Posted by
timothy
on from the sighs-of-relief-or-disappointment dept.
Several readers have submitted word (this one comes from n8twj) that "CNet News is reporting that AOL Time Warner apparently is NOT making a bid to buy Linux manufacturer Red Hat, said sources familiar with the matter."
You ever try downloading something big over AOL?
Through the AOL client itself? No, not really. I generally just FTP from my workstation over the AOL network since I work for at an AOL office. Let's see... for a walk through, here you go:
My workstation hooks to closet switch at 100Mb/s
Closet switch hooks to building router via dual GIG Ethernet connections
Building router hooks to core router via multiple GIG Ethernet connections
Core routers hook to firewalls via dual GIG connections
Firewalls hook to external routers via dual GIG connections
External routers hook to AOL Data Transit Network (ATDN) via dual OC12s
ATDN has lots of links, slowest at OC48, even has several OC192's now
ATDN exits to over 100 different ISPs at whatever speed needed, most tier 1's (Qwest, UU.Net, etc) connect via multiple OC48s, whole lot of others at OC12, OC3, and even a few old DS3s... go check the Skitter graph and look for AS1668, we dwarf all other non-transit networks and a couple of tier 1 transit networks as well.
So, for example... a 640MB ISO, takes me about 3 minutes to get as long as the site I'm getting it from has an equal amount of bandwidth available. Frankly, I don't see how you folks NOT working at AOL survive on your little bandwidth pipes.
Obviously this is anonymous since I probably should not have just stated all that; but heck, maybe it'll get a few people to send their resumes in! It REALLY is an awesome place to work and I NEVER would have thought I'd EVER say that.
Re:Aw
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Whooops, thought it would at least recognize the implied CR/LF, guess not. Here is a readable version.
You ever try downloading something big over AOL?
Through the AOL client itself? No, not really. I generally just FTP from my workstation over the AOL network since I work for at an AOL office. Let's see... for a walk through, here you go:
My workstation hooks to closet switch at 100Mb/s
Closet switch hooks to building router via dual GIG Ethernet connections
Building router hooks to core router via multiple GIG Ethernet connections
Core routers hook to firewalls via dual GIG connections
Firewalls hook to external routers via dual GIG connections
External routers hook to AOL Data Transit Network (ATDN) via dual OC12s
ATDN has lots of links, slowest at OC48, even has several OC192's now ATDN exits to over 100 different ISPs at whatever speed needed, most tier 1's (Qwest, UU.Net, etc) connect via multiple OC48s, whole lot of others at OC12, OC3, and even a few old DS3s... go check the Skitter graph and look for AS1668, ATDN dwarfs all other non-transit networks and a couple of tier 1 transit networks as well.
So, for example... a 640MB ISO, takes me about 3 minutes to get as long as the site I'm getting it from has an equal amount of bandwidth available. Frankly, I don't see how I could go back to a company with a mere T3 for Internet connectivity.
Obviously this is anonymous since I probably should not have just stated all that; but heck, maybe it'll get a few people to send their resumes in! It REALLY is an awesome place to work and I NEVER would have thought I'd EVER say that.
Serious question: does anyone know if they really DO use AOL at AOL? I.e., whether AOL is used for email and browsing within AOL headquarters? It would strike me as very unfriendly to a corporate environment, but on the other hand, most companies try to use their own products wherever possible.
Re:Aw
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
It is split about 80/20. 80% of AOL employees (AOL, Inc. not AOLTW) use the AOL client for email and browsing. That's because half of the 15,000 employees are call center reps, then the rest of the non-20% are marketing/business development people.
However, most technical folks (20%) have Unix (Sun, HP, and more and more Linux and FreeBSD) workstations and the client isn't really what they want to work in anyway, so they use Netscape/Mozilla, or whatever to get their job done. I personally actually use the AOL Client most of the time, and it isn't soooo bad.
Re:Aw
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Okay, I'll assume you're for real, even though on slashdot that's always a stretch.
What have the AOL people been saying about the RedHat rumors?
but they are greedy for power
so when they buy red hat they could remove the ISOs from the net and only charge and then they would build AOL into linux. the evil beings that the are
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~
Who Supports Big Brother Now?
-Tomj-
Re:Aw
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Rumors came out after we all left for the three day weekend. I've not seen anything on any of the internal mailing lists I'm on, though I'm not on the development lists and they're about the only ones active on the weekend. I haven't checked mcom.bad-attitude which I'm sure has some posts about it, probably more flames from Netscape folks who have their strong opinions one way or the other and will never change them.
Guess I'll find out peoples thoughts tomorrow. I will say that most of the folks that are the biggest Linux advocates at AOL, know how come the rumor started. I feel fairly certain that it wasn't an AOL leak, just someone who thought they knew more than they really did and thought they'd tell Washington Post. Or heck, maybe the Post just watches people going to and leaving the AOL offices and makes stuff up from there to get lots of hits on their site.
Re:Aw
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What if IBM or some similar huge, Linux-backing company (are there any?) were to buy Linux? It would be as good for RH as the AOL deal, but without the bad name.
But then the IBM and Redhat logo's kind of clash...:)
Re:Aw
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Those numbers are accurate. He/She clearly has worked for AOL.
We at AOL hear alot of spurious rumors about aquisitions all the time. Generally, we discount them.
We use linux EXTENSIVELY. Think in the terms of thousands of production linux hosts for everything from web servers, dns servers, custom servers, etc. That WashPost reporter probably heard of high level linux support negotiations. Guess what, any support contract by a vendor with AOL occurs at the highest levels of the vendor's corperation. For vendors like Compaq, Cisco, HP, whomever, AOL is going to be one of their biggest customers if not the biggest. Small departments' budgets for technology run in the millions of dollars.
Please don't tell our competitors. Some still think WinNT is a production platform. Others think they can scale eficiently$$, with big proprietary unixen.
You haven't even got the technical knowhow to be able to post to Slashdot properly. Maybe slashcode needs to be changed so that users with an AOL IP address don't see the submit button until they have previewed their post.
What's wrong with having an AOLClient in Linux? It seems/. recently had an article on the protocol being open source, can't find the story, but honestly I think an AOL client would be a step toward getting OEM's to accept Linux more for the desktop...
I concur. It would be a serious blow to the GPL community to have someone like TimeWarner and their nasty cohorts involved. The Penguin using AOL? God Forbid.
AOLTWCNNTIME is already a conglomerate, so turning it into AOLDTWCNNTIMERHAT won't add any more, but what I find interesting about this whole thing is that the AOL conglomerate may have found a way around the MS MSN MSNBC XBOX conglomerate. As the CNET article mentions, AOL couldn't come to a deal to get an AOL icon on the XP desktop so they have to deal with the OEMs. That's a telling detail. AOL may be the single largest victim of the MS monopoly now, rather than Sun or someone like that, because MS is using things like the default "page not found", the MSN messenger, and so on, in an attempt to cripple AOL's business.
A lot of times I see the whole thing instinctively as a battle between MS and Linux, but AOL vs MS is the title bout.
AOL could be therefore be the real winner of a battle in which Linux, any Linux ends the MS desktop monopoly. AOL is the perfect company to bring real user friendliness to a distro.
Young people use MSN Messenger and Hotmail, because it is free and they can use it from anywhere, and all their friends are on MSN Mesenger. AOL IM is unheard of in my town. I don't know a single middle school or high school student here who uses AOL IM, or a single studentt who doesn't use MSN.
If I was an AOL exec, I would be very worried about that.
-- Send lawyers, guns, and money. Dad, get me out of this.
Bah
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
They can still use Red Hat's services which would give a big income to RH. I don't think the whole thing ends here.
For AOL/TW to really make use of this they would need to increase linux's hardware support. I was really hoping that AOL/TW would be pumping in an abscene amount of money to create more drivers. (AOL might like to have better modem support...:-)
Of course this assuming that AOL/TW cares about the desktop and not embedded linux. They may just figure that there isn't much more growth in PC's but internet appliances may have a much larger potential for growth.... Maybe they will have their own version of the xbox!
Combine that with the fact that I don't remember any AOL CD's with anything other than a.0 (was there ever a.1?) pretty much guarantees that we would get RH 8.0.
@#&^@-it! My mod points expired yesterday. Rarely does a post actually make me chuckle. You, sir (or madame), have made my day. Now, I'm going to go get the IBM via-voice sdk, write a program, and put it in/root/.bashrc, so that on the rare occasion I login as root, I will hear "You've got root!"
--
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Re:Bummer
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It's so easy, no wonder it's number.. well.. err.. 5 or 6.
If they "are familiar with the matter" there must be something there:-)
-- Kevin
"It's not the cough that carries you off, it's the coffin they carry you off in" O. Nash
This just in...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Ah yes, FUD, what we turn to when the facts just aren't enough. I didn't really believe that this would happen (I did contemplate the consequences, though).
We've already talked about this rumour enough to fill a Karma Canyon, now what hell are we supposed to talk about?
I say we talk about forming an orderly line to give back those ill-gotten karma points. It's not fair that we should hold onto them now that we know it was a Just A Rumor!
[Tongue, for those impervious to sarcasm, firmly in cheek]
Well, AOL could buy Slack, RH, Mandrake, Suse AND Debian and still have enough money left to send me 4 discs a month. I don't think getting a deal is the issue here.:)
-- "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
I can't think of a distribution less likely to share any sort of vision with AOL than Slackware. AOL is organized around coddling the user and spoon feeding the user while Slackwares attitude is "Rm * -r? Powerful command there. Gives you what you want. You did it to/? Why would you want to do that? You didn't? Then why the hell'd you type it?". This is why there are two slackware boxes running on either side of me right now...
Have you even used it recently? How is it not "keeping up"? For those who like more BSD-style directory organization, and who prefer compiling new packages themselves rather than trusting RPMs to figure everything out, slackware is still the best distro around. But to each his own... no need for a distribution war.
Re:Slackware
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Most slack champions are "I run Linux on my old 486 at home and it works great!" types...
Slackware in the enterprise for mission critical systems, you must be kidding...
Nah, actually probably just incompetent.
Re:Slackware
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You really do not know what you are talking about. Just what about Slackware makes is not good for the enterprise? I have had slack boxes in enterprises for the last four years. I had one that was up for a year straight and it was our Firewall. DNS server, proxy server, email gateway, VPN server.
Where is the proof of this? And how did a discussion about RedHat and AOL merging lead to Slack bashing? (Yes, FUD about demise is bashing...)
Slackware is as "up to date" as any distro around (as far as having the latest updates to server software. It provides simplicity for those who know what they are doing.
As for the idiots who pile on and say Slackware is out of date, grow up. Use your auto-installer and keep to yourself, please.
With the AOL\RH merger, we'll get four linux distributions a month? this can only be a good thing. Usually you have to bribe your friend with food/beer/blank-cds/$2-5 to get the latest copy of XYZ distribution, having them in the mail each month would be great...
The consequences could be more then devistating. For some of use the only non-work social outing is the monthly LUG meeting to get our hands on distribution CD's.
Looks like this is another attempt by big business to cripple the linux community through indirect means. That along with 20-90 year old poorly designed input/output devices (ie monitors/keyboards/mice), highly caffinated drinks, and other sweet tasty beverages...
Slackwhere isn't going anywhere. There are plenty of people helping it out. Just because its not heard of in the mainstream as much doesn't mean its dead.
Its quite alive:)
However, if such a thing DID happen, I've been using slackware for four years, and I would jump ship to FreeBSD the second I heard about it. And so would 75%+ of the people using it now.
I belive Pat Volkerding and crew have morals, just like Alan Cox does.
No worries, fellow Slack fiends.
-- --
Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
"However, if such a thing DID happen, I've been using slackware for four years, and I would jump ship to FreeBSD the second I heard about it. And so would 75%+ of the people using it now. "
The other 25% would probably maintain their own Slack-based distro.
-- Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Slackware is alive, well and better than ever. It is the most UNIX-like of all the disributions, and super-clean. Version 8.0 recently came out and has all kinds of great hardware support and a vastly updated user area, plus KSH93 (at last!).
Some troll posted further down this thread that Slackware was not for the enterprise. Perhaps if they were in the enterprise they would have heard of a little operating system called Solaris. Well, Slackware is like Solaris in a lot of ways, and the administration of the two is very similar.
I have found Slackware does in fact make it easy to set up a minimal system, but it lacks nothing in the way of features for business use, especially as a server.
As for Patrick, the creator of one of the earliest Linux distros as well as the earliest Linux Programming book, he is just fine, alive, well, and still kicking out CDs and books which you can buy or download on their site.
The other 25% would probably maintain their own Slack-based distro.
Very good point, and very factual. Its nice using a distro that you can put faith in being around a long time, and not being bought out.
Way to go Pat and gang.
-- --
Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
Linux manufacturer Red Hat ?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Linux manufacturer Red Hat
Somehow this just doesnt sound right. Seems like there should be another way of putting this.
Re:Linux manufacturer Red Hat ?
by
Stone+Rhino
·
· Score: 1
distributer is more like it. they distribute their version of linux(their distro), and they support it. I say they are distributers
--
Remember, there were no nuclear weapons before women were allowed to vote.
Re:Linux manufacturer Red Hat ?
by
Afrosheen
·
· Score: 2
Naw, they *build* Linux, didn't you know that? The newest model rolling off the assembly line gets an estimated 35mpg on the highway, seats a family of 6, and sings happy birthday to you every year. Long live RedHat!
Re:Linux manufacturer Red Hat ?
by
cosyne
·
· Score: 2
Well, they also said "Linux uses an "open source" model, where companies also have the right to install as many copies of the operating system as they wish,", which seems to me like they're missing the point of open source (maybe that's just the financial interpretation). Of course, they also said "the two companies are not near an acquisition deal, nor have they discussed one," (-1, Redundant), and quoted some guy as saying "The applications in the U.S. tend to be apart from servers tend to be OEM set-top boxes," which doesn't seem to me like a well formed sentence. My point is, the author, and imho the news media in general, is not as sharp as they could be.
But that's just me....
red hat + AOL?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
two crappy products combined? Sounds like AOL to me........ think netscape, time warner, starbucks etc.
> in a competitive strike against Microsoft (from article)
Unfortunately, AOL cannot survive without Microsoft. Microsoft could very easily patch windows to make AOL 'mysteriously not work', and simultaneously offer 'free MSN for a month'. Plus, AOL software only runs on Windows, not to mention the AOL browser is just an embedded IE control. They cannot rebel against Microsoft, because MS brought them all their glory.
Uhhh... AOL client software works perfectly fine on classic MacOS (though without IE 5.1 integration), and they've released a decent beta of a version for OS X.
--
------------ "...and Maddest of all, to see Life as it Is, and not as it Should Be."
Uhhh... AOL client software works perfectly fine on classic MacOS (though without IE 5.1 integration), and they've released a decent beta of a version for OS X.
The OS X version is final now...
-- --
if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
Why would this be a bad thing?
by
kwj8fty1
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
So, I honestly don't care if AOL/Timewarner purchases RH. RH is not a distro I use. Having the backing of a huge media giant may help the linux cause. Sure, it will drive features *IN Redhat LINUX*, but not in the other distros. Long term, yes, it may effect the marketplace. But having Timewarner promoting linux would be a GREAT thing. Talk about adoption in the marketplace. Linux needs more credibility, and this may be a good way to get it.
Re:Why would this be a bad thing?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You dont care because you dont use it!
I for myself have rh on desktop (and openbsd and debian on servers) and i wouldnt like a big monopoly like AOL buying them out.
And if you dont use rh, why are you posting here nayway?
12 million jews have been killed during II. WW... Hey wtf, I m not jew, so I dont fucking care!
Get the point?
Re:Why would this be a bad thing?
by
kwj8fty1
·
· Score: 1
I've USED Redhat, but I choose Mandrake on the workstation.:)
I didn't say that I "I don't fn care", I said that it wouldn't be a bad thing.
While I may switch over to RH should they get bought out, us uber-geeks will all find something that works for each of us. If you don't like what RH because, switch. I've made the move, but that's because I found something better.:)
Re:Why would this be a bad thing?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Mandrake is basically RedHat. It's just more pretty, disguised for the type of people people who use it, and don't know.
Re:Why would this be a bad thing?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
First of all, I dont consider myself as an "uber-geek". I m just one of those many ppl using Linux and *BSD.
If AOL would buy rh, they would include their proprietary soft and would make it "user friendly". I want my rh, not some sor of winxp wannabe linux distro!
Besies, imo, this will never happen. Why?
Because IBM which uses rh (and turbolinux) on their zseries servers doesnt want to become dependent of AOL. So if this acquisition stuff would become serious, i m sure ibm would make his own bid too...
And Mdk better then RH? you must be joking. Lots of graphical config tools with eye-andy which modify files without even telling you! In Mdk, you are not in control of what's hppning. messy Gnome menu with over 100 app links! etc... mdk is just not a "clean" ditro, imho. Besides (on my bp6), i experienced random hang ups, which dont happen in rh (suppose its because of the bad kernel tweaking they did at mdk).
Re:Why would this be a bad thing?
by
Menthos
·
· Score: 2
What makes you think that features in Red Hat Linux won't end up in other distributions? The source code is free to begin with, and Red Hat pays an awful lot of software developers to contribute to various free software projects.
--
GNU/Linux. The Freshmaker.
Re:Why would this be a bad thing?
by
ChodaBoy
·
· Score: 1
Uh, if anything AOL will decimate any credibility Linux as attained so far.
Frankly, I have a hard time even using AOL and credible in the same sentence.
-- ChodaBoy - The preceding statement is the product of a deranged mind and the sole property of the voices in my head.
Re:Why would this be a bad thing?
by
fiftyfly
·
· Score: 1
"But having Timewarner promoting linux would be a GREAT thing."
Heh, maybe then we might be able to avoid horrors like the Jurassic Park line, "It's a Unix system!!..."
-- "Sanity is not statistical", George Orwell, "1984"
Re:Why would this be a bad thing?
by
Zardus
·
· Score: 1
> Lots of graphical config tools with eye-andy
> which modify files without even telling you!
And that would be a good candidate for the definition of "user friendly". I for one hate it when my system does things without asking me if it can breathe first. (I'm on a windows box right now and I have foam coming out of my mouth).
--
You can mod your friends, you can mod your nose, but you can't mod your friend's nose.
Re:Why would this be a bad thing?
by
xtremex
·
· Score: 1
You're soft or wrong. It USED to be Rhat repackahgd and compiled for 586's. But it hasnt been that since 7.1. It is basically it's OWN distro. It just uses RPMS, but they are not 100% compatible with Redhat.
It has a LOT better HW detection, and kernel 2.4.17
-- If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
Re:Why would this be a bad thing?
by
Shemp
·
· Score: 1
I don't care if AOL buys them either, and RedHat IS a distro that I use.
What do you look for in a distro? Ease of install, package management, and speed of updates. As long as AOL keeps the security updates coming, why not use it? The nice thing about linux is you can make it whatever you want. So if they put some stupid shit in, I just take it out.
Re:Why would this be a bad thing?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What was so horrible about that scene? That *WAS* a UNIX system, IRIX to be precise. I used to have that same file manager on my o2. Not that it was especially useful, but...
Re:Why would this be a bad thing?
by
maxpublic
·
· Score: 1
Exactly why does Linux need more credibility? Who, exactly, will this nebulous 'credibility' benefit? Certainly not me, who uses Linux right now and is quite content with the development process in the kernel, GUIs, and apps. So far as I can see, acquisition of Redhat by AOL will do absolutely nothing to improve the quality of Linux or any associated software.
Seems to me that the only people who believe this kind of tripe are the ones convinced that Linux is somehow 'at war' with Windows and needs corporate backing to prosecute hostilities across the desktop. Why is this a good thing? If you don't like Windows (like yours truly, who only uses it for games) then you can always use Linux on your home system. Who gives a shit what other people choose to install?
Linux will spread on its own power, in its own time. Whether it never spreads across the desktop any more than it does now, or whether it eats away at Microsofts monopoly slowly but surely (as I believe it's doing right now), it's all good. If corporate America never wises up and adopts Linux in order to avoid shitty MS software and ridiculous EULAs, well, do I give a rat's ass? Not in the least. Let the morons have their Windows.
Max
-- My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Re:Why would this be a bad thing?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It just uses RPMS, but they are not 100% compatible with Redhat.
...and that must make it much better right? >:)
Re:Why would this be a bad thing?
by
mshiltonj
·
· Score: 1
Having the backing of a huge media giant may help the linux cause
Re:Why would this be a bad thing?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Netscape? Shhhh.
Compuserve? Shhhh.
Read Hat? for Shhhh-ure.
Re:Why would this be a bad thing?
by
Tony-A
·
· Score: 1
Hehe, if it was Microsoft Windows, they would all be dead.
Re:Why would this be a bad thing?
by
deeboTux
·
· Score: 1
I'd prefer if they AOL would just go on their own.
Try something like Corel Linux.. create another distro (that way, there's not chance of ruining an already existing one).
If they should fail, well then, we just laugh at them and them move on.. otherwise maybe a percentage of the other-os-using people will start using it.
I don't like AOL/TimeWarner though, I find them really annoying. Everything from their ads to their outlook on the internet and movies. IMHO, they just plain suck.
-- I've discovered a meal between breakfast and brunch! - Homer J. Simpson
Re:Why would this be a bad thing?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It was only 6 million Jews.
Re:Why would this be a bad thing?
by
fiftyfly
·
· Score: 1
Sorry 'bout the late reply.
I just thought it was asking a little too much to expect that a little experience with a file manager would begat experience enough to puzzle out Nedry's, what, 2000000 lines of code in 30 secondf;)
-- "Sanity is not statistical", George Orwell, "1984"
No Free Red Hat CD's in the mail?
by
_bobs.pizza_
·
· Score: 2, Funny
aww man! I guess this means that I'll have to keep downloading the latest version and burning my own cd's, instead of waiting to get it in the mail, along with the latest AOL CD.
I wonder if I could have used Red Hat Pro for 700 free hours in a month before I either had to pay or start using the free distribution...
Bear in mind that this IS a tech site. News for Nerds. The tragedy of 9/11 is over and done with. All we're left with is a political circus that is the "war on terrorism". Let's leave it to the tabloid rags like CNN and MSNBC and stick with tech news.
--
"Adequacy.org: Where congenital stupidity is not an option, but a requirement."
So it WAS another rumor. We've managed to have at least 4 (who knows how many repeated articles I might have missed out on) posts about this very topic and it appears to be a non-topic afterall.
Most likely it was one of those "what if we..." things that got tossed out in a meeting somewhere. Something along the same lines as 200 other ideas that probably got passed around the same day. Something that someone spent 5 minutes thinking about and probably never got seriously discussed, but someone overheard it, and said something about it to someone, who said something else, and so on, and so forth, until it gets on Slashdot.. then all hell breaks loose.
We've had discussions on the future potential demise of Redhat under an AOL flag. We've had the #2 linux guy's threatened defection. And the VIP's at AOL/TW are probably going "huh?" right about now as someone finally tells them what's going around in the news. Even if it IS a valid rumor, chances are it hasn't worked its way up the corporate hierarchy yet.
And in two weeks, a bigwig from AOL will claim they're considering it, and we'll all think it was all this discussion that prompted them to consider it in the first place.
So what is it? Are we one step ahead or two steps behind? Who knows.
Don't direct your ire at Slashdot; it was a front page story printed in The Washington Post.
