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
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
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!
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.
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
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.)
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"