in each release? Important stuff. Better standard compliance. Even more stability. Making it start/run faster and faster.
At work, I've recently began using Opera instead of IE for day-to-day browsing. Why? Because IE sucks now. Opera starts faster and renders everything pretty well. And Mozilla is coming along in that direction nicely. Although I find it a bit bloated for its own good, I have to give it my two thumbs up for one thing: it's actually getting better, while IE is sinking.
as long as I preload mozilla when windows starts my browser window comes up as fast as IE's does. as far as page rendering goes mozilla seems to keep up there too. finally, what I really like is the option to block automatic popups and the tabbed interface, both of these are crucial to me now, and I hate going back to IE because it lacks these features.
thats just my opinion but i do suggest mozilla to windoze and mac users if they ask, and they seem to like it too.
2cents
...the AOL software could be configured to override Windows and launch a version of Red Hat's Linux operating system, sources said.
Good idea. NOT! Although, if anyone can bring the joys of dual-booting to the masses, it's AOL.
With such a move, AOL Time Warner could potentially make significant inroads into Microsoft's bread-and-butter business.
What, pissing off its customers and the OSS movement all at the same time?
An even graver challenge to Microsoft would be for AOL Time Warner to develop a rival operating system that works exclusively with the media giant's own Internet service provider, its Web browser or proprietary content.
That's an even better idea, make the public associate dual-booting and Linux with AOL, busy signals, lousy customer service, spam-by-the-buckets, yeah, that'll topple Redmond.
Sheesh.
Edith Keeler Must Die
Another case of PENGUIN LUST!
FreeBSD for the impatient.
As far as I am concerned, anyone who just thinks about making their pages look good in Internet Explorer is simply handing over dollars to Bill Gates.
"Well, put a stake in my heart and drag me into sunlight."
IE5 runs more-or-less stably under the most recent Codeweavers WINE Preview release. I suspect that IE4 would be downright usable, but I don't have a copy to test with at the moment.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
see also: Linuxville Founder's 'Secret' Email 'Leaked'
God save the queen.
- But they've still got a lot of NS server software available for use at some point, if they can find a good use.
I gather that you've never used Netscape's iPlanet. Dude, it's so bad there is no use for it.I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
Now it'll have to be changed from linuxisforbitches to linuxisforSTUPIDbitches.
I really don't think they're going to put out a competing desktop....
But it could be that the best use for RedHat is to have them in part create a very robust OS/environment for ITV applictions. For a device that is part of the "Home Theater" not part of a desk top.
(Or the potential use could be for mobile devices.)
The PC desktop is a battle that is already won and going back and trying to fight it again is incredibly up-hill, but there are new battles emerging over as yet undetermined territory... and AOL/TW might have better odds in these new battles than old ones, if they have RedHat and it's staff.
Lack of DHTML control on JavaScript is VERY annoying! I want layer control on my damn JavaScript, and IE doesn't have it! Try this code:
if (self.innerWidth) { }
else if (document.body.clientWidth) { }
else if (screen.availWidth) { }
else if (screen.width) { }
Of course, the one that would best work (self.innerWidth) doesn't work because IE STILL doesn't support CSS properties in JS.
Zodiac Survey
But they've still got a lot of NS server software available for use at some point, if they can find a good use.
Don't forget AOL Server, which I understand has some advantages over Apache (faster, works well with databases, built around Tcl if that's what floats your boat) and is open source (Mozilla Public License, apparently). Never used it myself, but AOL does.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
This would be great! Can you imagine if every
major computer magazine didn't come with AOL, but AOL Linux? Can you imagine
if AOL quit paying OEM's to include just AOL, but AOL on Linux? Also, if AOL
through it's support behind Linux, just think all of the companies that
will/would follow - Macromedia probably would port Shockwave, Real
would port *all* of RealOne, and so on.
I've often said that I thought AOL was the one company that seemed to be able
to out wit Microsoft (and it has a lot of cash too). Except for bringing AOL
users to Linux, I can't see what could be bad about this, and if even 25% of
AOL's users could eventually be convinced to move to Linux, it could have a
profound effect on our OS.
I might also note that AOL has already done a pretty good job with our
community - they are relicensing Mozilla under the NPL/GPL/LGPL
triple-license, they are porting WinAmp to Linux, they've ported AIM, etc. I
might add that AOL generally writes *native* Linux apps (i.e. GTK based
WinAmp and AIM) rather than some kind of sloppy port...
Also, just think if only the computers at AOL Time Warner switched to Linux - just think how many systems would switch!
Finally, if they treat RedHat like Nullsoft and to a lesser extent Netscape,
RH would probably be allowed to continue to function much the same way it
does now... Just with a media giant behind it.
-Tim
-------------
"You would not get a high grade for such a design" -- Andy Tanenbaum on Linus' Linux design.
Here she is at MSNBC.
Throw in a little special version of Abiword. Throw in a special version Gnumeric.
Why not throw in StarOffice? AOL already has a relationship with Sun, and StarOffice is disturbingly similar to Microsoft Office in many ways, down to the placement and naming of menus.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
This reminds me of an article on ArsTechnica which was published a couple of years ago. Take a look and draw your own conclusions
It was simply a matter of time in my prediction. Why would AOL -- an Internet Service Provider -- even give a darn about Cable. Answer: its the broadband. Couple that with the future of Digital Cable, AOL/TW could see the final scenario -- your PC will be replaced by a browser on your TV.