The Post generally has very good credibility because its editors use discretion in deciding which stories are credible enough to run. They went out on a limb with this one and it snapped under them. The price they pay is the next time they cry wolf, you won't believe them. If you blame slashdot, you're giving The Post a license to be sloppy.
I wasn't really directing my ire per sae. Slashdot really doesn't do much more than post links to news posted elsewhere and allows people to comment on it. Yet, if not for slashdot's post, even with a newspaper as big as the Washingon Post, the coverage would have been significantly less.
Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily. Its perfectly acceptable to speculate. And like I said, there's always the chance that its true to some degree and the PR people at AOL aren't aware of it.
My point was, that for a great many people, geeks in particular, slashdot is accepted as a credible source of information. And in most cases, this is true. And sometimes they drop the ball. We complain rather viciously when other news agencies don't do so much as pick up a phone to attempt to verify the validity of a news source, yet when slashdot does exactly the same thing, we generally accept it as par for the course. This is fine if slashdot is a rumor site or if it only reflects news reported elsewhere. However, if it wants to reflect known accurate information, then it needs to make some effort to assure that while information may not be completely accurate, at least someone who is an authority on that information has verified it as accurate.
When articles are posted multiple times, or article summaries contrast greatly with the actual content of the article linked to, the credibility, or lack there of, of slashdot is brought into light. They will make the occasional snafu. It happens. It can't be completely avoided. But they need to make at least SOME effort to avoid the obvious ones. That
way, when they only reflect on the poor quality reporting of some other news agency on rare occasions, then ire WOULD be misplaced.
What's the big deal? It was listed as "Rumoured Takeover Plan". When my friends and I talked about it, we talked about the rumour.
It still brought up interesting questions and let us know where people stand.
I think AOL (or Corel, or IBM) needs to come out with their own distro of Linux, with the WM tweaked to look much like XP. If it supports browsing, playing video, and a decent office suite most users won't know the difference.
MS has done a lot of cool things (dragging and dropping between different programs and getting the data formatting, etc) that other OSes lag a bit behind, but really, how often do 99.9% of people use that? If given the choice between some funky features and a "name brand" office suite, and $600 savings, which would they choose?
And it's interesting that Alan C. was willing to leave RedHat (if the takeover happened) to ensure that he not only stays free of undue influence, but appears that way to everyone else.
All in all, many useful things were said in these threads and they caused many people to think about things they otherwise wouldn't have.
Maybe you should just learn to ignore stories with "rumour" in them.
One step ahead is my guess. Out of this we get.
1. Don't mess up RedHat. Don't even look like you might. (You get an idea why there is no official IBM distribution).
2. Surprising acceptance by the community of an AOLinux. Simplified, easy to use. Safe and secure. "Dumbed-down" won't cut it.
I don't think AOL-T-W are a good corporate culture match for Red Hat...I think Red Hat should stay true to it's current approach. Ultimately, Red Hat has a great chance to define "the next standard computing platform".
Maybe this time, it'll actually be based on real standards!:-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
-- Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Re:Woohoo!
by
I.T.R.A.R.K.
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Wouldn't it be something if in ten years, Redhat were in the same position of power as Microsoft is today?
Anything is possible. Look at AMD, afterall. Look how far they have come against the behemoth that is/was Intel.
--
"Adequacy.org: Where congenital stupidity is not an option, but a requirement."
It doesn't say that the merger is completely out of the question. Here is what the article had to say:
Sources familiar with the situation emphatically insisted the two companies are not near an acquisition deal, nor have they discussed one.
and then...
An AOL Time Warner spokeswoman, as a matter of company policy, would not discuss the merger rumor, and Durham, N.C.-based Red Hat could not be reached for comment because of the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. A Microsoft spokesman also declined to comment.
I agree, it sounds like the merger is a farce, nothing more than a ploy to rile up people and boost some stock prices tomorrow morning, but you never know...
Well, I have to say I'm relieved. At the same time though, would it not be interesting to see what a Corporation like that would do with an existing Linux distro.
-- John, I'm Only Dancing!
I'm not buying it...
by
lkaos
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
So the Washington Post says that people close to the companies report that there are acquision talks but then CNN says that people close to the companies report that there aren't.
I'm not buying any of it until one of the companies makes a press announcement or until one of the companies discloses a source.
What I find funny though, is that when given the reason why each company (MS, AOL, RH) is not commenting, RedHat's excuse is the Martin Luther King Holiday weekend.
They sure aren't going very far if they are taking this many holidays... I thought RH _wasn't_ a dot-com company. They should of atleast had people working Saturday and Sunday...
--
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
Re:I'm not buying it...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The folks working Saturday and Sunday probably aren't
qualified to make any statements regarding any mergers or such, mostly consisting of programmers and sanitary execs. Plus, big wigs generally don't work weekends and holidays.
I'm just suprised that a company that has to deal with the press so often and is generally fighting an uphill publicity war does not have a mechanism for responding to a major news organization (or two of them for that matter) just because it's a weekend.
Might be a good idea to get some pagers for upper management. It just doesn't look very professional to me when an article talks about three companies and only one of them was unavailable for the weekend. It doesn't help RedHat's image.
Of course, this is just my humble opinion of course. I do know that as a RedHat customer, it makes me wary to read that RedHat is not available on the weekends when I am supposed to trust my software solutions to them.
1) "Leak" a story that you are in talks to buy Red Hat.
2) Observe the terabytes of feedback from industry analysts, reporters, and fanatical users.
3) After denying everything as rumor,...
4)...bring several million dollars worth of free research to the next board meeting.
5) Get a raise for your ingenious idea.
Re:I see the ploy
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I don't know if I'd trust Slashdot to do my million dollars worth of free research.
"So, Jimbo, what'd you come up with?"
"Well, RedHat seems to be a no go, but there may be an alternative... Have you ever heard of the CowboyNeaLinux Distribution?"
Besides jokes we sure want to see what will Washington Post say all about it...
They can be sure used like that.
Re:I see the ploy
by
JoeBuck
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
This kind of thing is actually a common Washington
(DC) manouver called a "trial balloon". If the
president's staffers have an idea they aren't sure
about, they leak it to see what the pundits and
the customers, um, I mean, the campaign contributors
react. If people hate it, then they deny that it
was ever a serious proposal in the first place.
If people really hate it then they deny
even having discussed such a disgraceful thing.
If they like it, everyone competes to pretend he
or she thought of the idea in the first place.
Or, AOL really don't want to do it at all, but will consider it a last resort.
They might have floated this idea to the public as a little jab a Microsoft to say, "If you really want to keep playing hardball, then we can, too" and hope that this makes negotiations with them a little bit easier.
AOL might work to surreptitiously keep this rumor alive for a while, not because they are seriously considering it, but to use as a stick for Microsoft.
The thing that strikes me about the deal is that it is one hell of an expensive support contract.
The threat is very real. J Random Luser has a hosed Microsoft Windows box. He can use the vendor's recovery CD and lose all his data. He can install AOLinux which shuffles the partitions and keeps his data. To add insult to injury, you will have a few wise-acres running production servers on AOLinux. (Well it was AOLinux before they started messing with it).
Famous last words...
by
Logic+Bomb
·
· Score: 3, Funny
As said by Michael in the first item about this story:
The Washington Post isn't exactly a rumor site, so there's probably truth behind it.
That about made me want to puke when I read it.:-)
Sounds like the HP-Compaq merger
by
josquint
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Didn't get get the same line with the HP/Compaq deal?
First it was a big rumor that it was going to happen.
Then HP 'backed out' and denied it...
then it was back on in a week...
hmm... Funny this happens right after Cox says he'll leave under AOL.
.
No Free Red-Hat CD's in the mail? (by the dozen)
by
MadCow42
·
· Score: 2
Darn, I guess I'll still have to buy em or burn em myself.
MadCow.
-- I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
A news post, containing actual news, was actually submitted to slashdot and it was actually READ by one of the editors.:)
Pffff
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Some guy hears about AOL discussing some business with RedHat - probably about a setup box, or support work - and jumps to the conclusion that AOL must be BUYING RedHat.
Cue mass hysteria.
Lack of evidence doesn't disprove something
by
sam_handelman
·
· Score: 4, Funny
It just proves that there is a conspiracy to cover it up.
Obviously, AOL has been spreading rumors that there is no takeover in order to prevent Red Hat's stock price from rising so that they can acquire it in a hostile action. None of the signs are there, so it must be true.
AOL's real problem is that they've reached the logical conclusion of their intellectually insulting business strategy of eating fish that are bigger than they are. There are no fish bigger than they are. They're trying to acquire the public sector but they don't quite get it.
-- The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
Re:Lack of evidence doesn't disprove something
by
Ryan+Amos
·
· Score: 2
This is the real world, not X-files. No organization as large as AOL/TW (and the US Government) can keep a secret. And usually once the secret is exposed, they fess up to it. This is obviously not a merger, and it makes little sense for AOL to buy RH. Their markets don't overlap in any way, shape or form. Maybe people should think for themselves before crying "Cover up! Conspiracy!":)
Re:Lack of evidence doesn't disprove something
by
lay
·
· Score: 1
Why is the previous funny?... Oh well...
OK, this is the point. AOL/Time Warner know that the dotcom bull is over and took a lesson from it. They're now focusing on real stuff^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H more traditional business for what it seems that can in fact atract people, not money making schemes that have no business foundation.
"No 'new economy' here, nothing to see, please move on..."
-- Lay
Weakly typed languages will bring us armageddon
Re:Lack of evidence doesn't disprove something
by
xiaix
·
· Score: 1
Only problem with that theory is that the price of RHAT had gone down on the news of the buyout, and UP after it was denied...
> How could there be 'Sources familiar with the situation' when they
> are basically saying there is no 'situation' and they have not discussed
> a deal?
Basically, the CNet article is a rumor. They could not get representatives of AOL/TW, Red Hat, or even Microsoft to comment one way or the other. So their sources must be external to any company involved.
Anyway, you and I would count as "sources familiar with the situation", since we've both read about it and posted our opinions on Slashdot.
"The path of peace is yours to discover for eternity."
"Mosura", 1961
Deep Throat
by
Mighty-Troll
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The Washington Post is actually considered a very legitamate newspaper. Remember Woodward and Bernstein? The movie All the president's men chronicles the true events of a couple of post reporters and their dealings with "deep throat" the guy to this day who no one else knows who he is, a source that led them on the trail.
I know this is slightly off topic, but the point in hand is if I hear something from the Washington Post I'm going to hold it in higher regards then say, the New York Post.
Crap, I just defended a slashdot editor, someone mod this down so no one can see it!
Yeah, yeah, I know. It was a cheap shot. I read this story, remembered how I had snorted about the line from the first one, and just felt like being mean. Watergate was an awfully long time ago though...;-)
All The President's Men isn't entirely true. There are people at The Post who resent the film (and the book it's based on) because it makes it appear that Woodward and Bernstein did all the work themselves, and cuts out a lot of people who were quite involved.
Cmon, anyone could have reported that same story about any president back to the day wire tap was invented. It just happens to be they were right about Watergate, and that the media had a gripe against Nixon because he ended the Vietnam war and killed their ratings
Gosh, I'm so behind with corporate news
by
J.D.+Hogg
·
· Score: 2
"No Red Hat-AOL Merger In The Works, Says CNET"
I didn't realize Aoltimewarner had acquired CNET already. Hmmm...
Top 11 Reasons AOL Wants to buy Red Hat
by
Ironix
·
· Score: 2, Redundant
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.
AOL subscribers swelled from 9 million in autumn1997 to 33 million at the beginning of this year. In December alone, AOL gained 1.9 million new subscribers, the company said. MSN, by contrast, foundered for years, going from 2.5 million subscribers in 1997 to 7.7 million in December.
Translation: in several years time AOL more than tripled subscribership whereas MSN only got slightly more than three times the number of subscribers in that same time period.
