Slashdot Mirror
Warnings to Red Hat about AOL Buyout
andyo from O'Reilly
submitted linkage to a report he wrote over there where he urges Red Hat to
think twice
about letting AOL eat them.
Talks about GNN, as well as Netscape. I'm sure this isn't the last
word we'll hear on this subject either.
Justin Frankel and his nullsoft team created the popular mp3 player for windows, winamp. It was free. It was good. AOL bought them. Justin and the nullsoft team are rich. Winamp is still good and free. It's not called AOL Winamp, the presence of AOL is not there in any new version of winamp.
Perhaps AOL buying Red Hat might not be a terrible thing. Besides, as with the many alternative mp3 players, there are other linux distrobutions out there.
----------
Check out my blackbox styles
In the article it cites GNN and Netscape as companies that have failed under AOL. The difference is they were admitted failures before AOL even acquired them.
Red Hat on the other hand IS successful. It is a bit of a stretch to suggest AOL is going to kill something that is dying, because it didn't save others that were past their use-by date.
There's already been an AOL client for linux.
AOL for a big company has earned alot of Respect.
They have never directly put any other company out of business, and when they have they purchased the Company right before it did (CompuServe?)
AOL buys alot of companies that were doomed and saves them, for our sake, not really because its profitable (Netscape, Mirabilis, Nullsoft) all of these companies would have went out off business if AOL didnt save them.
The one buyout AOL made which i didnt like was the buyout of TimeWarner, I dont like Time Warner.
What I worry about is Time Warner controlling Redhat, if it were AOL(before the merger) there'd be nothing to worry about.
I'd sell Redhat if it were to AOL, but time warner worries me.
It could be an attempt to CONTROL the last grasp of freedom we have, Linux.
I dont know if its a good move to sell because I dont trust Time Warner, not because I dont trust AOL.
AOL seems to be on our side for the most part, as is IBM, I wouldnt mind IBM buying Redhat either.
By being on our side I mean they want to sell services to the consumer, not sell content.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Could it be that O'Reilly is afraid of the publishing powerhouse of Time-Warner. Hey, if Time-Warner got serious about Linux publishing, O'Reilly would be back to publishing pamphlets on sed and coff. O'Reilly is a publisher. So is Time-Warner. They are competitors. Time-Warner could shove O'Reilly into the dust bin. Linux publications amount to about 75% of O'Reilly revenue. Take that away and he is left publishing Windows Problems (or somesuch title - I've seen it in his catalog).
The fact that Microsoft chose to build a competing browser from the ground up and give it away for free, largely to do the same thing, vindicates this strategy.
It wasn't your point, I realize, but MSFT did not really build IE from the ground up - they started with several large bits of code and functionality from Spyglass, et al. ...)
And Netscape had been giving away their browser for free, as well (it's just they weren't bundling it with a desktop OS for which they had a monopoly
As far as Netscape not capitolizing on the traffic their portal generated; they did make some pretty nice ad revenue from it, it's just they got more interested in selling server software (because of the aforementioned lack of revenues from client software) and thought that'd save their bacon.
The points about buying the eyeballs of everyone who didn't change their default homepage (~90%+ of all users), and of getting a leverage point against MSFT are right on.
Think about this situation, We all could end up getting paid through AOL. AOL subcribers start paying alittle extra a month and this gets paid to us to write open source software (kinda like Mozilla)
I think for the open source economy it could be a good thing, IF AOL has good motives. Subscription for services COULD ruin Microsofts entire idea of "Pay for licenses and products"
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
After being trapped in AOHell for nearly five years, i have to say that if AOL aquires Red Hat, you may as well kiss it goodbye. AOL has made some of the worst written software in history, their service is a joke, and their tech support is nearly non-existant. Now, i respect the people at Red Hat (i now use Red Hat 7.2), and i think that they make a great product, but if AOL gets ahold of them, they're gonna disappear so fast that it'll make David Copperfield look like an amateur!
The people at RH need to get a clue: AOL is only buying them for their name, they have no interest in open souce software, nor do they care about the average computer user (for five years, i dealt with a 19.2kb/s connection on a 59kb/s modem. they blamed faulty installations of the software every single time. of course, everybody else that i knew that used AOL had the same problem).
Red Hat is seen as the foremost distributer of linux. if this deal were to go through, I would be truly worried about the future of open source software.
I think you are overlookin AOL's control.