;-)
Here's how it works. AOL saw that Cable was going to be the medium of the (near) future. TV as well as digital content can be transmitted via a rather old, but still viable media. They bought (on of) the largest cable operators in America, a major browser, and sat on the hopes that Linux would come of age. When it did (and it has) they would be able to embed it into the Digital Cable box.
Since most Internet users only use Email and Web services, AOL saw that the consumer was essentially buying much more technology than they needed. Couple that with having an Internet service that is solely non-user intervention required. AOL/TW would administer, update, enhance the cable box when necessary without the end user ever knowing or having to care. Truly a service in every way.
Think of it. If you were a simple Internet user pay to have your total Internet experience handled for you? If I were not inclined to mess with upgrades, dependencies, tech support, system crashes, I would want this. I'm not though
Whats this going to do for Red Hat??? I have no idea. I imagine, given AOLs rep, they will keep it going "business-as-usual" and it will do just fine. I have no inclination AOL will scrap RH or Linux NOR try to hinder any of its present availability (licensing, downloadability, development). I really don't know. Wheres the crystal ball...
Good and bad. Its a big step. God be with them.....
INSERT INTO comment VALUE('Doh!') WHERE user='you';
Interesting paradox you've set up there. The only part I necessarily disagree with is that OSS developers would start using the free closed souce high quality tools. Consumers and corporate types would naturally flock to that kind of software. True OSS developers would still stick to what they believe in philosophically.
/. crowds. Plus, if it's AOL/TW based tools, it will no longer be cool or cutting edge and therefore not be the distro of choice for true geeks.
Whatever AOL/TW would develop out of a RedHat distro would be aimed at corporate and home markets, not the OSS &
Pooty tweet
How many jobs are in this country to buy the stuff that you cheaply produced over there in that 3rd world country? They're not going up right at the moment. I'm not saying that people shouldn't do some of this, but what I am saying is that it's a system and a somewhat fragile one at that. At some point you reach a threshold and you quit making money because people can't buy (because they can't afford it and/or don't have a job to do so...). At some point, it's less about making big sums of money, for down that path lies recessions and depressions.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
So when will AOL purchase Nintendo and start battling MS on the console gaming front? Are there any other companies that they could purchase to start a battle here? I haven't heard much about Sega lately and I don't think even the mighty AOL has the power to uproot playstation from Sony.
A most impressive demonstration of how EMto do JavaScript coding, as opposed to many sites which demonstrate how not to do it.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I botched the HTML code- that'll teach me not to preview stuff... :->
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
It has long been discussed that AOL wants to expand to settop boxes. Given RH's expertise in embedded systems (they bought Cygnus, remember?), perhaps AOL would like to use Linux when deploying their settop system.
Speaking of rumors, has anybody heard about AOL investigating 802.11b? There was talk of this at a recent BAWUG (Bay Area Wireless User Group) meeting.
Netscape loads so s...l...o...w.
Wrong. Mozilla 0.9.7 starts faster than Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 if you leave Mozilla resident in memory (Edit > Preferences > Advanced > Enable Quick Launch). Because Windows Explorer uses IE components, Windows keeps much of IE resident in memory all the time; turning on Quick Launch levels the playfield. It loads pages faster than IE 6 because unlike IE 6, Mozilla can display a partially downloaded table; simply right-click to force a reflow. View a Slashdot article with lots of comments in nested mode on IE 6 and Mozilla to see what I mean.
On older machines (less CPU speed, less memory) Netscape 6 cannot touch the performance of I.E. 5+.
IE 5, yes, but not 6. Performance of IE on machines with 64 MB of RAM has decreased dramatically from IE 5.x to 6.0, requiring the system to swap heavily more often.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Red Hat's market capatalization is about $1.45e9.
AOL could get all the functionality they need with a minimal custom distro and a few extra apps. Take a dozen programmers about six months, for a total cost of about 0.1% of the cost of Red Hat. They also wouldn't have to worry about all the good folks at Red Hat jumping ship.
Biggest problem would be getting it to play nice with Windows. Perhaps they should buy VMWare instead?
Unfortunately, the Big Shots know a lot about how to take over companies, and very little about technical matters.
Welcome to the Turing Tarpit, where everything is possible but nothing interesting is easy.
If anyone has been looking for a good example of why the GPL's anti-proprietary protections make it superior to the BSD license, here's a great one. (from a community perspective at least..) Imagine if Linux and associated GNU software used the BSD license instead. AOL could buy RedHat and then release a proprietary kernel, libc, etc. with DRM integrated throughout, backdoors as desired, phone-home capability to reap marketing data, forced advertisements, and other horrible evils. With GPL, the worst they can do is include a proprietary version of Mozilla and perhaps a DRM kernel module, which both can be easily removed. So if AOL ships out GPL'ed software, you can be rest assured that it is the real thing or at least come with full source to document any potentially undesirable changes. With BSD, we'd be screwed.
Saying that the GPL is less free than BSD is like saying the US is less free without slavery.
One - Aunt Tillie's data is important to her, and she won't want to upgrade if she'll lose her recipes/email/addressbook/porn.
Two - Nephew Jonny is gonna be _pissed_ if he can't play the latest games. (Of course, this could help spur Linux game development, which I'm definitely in favor of, but I'm not holding my breath.)
"Switching to a Linux base would be another step on the road - faster, more stable, and no rebooting after the latest 'service pack' ;)"
FYI Windows XP is faster and more stable then GNOME or KDE. Sorry but I have used them all and XP surprisingly is the best.
As far as your rebooting comment goes. Whatever. Most people do not leave their computers on. AOLers would not appreciate 120 days uptime. BTW that is for server or text mode only.
