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
AOL: "Yes of course."
Red Hat: "I have heard all of these nasty rumors that you are only using me for who I am and that you don't care about me at all. Is this true?
AOL: "Perhaps...Oh wait, I mean NO! NO! Who told you such things?"
Red Hat: "Your ex: Netscape."
AOL: "That stupid bitch."
*shrugs*
stupid advertisement
www.angstmonster.org
good work.
first few lines:
Think Twice, Red Hat
by Andy Oram
Jan. 19, 2002
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
He doesn't adress the most plausible scenario, in which AOL is mearly picking up another weapon with which to threaten Microsoft. Like Winamp, Redhat woudl probably be let alone to continue development, but AOL could say, "Look BIll, we would like to see some AIM and AOL integration with Windows. We don't need your cheeseball OS, we can take our ball and go home."
Apparently, AOL hoped to capitalize on the Netscape home page, which most Netscape users left as their default when starting up their browser. That's about the flimsiest grounds I can think of for purchasing a whole company--along with the commitment to maintain and enhance its products.
Perhaps. But as many have pointed out before, one of Netscape's biggest corporate weaknesses was that they didn't capitalize on this, which virtually guaranteed an immediate and huge subscriber base for whatever on-line service they chose to offer. 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. Remember this was when the dot-com upswing was well underway, and everybody and their uncle was turning their site into a portal ...
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
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.
I don't see the problems. You will still be able to modify things to suit you. AOL users will get what they want. Red Hat will be assured survival under the world's largest ISP. Microsoft will improve or die.
.... might have her actually use her machine some more and definatly enjoy it more. If AOL bought Correl, she would be very happy indeed.
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
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.
There's already been an AOL client for linux.
What's the best that could happen? They give Bill Gates a good, swift kick in the balls.
Sounds good to me.
Find free books.
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.
Sorry about nitpicking, but there is a minor presence of AOL. Try installing a newer version of WinAMP - it'll offer you to place some AOL icons on your desktop. If you decline, nothing will happen. This is a pretty fair deal as far as I'm concernced.
BUT - have you installed ICQ 2001 lately? Without even bothering to ask me beforehand, it neatly placed six AOL links pretty much everywhere where there's place for an icon - start menu top level, start menu in some group, quickbar, desktop, favorites, and some other places. I really had to do a global search for "AOL" to wipe 'em all out.
However, if AOL involvement is limited to randomly placing AOL links somewhere on the desktop which today's Linux users surely steer clear of anyway, I'm all for it.
You see my new(Red)Hat? It's made of money!
i have to admit that i myself have large reservations about capitalism as it is applied in North America, particularly in the freedoms whihc it allows to Corporations. But still, Open Source is about Information, not about little guys VS. corporations. It justhappens that the single largest opponent of Open Source and the GPL is also the single largest corporation(I don't have to say the name of the Beast, do I?).
As a community, we have to be careful about who we decide our enemies are. Linux has benefitted in the past from corporate involvement: Corel for Example. Red Hat(also Mandrake) has been held up as the flagship product of the Linux Community many times in terms of winning over the Windows/Apple user who doesn't want to take the time to understand all of the 'computer tech complexities' that they believe Linux involves. But we have to ask ourselves: If a large number of ex-Windows users get won over by AOL/RedHat Linux, have we really lost? It seems to me that a Linux user is a Linux user and that one more Linux user is one less customer for Bill and one less pocketbook supporting closed source.
Perhaps many of us would personally like to see AOL fall on it's face for unrelated reasons, but if they want to swing some of their weight around to back the Red Hat project, I don't think that we should necessarily get up in arms over it.
lysergically yours
For all the discussion about whether this would be good or bad for RedHat, linux, open source software, etc. an important point has been neglected. RedHat is a public company. It has an obligation to its shareholders.
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.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Hate to break it you, but Linux != RedHat.
And, as someone pointed out in the previous discussion, Linus Torvalds owns the Linux trademark and various other legal rights. If RedHat would stray too far from what he has in mind he'll just ask them to stop calling it RedHat Linux, Linux is safe, and the world is a happy place once again.
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
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
now that the editors have removed the link from the story, they might want to remove it from the "Related Links" box just beside it.
:-\
Anyone have a mirror? Anyone?
-9mm-
If it were a sale to AOL there wouldnt be anything to worry about there, but Time Warner?!
The Movie Company? The Magazine Company?
Now, They do sell content, and they do sell services.
Which side are they on?
AOL sells services, I can imagine them supporting Open source even faster than I can imagine IBM doing it.
Time Warner however, is dangerous, isnt Time Warner a part of the RIAA? Their influence in Linux is what would worry me.
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.
AOL is trying to move to Netscape based services.. although I believe they are currently under contract with MS. ICQ now uses the Oscar (AIM) protocol, AIM and ICQ are now the same. Nullsoft, well.. first of all, Nullsoft has a very popular mp3 player from what I hear.. which is also being ported to linux (slow and buggy, though).
AOL also owns Netscape which has cross platform browsers. AOL also provided Tik, a tcl/tk AIM client and a native linux port using Gtk. As well as a native (but unreleased) Linux client for AOL ISP services.
.
AOL won't dare produce their own distribution that is incompatable with current linux installs; they would get chewed up in the same grinder BeOS did. What AOL will do is get lots of users one less reason to use Windows and port a lot of good applications to Xwindows/linux.
AOL is not new to linux, but it has been a snake in the grass waiting to strike. Sure, they will be a big company.. but they will do great things, for linux on the desktop; if linux on the desktop is something you really want. This can be a very good thing. As long as the masses realize that that Redhat/AOL != Linux. Redhat has already ported/developed via their several daughter companies an almost complete suite of multimedia applications for Linux; This will be their final slap in the face to Microsoft.
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
Famous Last Words, part 1.
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.
Pipe dream part 1. I don't buy this cheap market analysis, that there are these millions of people who want nothing from their computer but email and AOL. Peripheral support still matters. Plugins still matter. You can delude yourself into thinking that all of these users will have a useage profile that somehow prevents them from ever encountering any of linux's shortfalls on the desktop, but they will.
This could kill Microsoft.
Pipe dream part two. How many times has that been erroneously mentioned on this site?
At any rate, it's not obvious just what the results of taking over RHAT would be. There are ample possibilities for both good and ill, from many perspectives:
On the one hand, "If AOL/TW thinks there's something to it..." but then if they do something silly, credibility can get badly hurt.
Enter a new set of "policy controllers." Again, this can be good or bad.
Ambiguous again.
One interesting effect, regardless, is that a bunch of people that invested in RHAT will get some pretty substantial value out of it. If things go bad, Debian is still there, and we might see some made-rich hackers get into new involvements. Hopefully a little more computing-related than jwz's DNA Lounge, but that's not to be a flame of jwz...
If the result is that AOL/RHAT "craters," there's always Debian, Slackware, Mandrake, SuSE, and the BSDs still around...
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
It seems to me the better idea would be for AOL to buy Mandrake if it really wants to make a desktop OS. Mandrake is already close to a very good setup now.
When I think Red Hat I think servers (even though we run Debian on ours) and a decent desktop. I think it would really hurt the Red Hat image as a server OS to be bought by AOL. Even if AOL leaves them totally alone they will still be battling an image problem for a while.
How is AOL going to compete with Microsoft by just selling a Linux distro? First off, who uses AOL? Newbies; in fact, newbies who already own computers. Computers they bought that came shipped with MS Windows. Now, AOL buys Red Hat and says, "Use Linux." What percentage of these absolute newbies are going to be talked into installing a new operating system?