HOLD ON THERE TIGER. What is NOT shown in that number is that MSN has purchased many of those users. Take Qwest (Q-worst?) for example. I was fat, dumb and happy using Qwest DSL and qwest.net. Then the BORG, Redmond division, came in and purchased the Qwest.net subscriber base.
We were told of this marvelous "Upgrade" to the garbage that is MSN. I work from home and have had as many as 5 machines (Linux, Solaris and a windows box) networked and connected to the net at a time.
I now pay $20 more a month to remain a qwest user so I can actually use the service.
/rant
Sorry, blood pressure rose there for a moment... The point is that MSN BOUGHT many of those users, or there were people foolish enough to USE the 6-month free MSN subscription with their new computers.
Does it surprise anyone that MSN would do anything to increase their userbase other than compete fairly? You know, those things like outstanding service, support, customer satisfaction.. little details like that.
Translation: in several years time AOL more than tripled subscribership whereas MSN only got slightly more than three times the number of subscribers in that same time period.
Am I missing something here? You said AOL went from 9 million to 33 million and MSN went from 2.5 million to 7.7 million. They both more than tripled their user base. What was your point? Anyway, I would reckon most of MSN's userbase came from buying up subscribers and getting them through those $400 loans at retail outlets a few years back. Oooh, check this out, I can get $400 off my TV if I subscribe to 3 years of MSN at $22 a month. Considering how shitty being locked into 3 years of dialup service, much less Microsoft dialup, actually is I would rather just put the $400 on my credit card and pay it off at 20% interest then be stuck with a contract.
Maybe someone at AOLTW realized that they don't have to buy Redhat to get Linux for free! Doh!
Seriously, I would love to see AOLTW replace their desktop OS with Linux. That would create a huge market for linux based support and software. And...they don't even have to buy a thing.
That would create a huge market for linux based support and software. And...they don't even have to buy a thing.
A huge market where nothing gets bought?
Uh....okay
best match
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
the best match for redhat would be AOL. redhat is the AOL version of linux, why wouldn't they mesh? or apple. apple would be a nice match as well. all three cater to user friendly market.
So Cox really did scare them off ...
by
tph
·
· Score: 0
Guess they didn't want Redhat without Cox.
So now they just pretend it never happened.
Smoke screen! Thats what you call it!
Re:So Cox really did scare them off ...
by
mboedick
·
· Score: 1
> Guess they didn't want Redhat without Cox.
> So now they just pretend it never happened.
They love the Cox.
Re:So Cox really did scare them off ...
by
The+Pi-Guy
·
· Score: 1
No, they knew that if it went through, AOL.com couldn't handle the/. effect!:-P
--joshua
Really who cares?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Will this affect us in ANY way? No.. so why bother caring about this?
cool but it would never work. Real development dollars for the stuff nobody wants to do, marketing muscle to get Linux everywhere. However, it seems to me Redhat would just twist in the wind under AOL's tender mercies and wind up a hopelessly broken company like Netscape appears (at least to me) to be. It's just too "corporate" a switch.
Damn, is Taco writing for CNet now???
by
ehintz
·
· Score: 2
The AOL service currently is available only for Windows and the Macintosh, although
the Netscape supports Linux. ...
The applications in the U.S. tend to be apart from servers tend to be OEM set-top boxes.
Methinks they need some editors over there...
-- ehintz
Why buy Red Hat? Answer: you don't
by
DeadPrez
·
· Score: 1
Because it makes umpteen more sense just to make a generic AOL client for (any) linux (distro). If anything, AOL should just ally with Redhat to get the AOL client "first class" treatment (ie. easy to install--already on the cd) on any Red Hat distro. I don't think I am the only one who has been expecting a full port of the AOL client for the last few years. It won't make AOL instant money but it will be a very good bargaining tool when dealing with Microsoft.
I don't buy the rumors that hypothesize AOL wants to get the AOL client ported to some embedded system. If this was the case, 1. They don't need Red Hat. 2. They don't need Linux.
What Red Hat has that someone might want to buy...
by
Zachary+Kessin
·
· Score: 2
Is its people. Alan Cox and all the other top flight Linux programers that work for them. If RedHat were bought by AOL/TW many of them would jump ship. If someone were to buy RedHat they would have to be someone who those people would want to work for. Or do something to get them to stay.
However I can see AOL/TW working with redhat on set-top boxes or other projects, but not outright buying them.
Unfortunately for whomever made up the original buyout hoax, this announcement hit the air one day too early, preventing the culprit from making a killing on RHAT stock.
And the corollary: always make sure your hoaxes air at the beginning of the week, without any pesky holidays in range!
I was hoping to get a million red hat cd's in the mail.
This gave me a really good laugh...
by
rseuhs
·
· Score: 2
... to call the absorption of RedHat by AOL/Time/Warner/whatever-else a "merger".
Re:This gave me a really good laugh...
by
(void*)
·
· Score: 2
A-S-S-I-M-I-L-A-T-I-O-N
Re:This gave me a really good laugh...
by
fobbman
·
· Score: 2
No kidding. I just got back from the store where I merged with a gallon of milk and some M & M's.
CNN is reporting on the talks as well!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Well, AOL/TimeWarner owns CNN, and CNN is reporting that talks about a merger are ongoing.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/industry/01/21/aol. re d.hat.ap/index.html
The Web survey on this page about an AOL client on Linux along with the prominent mention of Redhat's dismal earnings (and rather large staff for a company so reliably posting large losses) does seem to indicate that AOL is using this as a posturing move. They seem to be exploring the consumer support for such a move and publicly vying for a good deal in the merger by publicizing Redhat's fiscal shortcomings.
I don't know what sort of moronic move it is for an AOL-TimeWarner company to post a story about AOL-TimeWarner in which they cannot get AOL-TimeWarner to comment! MSNBC goes through this charade of independence when reporting on Micro$oft as well. Give me a break!
Anyway, I hope to see Suse, Slackware, Redhat-- somebody! --bought by a large corporation with lots of loot soon. I want to see Linux companies bought and well-funded before they end up like VA Linux. The Openoffice collaboration with Sun and the Mozilla collaboration with AOL-TimeWarner have been great for the community, and I think that the purchase of a distro by a large corporation would further this beneficial proprietary/open source interplay.
And not just them...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I've been noticing a steady - and rather visible - decline in spelling, grammer and sentence structure among news websites - even major ones - over the last year. It's even starting to bleed over into traditional print.
Re:And not just them...
by
Red+Rocket
·
· Score: 1
That's why we need more tax cuts.
Public schools are supported by taxes. If we cut taxes more then the very wealthy will have more money to invest in private schools where their very wealthy children will be able to learn from the best-paid teachers who have been lured away from those disgusting, dilapidated, crime-ridden, public schools.
More tax cuts! More tax cuts! Let's starve those public schools until they start producing better results.
Oh, yeah, and don't forget the real problem with public schools . . . they aren't posting the ten commandments in the hallways.
-- - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
Re:And not just them...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Nice satire, but you are wrong.
It is obviously the Jews, African-Americans, and gays who are responsible for the derisory state of our school systems. When those groups rectify their sinning ways we will have the best school system in the world, until then we have to deal with God's wrath.
"sources familiar with the matter"
by
samgrover
·
· Score: 2
If there are sources familiar with the matter, then doesn't that show the existence of the matter?
Think before you rant!
by
Shabazz
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Public companies can't lie or make any misrepresentations when dealing with questions from investors (or the press). This makes coverups very difficult because they could result in very expensive lawsuits. If they deny that they are in negotiations, and they are, then they are liable under Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act.
And for the record, IAAL.
Re:Think before you rant!
by
sam_handelman
·
· Score: 1
That is very informative. Let me amend my post to say:
:)!!!
I was kidding! I'd assumed that was obvious.
I pretend to accuse them of being behind the "sources" the journalist talks about; it would be exceedingly difficult to make a case with those if the journalist was in on it (and therefore not cooperating with the plaintiff,) correct? If, for example, the Journalist didn't preserve copies of the original statements? Not that I think that is really what happened.
Anything you say I'll interpret as legal advice in formulating my own schemes to manipulate the stock market:)
I'm a biologist, and now I'm curious.
-- The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
Re:Think before you rant!
by
isaac_akira
·
· Score: 2
From the article:
Representatives for AOL Time Warner, Durham, N.C.-based Red Hat and Microsoft declined to comment.
So officially the companies aren't saying anything, one way or the other. The article just quotes "sources familiar with the situation" as saying that they aren't planning anything, but then if they aren't planning anything then what "situation" is there to be close to?;-)
And unless the source is the CEO or board member of one of the companies (who really shouldn't be talking anonymously to the press) then it's even possible that the source really doesn't know about it.
There's actually a case (I don't have a link to it) that says that if officials say "no comment" and they are in negotiations, it's a misrepresentation. How 'bout that!
Re:Think before you rant!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What if they are just "unavailable for comment"? Running from office to office to avoid being found by the press?
:-]
Re:Think before you rant!
by
CaptIronfist
·
· Score: 1
Um hello!? You do not need to ask questions to anyone when doing an hostile takeover, therefor you can cover up what the... you want.
And for the record, IANAL. ( Meaning, I could be wrong;)
Although RH (and other flavors of Linux) are commonly referred to as "distributions", calling RH a distributor is a bit misleading. Normally, a distributor is one who takes manufactured/published goods from a plant or press and physically delivers them to various retail outlets. Distibutors typically do not produce. RH produces CDs and books. Companies that produce CDs and books are normally referred to as "publishers", and this certainly seems like the most appropriate term to use for RH.
Maybe someone read the GPL...
by
nickgrieve
·
· Score: 1
And realized that they don't have to buy anything to use linux.
Maybe this is why the RH execs have stopped selling stock? They know something is in the works, or they knew that there was a planned leak for the AOL-TW buyout? Curious stuff.
-- Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
AOL wasn't a CD until at least 3.0
by
yerricde
·
· Score: 2
Guitarzan: I don't remember any AOL CD's with anything other than a.0
While this article was supposed to be about RH & AOL, I found myself reading about the new features of M$ WinXP and MSN. If that wasn't enough the article implies that Linux isn't a viable desktop OS... don't tell that to the gov't, I like not having to pay for gov't software.
AOL: 20 times
Microsoft: 16 times
MSN: 13 times
Windows: 9 times
Linux: 11 times
Red Hat: 6 times
Torvalds: 1 time:)
Definition web services architechtures:??? nice sounding marketing cliche.
Def. set-top boxes: all those things that say Domninoes on my TV
License of Linux: GPL - NOT "open source" but "free software" www.gnu.org
Re:Credit For:Top 11 Reasons AOL Wants to buy Red
by
Ironix
·
· Score: 1
Sorry bout that. I thought it was fitting to post their list. =)
Next time I pidginize text from a copyrighted web site I will give credit where credit is due. =)
Why don't they just buy Apple?
by
ab11
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It seems more reasonable to me that AOL would buy a more proven consumer OS which would be used in combination with the awesome designs of the new Macs to market to the general computer users. Perhaps a subsidy from AOL would make the iMac machines more affordable and come with all the pieces of software needed for a great user experience.
Re:Why don't they just buy Apple?
by
dangermouse
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
AOL and what army? Apple is sitting on an imperial shitload of cash... they're not likely to get bought by anyone.
Re:Why don't they just buy Apple?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
... but what is the company's value other than the cash? The purchasing company can use the "shitload of cash" to pay off an equivalent shitload of the bill. They just need a ton of cash to begin with. AOL/TW certainly meets that requirement.
Re:Why don't they just buy Apple?
by
dangermouse
·
· Score: 1
The point is that if Apple doesn't feel like selling out to AOL/TW, AOL/TW isn't really in a position to make them. Apple's shareholders aren't going to be in a big hurry to sell to AOL/TW either, knowing that Apple has a fat stack of cash ready and waiting.
Re:Why don't they just buy Apple?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
They don't want Apple.