AOL is already on millions of windows desktops. You think those people will jump to linux and kiss all of their programs goodbye? No way in hell.
BTW this is a rumor and as far as i am concerned would be a setback of redhat and linux in general. If it were to come to pass I would personally lead the charge with a forked redhat.
It is what 9x% of our visitors use.
I suppose if you have the misfortune of being stuck in an MS-centric enterprise environment, or your circumstances otherwise dictate that all your users browse with IE, then sure, I guess it makes a sort of sense to develop with that in mind. Of course, it still makes more sense to develop tools and content viewable in any browser... (What? You never recycle code?)
Microsoft doesn't set standards - they don't particularly like standards (unless they own it, at which point... ). Try to imagine where we'd be now if Netscape had been the one setting the "standard" for the development of HTML way back in '94-'95 when they had the most popular browser.
It's a competitive market out there for web developers... it makes me feel better about my standing in the pack knowing there are people out there who think like you. Do yourself a favor and don't get too stuck on one company's technology. It's not true that no one ever got fired for choosing MS, and there are companies out there who are addicted to Exchange and Office who wish they weren't.
Just thought I would peer into fantasyland for a minute and be a little creative about what this could mean.
.Net?
AOL combines the properties they own with the RedHat distribution to produce an alternative computing environment that runs on most anything right off the CD. They could do many other things like set-top boxes and other dedicated toys, but the CD is what interests me.
I have recieved at least 1 cd a week from these guys. People have them all over the place. In fact I am looking at the 70's flower themed AOL 7.0 cd right now, fresh from the morning mail.
Everyone I know understands what AOL is and that is where the value of something like this comes in. I believe a lot of people are aware of Linux, but they don't know what it is. They do know it is important because their techie friends use it. This is the work that we have done people, but we cant realistically finish.
So lets say that AOL does produce this CD. If they do things right, they can include everything on the new 8.0 CD that someone needs to surf the internet and make decent use of their PC.
Right now cheap machines (under $300.00) basically run windows. They don't have to. In fact the people making these would welcome the extra margin they would gain by not including windows. With an included 6 month AOL subscription and a free OS, the $200.00 PC for the masses becomes possible. This makes a whole lot of sense!
Never, and I mean never, did I imagine that I would say that! Stay with me for a minute, I do have a point.
Microsoft wants you to pay to run your machine on a subscription basis, own your data, and the applications you use to manupulate it. Scary. AOL could take another position... Run your machine for free, but if you want we can make it easy and fun for only $25.00 per month including your internet.
I believe there is a good business model here forming that takes a sizeable company to execute. If open code is free to use, and distribute, then how does one make money from it?
You make your money by doing the work required to make the whole thing useful. Distributions have value because they offer support, and packaging. AOL can add value on top of that by picking best in class Open Source applications, intergrating them with their own stuff into something pretty effective at addressing basic computing needs.
There is a lot of synergy here if you think about it further. Lets say also that this actually takes off. A year or two from now, you have a sizeable chunk of people running basically AOL linux.
Subscribers can download new applications ready for their system from AOL.
Developers have an interesting new platform to write to.
Other hardware platforms benefit from the portable infrastructure.
People with slow connections can just wait for their new CD to come in the mail and actually want to use it, and copy it, and give it to their friends!
And the goodness goes on...
Basically it looks like we need a common OS and applications for the masses. Having everything be open and configurable has no value if nobody is using it. (We are nobody in terms of numbers.) The Microsoft solution is closed forcing me to pay for everything and do things their way. One central point of control. Bad for a lot of reasons.
AOL would be aggragating what is out there into something people can use. That is worth paying for. The difference really is in the infrastructure. The people using the products also have a hand in building them. Most of the whole thing would be open and that matters more longer term.
So I guess I would not mind one bit if AOL builds a distribution that makes them money. Most of the industry would benefit from it because it is open.
AOL Linux, or
Blogging because I can...
"AOL has used IE as long as they've had a browser, but you can be sure it's not because they liked the idea."
In the early days of the Browser War, this made sense to AOL for two reasons.
[1] AOL, like MSFT and everyone else was at risk of being shut out of the Web ( especailly the Start Page ) by Netscape's vast dominance of civilian browser share.
[2] Netscape was incredibly arrogant back then. They refused to componentize Nav so that it could be integrated into the AOL user experience. NSCP was going to rule the Web, so what use did they have for the pathetic base of AOLusers?
From IE3 onwards, MSFT has had a hostable, component browser. MSFT worked with AOL to make the integration happen. Netscape wouldn't.
What baffles me is that given how many years ago AOL snarfed up NSCP, AOL is still running the MS HTML engine.
I'd like to see a company take on microsoft, but I'd really rather Redhat (my favorite linux based company) not merge with AOL (pretty much my whole families most hated ISP) to get there. I always thought that Redhat was doing a great job on their own. Whenever someone starts up a server it's not a question of whether or not they're going to run linux on it. Of course maybe that has something to do with the recent worms crawling through the internet lately.
A shopping button on the KDE desktop!
My 2 cents about "why" ... has me thinking tht AOL might want to offer their own out-of-the-box-internet-ready-computers ... bundle them with a subscription as well ... the only problem ... the operating system. If all a user wants to do is surf, and occasionally write a document to their local county council person ... wouldn't RH and some office-suite, alonge with Netscrape get it done ? All for $399.99 ?
healyourchurchwebsite.com - WWJB?
Let's take a look.
M$ runs a software house that produces the most widely lused operating systems and groupware in the US.
AOL/TW runs a media conglomerate that owns almost every media outlet Americans can see.