Furthermore, Linux as it is now is not tailored for newbies. Yes, it is ten times better than it was just a couple of years ago, but it's still not as easy to use or install or configure as Windows is, plus it lacks the software that everyone and his mom have used before at work/school. So AOL will need to build software too, now, eh? Maybe they leave that in Red Hat's domain, but now they're adding onto their expenses.
Even with software support, no de facto AOL user will ever be talked into switching operating systems. It isn't a newbie-level task. The only hope is if vendors sell the computers with this Linux distro already on it, or if AOL gets into the computer hardware sales arena, which would be beyond crazy, especially when considering the entrenched market leaders are having a difficult time in this economy. So AOL would have to convice Compaq/HP/Gateway/etc. to sell Linux versions.
Of course, Microsoft wouldn't like this and would strongly encourage them not to do this. Ad campaigns would convince the newbies that if they bought AOL Linux they couldn't use their favorite software, or play their favorite games. Come on AOL, you can spend your money better than by trying to compete against Microsoft in the desktop arena. Stick to your ISP business, stick to your media empire - dominate there and work WITH Microsoft to blend the media and the computer age.
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
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!
Suppose AOLTW bought Red Hat and took the software into Closed Source? Could they try this? Yes. Would they get away with it? One supposes that might depend upon what your definition of "get away with it" means. Who could afford to sue them back into compliance with the GPL? Would the GPL prevail? (It's never been tested in court.) Would tying a lawsuit up the courts for 5-10 years mean they "get away with it" win or lose?
If AOLTW took Red Hat closed source, Mandrake and other Red Hat based distributions would be up the creek. Mandrake (the slickest desktop Linux now) would have to change their base distribution, at great cost and delay. The resulting loss of momentum would surely hurt them and might even stagnate and kill Mandrake. This wouldn't be good.
What follows is a repost of a comment I made on Kuro5hin.
On Slashdot the news of potential purchase of RedHat by AOL has mostly been received with much rejoicing at the potential demise of MSFT's monopoly power.
I am curious as to why people don't fear AOL/TW. From where I sit they already own too much and already influence the perceptions of millions of people with their ownership of Netscape, Nullsoft, ICQ, Time magazine, CNN, WB television network, Time Warner records, Warner Bros. movies, and a lot more that I can't remember right now.
Microsoft may own the OS that most people run but AOL/TW controls the news magazines they read, the music they listen to, the movies and television shows they watch, and how they connect to the Internet as well as most of what they view while online.
Interestingly I'd like to see how a user modifiable OS like Linux interacts with AOL/TW's music and movie divisions that would like to see DRM support implemented in all software from operating systems to browsers. This should be interesting (kinda like NullSoft releasing Gnutella only for AOL to get mad)
- embeded linux for handheld emailing
- linux on internet pcs
The "problem", well for AOL atleat, is that they can't decide what OS the user has. Since the average AOLer uses windows they can't make much of a difference there. What they could do though is along with redhat make a new side distro or whatever you want to call it that mimics windows in use and setup. This is though a double edged sword, sure this could help take a piece of the OS pie from MS, but it could also led to the downfall of redhat.Carpe meam simiam!
Maybe AOL could inject enough motivation/cash/experience/exposure/whatever to Red Hat to make the final push to being a truly competing desktop OS.
If they did that, as much as I hate AOL, I'd applaud them and potentially support them by buying the product.
Let's face it, there seems to be a LOT of people out there who don't know any better and use AOL, so maybe AOL saying "use this OS instead of MS" to their subscriber base could be what it takes to turn the tide.
$0.02 (CDN)
Theres 0 percent chance of them making it closed source.
They always supported open source because they dont sell the software itself, they sell the services. The subscribers of AOL pay for winamp, netscape, icq, and so on. You dont buy this stuff, its free.
I dont think we need to worry about them closing source.
As far as other companies, do you really think IBM would sit around and let AOL take over their Linux? Hell no.
IBM would most likely Buy Mandrake and compete with AOL and keep Mandrake Open Source.
IBM invests 1 billion in Linux every year, Mandrake only costs about 20 million from what i hear.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Actually if you get the nicemc plugin for winamp it can play almost any format for movies. I used to use it when I used windows. All they have to do is buy the guy's code and include it with the release. A much better player than Windows Media by any estimation.
If AOL ate Red Hat, would they swallow them or would they just spit them back out?
But that would upset RMS in a strange, ironic, twist of logic.
Linus Torvalds owns the Linux trademark and various other legal rights. If RedHat would stray too far from what he has in mind he'll just ask them to stop calling it RedHat Linux
Could Linus really enforce the Linux trademark? I'm probably wrong, but doesn't a trademark lose its value if the owner doesn't vigorously defend its usage. And Linus has basically let everyone under the sun use the term Linux wherever they want.
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 you are not Erris, then this post is probably the most blatent plagerism I have seen on slashdot.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
but Redhat owns Cygnus. I don't want AOL controlling gcc. Not that I believe any of it.
Disclosure: I have a stake in AOL / Time Warner.
:) although of course it was necessary to put the disclaimer there.
this fact is less significant than it might be if AOL/TW stock was prone to go up as a result of this announcement.
hm. i wish i had bought some red hat last year. rising value in my portfolio is a good thing in my opinion.
-jon
-- http://www.cerastes.org
One good thing that will come of this, no matter what happens, is that GNU/Linux will attain greater visibility. "Hmm, if AOL/TW is interested, maybe I should be looking into this..."
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
MS got to where they are today by taking advantage of several business practices tied directly to their ability to "lock in" their users and partners. For MS, it's all about leverage, not to higher profits, but to doing what will lock in their users in ways that are profitable to them.
With Linux, that's impossible. Due to licensing and open technologies, you can't hide system calls, you can't obscure protocols or file formats. You can stamp up and down and insist that only you can change the technology, but nobody will realy listen, even if you're using an embedded box. (Thus the arise of the Tivo hacker.)
What MS has been trying to do is to extend their lock-in beyond just desktop software -- to servers (mission 40% accomplished), set-tops, portables, and now to data and the internet itself, first with MSN (where they learned it's not so easy) and now with .Net and Passport (where they'll learn they haven't learned their lesson yet, IMO).
If they were to be successful at creating a model that allows them the same sort of monopoly lock-in with set-top boxes as they have had with software, the big corporate media nonsense you see happening right now would be a pittance. Want to burn a copy of that Universal CD you're listening to? MS wants to be the company that gives you the permission - or prevents you - from doing so. Want to play XBox Madden 2005 against your friend in Springfield? MS will make it possible, with your Passport data from zone.com - and keep a record of what you've done.
This is all wild, idle speculation of course. My crystal ball has been totally wrong before. But MS is close to reaching the upper limit on the desktop, as far as how much revenue they can squeeze out of IT departments for forever upgrading Windows and Office. that's why they're now going to software "rental" plans, anti-piracy raids, and XP installation verification.
That's difficult stuff to push on a bust market that's a little skeptical of the promise of tech, but MS has no choice really; if their stock price does not continue to increase, their employees take the hit. For MS, it could be a case of grow or perish. They already gave more stock out once to counter the employee's needs when the stock stagnated for a while... they surely can't do that during an extended period of time.
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.
Their stocks steadily went down as has been the trend looking at their entire stock history.
Their stock peaked at 20 times it's IPO price, shockingly quickly. Obviously (to anyone not following the "bigger sucker" theory of investment) it was only headed back down from there when people came to their senses. I think if you take the split into account, they're actually trading ~10% above their IPO price again, which IMHO is a pretty fair valuation finally.