They want something to embed in webTV type appliances. Because Microsoft says that they're heading in that direction, AOL need to head there too.
Have you ever stuck your toe in water just to watch the ripples?
Linux CDs in the mail?
by
cosyne
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Think about it. Why wouldn't it be a good thing for everyone in the US to get a CD with the AOLinux distro on it every month or so? I just popped in a CD off my spindle of AOL CDs, and it had like 200 megs of blank space on it. They could leave the windoze (and macintosh?) clients intact, and use the other 200 Megs for a compact linux distro. There's no reason they need to use redhat- people like my mom just want to be able to email, surf, write letters, and print. Throw in an MP3/CD burning suite, and you've got just about everything covered. (If AOL wanted to, they could even make DVD playing software that the MPAA, and thus the average consumer, is happy with). I'm sure AOL could fund their own team to put together a little distro which is reliable and secure and targeted to towards people with compaq, dell, hp, or gateway systems that they got off the shelf at frys or compusa (think of it like a PC-to-internet appliance conversion). Ignoring, for now, the implications of having AOL in charge of your operating system (what, like that'd be any worse than M$?), it could be beneficial to the average luser to have a single monolithic system installed on their machine in which all the applications they want are designed to work directly with the OS. From AOL's point of view, it could be nice to have control over the OS that their client is runnig on, and not having to worry about what little component of the system microsoft botched this week. And from the/. perspective, it could be good to expand the linux user base to some signifigant fraction of AOL's. Plus, once you get a bunch of family PCs out there with linux, their 13 year old kids can start using linux to run more than just the AOL client.
Just a question.
So, have you heard? RedHat is thinking of buying AOL... Let the flames begin!
Re:No Free Red-Hat CD's in the mail? (by the dozen
by
ImaLamer
·
· Score: 2
This is something I breifly was on my mind.
Imagine a Red Hat 'lite' version that everyone in America got in the mail. Usually there are 2 R-Hat CDs, but they get you to buy the box set for that.
A week or so from now, a story will either say that AOL *is* buying RH after all...or some similar rumor involving another huge corporation and another Linux company.
Would this be called "copycat news"?
-- "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself."
-Richard Feynman
Debian is a non-profit project staffed by volunteers (some of whom are supported by various employers). Therefore, it *can't* be bought at any price.
Oh, yeah?
From the Debian site, " `Debian' and the Debian Logo are trademarks of Software in the Public Interest, Inc."
Trademarks can be bought and sold, and so can companies, even non-profits (or non-profitable, as the case may be). So, save your pennies kids, and become a corporate Linux Mogul.
After thinking about it..
by
LinuxHam
·
· Score: 2
At first, I thought it would be great if AOL built a kiosk around Linux. Target it for the five year old PCs that families are now replacing. Make an AOL kiosk out of it and give it to the kids or Grandmom. But then I got to thinking, and realized that the GPL doesn't do anything to stop AOL from releasing all their code as closed source. There really is nothing saying that they are going to contribute back to the open source community.
Then you have to look at the difference between Linus and the GNU project. Did Linus really want everything that runs under Linux to be GPL'd, or did he just want to build a solid development platform leaving room in his plans for closed-source applications?
It would have been glorious
by
btempleton
·
· Score: 2
I think it's sad that it won't happen. Red Hat was the wrong distro for them to buy, of course, since it is highly priced because it has a brand name. AOL doesn't need the brand name in the slightest, and would not pay a premium to get it.
AOL/TW has a giant brand, and it would make sense for them to buy or start a linux distro, and produce a bundle with OS, browser, AOL software, basic applications suite, photo/video/media suite and some games.
This could happily run on older PCs, too but the AOL PC, based on one of those all in one motherboards would be dirt cheap and a serious competitor.
And it would do wonders for Linux. As millions of these units got deployed, there would finally be a user base and market for Linux products, and a stronger demand for hardware vendors to provide linux drivers.
Everybody, including Alan Cox, should welcome AOL pushing linux.
a long article, signifying nothing
by
Apostata
·
· Score: 1
I love this line:
Still, even if the two companies are not considering a merger, AOL Timer Warner could license Red Hat for use on PCs or other devices for use with its online service.
This is the journalistic equivalent of:
"Ok, so we screwed up...but just to save our asses from angry readers who bought stock in Red Hat only to see their investments squandered, why don't we use our imagination and peer into a beautiful future as we extrapolate for several paragraphs, feigning the importance of what we're saying after totally messing-up."
Nice.
--
This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it.
- Dorothy Parker
Re:a long article, signifying nothing
by
tim_maroney
·
· Score: 2
Still, even if the two companies are not considering a merger, AOL Timer Warner could license Red Hat for use on PCs or other devices for use with its online service.
They already did something almost exactly like that, and the product tanked, which only underscores your point about how silly it was for the reporter to say such a thing. The device was a Linux box made by Gateway. You can read about it on news.com here and here.
Tim
Re:a long article, signifying nothing
by
Apostata
·
· Score: 1
Yes...another great leap for cyber-journalism. Indeed, the medium is the message.
--
This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it.
- Dorothy Parker
Re:Credit For:Top 11 Reasons AOL Wants to buy Red
by
Trepalium
·
· Score: 1
yuo dotn spel reel gud, do yuo? Danm spel chek!
-- I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
1. The people who started the rumor in Silly Valley and told their "friends" to buy RHAT have already sold.
2. The "friends" of the people who started the rumor asked for a pullback so they could get in too.
Notice that friends is in quotes. I don't want to sound too cynical, but with stakes like these it's hard to have real friends.
I think scenario 2 is more likely. Why else would you build up such a fevered pitch over the weekend and then demolish it before Wall Street has a chance to trade?
Of course it's entirely possible that there is no market manipulation going on at all (snicker).
-- For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Cute idea except for the fact that the story broke on Saturday. So how are these "friends" supposed to sell their stock with the markets closed? Today is the first day that the market has been open since the leak.
So both of your ideas are easily dismissed.
-- --
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.
I heard that Sun is going to eliminate Solaris and adapt FreeBSD as the default OS
I guess Alan gets to keep his job, eh?
by
prisoner-of-enigma
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Alan can rest easy tonight, he's not going to have to leave now.
Don't we all feel better now?
-- In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Re:Credit For:Top 11 Reasons AOL Wants to buy Red
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"Feynman" works just fine.
Uhh..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Okay, so since the Washington Post isn't a rumour-mill as the kind folks at Slashdot told us, who does that mean is lying? AOL? RedHat? CNet?..Slashdot?
Red Hat, or Dark Helmet?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Funny
"AOL Time Warner Inc. is in talks to buy Red Hat Inc., a prominent distributor of a computer operating system, an acquisition that would position the media giant to challenge arch rival Microsoft Corp., according to sources familiar with the matter."
"CNet News is reporting that AOL Time Warner apparently is NOT making a bid to buy Linux manufacturer Red Hat, said sources familiar with the matter."
This just in: "Ha ha! Foooooled you!", said sources familiar with the matter.
Re:Credit For:Top 11 Reasons AOL Wants to buy Red
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
BBSpot, huh? That explains it. I wondered why the list wasn't even slightly funny.
Red Hat means saving money?
by
kenneth_martens
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
According to the article, one of the reasons Red Hat might gain market share outside of the United States is because "a desktop vendor in Latin America or especially China, if they can save 50 to 60 bucks on a PC that's a big deal." Having lived overseas (the Philippines) I can say from personal experience that at least some of the desktop vendors do not pay for the copies of Windows they install on new systems. So a free OS may not be that big an incentive. (And I don't believe for a minute that the Windows XP registration will put a stop to this sort of piracy--it will only stop the casual home piracy.)
Re:Red Hat means saving money?
by
xtremex
·
· Score: 1
Are you kidding? How hard is it to put an ISO image of an OEM copy of WIndows XP on gnutella? I got a copy of the OEM, and burned that, and gave it to other people because i will NOT put that crap on any machine I own.
-- If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
Companies involved in M&A always decline to confirm or reject market rumours. It's probably bad enough for the parties involved that there has been a leak - this gives other companies a chance to try and block the deal, or come up with a counteroffer.
The CNET report says "Sources familiar with the situation emphatically insisted the two companies are not near an acquisition deal, nor have they discussed one.".
If it's not an acquisition, AOL are probably about to hand over a large contract for RHAT - which can only be good for the share price.
"The guy at Sports Authority tells me it will work my shoulder muscles and improve my swing. So I say, sure, I'll buy a lead bat."
That'd make a good sig, dude:)
-- "Well, put a stake in my heart and drag me into sunlight."
the future of linux
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
ironically, the future of linux depends on the companies that back it...So far some have change to linux like IBM. But others need to...AOL would have been a great backer..
I'd honestly..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
..Like to see MS kill AOL/Warner.
AOL/Warner are balls-to-the-wall supporters of the regimes known as the RIAA and MPAA.
Bill? Bill doesn't like other people making rules for him. He just doesn't play nice with others.
Sure, Microsoft is 'evil' and they've got a cadre of necromancers in some 'inner chambers' summoning 'demons'. There's worse evil out there.:P
(By the way, are we sure *this* report is true? The last one I read about the aforementioned talks insisted they were 'not true' based on 'An AOL executive who could not comment on any rumored talks due to corporate policy' and 'the people at RedHat could not be reached'.)
..we all know what 'really' happened.. Negotiations surely fell apart as soon as Cox announced he would leave. I mean, what else of value does RH do but pay our hero to work full time? Put out a quality distro?
Use Debian, for it sucks not
Re:Of course..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I have tried, it sucks worse than RH, Mandrake not to mention Windows.
Next please.
Linux is a popular Unix derivative developed in 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Like Windows, Linux runs on Intel-based PCs, but uses a different licensing mechanism.
So CNet has to explain to a technical audience what Linux is.
My only question is... Is it more grammatically correct to say: "CNet is a bunch of lamers", or "CNet are lamers"?
AOL Time Warner apparently is not making a bid to buy Linux manufacturer Red Hat, said sources familiar with the matter.
If there is no matter, then how could these sources be familiar with it? Am I the only one who has a problem with this? Even if the author meant "highly placed sources," I'm not sure I would take them at face value.
On the flip side, predicting that AOL will never buy Red Hat is like predicting the end of the world--no one cares if you're right, and everyone just makes fun of you if you're wrong...
-- "It take 9 months to bear a child, no matter how many women you assign to the job."
Well, explains why AOL is slow...you're hogging it
by
qurob
·
· Score: 1
Gig ethernet * 30 million users - 300baud
sounds about right
Re:Well, explains why AOL is slow...you're hogging
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Heh, the AOL employees don't even register a blip on the bandwidth utilization charts.
My point was, that for a great many people, geeks in particular, slashdot is accepted as a credible source of information.
Hahahahaha..... =) Good one. I like Slashdot as much as anyone else, but I don't think that many people think of it as a credible source of *news* (I *hope* they don't!). Slashdot "editors" don't even do the slightest amount of fact-checking or investigation into the stories posted. And unlike some other forums, stories sit in a que until an editor looks at them, so you don't even have the instantaniousness (phew) of some other online forums.
This site is interesting and valuable for it's user commentery and links to interesting stuff -- not for it's news.
The fact that this rumor was in the Washington Post(!) makes it interesting, and makes me wonder if it's still true (it's just a counter rumor from anonymous sources that the deal doesn't exist -- neither company will officially comment on the matter).
Actually, I do consider Slashdot to be a credible source of news. Not the headlines. Not the stories linked to. But in the commentary.
The editors don't check facts or investigate the stories. They expect the commenters to do that.
News is a "What happened?"
/. is more a "What's happening?"
Yeah, let's take over the world, let's kick everyone's ass! Yeah, that rocks!
"Netscape"
Yeah, fight the system! ROCK!
"Netscape/AOL/Time Warner/Linux"
Eww! Who wants that, we wanna take over the world some other way!
