Slashdot Mirror
Alan Cox to Leave if RH AOL Buyout Happens?
According to MartinG,
Alan has posted to the LKML and said "Im
insulted that anyone believes I would continue working for RH if aol/time
warner owned them. " This of course refers to the
Red Hat/AOL
Buyout Rumors that we have been
talking about
all weekend.
..surely.
He'd have to get a haircut for a start.
It's good to see that *someone* on the Internet isn't so willing to sell out. It certainly won't prevent him from working on kernel stuff, and AOL can buy their credibility somewhere else.
Linux out in the open, with big company backing?
Or, are we going to start up with the "elitest want Linux to stay small"?
Linux (even the RedHat distro) has the GPL protecting it. Even AOL/TW's big lawyers can't break it. Why is it such a bad thing??
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Because if a major corporation buys a distro like Red Hat, or any other for that matter, it will reduce the elitist factor of Linux users.
Heaven forbid that a company with the clout to get Linux out to the masses get involved. Then Linux might not be just for the computer savvy anymore.
The ongoing hypocricy astounds me. Most Linux users don't seem to really want Linux to succeed. Having used Linux since long before it was 'fashionable' to do so, I for one hope that if this purchase comes to pass, it helps get Linux out to the unwashed masses of computer users out there.
It could be worse... it could be Microsoft that is buying RedHat. We all know what would happen then.
I wish RedHat well, but I've moved on to FreeBSD.
Hope this helps,
MSBob
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
once steve case and parson visit alan and give him a few millions to stay, he will stay.
But if Alan decides to leave AOL has the resources to replace him with someone equally brilliant.
Alan Cox develops a kernel for an OS which is exchanged on the Internet. The Internet was invented by Al Gore. Al Gore uses AOL. Who's your daddy?
Sure they do. They just want the core personnel to be independent of consumer-oriented behemoths like AOL.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Just wondering...
Anonymous Kev
Proudly posting as AC since 1997
I wouldn't think AOL would move unless they had secured Alan for. So I would think this means it's a rumor. Who would by RH without Alan signing on at least for a while?
RedHat has no value other than the employees working for them. Employees are not something that you can guarantee to purchase in a corporate buyout. It's just like any other consulting firm. After the buyout, if the employees don't feel like they were treated well they'll walk... Soon AOL will be held holding an empty bag.
:)
This is the stupidest move AOL has made since the Netscape acquisition and seeing how they ran that one, a RH buyout is guaranteed to fail.
But then since I don't particularly like RedHat, I am 100% supportive of this decision! Go for it AOL!
I wondered, begining with the first rumors, how many key RH employees would stick around. Key develpers like this arent the 7 dollar an hour lackeys that would keep a job with anyone just because they cant afford to move.
It has seemed for quite some time the RedHat team has a certain chemistry not found elsewhere. As a RedHat user since 2.0 I can say it is by far my favorite distro, it has its shortcoming but they are they least where it matters to me most.
I can see it now, AOL buys RedHat the whole crew jumps ship and starts over again, AOL is left with a rotting hulk that smells, like......NETSCAPE
Charachter is something seldom seen in business anymore. Regadless if you like or dislike someone, it takes charachter to make a stand, This wouldnt be the first time Alan has done it.
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
but you forgot to give a reason.
AOL bought ICQ, AOL bought Winamp.
Did anyone notice that one of those products did really change to the worse (besides the ads in ICQ, which is ok I guess because they are not that annoying)?
No, no one noticed, because they didn't.
But what changed is that the coders of ICQ and Winamp got nice paychecks.
So, Alan where is your problem?
Don't like opensource OS coders who dare to make money?
Is AC proposing defection because RedHat's role in the Linux community would be reduced to that of a pawn in the AOL/MS war? Is anyone privy to the politics going on here? What are AOL's motives?
Cuz the guy must be a star!
Seriously, I salute the man for standing up for his
principles, but I don't think his "pre-judgement"
should receive such an attention.
He already works for a corporation, if the new
parent company promises to continue supporting the
spirit of the old company, and remains commited to
open source, then ACs comments are unjustified.
Atleast in my humble opinion.
I know almost nothing about this sort of thing, but is it possible that RH can just say no? Every story i've read makes it sound like RH has no choice in the matter. Anyway, please keep those email's voicing your opposition flowing. Public opinion can be a strong weapon. Like RH or not, they have taken gnu/linux to a whole new level.
Oh well, his rumored departure hasn't affected my stock's abysmal performance at all.
Not only will Alan Cox probably leave Red Hat, but much of the userbase will leave. While Red Hat is a for-profit company, it is generally respected within the open source community for being solidly supportive of the community. AOL/TW, however, despite its good works regarding Mozilla, has no such reputation. The TW side of AOL, in particular, is very much a part of the traditional copyright establishment; the same establishment that opposes open-source DVD players and is pushing for additional copyright protection measures that would exclude the possibility of open-source support.
So if Red Hat is bought by AOL, I expect much of their user base will move to Mandrake, Debian, and Suse.
If this purchase goes through, you better stick to the distribution you used before Linux became 'fashionable'--unless you want to be forced to install AOL Instant Messenger everytime you run rpm.
Jamie Zawinski left netscape, as shown here and here shortly after it was AOLized. Here are some highlights from those pages:
April 1st, 1999 will be my last day as an employee of the Netscape Communications division of America Online, and my last day working for mozilla.org.
I think AOL still has all the stigma that it always has, as far as image goes. My friends keep saying ``jwz@aol.com'' and then laughing uncontrollably...
AOL is about centralization and control of content. Everything that is good about the Internet, everything that differentiates it from television, is about empowerment of the individual.
I don't want to be a part of an effort that could result in the elimination of all that.
AOL/TW is up there with Microsoft in terms of average Linux community member, for even if most people don't outright hate them, they think of them as the haven for the spammers and the clueless.
As I said it's a matter of perception.
Now, while AOL/TW wouldn't care one bit about all the Linux users ceasing to use RedHat products (their goal in buying the company, after all, would be to use its knowledge to create a AOL-OS) it cerainly could help on RedHat's end, as they'd lose any and all goodwill that they have from the community.
And when a significant amount of work is saved for a Linux company by having the community on your side and contributing various things, this certainly would be nothing but a pain for them.
It is now a brand. Like Coke, or Tommy Hilfiger.
Thank you, AOL, for pointing this out to us.
Sort of reminds me of Jamie Zawinski leaving Netscape a while after the AOL takeover... I'm not sure I disagree with Red hat being bought out, but it seems to me once a big time corporation takes over that they would probably lose focus. (On the other hand Winamp seems fine {unlike ICQ} so maybe things wouldn't be so bad).
If he does leave, he loses his chance to put the resources of an enormous company like AOL/TW behind the development and acceptance of Linux. To me this doesn't seem like the smartest move he could make.
There's plenty of time for him to leave afterwards if it looks like AOL/TW is going to do a Bad Thing, but up to and until that time, I think it's in his best interests, and Linux's best interests, to take advantage of the possible benefits of being backed by one of the largest, richest companies on the planet.
End of lesson. You may press the button.
CNN was reporting this morning that AOL's intention is to possibly create an AOL-only OS. Is it possible for them to create a new branch of RedHat that supports only AOL Internet service? Possibly a home user desktop only distro?
http://www.askthevoid.com
/.
Given the philosophy expounded in "Under the Radar" and other Red Hat sources, it's very interesting that AOL wants them.
Remember, Red Hat is about establishing "brand loyalty" in a commodity market - the idea is that the name should inspire user trust, the users should believe they can count on the Red Hat label to mean a solid, dependable level of quality.
This is the opposite of the "BUY ME NOW I HAVE MORE FEATURES I'M REALLY COOL" marketing approach that has historically led to massive bloat without timely bug-fixes.
Now, if Red Hat has succeeded in this, AOL can pick them up and Joe Consumer will continue to buy the product until he has been thoroughly abused by the new owners, however long that takes.
If Red Hat has *not* built true brand loyalty, the legions of Red Hat consumers will immediately switch distros to whatever new company employs Marc Ewing, Alan Cox and the gang (call it "Blue Hat" or whatever).
Or, maybe linux users are beyond all that and the Red Hat marketing engine is just as out of touch as any other software company?
--Charlie
The fact that Alan Cox would leave RH if bought by AOL/TW is not a big deal. RH != Linux. That is, he wouldn't leave the kernel project altogether to pursue a life as a skydiver or the like.
A good question is: who would pick him up?
I could definitely see IBM bending over backwards to get Alan, but would he work IBM, given IBM's overwhelming Linux support?
Mandrake might be a good fit, seeing as their distro is similar to RH. Then again, the fact that they have centralized their development out of France might not be a good deal for him...
first, i wish someone would bring linux to the masses, this could speed up devolpment in some cases and xfree86 could use a redoo, or replacement. i wouldnt mind linux being offered on an OEM pc for a change.
also, the AOL/Time warner thing is BAD! AOL has historically bought and killed software and i dont see them changing. Is netscape the default browser for AOL?, no and it never will be. This could happen to RedHat, but we wont just lose a browser this time, we will loose one of a bigest and most influential linux companies around, and that could damage linux.
Did I say I use Red Hat? I prefer Slackware.
I do have a Red Hat box, but it's a Sparc.
I also use Win2K, WinXP, OS/2, and BeOS. I'm agnostic. Operating Systems are not the stuff that religions are built on.
I'm quite sure that Alan will find a new thrilling challenge _real_ quick. And i'm quite sure that Alan will continue to be involved in Linux.
...
And frankly, this is the only thing that matters to us.
Mr Cox has worked hard to get this kind of independence
I think Alan should be more cautious with this kind of comments. His thougts are very important to the linux community and there could be a great boost if this happens (I'm thinking about Netscape/AOL/Mozilla).
lekter AT hispacluster.org
http://www.hispacluster.org
I'll just assume for the sake of argument, that the thread is genuine and that Alan Cox is torqued ... or at least appears to be torqued.
... considering AOL's deep pockets, it seems to me risky, but effective means of negotiating a hike in one's salary.
I mean after all, if I just bagged a nomination as the top young technology innovator by Technology Review, I too might make a fuss
healyourchurchwebsite.com - WWJB?
AOL can get RH for free, it's all GPL'ed.. why not do what Corel tried with Debian and just create their own distro based on RH..
They're not getting guys like Cox, so why pay out the cash for something they've got for free anyway?
Hmm.. But where can I buy Debian company stock? I do want to invest in a real industry...
I agree. Additionally, I can't believe Alan Cox said he would quit if AOL buys RedHat. It will increase his job security and he'll probably get paid better. It would be a win-win situation for himself and for RedHat users.
It hasn't been bought yet.
And AOHell/Time Wanker knows they will loose 'people', but that won't matter because of the GPL. As long as Alan Cox keeps working on GPLed code, nothing stops AOHell/Time Wanker from exploiting their effort for profit.
Its a great deal for AOHell....They get Alan's work and don't have to pay him! If Alan wants to 'stop' AOHell from using his work, he'll have to stop using the GPL.
Before I start off here, I know many of you may be familiar with my comment history, journal entries, etc. But I please ask before you start your trigger happy -1, Troll mods, look at the following objectively.
Linux is very popular, and moving into the mainstream and we all need to get over it. I realized this the day it finally hit 1.0. The success of it was inevitable. No one complained back then. The Linux community is bringing it on themselves, the better we make it, the more popular it will be.
The more popular it will be, the more people there will be who will want to make money off of it. This was confirmed when Redhat went public. We all can't be elitists. With the success of any popular operating system, you will have large companies seeing this as an opportunity to make money. This is called Capitalism, and it works. This is why I can post comments such as these and not have to worry about getting a knock on my front door at 3am by a bunch of men in trench coats and sunglasses.
If you have a problem with this, then perhaps you should consider being either an anarchist or a socialist. Theres plenty of them in France.
I live under the bridge, in a pile of feces.
Of course he would not, he'd be the AOL employee of the month ;)
Yeah because RPM would be retroactively closed sourced and you wouldn't be able to change anything...oh, wait, it's GPL...never mind.
If slashdot could maintain "editorial independence" from VA Linux when they were bought, why couldn't Red Hat negotiate some kind of persistence of it's vision? If Red Hat kept it's vision and motivations, but had more money, why then wouldn't Alan want to stay?