Honestly I'd like to see a competitor come out with an alternative OS. The main issue will be software support. Remember back to the VHS/Beta days - Beta was better (technologically), but VHS won out because of its far larger library of videos. Same thing with Apple/Macs and PC clones.
If AOL could create an easy-to-use OS that could run Windows programs, I'd consider buying it, as, I think, many others would. However, as you mentioned, this would require years and billions of dollars. And, of course, the time and money it takes AOL to start this project, Microsoft, of course, is innovating and continuing to swallow up more market share.
To restate what I sort of skimmed on at the end - I think AOLs best bet would have been way back before MSN was created to partner with Microsoft. Now it may be too late, with MS entrenched in MSN and the like, although who knows. It would be kind of neat to see a merger forming AOL-MS-Time Warner.
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
Banish any thought from your head about open-source, about GNU, and even about Linux. AOL doesn't know about it (much), doesn't care about it (much) and has become large, rich and influential without it.
AOL wants it for two reasons:
1. So Microsoft can't buy it
2. So they can become larger, richer, and more powerful, which would be partly stymied by #1 above.
Let me explain. AOL/Time-Warner knows its business quite well, and its business has nothing to do with software and everything to do with charging people for access to content they desire.
They can't do that if Microsoft, through MSN, is charging people for access to THEIR content instead. Therefore, they must counter or thwart every attempt by Microsoft to eliminate other options by which consumers might get to ATW (not MS) content. Since Microsoft pretty much owns the desktop, and with the sellout of the Justice Department effort against them has pretty much a clear shot to extend that domination into online content.
And not just web content. We're talking interactive messaging, video-on-demand, online commerce and a bunch of other potentially-moneyed pursuits that AOL wants to have or keep for itself.
I think AOL realistically looked at it and realized that (as a piece I read on CNet the other day pointed out) most consumers online in Murka are not the techs and geeks of the old days, they're just McCitizens who (a) don't know about and (b) don't care about "the desktop," "the operating system," or even the hardware. They just wanna send pictures to their Aunt Edith, buy some stuff off Eddie Bauer, check out some choice pron, or watch "Sudden Impact" for eleventeenth time.
How they do it, they don't care. In the 1930s, nobody knew what tubes were in their Philco radios, they only wanted to hear Jack Benny. Or how about now -- can you name the theatre chain in which you saw "The Matrix?" Do you really care? What color was the wallpaper?
This means AOL has "network appliance" in their heads. They've watched the stuff being done with embedded Linux (like the DVRs that aren't all that popular yet but they work). They looked to see who was the big cheese, the Biggest Name In Linux, and it was RedHat. They buy RH, they can have them develop an AOL Network Appliance, basically a box you turn on and it delivers... AOL and Time-Warner content. No Microsoft anywhere to be seen, which means no chance for Microsoft to hijack future revenue streams.
I personally think AOL is torqued off about the whole go-round with Instant Messaging and vowed never to get dicked by MS like that again.
This is not the end of Open Source. Anyone who thinks so radically overestimates the influence of RH on the Linux world. Yes, it's a big influence, and a lot of the way things are can be traced to them, but if RH vanished tomorrow, someone else would step up. I wouldn't be surprised, as a matter of fact, if AOL didn't slurp up the company, then spin it right back out after working out some very favorable licensing deals and pulling in key development staff.
Their track record is strange: they pretty well fouled up Netscape by forgetting there are non-AOL users of the tool, but they left Nullsoft alone and they're as fine as ever. But the strength of open-source is... we don't "need" any one distribution. If we did, we'd have been hosed long ago.
Turtle
---------------------------------------
Rotate the pod, please, HAL....
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
Red Hat is (AFAIK) the only distribution with absolutely no closed source-software.
Red Hat used to sell some closed-sourced stuff (CDE & Motif come to mind), but they got the religion so hard that they dumped all of it (at least from the standpoint of the Linux environment - the Cygnus stuff is still closed, AFAIK).
Red Hat seemed to be the main reason that TrollTech came up with an open-source license for Qt on UNIX (KDE) - I remember the memos on their website.
Red Hat's fanatical adherence to this open-source philosophy has carried them through some really bad releases (7.0, for example). They also do not take adequate customer input for new release development (I will never run ext[23] again, for example), and the timing of the releases is driven more by marketing/accounting than by quality technology. But you know with a Red Hat distribution that all of it is open, and it will stay open, or it won't be in the distribution anymore.
From this perspective, I wish AOL would buy Mandrake, Suse, or Caldera, and leave the real gem alone.
I mean, alancox@aol.com? He'd rather shave his beard off...
They could do a few things.
1, make it so the OS itself doesnt run any programs directly, All your programs running off of AOLs main server which you can only access when you are subscribbed to AOLs network. AOL offers a napster like program which you can only access when subscribbed to AOLS network, also allowing Access to movies and so on through their subscription.
Service based software.
While this isnt all that bad, AOL will become your portal through which all your software runs, another version of
Want access to the code? They'll force you to subscribe.
Another possible situation is AOL, the RIAA poisining the Linux Movement with $$ influence.
Controlling where development goes, slowing it down in places they dont like, so they dont like your software which breaks the DMCA, they make their package management and installer core software closed source and only allow licensed developers to use their nice installers, now your anti DMCA software becomes so hard to use that only programmers can handle it,
Fine for programmers like us but for casual users who dont know linux at all, they are locked out of all the little hacks to the AOLinux software
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
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.
If not, I say Red Hat goes it alone. Red Hat is a server OS company; AOL has no interest in this sector.
If AOL had kept iPlanet (or ever done anything with AOLServer), then I might be saying something else, but things are as they are; AOL did it's best to bury Netscape's server product line, and they will with Red Hat's, too.
Worst case, Red Hat hires Raster back and spins him off into the Red Hat Desktop/OS, then sells him to AOL and pockets the change.
Whatever happened to that Corel Linux distribution? I bet AOL could have that for a song.
Time Warner duh
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
As I'm sure most /. readers know, the webserver core of GNN is now known as AOLserver.
It's open sourced under the MPL and it's actually a pretty darned interesting hunk of Unix application code.
Personally, I do not care for the way that AOL tries to make their dial-up customers dependant on them. The browser brokenness that their customers and many webmasters have to endure ("AOL customers click here...") would probably not persist if AOL didn't lock less-savy users in the way that they do.
But they have dumped a bunch of money into some very cool stuff and have set it free with an astonishingly small number of strings attached, and I for one have trouble not being thankful for that much.
Back in 1998, both Netscape and Intel invested in Red Hat. See this Article at wired for details. Unless AOL have since sold the shares that Netscape acquired, they already have a piece of RH. The specific details of how much was invested weren't divulged, so who knows, this could have just been a marketing exercise...
AOL buying Red Hat is merely one more sign that AOL is looking to sock it to Microsoft in the core of their business - the OS market, and with AOL's huge amount of capital/resources, perhaps they'll be able to grow RH from a minority player to something much more prevalant. Perhaps the ultimate release of the AOL/Redhat OS would be a distant version of what we know now, but like Apple's OS X, if there's a unix based kernel at the core of the OS, it will let the tech-folk play dirty while the non-geeks can still have a simple-to-operate user experience.
It's kind of short sighted to look only at Winamp. Sure, it's a great program, and it's swell of them to distribute it. But they're doing it because they think it fits into their agenda.
And on the other hand, they're gutting Time Magazine and using it to shill their movies and records. Are people who pick the bottom line over journalistic integrity going to pick the integrity of a linux distro over that same bottom line?