Now, think real hard about who can do more damage to your freedom.
Answer: AOL/TW...duh.
Solution: None. The only thing that scares me more than AOL/TW getting into the OS market is the possibility of Disney entering. (To rip-off an idea from Neal Stephanson, wholesale, if Disney ever entered the OS market, they'd kick M$'s ASS!)
Just my comment. Take it or lump it.
Curiosity?!? My ass! He stole shit! -T. Carpenter
"The AOL online software, which consumers can install for free from the Web or a compact disk, is now designed to run on Microsoft's Windows operating system. But the AOL software could be configured to override Windows and launch a version of Red Hat's Linux operating system, sources said."
Wouldn't it be hilarious if it really was going to work the way the article states in this paragraph? Put in your AOL CD, *poof*! your machine gets repartitioned and reformatted, in goes RedHat with the "everything" install option!
I bet at least a million people would just accept that at face value, too, and start using RedHat, never knowing that it's a different OS, and not just part of their AOL install.
Palaces, barricades, threats, meet promises
from:linust@aol.com
to:slashdot
subject:New kernel same place
date: ???
It is now time to download kernel 2.6.0. You can find it in the usual places. Happy compiling
> And the chances of AOL attracting skilled Linux people from scratch are...?
And the chances of AOL hanging on to those same skilled Linux people when AOL decides to build son-of-SSSCA "digital rights management" into the next release of Redhat are...
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
AOL/TW and M$ are both cut from the same cloth. I received some insight while listening to Simon Phipps not to long ago. He was saying the future model for open source development would consist of a base of open source software with commercial extensions added on top. Much like Eclipse. It sounded to me like industry wouldn't be happy about open source development taking place in the "extension space". What could industry do about it you might ask? There has been discussion of software patents interfering with open source development and open source developers partnering with big corporations that are, supposedly, friendly to open source initiatives to use big corp's deep pockets for litigation. That's what this will ultimately boil down to: deep pockets and litigation. That being said do you really believe AOL/TW when they tell you they will respect you in the morning? Not that we little folks have anything to say about the doings of big corp. But how might the open source be damaged by an association such as this? The real damage will probably be subtle.
I won't confirm or deny this story (I don't know if any of this is true, and if I did, I probably wouldn't be allowed to tell), just one thing:
Most Red Hat engineers care about Open Source. If this were true and resulted in taking Red Hat Linux proprietary, you can expect to see a large number of Red Hat engineers leaving the company and forming a new one, starting development from the last free Rawhide.
If the rumors were indeed true, I'd not look for a new job right away (just because they're AOL doesn't mean they'll automatically do everything wrong, that's not even true of Microsoft), but I'd leave as soon as the resulting company would start messing up, and I'm sure many others would agree with me.
So don't worry, there will always be a free Red Hat Linux out there, even if it gets a different name.
Posting anonymously because I'm not exactly sure if an employee may reply to this sort of thing at all, better safe than sorry.
Anonymous "Feel Free to Take a Good Guess" Coward.
Your average consumer likely thinks "Mozilla" is somehow related to Godzilla and wouldn't think of touching it - much less downloading some unknown software product. If it is so great - why isn't AOL doing a better job of distributing the latest version - or at LEAST pouring more resources into the effort so it would have reached the 1.0 release months (years?) ago? Is the browser business simply an afterthought for AOL?
...what is your problem with iPlanet. I've been using for awhile, and haven't seen any serious problems with it. Having the integrated JSP engine is quite useful (though I've not tried Apache+Tomcat yet) and it has the advantage of being multithreaded which allows it avoid some of Apache's problems.
I like Apache, especially for mass webhosting, but it's lack of multithreadedness can be a pretty serious performance issue in certain applications. iPlanet solves this for my company.
Note that I've only used iPlanet's webserver and LDAP server, so I can't speak about anything else in the suite.
Thanks AOL, saves me the time it takes to download ISOs.
stupid advertisement
www.angstmonster.org
alancox@aol.com. Somehow that makes me laugh funny.
If there is hope, it lies in the trolls.
If this will run DNF, TF2, DOOM, Quake 4, Unreal 2, and Unreal Tournament 2 better then anything else, I will look into it.
But I'm not AOL's target market..
AOL's market is "the average user".
Taken from an article on MSNBC
The AOL online software, which consumers can install for free from the Web or a compact disk, is now designed to run on Microsoft's Windows operating system. But the AOL software could be configured to override Windows and launch a version of Red Hat's Linux operating system, sources said.
I hope this wouldn't be done by default. There had better be a lot of warnings indicating that the disk was about to be reformatted and that data could (and probably would) be lost.
Now, I have no problem with Windows being overwritten. I just hope end users are made fully aware of the potential risks to their data.
Pooty tweet
If AOL buys red hat they better not mess it up liek they did the netscape broswer..
And people if they really bought Netscape to go against MS they woudl have changed their own AOL borwser to netscape..there ws more at work than just going agaqinst MS..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Having read through much of this thread, I can agree with a lot of arguments from both sides, but one this I don't get - why do people think that AOL/TimeWarner (yes, not just AOL, that is an important distinction) is somehow a 'nicer' company than MS? Because they don't have the computer market by the balls?
It'd be nice if they took enough OS market share from MS to create serious competition for them, but what if - as some (undoubtedly a little overly excited) readers have suggested - they "crush" MS and, therefore become the ones dominating the OS market? Then you'll have a monopoly to make you cry for the good old days of the loveable and friendly Microsoft.