Now I'm not naive enough to forget that with money comes advice but... let's say AOL wants to create version of Red Hat Linux more targeted for Windows lusers. So now Red Hat might have a product line like: Embedded, Standard, *Home*, Professional, Deluxe Professional, Data Center, etc.. How is this bad for the community and Red Hat in general? I know alot of people don't want to see Linux beginning to pander to Windows lusers, but does anyone in their right mind think that Linus & Co. would pander to Windows users or Red Hat for that matter? Is Lindows going to destroy our beautiful Linux and wonderful community? NO! Then why do people think that Red Hat will allow itself and it's goals to be destroyed by a lesser evil than Microsoft?
I believe the stability of Red Hat is important to the future of Linux becoming mainstream. One more thing.... necessity makes for strange bedfellows.
I don't particularly want this purchase to succeed, for one simple reason - I don't like AOL/TW or its money. Some people seem to forget the games AOL played with its AIM protocol to screw over the open source clients, or the fact that Time Warner is part of the MPAA, which likes to screw over consumers with such wonderful technologies as digital rights denial^H^H^H^H^Hmanagement.
Sorry, but I'd rather Linux continue as it has so far, than become "mainstream" through a company like AOL. I don't like where that money comes from, and I can't blame Alan Cox for wanting no part of it (if that's why he's saying all this - I'm just guessing). Linux has served me well for the last 5 years without AOL. You call it hypocricy, but I call it integrity.
Mozilla's a nice operating system, but it needs a better browser.
...that AOL/TW is a member of the RIAA and MPAA, which are organizations that are funding head-on assaults on our constitutional protections?
Alan Cox no longer feels physically safe in traveling to the United States. Should he willingly work for one of the forces that made this so?
Exactly, what does this guy think he special becuase he works on the kernel of a unix clone?
The people working on the solaris kernel don't feel like they are mighty political figures or anything...it's just a fricken job, get over yourself.
Just becuase your program is open source doens't mean you're suddenly martin luther king or something, get real...
Ever hear someone who develops the HP-UX or AIX kernel blast of a bunch of half baked political rants? i don't think so...
it will reduce the elitist factor of Linux users
I don't know which elitist linux users you are talking about, but if the're like the ones I've seen then they sure as hell don't use Redhat.
Most Linux users don't seem to really want Linux to succeed
Let me guess. By "succeed" I bet you mean one or more of:
1) "Become more popular"
2) "Make more money for it's owner"
3) "Get easier to use"
In my mind linux is already a tremendous success and no one company (including either or both or RH and AOL/TW) can change that.
I just happen to want to see Redhat continue to succeed.
And in case you're wondering what I mean by "succeed" I mean:
1) continue to create products based on what their users want not based on the interests of some other division of the corporation
2) continue to allow the employees the free creativity they require to achieve that (and other) goals.
Judging on past experience I have no reason to believe for a second that (1) will happen, and judging by Alan Cox's comment, he perhaps would agree with me that (2) would be more difficult after any AOL buyout.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
I don't know what I'm going to do if AOL buys out RH.. I use it on all my Linux boxen right now, and once AOL buys it, I won't be able to upgrade RedHat anymore..
I'll have to switch to a different distro.
Think of the administrative cost to reconfigure people's custom apps for a different distro in thousands of companies who won't use AOL based on principle.. or because it just sucks..
If RH is acquired, then you better believe that AOL/TW would drive RH to become a company that supported the AOL/TW initiative (i.e. world domination by AOL/TW).
AOL/TW is an 800lb gorilla.
MS is an 800lb gorilla.
The RH acquisition would be like giving one of them a dart-gun: while it may hurt, it would stil only be a little weapon.
As a consequence, RH's gameplan would change from Red Hat Domination via Linux to AOL/TW world domination. Linux is dropped from the big picture, and only becomes a little piece of the puzzle.
Having Alan leave for a company that would support the World Domination thru Linux initiative (like Mandrake or SuSe, or Debian) would be a good thing for Linux.
Way to go, Alan. Rather than make sure that Red Hat REMAINS what you've strived to make it, you'd pack up your bags before you know what AOL's plans are. You'd rather leave than be associated with the company. You'd help contribute to RedHat FAILING under AOL rather than make it what it SHOULD be.
Standing up for your ideals is one thing, but by leaving, you're tossing those exact same ideals out the door.
I'd much rather suck up my pride and tell people that I was employed by AOL, but trying to make it better, then tell people I gave up rather than try.
It seems that the Linux fanatics want to have their cake and eat it to.
They want their OS to remain free, yet they want more companies to back it. Everybody wants a paycheck for themselves but God forbid that anyone make a dime from Linux. Everyone works for someone, yet companies are evil things that ought not to intrude on Linux. They want everyone to acknowledge the superiority of Linux yet are unwilling to make entry into the Linux world any easier than it currently is.
This is what's commonly known as a pipe dream.
WinAMP and ICQ were bought by AOL/TW and prosper today. Sure, Netscape has tanked, but the argument could be made that they were damaged goods to begin with.
Do I like AOL/TW? Of course not. I think they're a bunch of left-leaning liberal hand wringers who would sell you out in a second if it made them money. That's why I don't they'd be stupid enough to buy RH and then fuck with it. They know everyone would leave in droves. AOL/TW would just love to put more pressure on Microsoft. This is a political move, if you ask me.
After all, consider that something good MIGHT come out of this, would you? RH could use more money to attract more talent, do more marketing, and improve their product. That would lead to better, more widespread uses of Linux. Isn't that what we all want? Or do we want Linux to remain the purview of server room necromancers who bathe every other week if they think about it?
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Why don't you just use Trillian instead of ICQ? It does pretty much everything ICQ does with no advertisements. The newest version even does file transfer.
Note: I have no official affiliation with Trillian.
IF this happens I hope that they don't fade away like Netscape did. Now that I got that out of the way, AOL buying RH might work out. If Linux is going to have a chance in the desktop war with M$, then the leader in the industry has to do just that...LEAD! If Linux is going to fight for market share against M$, they will need resources. AOL has plenty of cash for research and product development and Steve Case has no love for Bill Gates.
This is not a troll, just something I wanted to get off my chest. I don't work for AOL (heh, or Red Hat) or use AOL.
I'll post anonymously, and nobody will see this unless it gets moderated up. Moderators, this post is at your mercy.
AOL has done a lot for the net by getting a lot of people online in places that would not otherwise have had access. Sure, many of these people are lamers who ask stupid questions. But they learn. And then they can come to contribute. Diversity is a GOOD thing, but in order to have diversity, we do have to put up with a bit of noise. That's life. The real problem with AOL is not the users, but the fact that AOL builds a kind of fake internet that tries to contain its users inside a mall full of commercials. But give them a break. Noone else has as many dialups for the little towns out in the boondocs. In that respect they are doing a great thing. Even if they are making money at it.
If Red Hat suddenly becomes part of the AOL empire, you simply make a provision in the purchase that the exchange is for stock. You also "conveniently" include that Red Hat employees can't sell their stock for 6 months or 9 months at the increased price. That's what my company did.
That's precisely what I'M thinking.
AOL CANNOT BUY LINUX, they can only buy Linux COMPANIES, and DISTRIBUTIONS.
Let's see them try to coax Debian into going closed source...
No big deal guys, it will mean either more funding for cool shit or one less player in the Linux distro market.
I've overclocked my brain!!!
I don't like AOL, but I don't believe it a such a bad thing as long as Red Hat will keep doing what it doing best using their own method and staying Open Source...
When AOL bought winAmp I tried couple different mp3 playres but eventuly switched back to winAmp,(lack of better) fortunetly winAmp steal a good and dissent product and fairly reliable...
Who controls the information, controls the world...
Innovator my ass...
Trying to sucessfully recreate 30 years old OS does not count as innovation.
No, your right. Linux will be the transparently embeded operating system that runs the next generation in hi-tech stupidity boxes (super television). People will not know, nor care that its linux or any other operating system, they will just know that they can find out whats on 2 hours from now, and that they can stick a smart card/national ID card into a slot next to the couch and purchase some neat shit they saw on an infomerical.
Wow! What a coup for the linux crew. Linus must be proud that he has come so far. You can bet that this is the right direction to take to get linux to the masses, just as long as they don't thave to think about it.
I for one applaud Alan for his commitment to not playing ball when one of the top 5 media giants is considering buying the company he works for. Go Alan. Its good to see someone stick to their ideals and not become some pavlovian idiot at the first sniff of profit potential (ala VA whomever they are)
YAY Linux.
I don't understand these who are bitter and say that "in no case we can allow money to flow in some linux distro". I think there are also some morale decisions every time you accepts someone's money. Its like not buying wares produced in sweatshops or trading with countries supporting terrorism. If you cannot identify with the ideas your employer stands for, then taking just the money really makes you into a whore.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
Now I'll be getting Redhat at least three times a week in my mailbox...
They have market share, they have revenues, they have contracts. These all exist outside of the contributions and dependencies of individual employees.
Ma and Pa Kettle on AOL don't know who Alan Cox, Linux Torvalds, Theo de Raadt, Jordan Hubbard, or any other GPL/BSD software luminaries are. AOL is a brand to which Red Hat may make a nice addition with its products. If Mr. Cox thinks AOL or Red Hat will pass up a deal because he might leave, I would suggest he will be in for a shocking reality-check.
Trolling is a art,
...but AOL is pretty big and might be able to grab even MS employees.
Hell, AOL has the cash to throw around to clone him if they got a piece of that lovely hair.
I can see how he says he would be insulted, in a way, but is it for the right reasons?
Do you really think that AOL would fire the whole staff and replace them with monkeys? No, they would keep most everyone and not touch the company until they've watched in action for a while. It's not like they are buying a cable network.
Is he just going to quit because AOL is 'lame'? IMHO, that is a silly reason. I mean, that is a big thing to do in your life because you are 'too cool'.
This is just the first thing I thought when I read this.
Is this a record for smallest story on slashdot? He only has one sentence, yet it will the most replies ever
Get your Unix fortune now!
I'm glad that Alan still has some respect for himself and the rest of the FREE software movement. I'm scared to think what Red Hat will become if AOL takes over.
Visit BobtheKing.com it's perhaps the best thing I've ever made to waste your time with.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
IMHO more importsnt to open source than the linux distro is gcc. What happens to cygnus when AOL buys out RedHat mostly for the name? I have a difficult time imagining that the over inflated ponzai scheme called AOL is really interested in the cross compatibility of a compiler.
If AOL is making a push into the desktop OS market, like some leaked memo's said before, why RedHat? Someone else mentinoed reading about AOL pushing into the web appliance market like the WebTV boxes.
In either case, why are they looking to buy RedHat? They could very easily hire 1/2 dozen talented admins and programmers to put together their own distribution in 6 months or less. I'd personally be more than happy to be collecting a nice steady paycheck from a company I know is going to be doing well no matter what.
The scenerio we've come across that seems to work logically is that RedHat is having financial problems, and they're looking for a buyer. If this is the case, Alan is screwed anyways.
If they don't find a buyer, he's out of work.
If they find a small buyer, he'll take a paycut, or potentially loose his job anyways.
If they find a big buyer, he'll cry that a big company got him.
I think Alan is trying to cry like JWZ . He doesn't know how to handle the whole thing, so he knows another hacker cried about the same type deal years ago. Not saying JWZ was right or wrong, but that was years ago with a different scenerio.
AOL adopting Linux is a great thing. He should recognize and embrace it. I'd rather see them develop their own distribution though. The more big companies that start working with Linux the better. That's how Micro$oft got into the market, they got everyone to start working with them.
Its not like Microsoft has Bill coding the kernel all day long all by himself, and they sure as hell don't have one person making fixes.
I'm sure of AOL buys up redhat, they could afford to do what they wish. Infact I bet the AOL purchase would force Alan Cox out to begin with. I can't imagine a company of such keeping someone onboard who hates the companies idealogies 100%. I hope Alan quites and starts his own company or goes over to Mandrake.
Capitalism.
What if Microsoft did express an interest in acquiring RedHat? No, really. Let's think about it for a second.
/. community would do/say if Bill & Co. popped up and say something like:
Take off the anti-MS-colored glasses for a second and let's imagine what the
"Microsoft intends to purchase RedHat and use Linux technology and methods to better our products and the computing experience of end users. We will use our highly-developed sense of marketting to make Linux a household 'gotta have it' product in every nation. We will use our extensive research into UI usability testing to bring an easy to use approach to Linux without removing any of the 'hardcore' factors that allow enthusiasts to tinker with things. We will aggressively push Linux in the corporate community. We will keep the source open and abide by the GPL. We will use the best of both worlds."