I hope that this is just a pissing contest, and that they don't buy redhat. It's really hard to make a coherent argument that MS is more evil than AOL/Time-Warner -- these guys are the worst possible people to buy RH.
Gosling made an interesting point about Linux's licenses. Sure, in theory anyone could fork the kernel. But on a practical level, Linus gets to decide what goes in. There are enormous barriers in place that make forking key components very difficult, and RedHat pays an awful lot of developers -- the Cygnus group was a key aquisition. They control gcc.
Don't kid yourself -- if AOL buys RH, they'll have a lot of power over the Linux universe, as much as anyone. It won't be absolute, completely unchallengable power, but it will be real and substantial, and it will be wielded in AOL's interests, not in ours.
What's important? Beating MS at all costs? Is it worth it to have AOL ship a kazillion Linux cds to mopes around the world, even if the Linux on those CDs is philosophically different from what we have now?
Do we want the guys who are shooting for the $230/month cable bill standing on our necks?
Kudos to the folks at ORA for speaking up.
Look, it's not the most obscure reason in the world why Time Warner (think MPAA) and AOL (think screwing end users) would want to buy Linux (last bastion of freedom)
What is the one and only real objection to the SCSSA bill at the moment? It's that Linux will never accept digital rights management, and even if they did, we'd all work on it from outside America, leaving the US wallowing in a technological vacuum.
So what do we see now? We see AOL buying redhat, and installing digital rights management on it. We see longtime redhat supporters (especially businesses) buying it anyway, and even better, we see it given to all the clones running AOL at home.
Think ahead. It's going to become socially acceptable to lock down and license every piece of electronic equipment, unless the public can see where they're being led, and what they can do about it.
I think Andy's wrong in saying that being bought by AOL is a recipe for failure. Here's a list of acquisitions and how they looked from the inside:
- GNN: That was a flop. No question. It was also one of the first buyouts AOL ever did, and frankly, few people at AOL had any idea what to do with the Internet at the time (like much of the rest of the world). The clumsy attempt at infrastructure integration also hurt. At the time, we were still running on an old, clunky, non-modular architecture that was largely unchanged from its days running Q-Link and PlayNet. Also, if I recall, GNN used BookLink's browser, because we hadn't integrated IE yet. I'm surprised the AOL GNN lasted as long as it did.
- Netscape: I think that's going to be a ninth-inning major success. I think getting the Netcenter home page was certainly one goal, but another was hiring lots of experienced Internet developers, and that's been a HUGE win. Also, now that the Microsoft exclusive contract has expired, I definitely think AOL's gonna end up replacing IE with Netscape. The latest Compuserve beta has the Gecko engine. CS has a few million members, so it's a natural testbed for a technology before it goes into full distribution in the AOL client. Bang.. out of nowhere comes W3C compliance and serious competition for IE.
As for AOL failing to pick up Netscape's vision, well... I'm not sure Netscape had any particular vision by the time we bought them. Heck, most of their executive team did stay on and continue to run the show. Any lack of vision is simply something AOL failed to add, not something they took from Netscape.
- CompuServe: Took a dying service running on 36-bit PDP-10s running custom-made hardware (!) and managed to transition the vast majority of it to a web-based service using the AOL client as a dialer/browser. In effect, this is really the service we tried to create so many years before, but it worked this time. True, you never hear anything about it, but it's still more successful than MSN, so who cares?
- Time Warner: Waaaaay too early to call, but I think there will be some wins. These are two huge companies, and they are being very careful about trying to force them to integrate for buzzword's sake. When I left AOL in August, there was a big push to use AOL's developers as TW's technology infrastructure group, they were setting up ways to find-the-smart-guy-in-the-other-company, and they had combined the help-desk and other support infrastructure. I'm not sure how much difference it will make to end customers, but there are certainly efficiencies they can get as a company.
And don't forget about the less well-known purchases:
- Navisoft. Resulted in AOLServer, one of the best-performing web servers ever, which is free and open-source.
- WinAmp. Still doing fine.
- Personal Library Systems (www.pls.com). Resulted in some excellent intelligent-text-search functionality in the AOL service.
I think Red Hat could be great for a few reasons, aside from the obvious potential for giving Microsoft a run for its money, and creating a workable UI for Linux. Most importantly, AOL has one of the most demanding infrastructures of any site anywhere. We were regularly finding bugs in every OS we ran, even the fault-tolerant ones. And the AOL approach to system operation is fairly rigorous, requiring a lot of maintenance and reporting tools and 24x7 hot-pluggability of everything.
Red Hat could really become a leader in stability, performance and monitorability if AOL is buying it for their own back end.
Anyway, food for thought.
1. Most of the software people use is either private/non-Open sourced, or its the open source software that makes up the huge chunk of what we think Linux is.
2. Even the Redhat specific software (the RPM system, for example) isnt going to change, why would they acquire a company w/ the most popular Linux distribution and then change it up so that it doesnt work w/ previous releases (the same reason you can still run some 16-bit code on WinXP)
These people know what they are doing, they're professionals at acquring other businesses...and the whole deal about Time-Warner being part of the RIAA, that's as about irrelevant as you can get.
Think before you post, folks.
Beer, now there's a temporary solution -- Homer Jay S.
As long as they keep putting them in the metal tins & DVD cases, that would be fine with me.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
I've been telling AOL to eat me for quite some time now.
Java is the blue pill
Choose the red pill
Thank you for explaining that to him ;)
My point was simply that AOL, both directly and though its daughter companies have been producing software for Linux. The software they have been producing are all very important (or at least popular) forms of media.
Take Winamp, AIM, Netscape, their ISP software, their CD-spamming methods, add a little bit of Redhat and you will have a very powerful company. One that will really change Linux on the desktop and will easily have the power to overcome the Microsoft monopoly. This could be a very good thing.
Imagine your Grandma getting the new AOL 10.0 CD in the mail. Grandma is excited to get on the Internet, as that's what everyone was talking about down in the geriatric ward at the local hospital, when she was there because she fell and broke her hip. She takes out the beverage coaster, with its shiny, sparkly, reflective surface and puts in into her WindowsXZ computer. She is given one of two options "Switch to AOL for this Session" or "Install AOL Operating System." The interface has more information about how the new AOL Operating System is easier to use, faster, free, and has all the same type of applications that she is use to in WindowsXZ. It also mentions that it makes AOL and the Internet easier to use. So she decides to go with the AOL Operating System. When she presses that fateful button her hard-drive is reconfigured. XZ is deleted like the infestation it is, while the new AOL Operating System converts her NTFS partition to ext3. When her computer boots up, she gets the friendly "You've Got Mail" chime, and when she checks it, it's an email from the Linux Counter project asking her to go signup. She's now just entered a world only 3 years ago dominated by pretentious youth and opinionated technical professionals. Go Grandma. But the thing is she doesn't know it. Not only does she not know it, if said pretentious youth, and/or opinionated technical professionals looked at her computer initially, they don't see GNOME 3.0 or KDE 4.0, they see America Online, with it's handy yet somehow amazingly lame ART format and colorful pictures arranged in a cluttered yet somehow aesthetically pleasing way.
When posed the question "What is wrong with this?" I have to answer nothing at all. As a matter of fact this just did the one thing that we as a community have been trying to do for the last 9+ years. It has gained legitimacy for *our* movement. Sure it was at the cost of selling our souls, and giving in on what we thought was right, but hey, Now WindowsXZ has a run for its money. Even though when you boot it up, you start to fly around your room with Madonna. How can throwing our ideals out the window be good?