Mind you, none of that will happen of course, even if AOL/TimeWarner does buy RedHat. What really bothers me is the distro they picked (mostly likely going by the most known name, I presume), RH has always been the enterprise distro, used for serious applications and very rarely for the desktop - i.e. precisely the opposite of AOL's target audience. On the other hand, I am glad they didn't go for a better desktop distro, such as Mandrake (I am ready to listen to compelling arguments of why RH is a better desktop than Mandrake - oh, and for 7.2 vs 8.1; not 6.2 and 7.0 ;) ), because I just wouldn't be able to stand being an "AOL User"!
sic transit gloria mundi
This +2 and higher moded "Mickeysoft stinks" "AOL Sux", "AOL kicks Mickeysofts ass - great" is not just boring anymore. It's so frequent it's getting seriously anoying!
That eternal turf war of OSes only exists in your head. There's nothing to it. Really. Good grief, get with the Programm. Linux and it's stuff has reached desktop parity with Windoze and co, for crisake! Even the unpredictable KDE buggines has! (laugh or cry... it has)
This or simular stuff happening was so foreseable.
And this day will come aswell: MS Linux.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Red Hat has a service contract with IBM for their linux servers. I believe they this just sounds like the same.
.NET and doesn't like what they see.
Does AOL run primarily Windows servers? I'm just speculating, but it sounds like AOL would be updating their infrastructure rather than producing an OS. That would mean migrating millions of people. Imagine the learning curve of people who are so used to the MS interface.
Maybe AOL looks at
I don't think they'll buy them out. Buy a service contract for them, sure.
I've used Opera for a while and it is quite nice, but I've found that Galeon does all of these things too, and it uses the Gecko rendering engine which is better than Operas. The only thing that Opera does better, IMHO, is Java/Javascript which which is a lot more difficult to set up. Also, you can open windows in Tabs or new windows, or both if you prefer. Opera is entirely tab-based.
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
this is great, I can imagine X will also be part of the stone age as well. Lets just hope the replacement will be open source to benefit us all.
I don't think that your point holds now, though it may have when you first signed up with AOL UK.
Over the holidays I was back to the UK and just switched my mother over to BT openworld's 24x7 thing - unlimited use via 0800 number, 15 quid a month all in, works fine with Linux (I even used RH7.2 GUI dialup config). I don't see a big benefit of using AOL over that.
Being stuck with AOL just because you have an aol.co.uk address is a different matter - I guess you could use AOL's mail server from someone else's dialup, but that adds cost and defeats the purpose
Maybe OFTEL should get involved and enforce "email portability" on ISP's?
"You've got root!"
I like Linux. It is the best. I think that everyone should use Linux.
Why didn't they just port the stupid AOL software to Linux/Un*x and make their own distro? Seems cheaper to me, and the source for the GPLd parts could simply just take up some space on a server somewhere. Much cheaper, and still gives them leverage against MS. A customer could still run the office software of their choice (barring MS again, of course). Is this or is this not what the bulk of AOL's customer base wants -- to write a letter to Auntie M and email it?
You are all fartheads.
I wonder. A couple of theories.
MS is hurting AOL with their online stuff, that gains marketshare by existing in the OS. MS has done this over and over again with competitors, drying out their revenue stream, then waiting. I imagine AOL (and Time Warner) see only a future where their property is fed through MS networks through MS OS's, MS audio and video codecs.
So they see a situation where they can realistically kneecap MS by cutting off their revenue stream. Linux already is doing it in the server market. So they put some money in to keep the process going. Market the OS, put their name behind it, get the desktop stuff working and finished and push it. They ar e big enough.
In the end, hopefully nobody owns everything. We all here may actually be rooting for MS in some circumstances.
Derek
the end-user has to decide between installing the new AOLinux distro and lose everything on their hard drive, or just sign up with MSN and keep using their favorite programs. I think the one thing that's lost in all these discussions is that the average person is NOT up for a learning curve. If it works, keep it. I feel people are forgiving of the Windows nuances. I don't know that I can give credit to 30-50% of AOL's user base to install and learn Linux. Michael http://www.beatlesforum.com
When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
Umm no crashes for one
About the only time Mozilla 0.9.recent crashes for me is when I run into Windows ME's 64 KB user.exe and gdi.exe heap limits. (No, I haven't bothered "upgrading" to XP yet.) Internet Explorer can run out of resources too, and it sometimes hits the limit with fewer pages open because Mozilla supports more than one page per window through Opera-style tabbed browsing.
Oh sure you could let it preload and take up 50MB ram where as IE does not.
According to Wintop (part of Kernel Toys), my preloaded Mozilla instance takes only 15 (not 50) MB, and much of IE (namely MSHTML) is preloaded in Explorer.exe anyway, so you can't easily get away from that.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Try PengAOL. It's a simple Linux client for AOL's service. I'm not sure how well it runs, but it would be worth a shot, no? Also, the software is developed by a company in France and I believe they have an ftp server in England (don't quote me on that). Should be easier than most things to download from ISDN in Europe. PengAOL.
Slackware forever. Honestly, what else would you trust when it absolutely positively has to be stable, secure, and easy
This makes me think one of two things:
I'm not the most knowledgable person as far as the GPL, but it seems that they could release a closed-source AOL client with any Linux distro they wanted, without paying a cent to any Linux distro. It's not like the actual delivery would cost them any more than it's costing them now - a CD with a single client installation is the same physical size as one that also contains an operating system installation.
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
May god help us all !!
Now I can have AOL advertise in *NIX.