Now, improbable as that might be, let's assume that MS actually said it and meant it. I would imagine that millions of Linux users around the globe would STILL oppose it. The anti-corporate mentality here is deep, way too deeply rooted for the community's own good.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
The point here is that AOL wants 1) an established Linux name 2) a solid base for their own interactive OS that can be web-enabled and coupled with their service 3) a product written in a language that many can already program. They don't give a shit about Alan Cox or current Linux users and, frankly, they shouldn't. The existing code is GPL'ed anyway, so we have nothing to whine about - they can't kill Linux. My guess is by the time AOLLinx or AOLos hits the streets it looks and feels nothing like Linux and doesn't even attempt to compete with Linux as we know it today.
Allan Cox is a self-important whiner. It was a veiled ultimatum.
Really. Who cares?
Alan works out of his house. He'll still be working on the Linux kernel.
The only thing that would change here is one of his email addresses, and not even the main one. Oh, and his paychecks will have a different logo on them, and probably be a touch larger.
Big whoop. Why are we arguing about it?
Ah, well being such an old-schooler, certainly you can relate to the fact that Linux has gotten where it is precisely by not having the harsh light of marketing demands placed on it (leave that up to RH or LinuxOne, but it isn't responsible for Linux' success).
However, this is probably a good time to bring up the question of feasability. Who's got an example of a company that was bought out in order to give it the exposure it "deserves", and this company didn't turn into a steaming pile of shit? Okay, so you found one. What do you think the odds are in general of this resulting in a better company? Oh, so a "better company" only requires higher profit margins? How 20th Century.
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
Good point. I stand corrected...
I have been thinking about this for a while. I think that AOL TW does not have the experience to successfully manage a firm that is primarily an enterprise computing service firm. So they would have to mostly leave them alone, though they may be more likely to invest in making the distribution more viable on the consumer market.
;) But they probably won try. If they do, they will doom RedHat and hurt themselves badly.
Lets face it, ICQ is still a decent program and the reason why Netscape sucks is that most of the developers left. It has to do with a general hatred of AOL... But the Linux kernel is protected by the GPL, and RedHat success is due to being open. If they try to close it off by addign proprietary garbage, other companies will have a chance
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Anyone notice that the URL linked points to alaska.edu?
I wonder how big a pipe Alaska has as a whole, this could bring down the whole Norther Slope.
*chuckle*
Yes, this could be a corporate dilution of a community-supported company. But it might also be an awesome opportunity to expand Linux's presence infinitely.
Certainly a corporate giant such as AOLTW is not a philanthropic patron, but maybe they will support Linux the way they have supported a profitless project like Mozilla for years. Not for charity, but enlightened self-interest.
The ongoing hypocricy astounds me. Most Linux users don't seem to really want Linux to succeed.
It's not hypocricy. If Democrats wanted to vote for a winner, they should have voted for Bush.
No? They didn't want to vote for a winner? Of course they did, but they wanted to win for the right reasons.
I'm a fan of linux and oss in general for, among other things, the anti-corporate spirit that it springs from and thrives on. If AOL bought RH, that spirit would be gone.
Corporations exist only the seperate me from my money.
Linux exists so that I don't have to let a corporation separate me from my money. It's free in every sense of the term.
The two goals don't mix. I use RH now, but if AOL buys them, I'll switch to SUSE in a heartbeat.
Microsoft isn't the only "enemy" of linux.
Software Wars
Ever hear someone who develops the HP-UX or AIX kernel blast of a bunch of half baked political rants?
1. The AIX and HP-UX kernel devel lists probably aren't open for public view, so we really don't know what they talk about.
2. Some of the programmers probably do make political statements -- who doesn't? -- but they don't get much attention because they're not as well known.
3. If you look at Linux as the equivalent to Sun or IBM, Alan is about at the same level as Bill Joy or Larry Ellison over at Oracle. They make political statements all the time. Alan is employed by Red Hat partly because of his skill and also because of his status in the Linux community. They could hire someone just as talented, probably, but they wouldn't have the same priviledges when it comes to working on the kernel. Red Hat can't buy that priviledge -- it has to settle for hiring someone who has it, or submitting code to someone who does.
4. If you disagree with Mr. Cox, that's all well and good -- it wasn't his choice for someone to report his statement on the mailing list. He's discussing something in his usual forum. The fact that it's been widely reported and speculated over is not his fault, nor do I really think he's trying to call undue attention to his opinion.
Obviously, many people do care what Alan thinks -- why does that bother you?
AOL/TW's lawyers helped make it illegal to circumvent a copyprotection regardless of if you are going to violate copyright. You think getting a judge to laugh at the GPL would take until after noon (on a bad day)?
No different from how NVIDIA distributes their closed source GeForce drivers for Linux. There's nothing stopping AOL/TW (or any other company), with or without Redhat, from providing such modules to drive any kind of hardware level trusted computing system.I think Alan and O'Reilly may be jumping the gun WRT their criticisms of a potential AOL buyout of Redhat, but Alan is most certainly within his rights to resign should he decide not to work for a subsidiary of AOL.
Cheers,
--Maynard
...honestly though, my only real beef against the entire inbred megacorporation is their cable division. I don't believe that "utilities" which are granted government monopolies should have any ties to outside industries from inside that utility. If you hold government-granted control over a certain crop of power lines, you shouldn't be able to push for a patented power outlet that directly links you to other products you produce.
Remember when Time-Warner cable said "Disney took your ABC away?" in New York... Those problems will only get worse as AOL Time Warner push more of their own content down "their" pipelines.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. So many slashbots are quick to condemn AOL/TimeWarner and MS for seeking profit, but even quicker to overlook that their Noble Heroes earn a paycheck just like everyone else, I.E. profit from their labor. Slashbots drone on about the virtues of Pro Bono Programming... at least until they move out of their parents' garages and find out that earning a buck is necessary if they want to continue playing Diablo II over their cable modem all night.
Wake up clueless hordes: Your slashdot editors "g0t 0wNx0r3d" by VA, and I'm pretty sure they really don't mind an awful lot having a check every second Friday for what's got to be a killer fun job. Your heroes do not subsist upon GPL alone.
AOL purchases RH = RH talent leaves, RH distro turns to garbage, looses $marketshare. 200 million homes will receive AOL v7 and Linux disks in the mail. RH fades into history like Netscape.
MS won't purchase RH...Linux is open source, so it can't be stolen or summarily driven out of business, so they have no interest in it.
Alan Cox founds a new company, and calls it Crimson Fedora.
Life goes on.
that the deal is about Red Hat's Linux assets, anyway?
Red Hat has some pretty nice embedded stuff going on, and a big name in the market. AOL may very well want Red Hat to provide some type of embedded Internet appliance that will allow them to bypass M$.
Think about this:
AOLinux/Red Hat appliance that uses a Mozilla front-end (like the OEOne device) to connect to Sun Liberty Alliance systems and utilizes Sun's Star Office and stores files on AOL servers (powered by Sun or Linux...).
Alan doesn't figure highly into such a plan, but eCos and other Red Hat technologies would.
...between standing up for your principles and giving in to knee-jerk reactions. Even if the rumors are true, AC has no idea what AOL has in mind for Linux, or even if he'd be involved. After all, there's a good chance that they'd tell him, "Just keep working on the kernel, and we'll have other people work on the more end-user parts."
Umm .. you guys sure that its a real email from alan cox?
It could be fake.
microsoft? they like security through obscurity as well, seems like a good match to me.
Here are 11 reasons why AOLTW might be considering buying Red Hat.
some people don't.
Sure AOL bought Winamp, ICQ, and Netscape and left them mostly unchanged... but that's the problem! Can anyone honestly think of any real improvements made to any of these pieces of software since AOL bought them out? Winamp added that useless browser and that's it... ICQ added "cute" icons and turned into the first spam IM service... Netscape, how long did it take to come up with a new browser that still can't compete with IE? AOL also bought out the cable companies and look what's happened there. Prices are going up. (Read the $230 a month ./ story from last week) Service levels are going down. AOL\TW will just use Redhat as leverage against Microsoft, they aren't going to bring Linux to the desktop! Get real people! As far as I'm conserned AOL is a MUCH bigger threat then MS ever was.
Somebody mod this guy down as OT, please. This isn't a political discussion, but he seems intent on making it one.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
i asked a someone i know who works at aol about this , and this is what they had to say :
aol is sick of spending money on expensive sun solaris and hp-ux software & hardware. they would like to convert to linux, however they aren't confident that any of the current linux companies have the stability to provide the service and support they require long term. so they are going to buy a linux vendor to ensure they have the support and service infrastructure they require.
they don't give a toss about releasing their own desktop operating system or internet appliance.
Well, it may not be terribly relevant for 90% of normal linux users out there, but to those customers (mainly large enterprises) who depend on big-time Linux support, it surely matters.
Alan has said himself many times that one of his "hats" at RH is to make sure certain parts of the kernel/device drivers work for such customers. If he were to leave RH, it would surely impact RH support (not that there aren't other perfectly good coders in RH's employ). Also, it would be a downer for PR purposes.
Just my $.02
Glenn
How many of you are employed?
How many of you are employed in the tech sector?
How many of you are employed in the tech sector, in a company that is heavily reliant upon the internet?
How many of you are employed in the tech sector, in a company that is heavily reliant upon the internet, an internet that has been popularized, regardless of how they did it, by AOL, who lowered the barrier to the point where your mother, your grandfather, and your pointy-haired boss could use it?
(And how many of you are whiny, sniveling little college students -- if that educated -- with little or no real world experience?)
Wow, with as much MS bashing that takes place on Slashdot, I'd have thought that a AOL/TW/RedHat "alliance" might have sufficient resources to provide an alternative to the mighty MS marketing and hype machine that is Windows, but alas, such is not the Case(...oops, I meant case).
Now the issues all the Linux purists have with AOL and TW are far more important than the issues with MS. No sense in picking the right battles, and focusing attention where it is most needed, a strategy for unseating the evil giant from Redmond. No sense in that at all....
From the posts I've read here, and on similar issues, capitalism is the enemy, not the companies that embrace it. AOL/TW, now being in talks with RH has simply become the target de jour.
So the pimply face, tempermental teenager still sits at home on prom night, complaining about the other more popular girls who have dates, because she's turned down every guy who has asked her to the dance because they didn't measure up to her high, impeccible standards.
Like it or not, this is a free-enterprise economic system here in the US. Just because you don't like it, don't start leveling insults at those who are inviting you to participate, claiming moralistic or idealistic patriotism as the higher ground.
So you don't like AOL/TW ? In the words of Han Solo, "What would you like ?"
Worse yet, those type of Linux users would come over to FreeBSD.
Now I don't mind having the "unwashed masses" come over, but please keep the 13337 wannabes the hell away from us!
I bugged out of CompuServe as soon as it became apparent that AOL would be buying them. I couldn't stomach the idea of working for them either. Pure marketing, lousy technology. That's no place for a technologist to be.
Karma: Professionally Doomed (mostly affected by inability to keep opinions to self)
I wouldnt want to work their either if i was forced to use AOL mail. I wonder if he reserved oOoOoCOXoOoOo for his screen name. that would be leeto
AOL/TW (The TimeWarner part is very important, this isn't your daddy's AOL anymore, where elitest-non-AOL-attitude might be the primary driving force in Alan's decision) is not just any old large company.
As I mentioned in another post (a reply, actually), if the company considering buying AOL was Microsoft, nobody would bat an eyelash about Alan Cox saying this stuff. Well guess what? AOL/TimeWarner is just as bad, if not worse, than Microsoft. Not only are they wanting to control computer use as much as Microsoft does (just doing a poorer job of it), but they want to control virtually everything you do! Do you have any idea how much of everything you see at the movies or on TV or on the web is eventually controlled by AOL? In many ways they are much more powerful than Microsoft has ever been.
AOL/TW (again, TW being important) is directly involved in much of the backassward technology & lawmaking that Slashdotters decry every day: DMCA, copyrighted CDs, SDMI...
If you REALLY disagree with those laws and the very idea of huge media conglomerations controlling everything we see, how could you possibly suggest someone should just shut up and be happy working for AOL/TimeWarner?