Remember my friend, Linux is not an operating system. It's an operating system kernel, and a way of doing things. By grandma running AOL Operating System based upon the Linux kernel, all that hard work that Linus has been doing for all those years has just hit the real mainstream. We're talking major support for devices, we're talking mass distribution the likes Linux hasn't seen before. That's because by this time, everyone has a computer. No I don't just mean those pesky white middle class folk, I mean everyone. See the government has pony'ed up and bowed to the pressure that the internet was a racist/bigoted/insert bad term here because the lower class individuals couldn't afford the equipment required to let them on the Internet. And Tom Dashill has decided that's America's fault. But enough of that. See these poor internet users can't afford the $200 license fee that M$ is now charging for Windows XZ Home. And instead of being anally raped by the Business Software Alliance, they choose to install the AOL Operating System. Get it?
Now on to the bad side of things; It's somewhat ironic that *the* company that bought all my favorite little companies may be bought by AOL. You see they went out and bought Hells Kitchen Systems, they made my credit card processing software CCVS. And then proceeded fuck it up beyond believe. Customer service became a thing of the past, and as soon as their contract allowed them, the developers got out of RedHat faster than a husband falls asleep after pulling out of his wife. But wait don't stop there, RedHat next on its acquisition trail through my technical life bought C2Net. ISP turned commercial Apache vendor. Having been a long time fan of C2Net for their commercialization of Apache, which benefited me greatly in my business I made good friends with much of the staff, of which a few remain now that Stronghold is a RedHat product. RedHat then in its next stage of becoming the M$ that the stock market wants them to become saw a hole in their enterprise level strategy, which was the RDBMS area. To compete with M$ they needed a database that could compete with SQL Server. Now, based upon the previous history you would think that they were ripe to pick up the PostgresQL startup Great Bridge. After all Great Bridge had 2 things going for it. One, their primary investor was the primary investor in RedHat when it started. Two, they had members of the PostgresQL development crew on staff! But instead of pursuing something to acquire Great Bridge, RedHat decides to put them out of business. In the summer of this year, less than 6 months after the announcement of the "Red Hat Database" which is PostgresQL, Great Bridge closes its doors. And my friends at Great Bridge are looking for jobs.
All that being said, why am I unhappy about the thought of AOL buying RedHat? It's pretty simple actually. In my head it lowers the already borderline esteem I have for the distribution which commonly gets referred to solely as "Linux." RedHat, for all its history, is primarily responsible for the legitimization of Linux in the business community. RedHat has been the torch bearer for our trusty UNIX variant. They've paid for open source programmers to program open source projects, they've co-sponsored conferences, and events. RedHat has, in fact, done for Linux, more than most other Linux related companies have done. Who's to say what their focus will become when they are more concerned about Grandma's ability to send email to her grandchildren then they are about making reliable, secure by default operating systems?
...with builtin copy protection, etc. AOL/Warner would own your linux box and control a good part of what you did with it. If legislation passes (the SSSCA or whatever it's called) then Redhat, with AOL at the controls, would become the only valid version of linux in the USA (and other contries the USA bullies into passing similar laws) because it would have that builtin copy protection crapola.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
... Big Blue? IBM's commercials are pushing Linux more and more, and when it come to IBM, when you're talking Linux, you're talking Red Hat. What would a buy-out of RH by AOL leave them? Would there be deals made between AOL and IBM for the use of their software, or would IBM just whip up a distro of their very own? Or find another distro to hop into bed with?
AIM and ICQ now use the some PROTOCOL called Oscar. This is a gigantic step towards making them able to message each other. So no, AOL has not been sitting on their hands with ICQ.
;)
XMMS is not Winamp's linux counterpart. XMMS is similiar, but unrelated software. Winamp itself actually has a linux version, called Winamp. Interpreting what I said as if I meant that AOL produced either GTK or Tcl/Tk would be as misguided as saying that I wrote Windows95 because my software runs on it. GTK and Tcl/Tk are used by AOL's two linux clients (The Tcl/Tk version actually runs on more then linux)
AOL buys all sorts of stuff and is doing exactly what one would expect. They now have their grips on all the popular media: Chat, Music, Browsing, Internet connectivity, and Operating System.
Oh, and since they own it all.. they have a very good distribution plan. Care for an AOL cd that does everything 90% of HOME users need, including providing a stable operating system/environment?
After they ship out a few million cds, have every mom and pop running Linux on their converted Windows machines, AOL can then get into the hardware business. Selling non-x86 machines with their software installed, something their users will be able to easily migrate to becuase they will not be locked into the x86 architecture anymore.
Eventually AOL will stop supporting their software on x86 and Windows. Everyone will be converted to Linux. Everyone but Microsoft and the trolls will be happy.
Of course, this will probably just introduce a whole new and unlimited supply of script kiddies
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.
Apple has ALWAYS been in the software/operating system/hardware business. AOL has NEVER been in any of these businesses, except in passing.
The AOL software shoveled out to everyone and their mother is merely a means to a service: content, merchandise, etc. You expect AOL to suddenly become a software/hardware company and be successful? Not!
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
... 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.
Along those lines why shouldn't this push IBM into thinking about buying out Red Hat. IBM has shown reasonable committment to Linux, even integrating some into AIX.
Personally I think an IBM buy of RH would be the best for the world, and I think they might do it to keep it out of AOL's hands.
But why this hostility to AOL as an investor? Their funding of Mozilla seems to have benefitted the open source community greatly. Without that, I doubt Netscape or Mozilla would still be around in any form.
If RedHat investors find it advantageous to sell the company, I don't blame them if they do. RedHat's business model never really impressed me, and it might well be better off as an AOL subsidiary, kept alive as a hedge against Microsoft. And given that Linux is GPL'ed and that AOL has been reasonably well-behaved in the past, I don't see a problem. Let's give these people a break.
The PC is a deadend. It is pretty much maxed out in the developed world. The future for companies like AOL and M$ is in appliances. AOL could use Redhat in an AOL internet appliance - as easy to use as a toaster. Turn it on and you are surfing AOL.
This wouldn't be a bad thing...what would be a bad thing is the RIAA, SSSCA, DRM, etc, etc, all being folded into a linux. The SSSCA, if passed, would then be used to turn AOL-Redhat Linux into the only LEGAL-TO-USE linux distro in the USA. When our European neighbors get bullied by the US into passing similar crapola laws, then the other distros will also have to include copy protection, etc, or Redhat will be the only LEGAL-TO-USE version of linux there too.
If AOL stuck/sticks with appliances, no problem, but if they stick their nasty RIAA fingers into the heart and soul of linux itself, then be afraid. Be very afraid.
By the by, AOL hasn't done jacksquat good for Netscape. It is still a non-player. It's not even their default frickin' AOL browser AND THEY OWN THE DAMN THING!
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
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
While it's flattering to be quoted and I could care less about the credit, there is something sinister here. I imagine that someone has programed their robot accounts to post high scoring posts from similar threads. Devious flunkies never get up to any good. What do you think this clown wants to do with the points?
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
You statethey pretty well fouled up Netscape by forgetting there are non-AOL users of the tool...
Posting from Mozilla on Debian, I have no idea what you people are talking about. Netscape makes fine browsers that are far from dead. There are enough people, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commision, www.nrc.gov, using their server software with good results for me to not understand that either. While Netscape is far from the "asshole in the middle" that some people might want it to be, the rest of us are happier dealing with the one sphinkter they we own and don't think of immitating it. Did AOL fire everyone at Netscape? Is that what I'm missing? While that would be sad, the remaining people seem to be able to continue providing an excellent bunch of software to the world using Open standards and free software.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
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.