Okay, now that the VCs money is running thin, and other such things are going wrong , and companies are falling like flies.. why is a BIG BIG BIG company supporting linux distribution a bad thing? "Oh, but they'll just commercialize it!"
As if this whole past five years hasn't been overhyped with Linux?
Magnwa
true story.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
'rm -rf/' actually appears in in the Slackware manual, and is indexed as "foot, shooting self in".
how do i spell relief?
by
beast6228
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
"NO AOL!"
AOL SUCKS AND EVERYTHING THAT GETS SPAWNED FROM IT!
30 million computer users united by low intelligence! haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
------onto important stuff-------------->
If GAY-aol wants a piece of redhat, i suggest they buy a license,or go out on their own and create what they want....maybe they forgot that linux isnt proprietary?
In my not-so humble opinion as a leading expert on this subject, AOL should not purchase Red Hat. The reason for this is simple: AOL is not and should not be in the operating system business.
A company should have its focus on a specific thing, and then put all its energy into being the best at that thing. As AOL is clearly in the business of providing Internet service to its subscribers, it should concentrate on that endeavor.
This does not, however, mean that AOL cannot make some sort of agreement with Red Hat to bundle a native Linux version of the America Online client software. In fact, I believe that AOL and Red Hat should make a "strategic alliance" in order to compete with the Evil Empire, otherwise known as Microsoft.
In fact, Red Hat should make such strategic alliances with every company out there that competes with Microsoft on any level. For example, the Quicken people, just as an example off the top of my head. Having so-called "brand name" commercial software available for the Linux platform would certainly give millions of Windows users out there a plausible alternative.
If Palm is actually dividing the hardware and software sides of the house, they just might be interesting in selling or licensing Be to AOL.
From AOL's perspective this might be a more desireable move, as Be's source isn't open to all, and It doesn't have a reputation as a "hacker OS".
Be has better multimedia support (important to Joe Average).
AOL doesn't need to worry about code forking with Be,which could happen on numerous Linux projects if AOL gets in our pool. There are some strongly independant types who would do everything they could to insure incompatability with Red Hat AOL. That's not an issue with Be.
Be has better multimedia support (important to Joe Average).
I think the sort of multimedia support that BeOS is typically praised for is more along the lines of "can render in realtime four hundred simultaneous simulations of Britney Spears in a tube top whilst playing every known Beatles album backwards without breaking a sweat" than "can stream a Windows Media video of Britney Spears whilst playing the newest hit N*BackstreetTown song."
Which isn't to say that BeOS couldn't handle the latter, given the right software, but it would be like executing a tactical nuclear strike on 14-year-old Jimmy Jones for stealing candy from the local Sugar Hut.
Or something like that, preferably involving overkill.
*Might* have been true at one point, but no longer. Might still be a superior architecture for content creation/changing, but the file format/codec support was always insufficient, though it was better than Linux at on epoint (Linux has now passed it, easily). Be's Media player was absolute crap, couldn't even playMPG system files well, they would have horrible frame loss. Media was decoded faster under linux on my 200 MHz machine than it was on my 400 MHz under BeOS. I truly admired the OS and thought it would be awesome for Desktop users, but I never did accept the claim that it was a superior multimedia OS, I thought it *could* be, with a lot of work, but for now if I had to do content creation quickly, I'd still have to use either Windows or Mac. The tools are coming slowly for Linux, but nothing on the level of Premiere...
That being said, if they would want to put some work into Be's media capabilities, It might be a good choice for a net appliance. Of course, *if* AOL wants to acquire an OS, it'll probably just let it sit still for the most part and just use it as leverage to keep MS from yanking the carpet out from under them...
-- XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Re:Well, explains why AOL is slow...you're hogging
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Gig ethernet * 30 million users - 300baud
sounds about right
I guess you're trying to be funny, but FYI AOL is built on a very distributed/scalable network. The trouble with downloads in AOL is that all client packets are encapsulated in tunneling protocols, and they go from the dialup modem pool providers back to Dullas VA (for most of the US) then to the internet.
Don't worry, we are working on speed all the time. Protocol overhead will persist, but packets traveling back to VA will be improved.
Re:No Free Red-Hat CD's in the mail? (by the dozen
by
Pogue+Mahone
·
· Score: 2
"50 Hours AOL-Linux Gratis" - after that, it wipes itself.
-- Every bloody emperor has his hand up history's skirt [Peter Hammill/VdGG]
any truth or more rumors?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
NCSU to don Red Hat
An agreement has been reached to bring the Durham open-source computing firm to Centennial Campus.
Open-source computing giant Red Hat has reached a deal to move into the vacant Lucent Technologies Building on Centennial Campus, according to the firm's director of corporate communication.
Alan's golden parachute ...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
I imagine that Alan Cox has a nice block of stock options that are likely to vest immediately in case of a corporate buyout.
So sure, he'd leave AOL/RedHat, and he'd have enough money to stop working for money, and then he could work on whatever he wanted for the rest of his life.
Fuck yeah... that would be cool...
Re:Alan's golden parachute ...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
you really don't understand stock options, do you?
Stock options don't vest when a company is bought out; they vest on a pre-determined schedule. Furthermore, the strike price ($10.00, I believe) is below RHAT's current price ($8-9), so exercising them would be a good way to lose money. They might go up to $10 if there were strong rumours of a buyout.
OT: The Death of Investigative Journalism?
by
Platinum+Dragon
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
I read this story, remembered how I had snorted about the line from the first one, and just felt like being mean. Watergate was an awfully long time ago though...;-)
You're not the first one to notice that; shit-disturbing journalist Greg Palast lamented the lack of hard journalism in contemporary North American media in an interview with GNN's Anthony Lappe. The man reported shit for the BBC that should have brought down the Bush regime before it even got off the ground, among other spectacular scandals, that are passed off as "conspiracy-theorist lefty crap" on this continent. Journalists have had numerous stories embarrassing for large corporate entities shot and buried before they saw the light of day, or buried under litigation soon afterward.
As someone who has covered two mid-sized demonstrations in Canada, in a small hacked-together broadcast room and on the front line respectively, I can tell you that mainstream media try to avoid disturbing the status quo as much as possible, even if it means burying or exaggerating parts of certain stories to uphold the authorities' story.
I guess we can all see now what happens when a well respected News site as Slashdot posts a story from that rumour driven site with redundant poorly worded stories that have bad grammer and grossly misrepresent the facts and on top of it is run by a group of greeks that will jump on anything that smells even remotely of Linux or the downfall of Microsoft or of just some lame techi-toy that every nerd wants to have!
-- I stole this Sig
there IS money to be made here
by
Beevis
·
· Score: 1
I'm predicting that much of M$'s future income will stem from refferal fees and charges for being party to secure online transactions: not the retail cost of the OS. M$'s Passport already got the industry talking. Also deals like the digital photo printing services and online music: all generate referral fees. Even if it's less than 1c per deal, it's worth millions of $'s. This is a situation that AOL helped to create by supporting IE all these years. In fact, in the near future, it'll make business sense to give away copies of windows and the like. AOL can get part of this growing cake of referral fees by getting in in the OS market. AOL have the customers, the size and the infrastructure to make this work.
So RedHat is now a Linux manufacturer?
by
AccUser
·
· Score: 1
I thought they just took other peoples worked and patched it?
--
Any fool can talk, but it takes a wise man to listen.
Umm... Why does anyone give a second thought to anything said by CNET? If anything, the whole Mozilla-Office crap CNET reported a while back should have shown everyone that CNET is essentially an online tabloid for the (only slightly) technically inclined.
Doesn't AOL hate M$ as much as we do? Just think, the AOL distribution. Put the CD in your drive, reboot, and you've got AOL. Completely bypass WindowXX and just boot into AOLinux.
Run the whole system off a live filesystem on the CD, save to the Windows hard drive. Or just install Linux.
Good way to subvert MS. If AOL/TW could keep the right philosophy going.
Because if they respect open source, you could get a huge dev team participating with "luser oriented politics" such as :
"Dumb mode install"
"Dumb mode kernel Patch"
"Dumb Mode Make World"
It'll really become a pleasure when I see a Gran'ma speaking kernel issues outside a College 8))
-- It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
Re:You're too negative...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
if you see a gran'ma speaking kernel issues, it probably involves corn and digestive problems you don't want to know about.
Nail on Head
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I've been suspicious from the start about this issue. My theory is that MS planted this FUD to shore up their anti-monopoly arguments. Only thing that doesn't fit this is why no one at AOL-TW-N nor RH didn't outright deny this earlier.
But M$ has always argued that integrating windows with IE, WMP, Office, etc., was just the wave of the future... convergence. If it looked like AOL was trying to do something similar (as if they would really want RH, no offense), then M$ could settle a lot easier.
Runner up theory: AOL was serious: Their goal could have been to take out the most viable (from a business point of view) threat to (now, try to think outside the anti-MS box) the corporate IT controllers... an unholy alliance of M$, AOL-TW-N, RIAA, MPAA, GWB, and, of course, GM.
Am I nuts? We'll see soon enough....
The AOL, the RH, and the MS
by
http101
·
· Score: 0
Has anyone else noticed that the 'open source' model is what made Windows so pervasive? Most people have installed a single copy of Windows on all of their systems and at $249.99 per copy, can you really blame them? Most of those people who installed the OS on all their machines actually ripped a copy off from their employer. Why buy it when you can give it that little "test-drive"? Those same dingbats buy an upgrade to Windows and install that on their home systems. However, MS Office isn't so lucky. The price of Office is so outrageous, even for the pathetic upgrade. So, they copy the Office CD-ROM and install that too. The only way to bring down the giant (Microsoft) is to freely-distribute Linux. The copying and installing of Microsoft products in the previously stated methods are known as a 'free distribution' model. We could only be so lucky to have AOL on our side! Microsoft's business practice will experience 'technical difficulties' because of the registration methods for XP. The inability to copy the CDs will inadvertently destroy their marketing and distribution channels. Eventually their mandatory online registration will become undermined by the cracking community and fully-cracked versions of XP will surface on BearShare and KaZaa. The only drawback to this is it will continue the Microsoft Desktop stranglehold instead of just bypassing the overpriced bloatware. The AOL/RH merger would probably have propagated a single-user, easy to install, low-overhead version of the Linux/GNU targetted at the typical home-user. After that, the development community could flourish and begin making high-quality games, applications, and business apps.
-- --
Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
CAN WE UP OUT SHARES OF STOCK?
by
mallsop
·
· Score: 0
hades:~$ uname -a
Linux hades 2.0.36 #7 Sat Jan 9 16:46:55 CDT 1999 i686 unknown
hades:~$ uptime
3:21pm up 469 days, 22:16, 11 users, load average: 0.37, 0.32, 0.28
apollo:~$ uname -a ; uptime
Linux apollo 2.0.36 #3 Sat Jan 9 23:54:29 CST 1999 i686 unknown
3:22pm up 350 days, 19:43, 4 users, load average: 0.17, 0.12, 0.11
Just two of many enterprise boxen. Check out the uptime...Slackware is ready for primetime.
Whoa! For a minute, I thought you said, "from the/. perspective, it could be good to expand the slashdot user base to some significant fraction of AOL's."
Slashdot Mirror
I thought it would be nice for Red Hat to have such a huge company backing them.
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
We need no more conglomerates.
They can still use Red Hat's services which would give a big income to RH. I don't think the whole thing ends here.
The guys at work were all ready to hear the commercials for Redhat 7.3, the "Best Redhat Ever!"
does this mean alan cox wont have to quit! -vikas
If they "are familiar with the matter" there must be something there :-)
Kevin
"It's not the cough that carries you off, it's the coffin they carry you off in" O. Nash
Ah yes, FUD, what we turn to when the facts just aren't enough. I didn't really believe that this would happen (I did contemplate the consequences, though).
