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.

4 of 525 comments (clear)

  1. Well... by PovRayMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  2. IE: built from the ground up? by jackDuhRipper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  3. Re:That's a long way off by ImaLamer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  4. Re:AOL is a good company, but what about Time Warn by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 4, Interesting

    HanzoSan writes:

    > 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 .Net, but I wouldn't get too friendly with them: they might just bite.

    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