In my reading of this thread, one thing I do not see is that an AOL takeover of Red Hat threatens not only Linux, but UNIX, in general.
If I see correctly, Red Hat people maintain such systems software as gcc, glibc, automake, autoconf, and a few others (whatever was once available from sourceware.cygnus.com, and now from sources.redhat.com). This software was not developed specifically for Linux, it was developed for a wide variety of UNIXes, of which, Linux happens to be one. This software is so basic that one simply does not have a functional system without it or a replacement for it.
Consider, now, an AOL takeover of Red Hat. They would have then positioned themselves to control the software upon which a very large number of UNIX systems depend by controling those who maintain it. Given AOLs track record in such matters (prime example: Netscape), this does not bode well for UNIX. AOL becomes master of the world by killing off anything that runs well.
"But", you say, "this is all open source. We start from the last good version and develop alternative software." To this, I must say: How many of us have the time, energy, resources, and skill to write an optimizing compiler or a system library? How many remain once AOL requires non-competition agreements of Red Hat personnel?
This merger must not be proceed. It threatens the entire network by attacking its foundation.
Its more profitable to take Marketshare from Microsoft and Apple by releasing a general purpose OS which is compatible with the Windows and OSX internals.
Its also profitable to use TimeWarners cable company to give away free settop boxes (appliances) and then charge a monthly fee to pay for the box and the content, cable style.
It would be just like cable but a slightly more expensive bill.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Broadband, Cable TV, and Setop Boxes all have one thing in common. THEY NEED AN OS.
Imagine users watching TV, Running all their PC software, using the broadband aspects of cable to connect to the net.
IT all makes sense. The OS is the only peice missing from this.
They NEED an OS, they dont want to use Microsofts.
And of course all the enhancements they do for this settop box OS will also apply to the desktop because they also need to keep Microsoft from leveraging them with XP and
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
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.
#1. Microsoft has no interest in buying RedHat and likely never will.
:)
RedHat is simply not much of a threat, and MS's interests would be better served watching RedHat go bankrupt.
#2. Internet appliances are dead. You can't force consumer to buy something they don't want, and what most don't want is single function devices.
While I suspect you are right that is why AOL wants them... I can't see how this will work for them.
I actually suspect it's because they are going to take AOLs massive CD manufacturing and mailing house and send RedHat Linux CDs to everyone in the world!
Then they can get IDC to report that they have 3 billion copies of Linux in consumers hands and they therefore have 98% of worldwide marketshare in desktop operating systems!
Careful, as some others have said, Redhat does not equal linux.
So what's the worst that could happen? Let's say that AOL bought Redhat, and then set up the distro to be as proprietary and closed source as possible with tons of ads.
If this happenned, we would most likely sticke to older Redhats or go on to Debian, Sorceror, Slackware, etc. The overall linux (being the kernel) would remain unsullied. Anyone who wanted could still start up their own distro. The AOL users with the OS would go on as usual in their little world and a highly regarded distro would have been eaten by the corporate monster. And a large segment of the public would think that the AOL linux interface equals what they see on their screens.
But since the linux userbase would have grown dramatically, we'd be seeing a lot more device drivers and other hardware support, which of course, is good.
What's the Best that could happen? The AOL users would get linux onto their machines, realise how much more stable it is, tell their friends, and cause a ripple effect around North America and subsequently the planet. Linux would take over the world and microsoft would fall into the ashes to time and bill gates' stock would be worth pennies.
And thus ,as of right now, I am thinking that this possible acquisition is more good than bad.
"No thanks to you, AOL. I am much happier with my KDE systeme ^_^"
I hope you're not implying that acquiring redhat would mean they own kde ...
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20020120
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!
In my best-case scenario, AOL hires a few active members of the WINE team and assigns a bunch of their own to the job, along with a huge bugzilla-type database running on AOL servers. Then they distribute the code under the MPL, or better, keep it BSD. With a massive, Mozilla-like effort to improve WINE, I estimate that in two years they really could release a Linux distro where "everything works" (TM), even according to AOL sensibilities.
The alternative is to migrate AOL users from Windows apps to Linux-native apps. The latter are improving quickly, but even if they were better than the former, AOLers would still complain--a lot-- about being forced to learn new apps. WINE would be the obvious solution.
Robert Young has been UNLOADING RedHat stock.
Check it out at yahoo finance, look under RedHat and inside trading information.
CNN and MSNBC make more money than everything mentioned up there with exception to maybe Windows.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Thousands of elitist programmers all using the same OS.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Remember that
1. Linux is fundamentally incorruptible, because it's open source.
2. The rest of the Linux community would not have to ape AOL's decisions about what to put in their distributions. However, all Linux users could presumably benefit from the software that AOL wrote for Linux.
3. Linux needs a big brother with iron fists and media clout. People have mentioned that Winmodems would suddenly get Linux drivers if AOL bought Red Hat. But also consider that graphics cards would suddenly get proper Linux drivers too, that many people would seriously consider writing games that run on Linux (game makers can't afford to ignore the rich and dumb, and those are exactly the people on AOL's crack!).
4. Userspace projects that need a kick in the butt before the average AOL user can feel comfortable with Linux would get a Mozilla-like infrastructure + paid programmers. I'm thinking specifically of WINE, which would have to work reasonably well if AOL has any hopes of transitioning its flock to Linux. I estimate that with a lot of work, it could be "good enough" in two years.
5. Nobody could come up with a plausible scenario in which Linux loses market share through this deal. If RedHat 9.0 sucks ass and is full of DRM, I'll use Mandrake or SuSE. If enough others do too, maybe one of these firms can be the next to play the Red Hat role. They can even hire staff away from AOL, or just train new people. Basically, Linux can't be embraced-and-smothered.
In summary, OSS was designed for exactly this moment. No form of attention can hurt it; only obscurity can. Every corporate takeover will have good and bad effects on the thing that's taken over. But if it's OSS, then we are free to keep the good while ditching the bad. This is true even if AOL's extensions to Linux are closed-source. Those closed-source additions will represent more options for every Linux user. I'm sure AOL will make bad things too, but by the nature of Linux, they will be optional. Linux really has nothing to lose, and so much to win... the more I think about it, the more I want this merger to happen.
By saying "they have the source code" like it is some super secret just makes you look like a fucking moron. Red Hat takes a bunch of software other people wrote that they don't own the rights to (yet are allowed to do this because of the license) and package it behind a cute and cudly installation program and call it Red Hat. With GPL code, EVERYONE can "have the source code" for the price of the media transmitted over. If AOL did buy Red Hat they wouldn't by some magical means get a bunch of drivers written for shit. Even if anything you babbled about came to pass instead of Microsoft on your dartboard it would be AOL. Do you think them buying the rights to a Linux distributor is somehow going to make them cool dudes and not be out for every fucking dollar in the world? They'd be worse than any Microsoft you could come up with because they would own all media channels into everyone's homes. Microsoft has a bunch of people using its OS on IBM compatible PCs. Big fucking whoop. Fifty percent of people have computers but ninety eight percent of them have TVs. Market domination is market domination and it don't fucking matter if it is using Linux or not. It is about getting dollars out of a consumers wallet into yours.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
No evidence for this.
But also consider that graphics cards would suddenly get proper Linux drivers too,
No evidence for this.
that many people would seriously consider writing games that run on Linux
No evidence for this.
Userspace projects that need a kick in the butt before the average AOL user can feel comfortable with Linux would get a Mozilla-like infrastructure + paid programmers
Given that Mozilla is one of the most hopeless, bloated, slow, and late projects in the world of software development, this is not a plus point.