With major news magazines and cable channels under their control they can squash anyone in there way.
Yes, clueless AOL users still use the web, but they won't switch from AOL. For some AOL is great because it's so easy. Can they make linux that easy? Yes. Because they have the source code.
The only bad thing I can see coming out of this is Microsoft Apps for linux. Closed, of course, but IE 7.0?
I kinda support this, because if AOL gets into the linux game device drivers will suddenly pop-up out of no where. I don't think they will be writing them, or the Rhat team. But a bunch of closed source drivers will show up for things we never seen before. Winmodems? First time an AOL/Linux/GNU/TW user says his modem won't work, AOL will step up their power and get him a driver.
I think RHat would be left to do it's own thing, but it will have it's bigger brother AOL/TW to get the tough shit done.
I just hope someone watches the source code.
As far as AOL depending on MS... I don't think so. Every AOL/TW daughter company has a product to kill MS.
Windows = Linux
IE = Netscape
Windows Media Player = Winamp [no video, yet]
MSN = AOL
MSNBC = CNN
What else? These are going to be two heavyweights battling it out. Hopefully AOL wins. Yes, they are lame, but they will still have linux! [zealot? me? yes!]
It's gonna be a good fight to watch.
Get your Unix fortune now!
That's the usually near-sighted view. But I would look at the long term picture.
AOL stock has been doing nothing but drop for many months now (I own some from when it was Netscape). On the other hand RedHat has been rising again. If I had traded my AOL for RedHat a few months back, I would have made back all that AOL has lost for me and much more.
RedHat is well positioned in the Linux market. In five years, it could be valued at half of what Microsoft is now. The long term return on investment is much, much better as an independent company.
-Dan
Stop bitching about desktop Linux, this ain't about desktop Linux. Think set-top boxes. Think hand-held electronics and the emerging portable media market. I thought /dot guys were sharper than this.
Everyone seems to be focusing on AOL trying to supplant Microsoft on the desktop. I don't believe AOL is arrogant enough to believe that they can beat 95% market-share.
.NET. Web services seems to be everyone's obsession these days, not competing on the desktop against a monopoly with unlimited cash.
Perhaps AOL is instead interested in Linux as a server platform which it could use to compete with
AOL certainly has the means to distribute red hat and they know how to cater to computer users. both could be very good for redhat.
aol CDs are EVERYWHERE, every stop at wal mart i grab a dozen or so for coasters and frisbees. imagine if redhat were like that. instead of d/ling the new distro, you just grab it on your way out of the grocery.
i know AOL is dumbed down and simple, but they may be able to streamline redhat and make it as simple to use as aol which would allow aol user types to switch to redhat.
According to my crystal ball, AOL wants to have Linux distribution that
they can cast to the winds and reach the consumers between pages
of a magazine and their mail. The Linux distribution will be stamped
``AOL Bonus OFFER!! A Powerful Internet Connectivity Experience Suite.
Exclusively for users of Windows 95/98/2000 only!!''
The user installs the CDROM on his drive which (1) repartitions the
users hard drive and makes the computer dual-booting or (2) Installs
a small boot portion of itself on the Windows partition allowing
the user to click-boot ``AOL icXP'' via the bootable CDROM.
Presto! Linux has conquered another drive. AOL now gently offers
to make AOL icXP the default boot OS. Of course, in order to satisfy
the requirements of the GPL, AOL puts a 5 pt typeface blurb on the
inside back cover of the installation manual about GPL, Linux etc.
If AOL icXP is any good, it will have an office suite, a browser,
and an IM client. No one will need to boot Windows anymore.
If AOL offers enough money, RedHat is obliged to accept, even if they believe that being bought by AOL will mean the end of the RedHat distribution.
Is this really true!? What if Red Hat thought the money was good, but didn't believe that AOL would properly make use of RH's assets, etc, and would end up running the company into the ground? Then it wouldn't matter HOW much they bought it for, would it? Would they still be "obliged" to take the $$$? (This isn't rhetorical; I'm genuinely curious here...)
The Free desktop that Just Works
Redhat is NOT some AOL competitor like CompuServ that they're buying out to fend off competition. They want to do something with it, and the entire OSS community stands to benefit.
-3Suns
~~~~
The Revolution will be Slashdotted
Unlikely reasons:
We need to face the music here, kids, the only ones who care about a Linux based desktop are all here, except the two that forgot to read this site today.