I'm one of the people who often attack Linux users and programmers for their stupid elitest attitudes, but in this case I say bravo, Alan.
Why does Alan owe anyone a reason, especially to some smartass Slashdot reader? If he wants to quit because he disapprovses of AOLs business practices or because AOL gives him a rash, that's his perogative. And I'm sure Alan is not working at RH for peanuts, they are paying him nicely for his expertise.
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
yep..
http://aurora.linuxpower.org
"I keep looking in the want-ads under 'revolutionary' but there don't seem to be any listings.. "
Some seem to be thinking that if this is a big political pissing contest, well no harm done, Linux is safe and all that.
Well, the problem being overlooked is RedHat is THE biggest corporate distro. If this is a just a whim to get what they want from M$ and AOL/TW screws around with this, they'll be a lot of corporations running back to Bill. It would play right into M$ FUD that there's no reliable support for Linux. And that would be bad for Linux.
Remember a lot of people making corporate decisions on these things are not necessarily tech types to begin with; they won't all just switch to another distro of Linux if RedHat doesn't perform.
Yeah, I know...if it does perform, it could attract more corporate customers with name recognition. Still, that's a big IF.
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
It seems to me that Alan Cox's problem with working for RH after AOL/TW buys it isn't so much that RH itself would suddenly change drastically. His problem is that while RH is merrily working on its newest products, some other part of the AOL/TW empire is lobbying Washington about the DMCA, or SSSCA, or whatever. Alan doesn't want to be a part of that, even in the most remote of ways. And he can afford to bail on RH, so why not do it?
Tastes like burning! - Ralph Wiggum
If microsoft bought Red Hat would that be good? Not only would they have Windows for the people that wanted it, they'd have their own linux distribution. Not saying that AOL/TW is in any way akin to Microsoft, but who knows, they are a big buisiness.
AOL will not be happy to have competing version of Linux and they will do what is needed to "standardise" Linux after they have bought it.
And that will be their attitude - they will not act as if they've bought just one distro. Think about why they want to buy RH. They know that, to the extent that the public know about Linux at all, they think of RH (at least in the US). So they are, in the eyes of the general public, buying Linux. For god's sake, how many posts have there been on /. over the years complaining about people equating RH and Linux!?
With this approach, what do you think AOL's attitude to SuSe and Mandrake will be - a spirit of healthy competition? Does they sound like AOL/TW to you?
AOL's one worry in the world is losing the content control war to MS. They will want, and try to make, one, standardised, non-MS, copy-regulated, platform for their content and that is why they want Linux - because they can't have Windows. Standardised means not letting "little guys" do their own Linux and they will do what it takes to get rid of them.
Do not fall into the Charybdis of AOL just to avoid the Scylla of MS!
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Mandrake might be a good fit, seeing as their distro is similar to RH. Then again, the fact that they have centralized their development out of France might not be a good deal for him...
Why not? France is a hell of a lot closer to him than the US. The major difference is the language.
There is this thing that makes you refuse to work for certain people. You know, like Einstein could have decided to help the Nazis build the bomb for them. So he could have done is "physics research" thingy and be happy, right?
Well, guess what, he decided to leave Germany (the fact he was jew was probably helped taking that decision.)
I myself am happy that not everything is about money and that there are still people with ethics!
Black holes occur when God divides by zero.
Any evidence of either?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
AOL buying RH is just tipping over the first domino, and we don't know what, of any, other dominoes would fall (or in which direction).
Red Hat is a corporation. Ergo Red Hat exists only to separate you from your money. If you haven't given any money to Red Hat, that might explain why they are being bought out. Ne c'est pas?
> Because if a major corporation buys a distro like
l ). AOL/TW, being primarily a content company, can't be expected to take the same stand against the erosion of consumer rights in favor of content producer monopolies. Even if AOL/TW doesn't backpedal on Red Hat's current position, I don't see them breaking new pro-consumer ground.
> Red Hat, or any other for that matter, it will
> reduce the elitist factor of Linux users.
I'm not concerned about an AOL/TW buyout inspiring widespread adoption of Linux: I'd *love* to see my family and non-geek friends install Red Hat. But I'm worried about AOL/TW's distribution becoming popular at the expense of the user's freedom.
At the moment, Red Hat is mostly free software. Even better, the trend in Red Hat releases is towards more freedom: Red Hat has been replacing the last proprietary holdouts (e.g., Netscape 4) with free code. I'd love to believe that AOL would be just as eager to move towards a totally free distribution, but given how thoroughly proprietary ICQ, AIM, and AOL are, I expect AOL/TW's Red Hat to consist of a core of GPLed and BSDed code surrounded by proprietary software.
Red Hat has also been vocal about reforming copyright law to favor consumer rights; see, for example, their SSSCA article (http://www.redhat.com/opensourcenow/article2.htm
In short, I'm worried that AOL/TW will manage to introduce the public to Linux without introducing them to free software, and in my mind that entirely misses the point.
AOL buys RedHat, then Microsoft offers a whole lot more than RedHat is ever going to make to have AOL deepsix it. It's a gross antitrust violation, so expect it -- and expect the inJustice Dept to let them get away with it by hiding those contracts as "trade secrets", too.
So what? There are lots of other distros. But if I worked for Redhat, the mere suspicion that this could happen would be enough reason to look for another job.
The best that could happen: (1) MS makes that offer, and gets caught. (2) The resulting brouhaha makes it impossible for AOL to continue bundling IE; the new AOL CD's offer Netscape, Mozilla for Windows, or RedHat Linux with Mozilla, you choose. AOL still sucks, but your Aunt Minnie is trying to install Linux, and making angry phone calls about missing drivers. Hardware companies start putting equal priority on Linux and Windows drivers. Installing all the other distros becomes much easier.
What else does Linux actually need? Oh, yes, autosetup and instructions that Aunt Minnie can actually follow...
From time to time it is refreshing to see someone encapsulate and summarize the hypocrisy set forth on this site.
What a strange assumption I keep reading, that AOL-Time Warner actually have any interest in Red Hat Linux in particualr, or GNU/Linux in general. What advantage would that give them, distributing an OS that actively encourages its users to get a clue and consider alternatives?
What I'd expect to see is for them to buy up a bunch of developers (Red Hat or any other) and set them to work in the bowels of the AOL/TW Death Star producing something based on a Linux kernel, with most of GNU stripped out, no daemons, no package manager, no compiler, a brand new GUI, AOL-only apps with built in copy restrictions and automatic billing (already got your credit card number), and a daemon that hunts down and kills non-AOL approved processes, all for your security and convenience. I expect it to ship branded as "AOL", not "Red Hat" or even "AOL Linux". Possibly "Secure Linux" if they want to resell it as a perfect Son of SSSCA compliant implementation.
Impossible, you say? How much would it cost to develop? Ten million? Twenty? Fifty? A hundred million? A billion dollars? To control the desktop and the distribution and billing of content before Microsoft get in there first with Blackcomb and Homestation, that's pocket change.
They don't need any particular distro to do that, they just need developers. So run Alan, run for the hills, and take as many as you can with you.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I'm sure they'd be thrilled to have him and I consider Mandrake to be a better, more progressive Redhat.
Maybe not all the Redhat employees who despise AOL could afford to leave on principle but I don't think Alan Cox will be unemployed for long.
M$ wants to control everything too. .NET = cash cow. .NET is needed. a few agree, and spend millions to create the .net site. Are they going to spend money to create a non .net version? No.. so now that "Mr. Big Company" is doing .NET, all their competition follow suit so they are not left behind. .NET. But the versions of the browser that support .net won't be made for 9x, only XP.. so now if people want to buy online, they have to buy XP. So now M$ has forced all home users to XP. And they release "tivo" functionality for the x-box... with a catch. You have to pay for everything that you record.. not much, just 10 cents, of course, via .NET. And now that they have the desktop, the game, and all e-commerce, merchants don't need the credit card info to bill, just go directly to the passport account, and M$ can handle it from there. And now that M$ is handling all of the billing anyway, they can take over VISA/Mastercard.
XP + XBox +
how?
M$ convinces commerce sites that
Now all e-commerce is done via
And then there is the fact that they have a lock on the desktop and game box market... They can simply have your software report back registration numbers, and any registration numbers that match another system, bill BOTH people for the "pirate copy". And if anybody complains about getting billed for their "pirate copy", M$ can have all their equipment siezed on suspicion of software piracy.
GAME OVER.
Alan Cox doesn't need to look at who puts food on the table, because he puts his own food on his own table. Any number of Red Hat competitors would be happy to compete with each other to hire him. And if Red Hat's managers are such idiots that Cox's remark could cause him to lose (not "loose") his job, well, then they deserve to lose him (clue: they aren't).
If you, on the other hand, think so little of yourself as to believe that you must put up with a boss you don't like, I'm sorry for you.
Isn't this a good thing?
With AOL/Time Warner's cash Red Hat would be able to evolve itself into an OS that could rival MS. Or at least they could release a branch of RH that was consumer friendly.
Regards.
IANAlan Cox, but what 99% of the people in this discussion fail to realize is that this probably has nothing to do with the future of Redhat/Linux, but with the principles involved.
Fact: Alan Cox has serious issues with the DMCA, both practical and philosophical.
Fact: AOL/Time-Warner, being an industry leader in the area of movies and such, is a proponent of the DMCA and other similar laws.
Alan, being a man of principle, probably feels that the merger would be a bad thing becuase of this, and his working in the resulting company would comprimise things that he believes in. Unlike many people in this world (and, it seems, on slashdot), he feels the finding a new job is the proper course of action in this case.
As an aside, the non-Alan consequences of this are interesting - AOL/TW owns RH, in order for RH to play DVDs (which is an important feature of a modern desktop OS) it needs to violate the DMCA, AOL/TW supports the DMCA. So with AOL/TW owns a product that endorses breaking the DMCA, or they give RH (and by that, perhaps all of Linux/x86) a "legal" (if not open) method to play DVDs.
_sig_ is away
Alan Cox was a kernel hacker years before anyone paid him to do it.
Don't be stupid, sell out and leave with $$ and continue elsewhere, jeez, are you that rich?
2 0
I thought this was hella funny btw.
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=200201
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
What nobody seems to understand aboot this whole thing is this: it's really doubtful that AOL wants to mail millions of content Windows users a new OS on cd. Think about it people- this is about set-top boxes and embedded stuff- RH has plenty to do with embedded linux, and it's obvious that AOL wont use WinCE to drive those little boxes- and I seriously doubt this will affect those who use RH for a desktop or server OS.
Yes, if you work with them, probably. I'd guess they sometimes chat about politics in their offices just like anyone else is doing.
The office of Linux kernel hackers is the internet. So, when Alan chats with his co-workers, everyone on the net can see that. This doesn't mean he's arrogant or feels like a mighty political figure or something. This impression is created only by the free software world's tabloid press (i.e. Slashdot). It's not like Alan asked for this story to appear on Slashdot, did he?
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
Business is business is business, and when Redhat went into business, they went into business which means things like this buy-out can happen. Alan Cox is just whining because he's a geek and he doesn't want to deal with capitalistic reality. He can make all the complex, serpentine, philosophical excuses he wants to make -- but in the end he's just a whiner.
Let him whine. I'll still use Linux, with or without the support of Alan Cox. One man does not an operating system make (not even Linus).
I don't care, I use Mandrake Linux. Good thing the French don't like big American companies.. the last thing I want to see is MS Mandrake when Microsoft decides to counter AOL.
provides API (though not the nicer one) for writting your own client
Sure, if you want to write a crippled AIM clone to rope a larger set of users into AOL's IM network. If you want to actually create a compatible alternative to AOL's network, expect to be blocked at every turn.
Damned shortsighted fools. If the rest of the internet worked like this we'd still be dialing in to BBSes.
OK, I know that's extremely naive, but as long as someone keeps a close watch on their licensing activities having a big company like that own Red Hat just might lead to better software development for linux. I know, AOL sucks, it really does, but I don't think they'd fire the entire Red Hat staff, so having that sort of backing would just make them better at their job, or at least that's what we all should hope for...
~ now you know
Please mod the parent post down to oblivion. It is obviously some AOL cheerleader.
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
One would have to assume the Cox has a good number of option/shares in Red Hat. In the long run he will probably be better of receiving AOL shares.