I estimate that with a lot of work, it could be "good enough" in two years.
Ha ha ha. M$ will make sure it's not good enough by moving the goalposts. "Windows isn't done 'till Wine doesn't run".
Nobody could come up with a plausible scenario in which Linux loses market share through this deal.
Alright, here's one: AOL buy RH and threaten MS with it in order to make other deals with Gates and Co. Once the dust settles AOLinux is quietly dropped because AOL simply aren't interested in it other than as a weapon in their on-going fights with MS. At this point the biggest Linux distro is dead and has left a trail of users who will never touch Linux again.
Basically, Linux can't be embraced-and-smothered.
Linux the OS can't, Linux the brand can.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
ok... very nice reply.
By saying "they have the source code" like it is some super secret just makes you look like a fucking moron.
Because I was wrong? No. They do... right now. You could have it to. The difference is they can get 'dollars out of consumers wallets' if they own Red Hat. Ergo, they will do something with that source that is available.
Red Hat takes a bunch of software other people wrote that they don't own the rights to (yet are allowed to do this because of the license) and package it behind a cute and cudly installation program and call it Red Hat. With GPL code,...
They do have a right to modify the source. They can't call it their own however. But if someone else does all the work, and then you make it work together, that is doing something! You fucking moron. Sure, it would be easy if someone wrote the whole thing for them, they slapped on a few PNG's of a guy with a hat and put it in a box... but there is a tad more than that. If you haven't noticed, RHat has done some work of their own.
If AOL did buy Red Hat they wouldn't by some magical means get a bunch of drivers written for shit.
Yes they would. That is my point. A lot of hardware vendors would perk up and notice that the game is on. If they couldn't get anywhere, it just goes to prove the monopoly idea. M$ ownes the market on x86, from software to computer mice. Not only is that illegal, but it's plain wrong. If you weren't a fanboy you would notice that.
Do you think them buying the rights to a Linux distributor is somehow going to make them cool dudes and not be out for every fucking dollar in the world?
LOL! It's not about kewl dudes. I could care less either way. It's about the fact that I like linux, and I don't like windows. Sorry, but I don't. Try to wrap your fucking mind around the fact that it isn't the best product to hit the market. Neither is linux, shit, nothing is. But if this gets some work put into linux... I don't care who owns Red Hat. I could always go to, well, any other distro in town.
50%? I won't even check that number, but that is about 137 million people, in the USA alone.
AOL has the marketing power, they have channels to advertise on. They've got magazines to advertise in. They've got a forum, they own the forum. Because they bought Time Warner! Bought.
Next time you see a commercial with linux, it might not be an IBM commercial. It may welcome you into the fuzzy warm world of linux.
Get your Unix fortune now!
Any Linux distribution that's going to be serious about the desktop will have to address Wine in a thorough manner.
Yes, it's on Powertools, but it's an afterthought.
Maybe AOL should buy Lindows. I wonder which one would make Gates squirm more?
I admit, it's very closed source, but did they have any choice?
I thought they took that out a long time ago.
As someone who is familiar with some of the inner workings of post-merger AOL/TW I don't see any honorable future for RedHat should they be bought.
So far, AOL/TW's pattern since the merger has been to cut spending and investment in their held companies, demand 10% growth from them, and should the small company fail to deliver they are mercilessly cut down until they can or they are gone.
Red Hat will not fit into this kind of mold. Red Hat will be forced out of their current businesses and cease to operate independently. They will turn into yet another AOL platform or yet another AOL lure. In a few years AOL/RH will be pushing content-control mechanisms on default installs of their distribution.
Perhaps RH should never have gone public and exposed themselves to something like this. An AOL-RH will not represent the current Linux community like RH does today. Most likely we'll have to find something else.
I don't understand why AOL/TW won't simply partner with redhat to get the services they want. I have a feeling that they're after the default install of a leading brand name distribution, and that just stinks.
Have you not noticed that on the download page for WinAmp in the table listing the 3 different versions, there is a column labeled: "Built in Ads". Although all three versions currently show NONE, I wouldn't count on it always being that way.
:P
Nullsoft does that to compare against other players that might have built in ads by saying EXPLICITLY that they do not have them. This in no way implies they are going to have ads in the future.
Keep your FUD to yourself.
----- rL
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.
People have mentioned that Winmodems would suddenly get Linux drivers if AOL bought Red Hat.
No evidence for this.
Evidence: AOL has very close working relationships with all modem manufacturers at both the developer and executive levels. Modems HAVE to work with AOL to be viable. That's a lot of influence.
The Red Hat Logo pops up and says 'You've got Linux!'
All the RHCEs are now AOLCEs
Check out User Friendly's Cartoon for the Sunday the 20th.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
In 1997 was IE at the level of mozilla? IE was about 4 years old in 1997.
Mozilla is 4 years old, its surpassed IE in every area and its not at 1.0 yet.
IE is almost 7.0.
IF Mozilla 1.0 is better than IE 7.0 then IE just plain sucks.
Mozilla also is more secure, you dont have to worry about being hacked through your browser.
Mozilla is a good project, it took 4 years to build, IE took 6-7 years to build.
So hows Mozilla late, and IE on time? Oh yeah, IE started 4-5 years before Mozilla.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
You mean other than supporting all of the peripherals you might want to buy, or running the other 99% of the software out there that isn't available for linux?
Netscape did loose 80% of their market share. I guess someone could argue that was because of a little problem with IE not going away, but I won't. As with other programs, high market share doesn't meant that it's the best thing under the sun.
WMA is taking off? Gee, I wonder why?
Look, I'm not telling you why or how Microsoft came to this state, I'm just putting down the numbers for you. If you want to rehash the Microsoft is evil argument, its been done better by others, so save it.
MSNBC and CNN are rolling in it.
Let me tell you a little clue about 24 hour news networks - unless there is a crisis going on, they are by no means "rolling in it". Prior to 9/11, CNN was bleeding money, badly. Once things settle down, they will go back to bleeding money. Don't believe me - check AOL/TW financials.
...and no room for the little guys. Don't you see what could happen? The problem isn't another MS, or even two MS corps controlling the market; the problem is that two extremely large corporations will hold control of everything we see. AOL/Time Warner is a media giant in and out of the computer world. Microsoft IS the computer world and has its own media platforms in and out of it as well. The problem with AOL/TW buying RedHat is that this giant will get bigger. Better press, better distribution, and a good face; Mozilla and RedHat Linux would be platform examples of good community efforts ... that take focus away from the giant's control of what we see on monitors and televisions.
Here's where the American Dream(TM) dies: with corporations controlling everything, the amount a small firm can change lessens. By letting these two companies get bigger and bigger, we let the smaller guys get pushed around.
RedHat has a huge influence on the Linux/Free Software community, like it or not. If AOL/TW buys it, I guarantee AOL/TW will influence RedHat and therefore the Linux/Free Software community.
If you're watching AOL, and your intentions really are true (ie, get into the Linux world for a complete CD distribution/coaster), buy Mandrake, the 'easy to use' distro. Or perhaps Lindows, or some distribution of your own. Wouldn't the announcement of AOLinux be enough without needing to own the most influential of Linux pushers? Look at what IBM is doing! Look, no buyout; hell, they don't even have an IBM-brand distro (AFAIK).
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
AOL also acquired the Open Directory [dmoz.org] when they bought Netscape.
There were dire predictions from some Open Directory editors at the time. Up to now AOL has not interfered. Smart of them IMO.
You mean other than supporting all of the peripherals you might want to buy, or running the other 99% of the software out there that isn't available for linux?