[root@BUY-AOL]/root# ls
getaolnow games getaolnow apps getaolnow gui getaolnow text getaolnow
[root@BUY-AOL]/root# rm *getaolnow*
aolash: cannot remove '*getaolnow*' - you must buy!
[insert witty comment here]
I love my transparent operating system (Linux). You can't sneak stuff in here like you can with windows. This could be a way to take Linux to the mainstream. AOL is good at making software that even my grandmother can use. If a lot of people are presented with the choice, maybe enough of them will switch, and then I'll get some freaking printer drivers, even if I'm not using their distro.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
I've been busy all day, and I just now read this, so I'm sure everything that could possibly be said about this has been said, but I'll just add my "Wow." and "Holy fucking shit."
All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
when i see that all of a sudden winamp is coming out for linux even though there is no need for it, i begin to wonder how long AOL has thought about this idea. Are they thinking of releasing winamp as a media player for linux? next things to look for is a Oscar AOL client for linux. If that comes out, then you know that some serious thinking and money is goin into it. Personally, I am quite excited by the prospects, itmeasn moeny going to linux development at a time when the econony isnot so good. Besides, if you dont like ewhat AOL is doing, just take the code and start another company. Unlike othe software, AOL will never own the code. That is a major distinction.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
AOL could make a bootable CD that booted Linux and then started AOL and stored all its data in your Windows partition (if you had one) or if you don't format any free space for use by AOL. The same CD could also be run by simply installing AOL the old fashion way (no need to piss of clients). But over time they could play with this AOL pure setup and see how many clients they could get to move over to this new setup. If it shows progress they could do a similar thing for other platforms (a CD for the Playstaytion 2, maybe even XBox, and either the same thing with MacOS but perferably a partnership with them to push AOL). Anyways something like that might be good for them. They could also use the same system to run their AOL TV.
Just a wild idea what do you all think?
Snoop Baron
Lookie here- AOL will use linux, because they already do!!!!
Go to netcraft, check out www.aol.com, then read the result- Linux. AOL has always, and will always, be a linux shop.
That being said- I don't think that they should get red hat. RH is doing fine, and you know what- if MS goes down, who are we going to turn to and yell at????
AOL
Good, even if it is AOL.
...Does no good to have a dialup service if users can't dial in, eh?
...I'm not inclined to believe they will suddenly change. If they understand the Linux community at all, they will know these are some of the reasons so many of us disdain the M$ experience. I think AOL is smart enough to know this, if not, the level of outrage over "SIGN UP WITH AOL" Icons suddenly appearing on desktop will just drive users to other distros.
...which get AOL mail..etc?
Want to bet that problems like modem drivers get solved really quickly when AOL starts marketing it's service on the Linux platform?
I forsee AOL coming to the Linux desktop. They already released a version of AIM for Linux. I don't see it as a bad thing -- IF -- we can keep the spam, the tracking, the excessive marketing, and commercialization out of the end product.
Given AOL's track record in this arena, and that they are a "content creator" with a keen interest in DRM
So I feel mixed. Perhaps they will just buy it to have an edge in making embedded appliances
Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
with Red Hat than they did with Netscape. As a Netscape user since Version 2, (on Windows 3.11) I watched Netscape grow and get a little better with each release right up until the time that AOL took over. At that time they had approx 60%-70% of the market as I remember. The next few releases started having more and more unintended features (bugs) as IE was coming on strong. They used to have a really great support area, it's been trimmed to nothing, if you can find it. Every version I download I get AIM, AOL offers of a gajillion hours of free AOL service etc. As for the CDs, I wish they would go back to the floppies, at least I could reformat and use them, I already have enough coasters from my first CDR.
...that we will get Red Hat CD's in the mail with those handy little black CD cases????
Integrity is what you are when nobody is looking.
As things stand now, Microsoft Windows has won. AOL buying Red Hat would be a good thing. Linux is as good as dead on the desktop now. AOL may just revive it. And this should be no surprise. AOL inherited an interest in Red Hat years ago when it bought Netscape.
"DivX;-)" is something else entirely with a stupid name. I refuse to use any form of the name DivX and urge everyone to do the same!
Why would someone try to trademark a name stolen from someone else?
aol the best unmetered isp in the UK? would you like a dose of GETTING REAL with that?
:o)
theres unmetered services that are ALOT better
try demon
btopenworld isnt too bad either, or even jolt
also fast24.net. id suggest a trip to www.ispreview.co.uk before labelling every other unmetered isp in the uk as worse than aol, because that is just NOT true (you may get on with it, and believe me im not knocking that fact) let me give you an example. isdn access. aol doesnt allow it (no giggling at our backward access you there in the states). let me give you another example: having to use aols dialler software, and not being able to hide after connection. what spyware have they put in it???. and the 'channels' and other proprietary content are not worth it- they're just too heavily censored and rose tinted
As for the DHTML... well, yeah, the JS support isn't all there yet. But assuming the sites usable without it, then it's not so much of a problem (I've only gone to a couple sites that were literally unusable in Opera, and I didn't like them much in IE or Mozilla, either.
What does IE 6 have that Mozilla lacks? For me (and this is real pedantry), the google toolbar is the only thing which keeps me on IE.
This Google sidebar for Mozilla will let you ditch IE.
Will I retire or break 10K?
My kid really wants the latest SIMS game to run on my redhat laptop. And Diable, etc... Could this bring linux desktops high enough up on the radar screen for game development companies to write linux versions?
well there is one more thing that needs to be adddressed and that is the fact that most of the AOL junkies also run a lot of games, (I.E.) their mostly kids that mom and dad have given a computer to the os will have to address the issue of directX or write some real games on a regular issue and educational software for smaller children will also have to be written or ported
Cut! Slash! Hack!