Sean.OutaHere()
Simple, Idiot Net users to to AOL, idiot Linux users go to Red Hat. It's a marriage made in hell... :)
The subject is exhausted! Dead. It's nothing more to be said before something more gets out. Then, we can start it all over again.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Ok as far as i know how these take over go.
RH can sertainly set up some rules about what
they will allow and what not.
and since X and such is quite important for the desktop markt. i think it's quite posible that AOL will try to improve that.
witch isn't a bad thing in my eyes.
and sure AOL isn't known for it's generosity towards anyone.
but there still stepping into a whole other world here.
I don't really think AOL is going to do anything that is 'evil' according to the other posts going on here. What I *DO* see happening is the following...
A lot of negative karma surrounds AOL. Many people despise that company, and unjustly for the most part. Most people on the net fear being related to AOL, so many AOLers will look for a proxy when connecting to IRC. No 'elitist' would ever want to be 'found-out'.
Seems to me that the only AOL branded product that people feel comfortable using is AIM, mainly because they can 'claim' to be using another ISP, an AIM-clone, or you name it.
Now.. running AOL-Linux?? That might be the point where many RedHatters will bail the distro, not because it suddenly turned sour, but just because they are supporting AOL/TimeWarner.
I can just see it now.. the bitch-slap on future linux-related threads on Slashdot...
"Look hooz tawking, j0o AoL-liNuX l0oozH3r! aOl pwnz jewr b4wx!"
*sigh*
-fc
.
. echo -e \\04 >
...of linux as we know it. The RH distro will be dumbed down, commercialized, and proprietized (is that a word?). It has to be--the only marketing AOL knows is to send 17 copies on cd to every address in the country. Dumb, commercial, and proprietary equals three strikes in the game of open source, and the volunteers will bail out and move on to the next geek toy. AOL will pour enough money into making RH (by that time, RH==Linux) a competitor to Windows to keep it viable in the marketplace, but its value to most of us will have been lost.
This is my fear, anyway.
The redhat CEO would be the same level as Larry Ellison, not some long haired hippy who talks shit about America.
... what is the single primary PURPOSE of linux. Is is to make the best, secure, functional operating system on the planet? OR is it to make a FREE operating system?
These two points are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but if it came down to that what WOULD be the point...
Personally, I'd vote for a GOOD OS over a free one any day...
The two rules for success are:
1) Never tell them everything you know.
No offense to Alan and the rest of you but i think its amazing that a 3 line quip giving a personal opinion generates so much discussion!
I hope (and expect) he takes all this with a pinch of salt cos if not he'll never fit his head through the door.
I imagine everyone here disagrees with AOL/Time Warners legal shinanigans (im assuming his main exception is taken against their stance with DCMA, Gnutella and such). The fact that a main proponent of open source should hold the same view is hardly news!
Its admirable that he would go so far as to leave his job, but I dont think many people expect this buyout to happen anyway.
You are fantastically mistaken. The reason Parsons was given Levin's job instead of Pittman is precisely because the AOL side of the business is now being reevaluted and reconsidered on the bottom line. Simply put - TW is contributing more to the bottom line than AOL. Much of the hype of technology/content integration hasn't panned out and now they are looking for a no-nonsense executive who will push the intellectual property of the company (Harry Potter, LOTR) over online access, as they see more money coming from this.
Pittman has in essence been downgraded at AOL/TW, for exactly the opposite reasons you think he is in ascendancy.
That's just plain and simple narrowminded.
I hate AOL as much as the next person, but for all you Netscape fans out there, if it weren't for AOL, netscape would not be around. (This would actually have been a blessing to those of us developing websites.)
AOL has a lot of money. Who's to say that they won't offer Alan an agreement such as, "We won't interfere or tell you what to do, we'll simply keep paying your bills."
Maybe even give Alan more resources than he currently has to get things done.
I thought linux was suppossed to be for the openminded person who can think past windows. Shouldn't the development be the same way?
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
then stand for America on Linux? :)
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
GNU/Linux has been around since before RH and will continue to be around should RH disappear. It is not *the* only version of GNU/Linux available and it's *certainly* not the best.
Perhaps RH's disappearance or sellout will strengthen Linux. AOL has a great deal of financial muscle and could very well give Linux the backing it needs. On the other hand they could completely screw it up. Either way, it doesn't spell the end.
Later,
Cheers,
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
This is all an obfuscation on his part. If he were really intent on havinhg nothing to do with a potential AOL-tw buyout he would immeditaley liqidate *all* of his RedHat stock. Unless he does this, he'll probably be rich enough to quit his job and sit around kernel hacking all day. oh...wait...
Really, I appreciate the bully pulpit he has for the same aol-tw(which I share), however, without any real action this is just style points over any substantive protest.
To put it another way, if there are any RH staff who would seriously consider putting together a startup with me, to market a generic Linux distribution and provide optimized distributions on-demand, I'd be interested in hearing from you.
The end of "Red Hat" as an independent, free-agent need not be the end of Linux from and within the US.
RH had a good business model - it's the most successful Linux company to date - but I think that there were areas it could have been improved on.
Had? Could? Sure. If Red Hat gets merged, AOL will take what it wants and will spit out the pips. That's what happens with these types of takeover. And I don't see much hope for Red Hat declining the offer.
Why would anyone be interested in gambling on a startup, right now, in the middle of a deep depression, especially on the unproven ideas of some strange geekazoid on the Internet, who nobody knows?
Because the alternative for many, right now, is flipping hamburgers. I'd like to think my idea of a distro-on-demand offers a little more hope & light in the world than that.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
There is an office in Montreal Canada...
heheeh right on brother
If AOL does buy out Red Hat, maybe then they'll release a version of AOL for Linux. AOL is a good nationwide ISP. They're not perfect, but you can pretty much go anywhere and have a local dialup. If your average joe user sees this, they may consider linux since they can use AOL on it. Remember AOL has 30 million subscribers. If a few of those got on linux, it would help the Linux market.
Alan implied that if he had any knowledge of any deal in the works, he would have quit already. Rob, your headline reads "Alan Cox to Leave if RH AOL Buyout Happens?" That seems to me like he threatened to leave. He hasn't done that.
It's like what many say (and needs to be said) about Microsoft; now that they're a huge company and monopoly, they shouldn't behave like a startup, screwing people whenever they can. Likewise I don't feel bad about holding the /. editors
to a higher standard now that they're
so successful.
So, anyway, this is all rumour. You guys are all skewering each other over a sensationalised (by our /. editor friends)
rumour.
If I had to argue though, I would argue
against a buyout.
And I could argue for pages
before I even got to any idealogical
reasons.
KLAATU, BORADA, NIh*ahem*
As far as I know, there were more than 30 different nationalities represented inside Mandrakesoft in 2000/2001. Furthermore, I know that internal language for communication inside Mandrakesoft is English because only half the company can speak French.
Assumming that \. confirmed this is the Alan Cox, I am not surprised. AOL was lousy when it was a BBS. AOL took over Netscape, and its dead. AOL takes over RedHat. Goodbye RedHat. Next AOL mergers with Oracle. Thats okay, both CEO's and companies make me sick.
Here is a theory. Since NSA has based it's secure Linux extensions on Redhat, maybe AOL is trying to worm their way into
government.
AOL is now AOL Time Warner. They want to control and charge for both creating and delivering everything you see on your TV and PC and in magazines and cinemas.
I'm amazed at the number of people on Slashdot who are saying "they're good guys, not like evil Microsoft". They have ambitions far beyond Bill Gates. To prefer an AOLTW hegemony over Microsoft is like voting for Stalin to replace Hitler (or vice versa, I'm not sure).
Er, no. A corporation can't own itself, since the part of itself it owns is just owned jointly by the peiple who actually own the other part.
Now, it's possible Redhat's founders still own a big chunk, but I doubt it's 50%.
I think people are taking the evil way out of hand.
Evil:
*Owns Time Warner. Time Warner helped buy the DMCA.
Will I retire or break 10K?
This feels like a Microsoft plot to further suspicion between AOL and the Linux community. Who else would have a motive for starting this kind of subversion?
All I can think about is the movie Pirates of the Silicon Valley when Steve Jobs is about to call out Bill Gates to speak at the Mac product release and the new versions of Windows are showing up over seas. The one guy says to Bill that Steve always thought IBM was the enemy, but Microsoft was really who the enemy was.
Linux is sort of like democracy. As users and developers of Linux, we have both a say and a responsible in the future of Linux. Alan Cox is making a responsible decision that I have a great deal of respect for. This is the moment when we see who is going to sell their souls for a chance at making money.
Is beating Microsoft really worth selling out Linux? Besides, since when was Linux about beating anyone?
AOL aquiring RedHat doesn't mean anything to Linux. What will matter, is if the Linux community supports this buyout by continuing to purchase and develop for RedHat if AOL takes it in a negative direction.
I guarentee that you will see a bunch of closed source software be released if AOL acquires RedHat. RedHat may even feel pressure to insert copyright protection software which is something that goes against the fundamental beliefs of Free Software.
So, the devils here offering to buy your soul, what's your asking price?
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
You say it like it's a bad thing... maybe you wanna re-phrase that?
No shit, all this time I'm reading this article I'm thinking to myself... pay raise, pay raise, pay raise. There is nothing good to come out of AC leaving RH. At least wait until AOL makes the deal, then see which way the wind is blowing. He's just fishing for a raise, maybe, just maybe, looking for a golden handshake from RH.
TimeWarner is a big DRM player, they own one of the most popular MP3 players (winamp), so it's only natural to assume that Winamp is full of DRM.
Only it isn't. And there don't seem to be any plans to cripple it. So while I understand the worry, it's not supported by the evidence.
Novel Unix System V
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
man slashdot is becoming a sensationalistic tabloid.
First of all alan never said he would leave, he only said he is insulted anyone would think he would stay. .
Stop jumping to conclusions.!!
The features don't get in the way. Sure, the right click menu got bigger, but everything is still there.
Everything including RAM and system resources available to run other programs? The latest version of ICQ I tried had a much larger memory footprint than MSN.
Will I retire or break 10K?
When it comes to the kernel, not quite. The Red Hat CEO doesn't have diddly to say about what goes on with the Linux kernel, except the kernel that Red Hat ships.
Alan Cox, OTOH has a lot of influence over the direction of the kernel. He has the right to express his opinions, it doesn't matter if you agree with him. Frankly, I'm glad to see someone who's willing to leave a company if it goes in a direction that's contrary to his ethics or political stance. The world would be in a lot better shape if more people were willing to stand up for their ideals rather than sucking it up and letting corporations do what they please.
Alan also has the stones to sign his name to his opinions, what's your excuse?
Slashbots drone on about the virtues of Pro Bono Programming
Never capitalize "pro bono" unless you support the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998.
Will I retire or break 10K?
You're asking the wrong question. The question that you want to ask is "If RedHat was bought by TimeWarner/AOL, wouldn't that be good?"
The answer is HELL NO.
AOL/TimeWarner is already pushing content control schemes across the board. These schemes are in opposition to RedHat's vision for Linux.
Look at what TW/AOL's has been doing to their owned companies have been doing since the merger-
Some of their companies have been forced out of their market not because they weren't making a profit, but because they weren't making *enough* of a profit. Across the board of TW/AOL you see the dumbing down of quality in the name of greed, you see the explicit compromise of journalism to advertisers, and ads, tracking, and spam all over their tech products.
AOL/TW is a company with no soul, a company that has compromised every product they had of any worth. What future do you see for RedHat in this environment? I see the best known Linux brand installing AOL, AOLIM, and all sorts of shopping junk, advertisements, spam, and tracking bugs onto the default desktop.
The GPL doesn't protect about that. They want to subvert the RedHat brand to push their crap.. it's has nothing to do with the technical qualities of the distribution, which will soon suffer.
I have a friend who works at a company owned by AOL/TW. Since the merger they've been forced to create products more suitable for walmart than their target market. They had their groupware replaced with a custom, more restrictive version of AOL mail, which comes complete with SPAM from AOL from day 1, and *requires* you to be logged in to AOL/IM in order to check your mail.
There's reason AOL would want to buy RedHat instead of partnering with them is if they wanted to subvert the brand. Wake Up.
A lot of us don't know why it is an insult to think that you might continue working for RH if AOL/TW buys them out.
That means it probably isn't an insult so much as an educational opportunity.
It's actually pretty easy to see reasons why you would want to stay, depending mightily on what AOL has in mind with such a purchase.