What if all those AOL cd's we see everywhere were free "linux migration kits" which gave people an easy to use linux install with replacements for many common programs, and wine etc for compatibility?
Obvious answer, Microsoft.
Yes friends, Microsoft in a stunning religious epiphany realizes its opposition to GPL code has been misguided, and to set thing in order will fund a GPL infringement suit against AOL for violating the GPL.
During the press conference, notes that none of their code is GPL based, and their recent conversion to supporting the GPL will have no effect on their codebase.
... it will be the best thing that ever happened to desktop linux (in recent years). First of all, AOL is well known supporter of open source (mozilla, aol server, etc), then they know how to take over company and dont ruin it (netscape ruined themselves before they sold out anyway), such as nullsoft...
Why would they do it? First of all, forget about switching users to Linux, etc, etc...they are not stupid, they wont force users to change OS, c'mn, dont get overboard with the idea... what they want is alternative if MS decides to scrap AOL from XP... and slowly build their alternative choice so when the time come they have more weapons to battle MS with.
Can you imagine AOL Linux + Office + AOL Internet dvd's in mail? sure not tomorrow, but in few years for sure...
maybe linux will finally have something to fight MS with, that actually works in desktop enviroment for all users...
But if you think that apple is going to force anyone to use linux, that wont happen... that would be suicide for any service company...especially if 90% potential users use MS.
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
HanzoSan writes:
.Net, but I wouldn't get too friendly with them: they might just bite.
> Time Warner however, is dangerous, isnt Time Warner a part of the
> RIAA? Their influence in Linux is what would worry me.
They (the Warner part) are a member of that barrel of sharks called the MPAA (see http://www.mpaa.org/about/), and as such, are part of all the digital rights idiocy that has been going on. That puts them in the dangerous to evil category, as far as Slashdot is concerned. I'm not that fond of Red Hat personally, but as a major Linux distributor, I think that being bought out by a major content conglomerate would be a "bad" thing. AOL/TW has their uses as a foil to Microsoft's
Despite the silly incedent with a part of IBM supporting putting DRM into harddrives, overall I think they'd be a better choice for a buyer. IBM has already done the evil empire thing, to the point of playing footsie with Nazi Germany. They got slapped down hard for it, and have had a chance to learn from their experiences. While I wouldn't trust the new IBM 100%, they are by far a kinder, gentler, wiser company now. Having their own distribution would benefit them with the ability to take Linux to the point where they could use it for everything they do. Having the IBM brand on Linux would further legitimize it. Both could benefit.
"What do you think Mothra would do?" - Moll, "Mosura" 1996
I don't want AOL controlling gcc.
Actually, I think that's the least frightening prospect of the whole thing, since you KNOW the AOL executives are gonna leave that thing alone. There's no strategic market value or power in a compiler, so even if AOL has evil motives or just dumb ideas, the compiler itself is going to remain safe.
And if AOL dev had any control over gcc, I can think of quite a few bugs that would have been fixed much, much more quickly. (The LONG_MAX nightmare comes to mind.)
Sitting around sifting all these details through my head, it occured to me that all this AOL/Redhat talk might end up being super cool for the linmodem folks.
To spell it out, an AOL/Redhat OS will obviously need to work with the innumerable makes and models of modems lying about on joe-ueser's box. Of course this will mean a pretty wide base of drivers. Last time I checked the linmodem folks were making a good start with some drivers, but still pretty far from complete support for the umpteen million software modem brands.
Pure (another step-along) speculation for now, but I guess we shall see.
I'm wondering what difference AOL having its own operating system will make if Microsoft still has their exclusive arrangements with OEMs to force consumers to pay for Windows on their desktops. For instance, if I go out and pay for a Dell computer, and am forced to pay for Windows, what incentive will I have afterwards to use AOL's OS?
The software and the OS will have already been installed, and the only way to get AOL's OS on my system will be to reformat my harddrive and erase all the extra software that came with my system. Since I've already paid $100+ for the Windows license, I really have no incentive to install the AOL OS.
AOL is going to need a distribution mechanism for their new Linux operating system, otherwise, they'll be unable to capture even 1% of the market for desktop computers. They are going to HAVE to get a major OEM to agree to pre-install AOL Linux. I can't see anybody installing the CD just because they got it in the mail and it's free if they're already using Windows.
This space left intentionally blank.