What will we do? We've already talked about this rumour enough to fill a Karma Canyon, now what hell are we supposed to talk about?
....
Surely not discuss regular news, back to unfounded, ridiculous rumors we go
Click here or here.
Linux manufacturer Red Hat
Somehow this just doesnt sound right.
Seems like there should be another way of putting this.
two crappy products combined? Sounds like AOL to me........ think netscape, time warner, starbucks etc.
Big stories for little air ... also starring Alan Cox ...
THAT's Slashdot ! Can't wait for the next episode ;)
I was scared for a while about the thought of hearing "You've Got Mail" whenever mail hits my local spool. That is a SCARY new world indeed.
AOL/Time Warner is a monopoly if I've ever seen one.
We NEED Microsoft to kill them.
So, I honestly don't care if AOL/Timewarner purchases RH. RH is not a distro I use. Having the backing of a huge media giant may help the linux cause. Sure, it will drive features *IN Redhat LINUX*, but not in the other distros. Long term, yes, it may effect the marketplace. But having Timewarner promoting linux would be a GREAT thing. Talk about adoption in the marketplace. Linux needs more credibility, and this may be a good way to get it.
aww man! I guess this means that I'll have to keep downloading the latest version and burning my own cd's, instead of waiting to get it in the mail, along with the latest AOL CD.
I wonder if I could have used Red Hat Pro for 700 free hours in a month before I either had to pay or start using the free distribution...
all of you that were so worried about RedHat being taking over by an "evil corporation" can breathe now.
"Linux in the desktop market in the U.S. is basically a non-starter," said Chris LeTocq, industry strategist with Sage Circle.
Bear in mind that this IS a tech site. News for Nerds.
The tragedy of 9/11 is over and done with. All we're left with is a political circus that is the "war on terrorism".
Let's leave it to the tabloid rags like CNN and MSNBC and stick with tech news.
"Adequacy.org: Where congenital stupidity is not an option, but a requirement."
So it WAS another rumor. We've managed to have at least 4 (who knows how many repeated articles I might have missed out on) posts about this very topic and it appears to be a non-topic afterall.
Most likely it was one of those "what if we..." things that got tossed out in a meeting somewhere. Something along the same lines as 200 other ideas that probably got passed around the same day. Something that someone spent 5 minutes thinking about and probably never got seriously discussed, but someone overheard it, and said something about it to someone, who said something else, and so on, and so forth, until it gets on Slashdot.. then all hell breaks loose.
We've had discussions on the future potential demise of Redhat under an AOL flag. We've had the #2 linux guy's threatened defection. And the VIP's at AOL/TW are probably going "huh?" right about now as someone finally tells them what's going around in the news. Even if it IS a valid rumor, chances are it hasn't worked its way up the corporate hierarchy yet.
And in two weeks, a bigwig from AOL will claim they're considering it, and we'll all think it was all this discussion that prompted them to consider it in the first place.
So what is it? Are we one step ahead or two steps behind? Who knows.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
I don't think AOL-T-W are a good corporate culture match for Red Hat...I think Red Hat should stay true to it's current approach. Ultimately, Red Hat has a great chance to define "the next standard computing platform".
Maybe this time, it'll actually be based on real standards! :-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Sources familiar with the situation emphatically insisted the two companies are not near an acquisition deal, nor have they discussed one.
and then...
An AOL Time Warner spokeswoman, as a matter of company policy, would not discuss the merger rumor, and Durham, N.C.-based Red Hat could not be reached for comment because of the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. A Microsoft spokesman also declined to comment.
I agree, it sounds like the merger is a farce, nothing more than a ploy to rile up people and boost some stock prices tomorrow morning, but you never know...
--Chag
Well, I have to say I'm relieved. At the same time though, would it not be interesting to see what a Corporation like that would do with an existing Linux distro.
John, I'm Only Dancing!
So the Washington Post says that people close to the companies report that there are acquision talks but then CNN says that people close to the companies report that there aren't.
I'm not buying any of it until one of the companies makes a press announcement or until one of the companies discloses a source.
What I find funny though, is that when given the reason why each company (MS, AOL, RH) is not commenting, RedHat's excuse is the Martin Luther King Holiday weekend.
They sure aren't going very far if they are taking this many holidays... I thought RH _wasn't_ a dot-com company. They should of atleast had people working Saturday and Sunday...
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
Damn you, Martin Luther King, damn you and your banker's holiday!
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
I get it! This is cheap market research.
...bring several million dollars worth of free research to the next board meeting.
1) "Leak" a story that you are in talks to buy Red Hat.
2) Observe the terabytes of feedback from industry analysts, reporters, and fanatical users.
3) After denying everything as rumor,...
4)
5) Get a raise for your ingenious idea.
As said by Michael in the first item about this story:
That about made me want to puke when I read it. :-)
Didn't get get the same line with the HP/Compaq deal?
First it was a big rumor that it was going to happen.
Then HP 'backed out' and denied it...
then it was back on in a week...
hmm... Funny this happens right after Cox says he'll leave under AOL.
.
Darn, I guess I'll still have to buy em or burn em myself.
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
A news post, containing actual news, was actually submitted to slashdot and it was actually READ by one of the editors. :)
Some guy hears about AOL discussing some business with RedHat - probably about a setup box, or support work - and jumps to the conclusion that AOL must be BUYING RedHat.
Cue mass hysteria.
It just proves that there is a conspiracy to cover it up.
Obviously, AOL has been spreading rumors that there is no takeover in order to prevent Red Hat's stock price from rising so that they can acquire it in a hostile action. None of the signs are there, so it must be true.
AOL's real problem is that they've reached the logical conclusion of their intellectually insulting business strategy of eating fish that are bigger than they are. There are no fish bigger than they are. They're trying to acquire the public sector but they don't quite get it.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
How could there be 'Sources familiar with the situation' when they are basically saying there is no 'situation' and they have not discussed a deal?
I am surely missing a point here....
--
It was a narrow escape, if the sheep had been created first, man would
have been a plagiarism.
- Mark Twain
You should not, under any circumstances, read this sig.
The Washington Post is actually considered a very legitamate newspaper. Remember Woodward and Bernstein? The movie All the president's men chronicles the true events of a couple of post reporters and their dealings with "deep throat" the guy to this day who no one else knows who he is, a source that led them on the trail.
I know this is slightly off topic, but the point in hand is if I hear something from the Washington Post I'm going to hold it in higher regards then say, the New York Post.
Crap, I just defended a slashdot editor, someone mod this down so no one can see it!
I live under the bridge, in a pile of feces.
I didn't realize Aoltimewarner had acquired CNET already. Hmmm ...
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
Wired is picking up on this rumor/story a bit late....
Mark
Are these the same sources "familiar with the matter" that said they were in talks to begin with?
There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and BSD. We don't believe this to be a coincidence.
Translation: in several years time AOL more than tripled subscribership whereas MSN only got slightly more than three times the number of subscribers in that same time period.
Hey!!! the parentheses are good for something
What the hell? Someone is actually trolling under a normal user name? The end is definitely near.
My comment was a joke. Please mod it as such. Sometimes you people have to take the time and laugh.
Now I shall post as AC. If you want to use your mod points wisely, mod up my parent post.
Thank you.
-Metrollica
I bet they meant "... said sources invovled in the negotiations." :-)
Seriously, I would love to see AOLTW replace their desktop OS with Linux. That would create a huge market for linux based support and software. And...they don't even have to buy a thing.
Kind thoughts do not change the world
the best match for redhat would be AOL. redhat is the AOL version of linux, why wouldn't they mesh? or apple. apple would be a nice match as well. all three cater to user friendly market.
Guess they didn't want Redhat without Cox.
So now they just pretend it never happened.
Smoke screen! Thats what you call it!
Will this affect us in ANY way? No.. so why bother caring about this?
cool but it would never work. Real development dollars for the stuff nobody wants to do, marketing muscle to get Linux everywhere. However, it seems to me Redhat would just twist in the wind under AOL's tender mercies and wind up a hopelessly broken company like Netscape appears (at least to me) to be. It's just too "corporate" a switch.
ehintz
Because it makes umpteen more sense just to make a generic AOL client for (any) linux (distro). If anything, AOL should just ally with Redhat to get the AOL client "first class" treatment (ie. easy to install--already on the cd) on any Red Hat distro. I don't think I am the only one who has been expecting a full port of the AOL client for the last few years. It won't make AOL instant money but it will be a very good bargaining tool when dealing with Microsoft.
I don't buy the rumors that hypothesize AOL wants to get the AOL client ported to some embedded system. If this was the case, 1. They don't need Red Hat. 2. They don't need Linux.
Is its people. Alan Cox and all the other top flight Linux programers that work for them. If RedHat were bought by AOL/TW many of them would jump ship. If someone were to buy RedHat they would have to be someone who those people would want to work for. Or do something to get them to stay.
However I can see AOL/TW working with redhat on set-top boxes or other projects, but not outright buying them.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
So easy to use, no wonder it has a negligible desktop market share!
Unfortunately for whomever made up the original buyout hoax, this announcement hit the air one day too early, preventing the culprit from making a killing on RHAT stock.
And the corollary: always make sure your hoaxes air at the beginning of the week, without any pesky holidays in range!
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
I was hoping to get a million red hat cd's in the mail.
... to call the absorption of RedHat by AOL/Time/Warner/whatever-else a "merger".
Well, AOL/TimeWarner owns CNN, and CNN is reporting that talks about a merger are ongoing.
. re d.hat.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/industry/01/21/aol
The Web survey on this page about an AOL client on Linux along with the prominent mention of Redhat's dismal earnings (and rather large staff for a company so reliably posting large losses) does seem to indicate that AOL is using this as a posturing move. They seem to be exploring the consumer support for such a move and publicly vying for a good deal in the merger by publicizing Redhat's fiscal shortcomings.
I don't know what sort of moronic move it is for an AOL-TimeWarner company to post a story about AOL-TimeWarner in which they cannot get AOL-TimeWarner to comment! MSNBC goes through this charade of independence when reporting on Micro$oft as well. Give me a break!
Anyway, I hope to see Suse, Slackware, Redhat-- somebody! --bought by a large corporation with lots of loot soon. I want to see Linux companies bought and well-funded before they end up like VA Linux. The Openoffice collaboration with Sun and the Mozilla collaboration with AOL-TimeWarner have been great for the community, and I think that the purchase of a distro by a large corporation would further this beneficial proprietary/open source interplay.
I've been noticing a steady - and rather visible - decline in spelling, grammer and sentence structure among news websites - even major ones - over the last year. It's even starting to bleed over into traditional print.
If there are sources familiar with the matter, then doesn't that show the existence of the matter?
Public companies can't lie or make any misrepresentations when dealing with questions from investors (or the press). This makes coverups very difficult because they could result in very expensive lawsuits. If they deny that they are in negotiations, and they are, then they are liable under Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act. And for the record, IAAL.
Really that's not real, you mean /. had a incorrect story/rumor/bs...
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -Homer Simpson
Although RH (and other flavors of Linux) are commonly referred to as "distributions", calling RH a distributor is a bit misleading. Normally, a distributor is one who takes manufactured/published goods from a plant or press and physically delivers them to various retail outlets. Distibutors typically do not produce. RH produces CDs and books. Companies that produce CDs and books are normally referred to as "publishers", and this certainly seems like the most appropriate term to use for RH.
And realized that they don't have to buy anything to use linux.
Maybe this is why the RH execs have stopped selling stock? They know something is in the works, or they knew that there was a planned leak for the AOL-TW buyout? Curious stuff.
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
Guitarzan: I don't remember any AOL CD's with anything other than a .0
AC: try AOL 1.5
AOL 1.x and 2.x came only on floppy bisks, not CD. One of the first mentions on Usenet of AOL software on a CD-ROM came on April 29, 1996, in the infamous "AOL Is Sucks" posting by Saunders to alt.aol-sucks.