After all, your chance to influence the computing world at large and do many genuine good things would now be backed by a whole new level of resources.
Even the Mozilla fiasco seems to be rounding into shape now. The AOL folks may have learned a few things about Open Source software and Open Source ways.
So, Alan, please don't be insulted. Explain to us the problems you have with AOL. Let people know the dangers you see and why the negatives are important enough to send you seeking employment.
You're not obligated to do anything of the sort. It's really none of our business.
It might do some good, though.
It's interesting to see how many geeks really care about this political, idealistic stuff. Isn't it more fun to just code?
The copyright industry wants to take away the existence of machines on which we can "just code" by having the hardware trust an encrypted BIOS, which trusts the kernel, which trusts the apps. At this rate, we're heading toward a future where after SSSCA and Son of SSSCA have passed, all computer systems will be closed systems. (Read More...)
Will I retire or break 10K?
they're just looking for a solid investment
Yes, Netscape just gained loads of market share after AOL grabbed it. Lots of Netscape developers DIDN'T leave. Netscape 5.0 was a wonderful piece of software. (version 5? what version 5?)
Call it a troll, but AOL is not looking for solid investments. They are looking to make money. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but in the case of AOL, they sure are.
Imagine all those AOL disks we get in the mail having Linux on them...install AOL, it makes one of those Linux-on-top-of-Windows thingies, and ten million people start getting used to Gnome....
For Alan, and other people who make the effort to pay attention to issues beyond their paycheck, there's more to life than getting paid.
Think about what TW/AOL does. Think especially about their leading role in content control legislation, UTICA, and the DMCA. Think about how they've compromised all the software they've absorbed with unsolicited advertising, user tracking, shopping portals and the like.
It's more difficult to stand up for what you think is right than wallow in apathy. We should all support Alan and those like him for refusing to support an organization that acts directly against his core beliefs.
whine
I want to make money off this
whine
I didn't get rich during the dot.com bust
whine
this may be my only chance to get enough money to pay off my AMC Pacer
whine
I'll sue Alan Cox for adversely affecting shareholder value and shattering my dreams
whine
AOL is a closed source company, what is so hard for you to understand? AOL buying RedHat is almost like MS buying RedHat.
At least Alan proved that he's not a hypocrite.
I know that as a Linux enthusiast and part time advocate, I will not recommend a TimeWarner/AOL distribution.
Who could?
Who could give money to an organization that actively props up UTICA, DMCA, and a whole network of proprietary standards full of ads, user tracking devices, content control schemes?
Only someone who didn't care, and shame on you.
Is getting financial benefits, in and of itself, really selling out?
No, but who you are getting the financial benefits from does matter. Many slashdotters have sgort memories as is evidenced by the fact that one day a story on how evil the MPAA is being by pursuing the SSSCA and the DMCA can run and the next day a movie review gushing about the latest overpriced, overhyped crap from George Lucas or one of his cronies is run.
AOL Time Warner is directly responsible (via lobbying) for laws that restrict the freedom of their customers to utilize the products they have bought in a means which is generally considered to be fair (the DMCA). They are responsible for cops breaking into a teenage hacker's home (Jon Johansen's) and treating him like a criminal for writing a program that would make viewing DVDs under Linux easier. They are responsible for proposing laws that would force all electronics and computers to ship with copy protection (the SSSCA).
Given the fact that the actions of the Time Warner branch of AOL/TW are orthogonal to the beliefs of anyone involved in Free Software I am stunned that people on Slashdot can question Alan Cox's decision. I guess that the adage "be careful when you fight monsters lest you become one yourself" applies in this case with regards to Slashdotters looking for a way to defeat MSFT by any means necessary.
While most people are expressing their concerns over the future of their desktop, I get the feeling that the buyout could be much worse for Linux than the possible loss of a good desktop.
Red Hat is (in North America) a huge presence in the market for large scale server deployments, Linux support, development, and embedded tools. They own a lot of unique and valuable IP, like CCVS and Cygnus. They fund the development of GNU libc, GCC, and a lot of kernel development.
Red Hat has done a f*cking excellent job of supporting the Linux community, and furthering the development of Linux. I hope that nothing changes their direction.
You guys are criticizing Alan Cox and siding up with AOL? Now I've seen it all. At least Alan isn't a hypocrite. It would be stupid for him to say : "I use Open Source but I work for a closed source company. I don't like monopolies like MS but I don't mind if AOL becomes one."
I, personnally, prefer and use closed source because of the fact that I need the money. But Open Source also have it's advantages. I would like to see its usage expand in education and research institutes.
Besides, AOL will want the RedHat OS to become more convenient, easier to use and they'll sure as hell would want to keep some of their source code close. This will make the RedHat distribution less secure. If you guys are looking for a Windows clone, use Windows. If you're looking for a secure, decent OS with a good geek community, use Linux. Enough said!
Wouldn't they also need an OS on which Mozilla-based products could run?
You mean other than all these? The most popular versions are the ones for Windows, Linux, and Mac, probably in that order.
Will I retire or break 10K?
AOL needs an established name? "AOL Linux" cant get more established than that.
these people make Elvis look anorexic!
Sigh. The GPL grants rights to copy that ordinary copyrights don't. If the GPL does not hold no copyright holds. The GPL has been defended and no one has dared go to court because they knew they would loose.
Furthermore, the important part of Red Hat are not protected by the GPL. Neither their name and credibility, nor their customer base is GPLed. (In fact, I don't even know if all their software is - AFAIK SuSEs Yast is closed source, e.g.)
As far as I can tell, you have never used Red Hat or looked at any of their source. Most is GPL. Show me one "important" piece that is not.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Look, lets say this goes through... and its correct in the assumption that AOL wants to use RH resouces to build AOLinux to replace M$ on their users PC's. If there is ANYTHING in this world that people of the technical caliber of AOL users HATE its CHANGE!! It will fail MISERABLY...then next think you know RH goes the way of Corel, with their parent company slashing the budget and closing up shop. Its happened before...it can happen to them. Really, Linux will survive it...but RH has been an innovator in this are for a long time now and the setback will hurt our cause badly. Tim
"AOL buys RedHat" is a blockbuster headline, but doesn't really mean much without the rest of the story.
We don't know why they want it yet!
Certainly, the scenario you mentioned is possible, but probably not accurate. Look at how little happened to WinAmp, once it was bought.
RedHat is like a machete. Most kids in Panama know how to use a machete safely, and do daily. It's a kitchen tool to them. (I saw many kids with machete wounds while I was there!)
But, we're about to see a machete be passed to someone who can be irresponsible. They say they have a good use for it, but we don't trust them.
If RedHat becomes a newbie's OS, I'll still be happy. We'll watch in disbelief as diehard AOL customers will point and click their way through installation of their new OS, and call AOL with any tech-help questions they have. But, the good stuff will remain. If you want, you'll be able to install RedHat as a "desktop OS w/ developer support" and all the dancing zebras will disappear.
So, it's too early to make such judgements. I'm waiting until something official is said. Then, as if on cue, I'll release my flaring emotions. Right now, my emotions are too confused for me to release them yet.
Free unix account: freeshell.org
Even if he leaves, .... so what? As long as he chooses to work on Linux, his work is GPL'ed. And as such, AOL will pick up the fruit of that labor. No, they can't charge for it -- but, they're not charging for the millions of "FREE AOL" CD's they ship now, either (and let's all hope and pray that the FREE AOL CD's of 2003 will contain Linux!)
Unless Alan does a complete Atlas Shrug and give up on Linux totally, the chances are that the "big bad capitalist AOL" will ship his kernel to millions of homes worldwide. Hmmm...
Thank you, Richard, for the GPL. It allows AOL to shackle guys like Alan so efficiently.
Part of the Second American Revolution!
That after the merger AOL Time Warner seems to be backing out of that stuff?
AOL does have alot of influence, they are connected with time warner, but theres 2 groups, the AOL group and the Time Warner group.
I'm guessing the AOL group wants Redhat.
Whats the worse than can happen?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Aol Cox and most of the other big time talent will go somewhere else, all the real linux supporters will support another company.
Its not a big deal because theres nothing for us to lose, Redhat isnt the only company.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Maybe this goat-bearded, smelly, hippy faggot should just quit Linux altogether. If he quits working at RedHat then RH still gets the benefit of AC's work, but they don't have to pay him and they don't have his stinky B.O. to drive away the people that do the REAL WORK at RedHat.
I guess you say that now, but my guess is that you have never left your job and gone 6 to 8 months or more on a $300/week unemployment check until you are no longer able to pay most of your bills with the money you have saved and your credit goes bad and you almost lose your car. That's the point when you lower your standards and end up going to work at a job that is worse than the one you left in the first place.
You think it will never happen but it can and it will. I've seen it happen to a lot of really good people.
I'd say being able to pay the bills is pretty damn important.
Yeah yeah. Whatever. I wish the world was perfect too.
So why do so many people still use Mozilla? If anything, their license has improved since AOL purchase. Sometimes companies can get it. Let's hope the Time/Warner side of the house gets pulled in the right direction. Red Hat still works well, and is very friendly. Frindly enough to hand out on an AOL disk.
So if Red Hat is bought by AOL, I expect much of their user base will move to Mandrake, Debian, and Suse.
I doubt it. It's amazing how little software that works is replaced, not that a movement of people to Debian would be bad. =:>
Now let's look at the chorus of bunk below you.
cp somehting random sezRemember that there's a large number of people who are running Red Hat on servers because it has a reputation for being user friendly -- many (most?) servers are run by people who really haven't a clue.
I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few people (gasp!) return to using Windows.
What can be said about that flame, besides it's ugly and doubtful. Anyone who has been free of M$ for a while would gag on a Windows install, be horrified at all the adverts and the poor features and performance God, all the things you never want to remember again. Even AOL users, such as myself notice.
Outhouse has I know that as a Linux enthusiast and part time advocate, I will not recommend a TimeWarner/AOL distribution.
Who could?
I don't know, who would recomend a TimeWarner browser? OK, I would. I like Mozilla. We shall see what kind of tool Red Hat becomes. Stranger things can happen. IBM, another big IP place, might just recomend and put money into free tools.
Oh well, I have to get back to work now. There seems to be no end to the hyseria here, but I can't have fun forever. By the way, did Mr. Cox even write that letter?
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
If you were using ICQ since 1995 you'd have a far lower UIN than 7 digits. I started in 96 and have a 6 digit UIN starting with a 1. Stop lying and trolling.
Cretin.
Like most real people, I'll use whichever I like the most, provided it doesn't cost more above the alternatives than I'm willing to pay for its advantages over the alternatives.
Unless I have a strong personal objection to the behavior of the specific company involved, I'm not going to reject a technical alternative based on generic anti-corporate political drivel.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
It looks like some of the RH higher-ups are dumping some stock in preparation for this buyout. Check out the restricted shareholder report at Yahoo! They've been dumping a couple million dollars worth of stock. I wonder how long ago they knew about this.
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
What I find more interesting is that Alan Cox will be working for Red Hat as long as he's doing GPL'd development.
Oh, sure, he won't be on the payroll, but his work will benefit the company.
I challenge you to point each and every one of them out.
AOL has never put any company that I know of out of business, So tell me about these dirty practices that puts them on level of Microsoft?
Oh right they have a monopoly.
They actually earned their monopoly as far as I know, They do offer good products, AOLIM, Mozilla, Winamp, ICQ and although they didnt make these products if not for AOL they wouldnt have funding to keep exsisting after the
AOL is big yes, and all big companies are threatening, but do you really want to compare them to Microsoft?
Time Warner on the other hand, well they are control freaks.(DCMA,SSSCA,MPAA)
AOL from what I've seen has been a fairly honest company, They advertise and sell a service which people pay for, then they fund applications which people like in response using the money generated so they may provide a better service.
Microsoft would leverage their OS to sell their products, I dont see AOL selling its products by forcing all who have cable TV to subscribe to AOL.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Many people posted saying that since we don't know what AOL/TW's plans are yet, Alan should wait and only when AOL/TW's plans are known make a decision. Don't you people think he understands that? If you give him some credit, you'd realize that being one of the important people at RedHat, he probably knows about AOL/TW's plans a bit more than us.
We should make conclusions from what Alan says, not question his decisions.
Could you please explain to me exactly what you are complaining about?