RedHat owns Cygnus, Cygnus makes gcc; almost every piece of Free Software depends on its existence. gcc is a project that shown itself unable to effectively thrive without corporate support. Remember when the non-corporate version of gcc was finally buried in favour of egcs?
If AOL buys Red Hat, they will do what they wish with it and make it the only linux OS around. They will forget about the community and innovation will be stifled, as making money becomes the #1 priority. I think it is total bad news. Having many linux distros makes innovation key, it makes quality key and its what will seperate linux from other OS's.
ro
From the standpoint of corporate strategy and finance, this is at best a 1999 idea.
I highly, highly doubt if AOLTW and RedHat will be a success and if AOLTW execs go through with it, it'll likely be their downfall.
RedHat trades at about 1.5 billion market cap. Acquiring RedHat will neither cut costs, create profits or create monopoly power... what does AOL want to do here? Create a computer powered by Linux? Talk about entering a dying market. Do they want to get into the corporate side? Dying market too, Sun had its worst quarter ever and if someone's going to buy Linux, it'll be from HP/COMPAQ not AOL. But if they really, really needed to build a computer powered by Linux, it might cost them $5/seat from RedHat. Big deal. Instead, AOL's going to pay a major premium in competition with buyers who are a much better fit like Sun and Oracle. So they might end up paying $2 billion for a shop that modifies freely-available software and has no synergies at all with their existing capabilities??
See, AOLTW hasn't been much of a success so far. Both AOL and TW were probably better companies on their own, at least when you consider the incredible price AOL paid for TW. In the long-term, the combination still makes sense for AOL to diversify its revenues and get a capital base for growth... but the point is, AOLTW has built very little resembling a "multimedia empire" from scratch. Mainly it at best promises to take AOL's brand name and piggy-back it on TW's infrastructure and credit line.
RedHat/AOL is a stupid, stupid idea and will only make AOLTW look dumber if it spends $2 billion after recording a loss of about that this year if I'm not mistaken.
You know for about $10 billion, they could probably buy Apple.
- Kevin (kmcabral_spamabam@msn.com)
Linux is not RedHat.
RedHat is not Linux
There are many other distributions out there (e.g. Slackware, Debian, SUSE, and others.) If something happens to the RH distribution that makes it undesirable, people will simply buy their Linux CDs from somebody else. And if RH is dissolved, their engineers will almost certainly continue working on Linux in some other venue.
Furthermore, I'm sure AOL is aware of this. Despite what everybody would like to think, they are not stupid. If they want to destroy Linux, they certainly know that they can't kill a single distribution to do it. It makes absoltely no sense to buy and destroy a company whose primary business is distributing free software.
Now, I don't know what their actual reasons might be, but I think we can all be fairly certain that AOL/TW wants something from RH (software, developers, support network, or maybe something else) that they feel they could not get with an ordinary license.
For all you know, this whole deal may be over the name "RedHat". Note how CheapBytes was prohibited from using the name "RedHat" (and currently calls it "XXX XXX"), even though they are selling CDs made from the same RH images that you can download yourself. If AOL/TW wants to use the RedHat name in their distribution, they may have concluded that the only way to avoid lawsuits is to buy the company. Depending on what RedHat is actually worth, and what it can be bought for, this might not even be a bad deal.
I'm more than willing to wait and see what happens, because I think the impact on the Linux community will not be disastrous even if RH goes the way of Netscape.
It is the best of news, it is the worst of news. It is another encroachment of evil corporations, it is a victory for Free Software. It is the spring of hope, it is the winter of despair. It is completely believable, it is completely incredible. It was modded down as overrated, it was modded up as funny...
(that strange sound you're hearing is Dickens spinning in his grave)
Liberty uber alles.
Here's what I think would go perfectly with this acquisition--put some serious resources into WINE, and then offer an "OS upgrade" (free of charge) with the next client upgrade. Keep all the user's windows apps, just run them with WINE under AOLinux. Now the whole computer is as easy to use and dependabe as AOL itself has always been...
or something like that.
Liberty uber alles.
...and it's as free as all these AOL shiny round cheese slicers I keep getting in the mail.
Isn't technology wonderful? Now, where do I get a penguin to install this thing?
"There just wasn't a viable non-MS browser out there"
what about mozilla, it's great and it is better then IE...
Who controls the information, controls the world...
This can be good and bad. Good in the fact that there is even more serious money backing a Linux distrobution. But bad because... well... it is AOHell.
Mike http://thenextgenerationofradio.com
September 2004- a tech gets a phone call for support. What OS do you use? he asks. I use AOL Desktop 2.0, the user replies.
What if...
AOL buys RedHat, and then also buys a hardware company (is Compaq still for sale?) and starts producing preconfigured, MS-free, linux boxes with AOL preinstalled. All the end user has to do is plug it in and type in their screen name?
Regarding money and it's measure of the world:
-Never confuse size with impact
-Never confuse impact with profitability
-Never confuse profitability with significance
You can have a large company doing very little making mounds of profit. That company will be forgotten in 50 years. A teeny company can change the world with a little program. That teeny company can disappear in a heartbeat and not make a dime.
Financial people will never understand the concept of the Corporation, because they see corporations as "things that make profit". They are sometimes right, because sometimes they do, which compounds the issue.
Corporations exist to bring value to their customers. Period. Money is a by-product. A company makes shoes. Maybe that company makes money. Money isn't the true measure, though: the value of what the company does is.