I said no counting if MS did dirty shit to get to where they are now. Sure Windows has a lot, but not all, of the hardware supported under the sun. That is because of restrictive agreements by them, not because people like them so much. You also are mistaken when it comes to software. MS doesn't have more software under their belt than the linux community. You must be thinking MS Office, which of course will never be supported by linux. Sorry. Linux has more software available for it than Windows... face it. PS: when my USB devices fail, MS doesn't do shit to support them, they tell me to buy a PCI USB card. That is against their ads which portray them as supporting all the hardware available.
Let me tell you a little clue about 24 hour news networks - unless there is a crisis going on, they are by no means "rolling in it". Prior to 9/11, CNN was bleeding money, badly. Once things settle down, they will go back to bleeding money. Don't believe me - check AOL/TW financials.
I guess that is why CNN has TWO 24 hour news channels? You dumb piece of shit, people like being able to turn on a channel and catching the news.
Regardless, you missed my whole point. I won't type it again because you can't read.
Get your Unix fortune now!
I guess you are an idiot.
I know they can't 0wn the source code. But by owning Red Hat they DO have an incentive when it comes to modifying said source.
Red Hat does make linux friendly, just as other distros. Have you made your system by scratch? And have you installed Red Hat or Mandrake? These two make it waaaaaay easier than doing it by hand. I guess that RPM is an example of Red Hat sitting on thier asses not doing a thing?
It isn't a bitch to maintain, unless you are a fucking moron. This is the point we've come to. Seperating the morons from the regular people.
Ok, you are a MS fanboy. I guess you can't understand that if they're was another major player in town that hardware vendors would notice.
You have showed me how much of a fucking moron you are. At one point, hardware vendors were more in-tuned to what 'AOLites' wanted than other users.
Linux drivers would cost no more than windows drivers. Considering that linux drivers could be written in a standard language, compared to windows' use of API's and what not which confuse even the most talented developers.
Get your head out of your ass, and realize that if AOL did market RHat, that they would give Windows a run for it's money. Also don't forget that you have no clue what AOL users want or need.
Hardware vendors also will not give a fuck. They make shit margins on their products.
Sure, that is why they NEVER come out with new products. Come on, why do you think they stay in business for so long. Nvidia is an example. They never have new products every six months because they can't make cash on them... what a fucking idiot!
Get your Unix fortune now!
Jesus dude what Linux zealotry planet did you come from? Because people don't think Linux is the greatest thing is the world doesn't mean they give a flying fuck about Microsoft. Banter about Linux being friendly is just ridiculous. How can you say that with a straight face? APIs that are confusing to talented developers? Where the hell does that come from. Do you know what the fuck an API is? You're hedging something on AOLs marketing? AOL thinks marketing is buying things or mass mailing things. That is not marketing. That is monopolizing and spamming. Take a hard look at the periphrial hardware business. Companies like nVidia can afford short lifetimes on their products. Most companies can't. Look at all the graphics companies that went out of business because of competition from nVidia. The guys with market percentages measured to the nearest hundreth aren't going to take a dime out of their profits to develop drivers for some other OS. Fuck man pay attention. If they aren't going to make drivers for MacOS what makes you think they're going to make drivers for someone with even less market share. It doesn't matter if AOL buys every Linux company in the country. If .25% of PC users are using Linux how profitable is it for a company to support it when they have a much better chance of getting money supporting somebody with 90% of the market. If Linux by some miracle had 90% of the PC market hardware vendors would support it and not Microsoft. In a business where prices and tactics are cutthroat you aim for the biggest target you can find.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Linux is friendly, if you can read. Slackware may not be, but Red Hat and Mandrake are.
Yes, I know what an API is. My best friend is a MCSE eng, and a full time programmer. Trust me he is smart. He also is a Windows lover, but hates creating programs for it because in his words: "the API system is like a net, it all connects, has huge holes, and all those connections don't touch the things they need to." He _is_ a MS zealot though.
Again though: My point about AOL [!] is that they could get marketshare, and by your own words, driver support would show up. There are a lot of companies that support hardware just because enough people complained. These aren't even a fraction of that ".25%". How do you think linux boots, runs and plays music [video etc]? By a miracle? Do you think EVERY driver was written by Linus and Alan?
... but still, there are plenty of hardware companies that actually have stayed in business. Some were around before windows or linux.
But still, more and more, you are seeing "tested with linux" or "works with linux" on boxes. These are companies that have been around for a long time too.
Let's not forget that nVidia releases drivers for linux, themselves. Some complain that the drivers aren't opened, but at least they have done all the work and not made some other people do it for them.
Get your Unix fortune now!
AIM is featureless?
Have you used it? It bounces, it jumps, and it is very loaded with features. (Notably: it's the only MacOS client that allows chat and file transfer through a SOCKS5 proxy, and is also the only IM client on the Mac that supports voice chat. Voice chat doesn't exist on ICQ in any version...)
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
The popularity of the trademark doesn't affect its effectiveness as a trademark. For example, Philips still owns the Compact Disc Digital Audio trademark. It's whether it's used to describe goods that don't come from the same source as the trademark.
AFAIK, Linux may have been used by a lot of people, but every single one of them was using it to describe a Unix-like operating system based on Linus' kernel. If IBM were to modify AIX and call it IBMLinux, and Linus didn't sue them, then we'd have a problem.
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
They cancelled Buffy?
Funny, I watch it every Tuesday night on UPN. Do you Americans not get it? :)
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
I want the gov to pass a law like that, Linux has 30% of the server market share. Having to remove all of that is going to be noticeable. The fallout from such an act should be noticeable enough for the gov to reverse such a stupid decsion and think twice about simply listening to the corps.
The Anti-Blog
...will you get a break on an AOL subscription?
"How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?" --BMcC-->
First of all, I was in error in my earlier post when I said that AOL/TW was only a member of the MPAA. http://www.riaa.org/About-Members-1.cfm shows several subsidiaries of AOL/TW that are members of the RIAA as well.
HanzoSan writes:
> I dont think the entire company is going to focus on saving the less
> profitable content department at the expense of the highly profitable
> services department.
>
> Even Microsoft knows services are more profitable.
Well that would make more sense, but that is not today's business philosophy: Content is king, and services exist only to wring more profit out of the content. That is why AOL/TW is primarily a conglomerate of content delivery services surrounding a core of content (http://www.aoltimewarner.com/about/index.html). That is why Microsoft is getting into services. That is why the MPAA and RIAA sharks and Microsoft go on and on about their stupid IP "rights". That is what is driving this whole, idiotic, "I have content, bow down and pay, pay, pay!" movement.
You'd think they could just generate content (say a movie), sell it, and then just generate more content. But no, the greedy sharks have to keep generating profit on the same content, every time you view it, for as long as you view it, every place you view it, etc. So they need Digital Rights Management to totally control when and how and where you view something, so that you can pay for it all. DRM is their tollbooth.
> AOL the services ISP company divisions [snip]
But the AOL division isn't about the ISP. AOL was always about selling access to their online content, long before the merger with TW.
The only interest AOL/TW would have in Red Hat would be producing their own tightly controlled OS to deliver their content with no dependence on Microsoft. There are two problems with that:
1) Open Source is not very conducive to tight control.
2) Microsoft now has a patent on a DRM OS. They'd still have to pay a license fee to MS to make their own DRM OS.
Oh, and if anybody thinks they are going to share their DRM technology with the rest of the Linux world: think again.
Come on, Tok Wira, these sharks have got to pay!
New Kirk calling Mothra, "We need you today!"