What `banning' can you do based on IP addresses that any good
There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
-- David D. Friedman
A man whose name is barely an anagram of "Anal Cox." Need I say more, people? Need I say any more???
Btw, I'm surprised by the ammount of people that go for the Ostrich-approach to principles.
Maybe Alan could go help out the FreeBSD people.. Not that Matt Dillon isn't the man.. But..
Common sense is not so common.
It doesn't mean he'd stop supporting the linux community, although he might not find as many lucrative offers to pay him to do what he loves doing. But still, thats what principle is all about. Don't let a simple thing like money and job security stand in the way of what you believe. At least he's willing to put something on the line.
We might not agree with it. AOL has not exactly been the best neighbor in the internet community. They've been responsible for putting a lot of people on the internet that were better off never discovering it. This could be good or bad depending on how you look at it.
They've provided me with an almost endless supply of free coasters.
I can think of worse companies that could buy Redhat out with far more nefarious intentions, although in AOL's case, I feel they're better refered to as the better of two evils rather than a helpful benefactor.
Alan's decision may not be a good one, but its his to make. And if Redhat will be detrimentally affected by his leaving, then its an issue they need to consider.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
you mean like "closed source" AOL-Server? (Hint it's not)
or like "open source" Ecos ? (Hint Redhat never bothered to opensource that)
You are just like all the other idiots here.
No flame, but why is this guy whining like a sissy about someone else's whining because of its second-handed baby is becomin mainstream?
Hey AC, how old are you to act like a child.
Go make your identity known. After all, it's open
forum, so you don't have to stick with AC.
Be my guess and leave if you don't want your gay post to be read.
These people are more often than not some college student who doesn't know jack about computers (there are exceptions, but they move on quickly). You think one of these people is going to walk a business through an NT to Linux transition?
It was good for Mozilla and Netscape 6.x when jwz left. It was under him that the project scope kept changing, the notion of scheduled milestone releases went out the window, and most of the good longtime coders left.
It was after he left that the team began releasing frequent milestone builds, stopped adding major new features to the project plan, and.. showed signs of having a plan.
The Mozilla/Netscape 6 project is still a mess, with bug fixes and addition of missing features slated for a given milestone pushed off to infinity on a regular basis. But without jwz, it at least resembles a project and has produced what is now a decent browser and mail/news client.
Mr. Zawinski is now running a bar, and the world of software development is blissfully free of his project management "skills".
Alan Cox--who unlike jwz is a really sharp coder and a good project leader--is showing himself to be just as much a child, spoiled and twisted by too much time spent in academic computing, shooting his mouth off before he's got a real situation to evaluate. Hey. If AOL turns Red Hat into an unpleasant place by changing its focus in distressing ways, or by engaging in massive, traumatic waves of layoffs, of course he'd be right in leaving. If Red Hat lets him pick his projects and AOL instead wants him to port the AIM stock ticker to KDE or sit in meetings all day, of course he'd be justified in leaving.
But this knee-jerk aversion to a parent company just because it's a big company? Or because of AOL's commitment to actual ease of use that Cox, jwz and RMS all abhor?
What if AOL is trying to assemble all the pieces necessary to go after Microsoft with Free Software? Doesn't Red Hat also employ some Postgres maintainers? If they bought Staroffice/Openoffice from Sun, they'd be on their way to something mighty compelling. If an AOL-owned Red Hat lets him continue working on low-level kernel pieces and device drivers while they fund an aggressive desktop-oriented Red Hat, why wouldn't he want to come along for the ride? Because they also own an old-line record label and film studio with rabidly protected intellectual property? Okay.
I wish the best of luck to any company, school or organization that wants these guys on its payroll.
Alan Cox is just another prima donna programmer.
How silly. Red Hat was always a maintainer and distributor of their own and other people's packages. To say the result was not an OS because they are taking on other projects is like saying Honda is not a motorbike company because they buy parts from subcontractors and sell cars. Their CD runs my wife's machine, it's an operating system.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
what about netscape server?
... is GPL'd, and frankly, excellent. Explain that! (if you want to know what AOLserver is, just use a search engine). I don't like monopolies, as much as the next guy, but I got into Linux for the technical aspects of it, I don't see it getting anything but better.
The GPL is enforceable.
Seriously, read it.
There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
-- David D. Friedman
and that comes direct from AOL. Other than their online front end, how many closed source products do AOL have ? Hey - prove me wrong - or I'll stick with my opinion that it's nothing like MS buying RedHat.
Did they leave them unchanged? There were a few reports that pointed to the rift in cultures between Netscape and AOL. And in the end, AOL management managed to drive out much of Netscape's talent. Their attrition rate skyrocketed (50% was described as "conservative" with the observation that HR were swamped with termination notices as they, themselves, were being hit). Business processes were interupted and otherwise halted. Netscape was effectively scuttled - dead in the water.
Something to consider here is that this didn't just involve the browser. In fact, development of the browser continued under the Mozilla project - one could argue Open Source saved the browser. Netscape's entire business infrastructure was disrupted from partners to their plugins program to their Netcenter portal which was considered Netscape's greatest asset.
AOL certainly had a grave effect on Netscape. And we know of it because Netscape was a large, highly visiable company. One has to wonder what little intrigues went on at Nullsoft and Mirabilis.
C|Net News Article
y =c net&tag=pt.msnbc.feed..ne_8551983
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-819578.html?legac
01.21.02 4:44 EST
85% of Americans think this signature sucks
According to a news.com article, http://news.com.com/2100-1001-819578.html AOL buyout rumor is false.
Wow, what a way to diss a group of nice programs. What do you want winamp to do, viseo drawings?
Netscape, how long did it take to come up with a new browser that still can't compete with IE?
Ahh, there we go, a stupid MSIE troll. Mozilla rocks. It's free, fast, stable and secure. MSIE can only be mentioned here to inflame people who know better. Move on.
they aren't going to bring Linux to the desktop! Get real people! As far as I'm conserned AOL is a MUCH bigger threat then MS ever was.
Sure, M$ is our frind, Linux, BSD and the ozone are dying.
We shall see what kind of threat AOL is. Has it ever occured to you that content providers like Time-Warner consider Micro$haft an asshole in the middle to be eliminated? AOL does not provide the best ISP, granted, but it's no worse than M$'s and the deal has remained the same or gotten better over the years. Contrast that to the deal that M$ has given everyone, in it's typical late commer fashion.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Look, the point is not whether Alan Cox believes he is taking a principled stance, and whether anyone believes he should rather be apathetic.
The point, for me, is that it would be preferable for Alan to do what is possible to help Linux be a real success. It seems to me that AOL/TW buying RH would go a great distance toward convincing potential *paying* customers for RH Linux that RH as a company will continue to exist. That can only help Linux's adoption by real-world companies.
UTICA and DMCA have very little to do with Linux's success.
There is sometimes a fine line between principled stance-taking and immature whining. If Alan took a stance "I'm not working for AOL/TW because the CEO bought his wife a fur coat. They're animal killers!" it would be counterproductive.
Does this stance give a potential PAYING customer more or less confidence in Alan Cox's ability to deliver a robust, stable kernel for enterprise software?
In my opinion, Linux will survive *anything*. By that, I mean it exists independant of commercialism, regardless of any conglomerate - It isnt in competition with anything, Linux's saving grace is the licsense it is released under and its philosophy.
The "war" between AOL, MS and Linux reminds me of a film. I cant remember the name of the orignal movie but 'Last Man Standing' was a recent remake of it. A drifter pits two warring gangs against one another, in the end the gangs snub each other out and the drifter is the "last man standing" (gedit? =).
Whether AOL buys Redhat is irrelevant to Linux, Linux is so much more. All AOL can do is make or break a name: Red Hat is just a brand name, in the end there will always be Linux.
Linux is a type of socialsm that for once actually works.
I'll mention again, though I have already mentioned it, Mozilla.
It is an Open Source project largely funded and developed by AOL, even if it makes you feel better to say Netscape.
If you read what I wrote, you would notice that I take no issue with Alan's opinions of AOL. The only question is why he should assume that we know what they are. If we don't know his issues, he has no basis to Alan's potential departure as an educational opportunity, not the basis for an insult.
ElcomSoft President Alexander Katalov
You can't handle the truth.
Capitalistic day dreams.
Instead of buying Red Hat, AOL could buy Lindows. Then they could get in on a unique litigation action and hold onto something Microsoft recognizes as a threat worthy of stomping out!
Just consider how much fun T/W could have rolling out AOLindows, capable of running AOL, Outlook, Office or Star Office, and MSN Messenger!
Everytime they pushed out an AOLindows, Microsoft loses an upgrade option. Everytime a PC maker preloads AOLindows, Microsoft loses an OEM license. That could be quite a coup!
I love my RedHat, but if this deal goes through, I'll seriously consider changing to another distro. I've really enjoyed RedHat because of it's open nature, but I doubt AOL can keep its hands of it. I really don't want anything made by AOL on my computer...
It's nice to know that you moderateors are ALSO worthless communists. I hope that you get deported to Castro's little concentration camp, I'd gladly pay the airfair to send you all there -- and especially this scumbag Alan Cocks
Alan Cox is cocky?
Sure he is.
Just like a crazy Finnish man stood up admist a realm of corporate overlords and said, "I'm going to write a kernel - for the hell of it."
There are far too few people willing to stand up, and risk their job for what they believe in.
I see it all the time - "I hate Microsoft. I wish I didn't work in an NT/2k/etc. farm."
Then don't. What's wrong, you might not be able to afford a new car every other year? Aww.
Give Cox the respect he's due - he's done more for Linux than most of you ever will.
Alan, best wishes if you end up leaving RH.
I use open source, but I work for a closed source company. Does that make me a hypocrite? No. There is a place for both. Your argument doesn't make any sense.
Besides, AOL will want the RedHat OS to become more convenient, easier to use and they'll sure as hell would want to keep some of their source code close. This will make the RedHat distribution less secure.
What do you base this claim on? AOL has done a very good job with Mozilla and even with their AOLServer web server (which is also open-source). Furthermore, since when is closed source inherently less secure than open source? Security has nothing to do with whether ot not the code is open or closed. Security depends on how well the code was written.
is you'll get 1600lb of Gorilla shit.
I read LKML, this comment by Alan Cox was off handed and joking. I probably truely indicates Alan Cox's inclination, but there is alot of possabilities between his statement and some hypothetical aquisition of RedHat.
:). AOL is an aquisitive company, like Cisco or others. They don't care if a good idea wasn't invented internally, they just don't like being tied to a company that might fail. Actually, alot of the aquisitons are for companies they became dependent on, who were failing dispite having a huge customer like AOL.
Second, AOLTW is a very technical company. Almost always they promote from within. They recognized technical ability; even more so when technical ability is matched with the simple ability to communicate. Layoffs are where this gets flakey, because then you are judged by these Corperate employee reviews (which are misleading at best).
Third, I personally believe there is no way in HELL that AOL is going to aquire RedHat. That story was rumor. These rumors swarm about AOL like flies on dung (hmmm..bad metaphor
I was part of a company that was aquired by AOL, and I chuckle at it cuz AOL got screwed in the aquisition. I subsequently left AOL for a better offer and commute.
A couple more observations from my time there:
- AOL is proud of the Internet-on-training-wheels moniker.
- AOL creates a simple client (the email part of the client is prehistoric), because TECH SUPPORT IS FREE. They want a client that people don't need to call tech support for, cuz tech support costs come straight out of the bottom line. Compare that to other companies pay-for-support *cough*microsoft*cough. Those kind of companies produce buggy CRAP! but with lots of features.
- AOL is Linux's friend. Their internal use of Linux is going thru the roof. They produced a AOL-appliance using Linux. They will continue to exploit Linux in server and dedicated client for along time coming, just like the rest of the industry.
- The last point means that there is at least ONE HUGE corperate consumer telling OEMs to improve their linux support for software and hardware, or AOL will talk to their competitor. No company takes loosing AOL's buisness lightly. They spend $BILLIONS$ a year on technology.
- AOL pays for Mozilla/Gecko (nuff said).
No worries.
-- I am not a fanatic, I am a true believer.
If you work for aol, you have the advantage of getting only 4 aol free cds in the mail a year instead of 9.
He's just mad because he will have to use an aol browser...
Commercial Linux is about making money and unless Red Hat gets bought by AOL, they would probably lose market share to Mandrake and SuSE. And SuSE isn't too popular either.