A scenario: You find that Indonesia has 100 billion dollars worth of rare hardwoods growing in its jungles. You cut them down. You sell them. You now have 50 billion dollars (you flooded the market bringing the price of rare hardwoods down). But you have made an entire nation uninhabitable in the process. Massive errosion takes place, the islands become a saline desert. Everyone either dies or leaves. You have this money, but you have irrevocably unmade part of the world. What value is that money now? It's of negative value to the world and the people in it.
By the way, this isn't my original thinking, this is teachings of Peter Drucker, the godfather of modern business management theory.
Actually they bought Netscape for the Netscape.com portal site, which Steve Case had been lusting over for quite some time. They gave all of the software that came with the Netscape deal either to Sun or to the public, through Mozilla, which they proceeded to not use. AOL TimeWarner is a media company with no use for an operating system like Redhat Linux
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
11 Reasons AOL Time Warner Would Buy Red Hat
11. New metric of average customer IQ all the rage on Wall Street.
10. Fears Red Hat may use its monopoly of the 12 Linux using AOL subscribers against it to keep it off the KDE desktop.
9. Securing the rights to "The Life and Times of Michael Tiemann" movie trilogy their highest priority.
8. Confused Red Hat with the company that makes the Where in the World is Carmen San Diego game.
7. Can simply modify ad campaign to say, "So difficult no wonder you'll have to ask your geek nephew for help printing."
6. Running out of computer users to alienate.
5. "The kids keep teasing me about not being cutting edge, so I had to do something about it, Mom"
4. Negotiations to purchase Microsoft not going so well.
3. Because Red Hat said they would give them the source code to Linux if AOL Time Warner purchased them.
2. Wanted to add to their growing stable of technological has-beens.
1. Steve Case is following 2 month salary rule of thumb for purchasing other companies.
The only reason AOL was able to "buy" TW was because the purchase was a stock exchange; no real money changed hands. Since at the time of the "purchase" AOL's stock was widly overvalued (due to the dot-com craze) they were able to purchase TW with stock shares. I saw a show recently where it was said that if the purchase were never made, then today TW would be worth more than AOL.
Okay, I'll be the first to say I've never really liked little Billy Gates and his strangehold on the O/S market... but I like hellnet less.
AOL seems to be buying up everyone and if they include AOL 8.0 (or whatever they are up to now) with a copy of an Operating System (I have a feeling they are going to work Red Hat until it's as simple as most windows apps) a lot of people aren't going to argue. Linux has raised a lot of eyebrows and to use it with full blessings of a company like AOL, might make another monopoly. I hate their browser, why would I want my operating system in their hands? The privacy concern issues are also too many to mention.
Being part of the corporate machine isn't what Linux was based on!
Reality... caught within the depths of night... has no more substance than the lucent dream. -Tales of Genji.
I'm all for this. Why?
I hate redhat. I hate commercialism (don't bother debating me on commercialism, I will NOT bother replying to, or reading, your stupid rants).
AOL tosses the salad(tm) pretty good on most everything it touches.
So buy them. I want to see Red Hat turned into a Red Shitlog.
All hail Slackware.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
And now, AOL is denying rumours that they are eyeing Red Hat. Hrm.
CNet talks about acquiring a desktop OS as a tool to keep Microsoft at bay. But they point out, as I did earlier, that Linux is a non-starter for the desktop in most of the world, but may make sense for AOL in developing countries.
It certainly must be conceded that the Washington Post is not a rumor site. Post fans should not despair, however. With some good coaching and old fashioned work ethic, they might aspire to emerge from their endless post-Watergate/Janet Cooke phase to a more prestigious position as a rumor site wannabe.
Free Adam Smith! (Or best offer.)
On the other hand, Mozilla does crash rather less often than IE 6. The only thing that keeps me from switching back is a really nasty memory leak.
The tree dump you're complaining about is actually generated by an XSL stylesheet that's provided in an IE resource file, and used when the XML document doesn't specify a stylesheet
Thank you. (Hint to moderators: parent is Informative.) One question remains, though: which standard stylesheet should I use for XHTML documents? And why isn't it seeing the stylesheet I specify in <link rel="stylesheet" href="/de.css" /> ? (Yes, I do name stylesheets de.css.)
Will I retire or break 10K?
Before I commence my rant, let me offer what I do know. In XML documents, stylesheets are never optional. This includes XHTML. I assume the HTML Working Group has documented a set of standard style sheets, but I lack any inclination to research the matter. Judging from the Mozilla IRS XML demo (which also works in IE), there are at least two.
Why am I so indifferent to XHTML? Because it's just not very important. Before XML came along, HTML was the only way to do rich text in a web browser. But now (well, not right now -- neither IE nor Mozilla fully implement CSS or XSL, and we need both) you can use any XML application you want. And there are some very nice ones out there. Docbook is well established and has all the features you could want. (A web-compatible stylesheet would be a pain to write, but I think there will be several available soon enough.) DITA is a very promising XML app for API documents, my own particular interest. Many, many more are currently available or under development. As XML becomes more widely accepted, there will be schemas and stylesheets to suit every interest.
XHTML has to compete with all of these. Even if I had fonder memories of the the HTML Working Group's past efforts, I'd be sceptical that it can. Where's the call for a complex one-size-fits-all XML app?
The HTML Working Group claims that XHTML has two important features. It will work with older browsers that don't support XML, and it will make it easy for HTML hackers to learn XML. But neither claim makes sense. Most older browsers, with their hacked up little features, will just choke on XHTML. And HTML people who can't deal with the paradigm shift are not going to be helped by yet another over-complex spec.