If you take a step back and really look at what and where the consumer market is going, then an investment in Linux becomes a natural. Face it, AOL doesn't want a desktop (they've pretty much admitted defeat on that to M$), they don't know what they want for a UI (witness the thrashing of Mozilla), and they don't really even want to go into the server OS market (witness the whole iPlanet thing with Sun).
I see them looking at looking to expand their penetration of content (face it, they PC market is pretty saturated now). This is an environ where new methods of content delivery need to match content providers. Is the future really Windows CE, er... Embedded XP (or whatever they're calling it today)? Not really.
Secondly, in a recent interview Mike Tiemann alluded to various telcos looking at Linux for telephony. Consider he fact that AOL-TW is also quietly realigning a *LOT* of resources into telephony (and derivatives, thereof). Thus, a Linux investment to enhance their telephony initiatives makes for quite an interesting prospect. Once again, this is NOT a M$ dominated market.
While I don't think AOL-TW would necessarily "kill off" the RH Linux distro, it would really be sidelight business.
It might actually be beneficial, depending what they decide to do with it. Going by AOL's history of buying companies, that's close to "naff all" so it's not necessarily bad.
How about if they actually decided to do something with it - such as help market it towards home users, give copies of it away in the same abundance as AOL disks (which we still get almost daily here) etc?
You have to admit, AOL are good at one thing - marketing (mainly through "shove it in your face until you give in" tactics, but hey). Enticing the clueless Joe Sixpack into using their software, and making it so easy that a monkey could use it.
This is an area that's growing well in Linux, but still its main weakness - ease of use for the average joe, a simpler install system than vanilla RPM, pretty interfaces, and Joanna Lumley telling you when you have mail.
Maybe, just maybe, it could be a good thing. AOL for many people was the first step onto the Internet (before moving onto better providers when they became independent of AOL's hand-holding). Perhaps they could do the same for Linux.
All in an ideal world of course, but hey.. it's always possible!
each company that has attempted to broaden their product line to attack MS has LOST
First, realize we're not sure AOL cares about Red Hat for the desktop at all. They may be interested in future net-appliances (people just don't give up on those, do they?). Or they may want it for the server farms. Either way, I suspect the goal is not to attack MS, per se, but to ensure that AOL is not dependent on the whims (and anticompetitive aggressions) of MS. Big difference.
It's never good to have your core business dependent on suppliers that (a) might not be around tomorrow or (b) won't necessarily act in your best interests. Why do you think there's a mix of HP-UX and Solaris running at AOL? Certainly not because of the similarities and ease of porting. Partly for the specific hardware configs they offer, yes, but largely to avoid a single point of (business) failure.
If Red Hat is, or can be made, stable enough, for AOL's server platform, then it's a great choice to further diversify the servers. But anyone who's been burned by a Cygnus support contract - and I suspect that would include anyone who HAS one - knows that you can't depend on them for fixes. Gotta buy them.
Similarly, if I were still at AOL, I'd be worried about what Microsoft will do for me in the future. IE integration bugs? Windows bugs or limitations that just happen to affect the AOL client? Remember DR-DOS.
Assuming you can create a novice-friendly desktop environment, which AOL excels at, getting Linux on the desktop could be a stable long-term alternative, because AOL could then ensure that the whole package works together. Any AOL-limiting bugs could be instantly fixed.
Sounds like a huge number of potential upsides for AOL, both short and long term.
All these comments could be true only if you assume the developers would play along with evil ploys.
And I assure you that this is not the case at least for most of us.
I can't confirm or deny the acquisition rumors (my guess about them is as bad as anyone else's), but I can confirm that most of us will not allow anyone to take our work proprietary or do other evil things.
If the rumors were true and AOL played along mostly by our rules, fine.
If they were true and they try to push Linux into the wrong direction (making parts proprietary, forcing weird SSSCA-like things in), we're out of here and they can't do anything about it.
Take a look at the community-wise important people at Red Hat - can anyone really imagine an Alan Cox hacking SSSCA enforcements into a proprietary fork of Linux? Or Ulrich Drepper adding the ConnectToAOL(const char *username, const char *password) system call to glibc?
Ingo Molnar adding patches to the PPP stack that slow down dialup connections unless the server is AOL?
In reality, if this were true, I think there would be two possible outcomes:
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
But then, that's what you want, isn't it...
Heaven forbid Linux should ever become mainstream and popular with non-geeks...
"Information wants to be paid"