If you want real a real Open-Source distribution, it's not Red Hat but Debian. But they don't hire.
Linus works for Transmeta, so why shouldn't Alan Cox work for AOL? He can always quit if he doesn't like his job.
I tend to view this as a mixture of bad and good, like you said. On the one hand, the AOL users I know tend to be incompetent morons, but on the other hand, the Internet would not have developed as quickly as it did without newbie-centered online services like AOL, which brought the 'net to the masses.
Microsoft is much the same way -- without Microsoft, PCs would probably still be black boxes just like Macs, and if this was the case, the GNU tools and Linux would never have been developed.
> You don't have kids, do you?
Irrelevant. I have kids, but I also have savings to prevent my having problems if I should be unemployed for a time (six months, at my last calculation). If you can't save enough to support yourself if you lose your job, you need to spend less. And don't tell me you can't; I lived dirt cheap for a while when I was younger so I could afford to tell my employer to stick it if I hated my job. I have plenty of expenses, but I don't have more expenses than salary, and I never have. If you do, then you're making your own slavery. Disaster recovery is important for any work you do, and so it should be for your financial health as well.
Virg
Why would AOL want to buy RedHat? What would their motivations be? I'm having trouble thinking of any good reasons.
-Bill
SlashSig Karma: Excellent (mostly affected by moderatio
Having a job for which you're underqualified is gambling. Not saving a portion of your inflated salary against the possibility of losing that job is just dumb.
Would you have any sympathy for a sysadmin that ran a mission critical application on underpowered hardware, without any disaster recovery plan?
If you're not the decision maker in any job you hold (in terms of keeping or quitting the job), that's your own damn fault. It'd make these peoples' lives (and the entire industry) a better place if everyone in this position would just fix it.
Virg
No matter what. Linux will not take the desktop, I don't care if M$ itself bought Redhat. I don't care if I have to pay for an OS as long as it is easy to use and powerful. I am sure most home users feel that way.
"never met a Microsoft zealot"
I am SO happy to see Alan post this.
It is nice to see someone in his posistion with some morals. Although I disagreed slightly with him working for RH, him working for AOL/TW would be an absoloute travesty against the open source community.
Now if only certain other people, not just in the Linux world, would have these kind of balls. Then the world might improve a bit.
Thanks Alan!
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
I hope Alan isn't cutting off his nose to spite his face - but he seems a bright bloke - so I hope he has other options planned out.
From a personal perspective - I'd be reluctant to work for AOL/TW as well - but my reasons are probably different. In my limited experience I can't trust AOL - and aim never to help fill their coffers since they denied fraudulently drawing funds from my bank account in 1994. It was a small sum (£5 twice) but I did notice and made no progress trying to stop them drawing forcing me to close the account. I have nothing but contempt for AOL's business practices, and actively aim to direct others towards their competitors. I realise that my losses were trivial - but I find their ethics appalling.
I'm pleased to see someone (hopefully with other irons in the fire) refuse to assist their questionable practices.
Steve
Debian is by no means a for profit company like Redhat, Mandrake, SuSe, etc... Debian is developed by people that do it for the love of the labor.
11. New metric of average customer IQ all the rage on Wall Street.
10. Fears Red Hat may use its monopoly of the 12 Linux using AOL subscribers against it to keep it off the KDE desktop.
9. Securing the rights to "The Life and Times of Michael Tiemann" movie trilogy their highest priority.
8. Confused Red Hat with the company that makes the Where in the World is Carmen San Diego game.
7. Can simply modify ad campaign to say, "So difficult no wonder you'll have to ask your geek nephew for help printing."
6. Running out of computer users to alienate.
5. "The kids keep teasing me about not being cutting edge, so I had to do something about it, Mom"
4. Negotiations to purchase Microsoft not going so well.
3. Because Red Hat said they would give them the source code to Linux if AOL Time Warner purchased them.
2. Wanted to add to their growing stable of technological has-beens.
1. Steve Case is following 2 month salary rule of thumb for purchasing other companies.
Still #1 -- Lonely Gay Geek
Oh I'm sure Pat Volkerding would welcome him.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
Didn't that Transmeta webpad thing AOL had (it flopped) run a Linux variant? Perhaps AOL could help Red Hat out and do cool things with it. I mean, I'm sure they don't want to buy Red Hat so they can destroy it or anything... let's not be so pessimistic about the whole idea. If Alan Cox wants to leave, that's his perogative. He will still come up with cool ideas no matter where he is.
:-(
Hopefully nobody gets screwed over and laid off. When the AOL/TW thing went through, I was still working at Netscape. They axed a TON of people there. I tried and tried to get myself fired or laid off, but all I got was more stupid stock options.
I guess me calling Steve Case and leaving voicemail expressing my anger over our missing espresso machine just wasn't enough.
If they opened up the "good protocol", you realise that people would block out ads and do whatver they want with it, on their largest platforms.
And God forbid they should be able to do that! Why, choosing to get an instant messaging account without having to watch AOL advertisements would be as bad as being able to get an ISP without seeing their ads regularly.
Oh, wait, we can do that.
PLUS (..plus mind you), you are using something that they provide for free.
No, I'm not. Their users are using something that they provide for free. I'm just sending those users messages, using a jabber server that AOL does not provide. Should I have to view an advertisement before I send email to an @aol.com address, too?
So before you critise them, think about what they are giving you, what you are paying for and what it costs to them.
"What it costs to them" is the direct result of them choosing a needlessly centralized messaging architecture (in order to make sure that their IM users remain trapped eyeballs), and that's not my problem. You'd think that after they'd successfully learned the "AOL users might want to send email to non-AOL users" lesson they might not make the same mistake twice.
Dear unkind sir,
    In regards to your thoughtlesss, callous, and most disgraceful post with intent to hurt a Japanese child, I have taken the liberty of submitting a report on your actions to my employer, Network Associates Inc. Your internet access shall be canceled and you shall be arrested tomorrow morning at the origin of where you published this most vile act; your halfway house in San Francisco. Any and all parcels includeded within your computer to establish your computing ability will be seized by local authorities and any software shall also be contained with your computer. If you would like to express your 6th ammendment right, of which you have waivered in your agreement to use the internet, please express your concern to my eMail address via netw0rkassh0liates@yahoo.comThankyou.
Sincerely,
Bob Thurstin
Has anyone verified that this message indeed came from Alan?
I thought one of the cornerstones of open source (linux) was that it wasn't dependent on a particular person for its viability. If this is the case, no one should care what Alan Cox does.
--Rick
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
The poster forgot the proper ending line to this timeless argument:
"Workers of the World Unite".
It'll be on the quarterly SEC report, itemized under "Hissy Fits and Ideological Circle Jerking".
You can bet that this is the right direction to take to get linux to the masses, just as long as they don't thave to think about it.
Well, at least you're not one of those "elitists" the parent post mentioned.
-BK
Chemical Blog
Get off his ass folks.
I wound't work for peanuts. I wouldn't work for donuts. I wouldn't work for Microsoft®. I wouldn't work for AOL/Time Warner. yadda yadda yadda.
I'm quite sure most people would have a problem working for someone. I think everyone has a line somewhere in their principles that they just won't cross.
Will work for food -- sorry couldn't resist.
Integrity is what you are when nobody is looking.
Jabber is just like AIM and Gnutella and ICQ, there's just a backbone you have to get on.
No, there isn't. If I want to send you a Jabber message, the only computers involved are my Jabber server, your Jabber server, my computer, and your computer. No central server involved. Lots of people have jabber.com IM addresses, but only because there aren't enough ISPs running IM servers yet.
Your IM server should be just like your email server - it needs to be on a computer that won't go down, otherwise you miss messages. I don't think Jabber has anything like the DNS-integrated failover capabilities that email servers have, which is a problem, but not a huge one. I don't recall ever seeing a jabber.com server outage, just regular Jabber transport outages as AOL's blocking policies change.
The big thing is that, just like email and Gnutella, nobody has control over the backbone. AOL can, at any time, decide "I'm taking my ball and (going home/forcing you to watch 30 seconds of ads before logging on/closing down the service because MSN beat us/whatever), and tens of millions of IM users are forced to follow suit. With Jabber, just as with email, you can pick your provider (or start your own server on a static hostname like you suggested), and if someone else's provider pulls something stupid it doesn't affect you a bit.
I do think, in the strictest libertarian sense, that AOL has the right to say who gets to play on their servers and who doesn't. But in a practical sense, it's an attempt to seize a monopoly, it's stupid from an engineering perspective, it's stupid from a business perspective, and it's just way too reminiscent of the bad old days when everybody wasted resources developing their own proprietary WAN and none of them talked to each other. AOL managed to beat out Prodigy, Compuserve, etc. in part because they were quick to become part of the internet and move past that stage. It's not pretty to see them testing those waters again.
... The Video Game market now exceeds the film market...
I'd like to know where you pulled that one from. Between box office takes, video purchasing/rentals, all of the attendent riff-raff marketing (ever seen McD's sell video game figures in their happy meals?), and the like, the film industry is larger than the video game industry by a couple of magnitudes.
--Recluse
Look ma, I'm a
You've been listening to too many stupid hip-hop songs. Whore don't do it to "feed their children". Every whore I've met was either a drug addict, or a stupid spoiled bitch that was looking for the easy way out.
"Well, at least you're not one of those "elitists" the parent post mentioned."
whattya like better TV or computers? I am not being elite, I think that television addiction is this nations (US) greatest mental health issue. Microsoft & cable monopolies vs AOL/TW are racing full steam ahead to build the worlds smartest TV.
Linux or no linux, TV's of this caliber will not be smart
Alan Cox can be a great programmer... but thinking like this with a so closed mind, obviously without any sense and so child reaction is bad for you Alan. Maybe you can't agreed with AOL way to do some stuffs, but it's a big company that can give to Linux what all us, Linux users, are waiting for a long time. And you don't have the right to loose the support and employ you have just for a extremist idea... and THAT is the biggest problem on Linux community: THE EXTREMISM, that is very bad for sure. Do you know hoe many people want to be in your foots? and you say in public something so stupid like this? Think about it, with honesty.
I know, think of all the people out there still using (AOL-owned) Netscape on Windows "out of principal" --when they could just as easily be running IE6 and getting better performance from the OS integration.
Ya know what? I fully agree with you on this point. I have children myself, and it sickens me to see even the children's shows being imbibed with "here's what you should think and here's what you should buy and here's what you should look like and here's what you should eat; don't think, just consume...". It's horrible. TV is raising a generation that thinks that N'Sync, Britney, Backstreet Boys, and Aaron Carter are musicians. They have no idea that these groups are not artists...they're products. Designed, manufactured, and shrinkwrapped by record companies, and set out on the store shelves.
I don't forbid my kids from watching TV, but I do strictly limit the time they spend doing so, and mostly just let them watch a few select shows on the local public channels. Commercial network television is just too dangerous, and it's not because of the "violence". People who complain about how violence on TV is corrupting our children are completely missing the real threat to our kids.
So, we can agree on that. =)
(The "elitest" comment was a joke, really)
-BK
Chemical Blog
Obesity, lazyness, heart disease (from eating greasy chips while watching TV) etc...
Not to mention it's many mindscrubbing properties (the aformentioned "what to think, what to buy" effect) and you can see that TV is the greatest threat to human civilization!!!
OK, that's going a bit overboard, but TV surely is Evil (TM).
I've overclocked my brain!!!
Oh gosh, I can imagine what it is going to be like when my SO and I bring children into the world.
;) I prefer 'opinionated'.
Ugh.
I like TV, I make fun of it to its face, I think also, you can't deny kids watching it, cos then in the face of peers they end up slightly retarded:(YOU DO NOT KNOW SUPER WACKO NINJA ROBOTS? what is wrong *with* you?)
Yeah. So we do agree. While in some moments I do think there would be some positive outcome of AOL/TW and linux (funding), I dont trust, like, or want to sell my soul to any of those companies, except when I am forced to.
So I a bummed at the prospect of all of our old "information revolution" ideals about the good old internet and OSS becoming yet another product, like Britney, Myself, You and all of the kids here in America.
No offense taken on the elitist joke
If you're such a capitalist, why don't you go and produce? All you seem to do is complain about your poor grades and how everyone else is a 'lazy communist.' Apparently your absentee father and ugly slut mother never taught you to apply your principles instead of whining about them at 0 and -1 threshold.