Time Warner is sucks.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Dude, at least give credit where credit is due.
Original link is from BBspot and can be viewed here.
It's been officially denied.
Obviously this is going to happen for sure now.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
While this article was supposed to be about RH & AOL, I found myself reading about the new features of M$ WinXP and MSN. If that wasn't enough the article implies that Linux isn't a viable desktop OS... don't tell that to the gov't, I like not having to pay for gov't software.
Sorry bout that. I thought it was fitting to post their list. =)
Next time I pidginize text from a copyrighted web site I will give credit where credit is due. =)
Still #1 -- Lonely Gay Geek
But I do suppose I could say pidginize as well. ;-)
Still #1 -- Lonely Gay Geek
It seems more reasonable to me that AOL would buy a more proven consumer OS which would be used in combination with the awesome designs of the new Macs to market to the general computer users. Perhaps a subsidy from AOL would make the iMac machines more affordable and come with all the pieces of software needed for a great user experience.
Have you ever stuck your toe in water just to watch the ripples?
Think about it. Why wouldn't it be a good thing for everyone in the US to get a CD with the AOLinux distro on it every month or so? I just popped in a CD off my spindle of AOL CDs, and it had like 200 megs of blank space on it. They could leave the windoze (and macintosh?) clients intact, and use the other 200 Megs for a compact linux distro. There's no reason they need to use redhat- people like my mom just want to be able to email, surf, write letters, and print. Throw in an MP3/CD burning suite, and you've got just about everything covered. (If AOL wanted to, they could even make DVD playing software that the MPAA, and thus the average consumer, is happy with). I'm sure AOL could fund their own team to put together a little distro which is reliable and secure and targeted to towards people with compaq, dell, hp, or gateway systems that they got off the shelf at frys or compusa (think of it like a PC-to-internet appliance conversion). Ignoring, for now, the implications of having AOL in charge of your operating system (what, like that'd be any worse than M$?), it could be beneficial to the average luser to have a single monolithic system installed on their machine in which all the applications they want are designed to work directly with the OS. From AOL's point of view, it could be nice to have control over the OS that their client is runnig on, and not having to worry about what little component of the system microsoft botched this week. And from the /. perspective, it could be good to expand the linux user base to some signifigant fraction of AOL's. Plus, once you get a bunch of family PCs out there with linux, their 13 year old kids can start using linux to run more than just the AOL client.
Just a question.
So, have you heard? RedHat is thinking of buying AOL... Let the flames begin!
This is something I breifly was on my mind.
Imagine a Red Hat 'lite' version that everyone in America got in the mail. Usually there are 2 R-Hat CDs, but they get you to buy the box set for that.
Get your Unix fortune now!
ITYM plagiarize . HTH.
You should also be attributing your .sig quote to Richard Feynman.
But then again, I could be wrong.
A week or so from now, a story will either say that AOL *is* buying RH after all...or some similar rumor involving another huge corporation and another Linux company.
Would this be called "copycat news"?
"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." -Richard Feynman
Of course, at least some Debian developers are probably bribable with free beer :)
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
At first, I thought it would be great if AOL built a kiosk around Linux. Target it for the five year old PCs that families are now replacing. Make an AOL kiosk out of it and give it to the kids or Grandmom. But then I got to thinking, and realized that the GPL doesn't do anything to stop AOL from releasing all their code as closed source. There really is nothing saying that they are going to contribute back to the open source community.
Then you have to look at the difference between Linus and the GNU project. Did Linus really want everything that runs under Linux to be GPL'd, or did he just want to build a solid development platform leaving room in his plans for closed-source applications?
Intelligent Life on Earth
OMG!
Slashdot has a characted limit to the sig line... I just changed it, It used to have 'Richard ' and just cut off the rest.
Suggesstions?
Still #1 -- Lonely Gay Geek
I think it's sad that it won't happen. Red Hat was the wrong distro for them to buy, of course, since it is highly priced because it has a brand name. AOL doesn't need the brand name in the slightest, and would not pay a premium to get it.
AOL/TW has a giant brand, and it would make sense for them to buy or start a linux distro, and produce a bundle with OS, browser, AOL software, basic applications suite, photo/video/media suite and some games.
This could happily run on older PCs, too but the AOL PC, based on one of those all in one motherboards would be dirt cheap and a serious competitor.
And it would do wonders for Linux. As millions of these units got deployed, there would finally be a user base and market for Linux products, and a stronger demand for hardware vendors to provide linux drivers.
Everybody, including Alan Cox, should welcome AOL pushing linux.
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
I love this line:
This is the journalistic equivalent of:
Nice.
This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
yuo dotn spel reel gud, do yuo? Danm spel chek!
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
1. The people who started the rumor in Silly Valley and told their "friends" to buy RHAT have already sold.
2. The "friends" of the people who started the rumor asked for a pullback so they could get in too.
Notice that friends is in quotes. I don't want to sound too cynical, but with stakes like these it's hard to have real friends.
I think scenario 2 is more likely. Why else would you build up such a fevered pitch over the weekend and then demolish it before Wall Street has a chance to trade?
Of course it's entirely possible that there is no market manipulation going on at all (snicker).
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I heard that Sun is going to eliminate Solaris and adapt FreeBSD as the default OS
Alan can rest easy tonight, he's not going to have to leave now.
Don't we all feel better now?
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
"Feynman" works just fine.
Okay, so since the Washington Post isn't a rumour-mill as the kind folks at Slashdot told us, who does that mean is lying? AOL? RedHat? CNet? ..Slashdot?
BBSpot, huh? That explains it. I wondered why the list wasn't even slightly funny.
C'mon, how reliable is this source?
According to the article, one of the reasons Red Hat might gain market share outside of the United States is because "a desktop vendor in Latin America or especially China, if they can save 50 to 60 bucks on a PC that's a big deal." Having lived overseas (the Philippines) I can say from personal experience that at least some of the desktop vendors do not pay for the copies of Windows they install on new systems. So a free OS may not be that big an incentive. (And I don't believe for a minute that the Windows XP registration will put a stop to this sort of piracy--it will only stop the casual home piracy.)
The CNET report says "Sources familiar with the situation emphatically insisted the two companies are not near an acquisition deal, nor have they discussed one.".
If it's not an acquisition, AOL are probably about to hand over a large contract for RHAT - which can only be good for the share price.
A man looking eerily like William Kennedy Smith was overheard today at the Old Dominion Brewery, Ashburn, VA:
"The guy at Sports Authority tells me it will work my shoulder muscles and improve my swing. So I say, sure, I'll buy a lead bat."
ironically, the future of linux depends on the companies that back it...So far some have change to linux like IBM. But others need to...AOL would have been a great backer..
..Like to see MS kill AOL/Warner.
:P
AOL/Warner are balls-to-the-wall supporters of the regimes known as the RIAA and MPAA.
Bill? Bill doesn't like other people making rules for him. He just doesn't play nice with others.
Sure, Microsoft is 'evil' and they've got a cadre of necromancers in some 'inner chambers' summoning 'demons'. There's worse evil out there.
(By the way, are we sure *this* report is true? The last one I read about the aforementioned talks insisted they were 'not true' based on 'An AOL executive who could not comment on any rumored talks due to corporate policy' and 'the people at RedHat could not be reached'.)
..we all know what 'really' happened.. Negotiations surely fell apart as soon as Cox announced he would leave. I mean, what else of value does RH do but pay our hero to work full time? Put out a quality distro?
Use Debian, for it sucks not
Linux is a popular Unix derivative developed in 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Like Windows, Linux runs on Intel-based PCs, but uses a different licensing mechanism.
So CNet has to explain to a technical audience what Linux is.
My only question is...
Is it more grammatically correct to say: "CNet is a bunch of lamers", or "CNet are lamers"?
On the flip side, predicting that AOL will never buy Red Hat is like predicting the end of the world--no one cares if you're right, and everyone just makes fun of you if you're wrong...
"It take 9 months to bear a child, no matter how many women you assign to the job."
Gig ethernet * 30 million users - 300baud
sounds about right
Heh, the AOL employees don't even register a blip on the bandwidth utilization charts.
My point was, that for a great many people, geeks in particular, slashdot is accepted as a credible source of information.
Hahahahaha..... =) Good one. I like Slashdot as much as anyone else, but I don't think that many people think of it as a credible source of *news* (I *hope* they don't!). Slashdot "editors" don't even do the slightest amount of fact-checking or investigation into the stories posted. And unlike some other forums, stories sit in a que until an editor looks at them, so you don't even have the instantaniousness (phew) of some other online forums.
This site is interesting and valuable for it's user commentery and links to interesting stuff -- not for it's news.
The fact that this rumor was in the Washington Post(!) makes it interesting, and makes me wonder if it's still true (it's just a counter rumor from anonymous sources that the deal doesn't exist -- neither company will officially comment on the matter).
"World domination!"
Yeah, let's take over the world, let's kick everyone's ass! Yeah, that rocks!
"Netscape"
Yeah, fight the system! ROCK!
"Netscape/AOL/Time Warner/Linux"
Eww! Who wants that, we wanna take over the world some other way!
Okay, now that the VCs money is running thin, and other such things are going wrong , and companies are falling like flies.. why is a BIG BIG BIG company supporting linux distribution a bad thing? "Oh, but they'll just commercialize it!"
As if this whole past five years hasn't been overhyped with Linux?
Magnwa
'rm -rf /' actually appears in in the Slackware manual, and is indexed as "foot, shooting self in".
"NO AOL!"
AOL SUCKS AND EVERYTHING THAT GETS SPAWNED FROM IT!
30 million computer users united by low intelligence! haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
------onto important stuff-------------->
If GAY-aol wants a piece of redhat, i suggest they buy a license,or go out on their own and create what they want....maybe they forgot that linux isnt proprietary?
have a happy day!!
~Later~
In my not-so humble opinion as a leading expert on this subject, AOL should not purchase Red Hat. The reason for this is simple: AOL is not and should not be in the operating system business.
A company should have its focus on a specific thing, and then put all its energy into being the best at that thing. As AOL is clearly in the business of providing Internet service to its subscribers, it should concentrate on that endeavor.
This does not, however, mean that AOL cannot make some sort of agreement with Red Hat to bundle a native Linux version of the America Online client software. In fact, I believe that AOL and Red Hat should make a "strategic alliance" in order to compete with the Evil Empire, otherwise known as Micro s oft.
In fact, Red Hat should make such strategic alliances with every company out there that competes with Micro s oft on any level. For example, the Quicken people, just as an example off the top of my head. Having so-called "brand name" commercial software available for the Linux platform would certainly give millions of Windows users out there a plausible alternative.
xx O xx H xx xx W xx E xx L xx L xx
If Palm is actually dividing the hardware and software sides of the house, they just might be interesting in selling or licensing Be to AOL.
,which could happen on numerous Linux projects if AOL gets in our pool. There are some strongly independant types who would do everything they could to insure incompatability with Red Hat AOL. That's not an issue with Be.
From AOL's perspective this might be a more desireable move, as Be's source isn't open to all, and It doesn't have a reputation as a "hacker OS".
Be has better multimedia support (important to Joe Average).
AOL doesn't need to worry about code forking with Be
I guess you're trying to be funny, but FYI AOL is built on a very distributed/scalable network. The trouble with downloads in AOL is that all client packets are encapsulated in tunneling protocols, and they go from the dialup modem pool providers back to Dullas VA (for most of the US) then to the internet.
Don't worry, we are working on speed all the time. Protocol overhead will persist, but packets traveling back to VA will be improved.
"50 Hours AOL-Linux Gratis" - after that, it wipes itself.
Every bloody emperor has his hand up history's skirt [Peter Hammill/VdGG]
http://technicianonline.com/read/tol/news/004327.h tml
NCSU to don Red Hat
An agreement has been reached to bring the Durham open-source computing firm to Centennial Campus.
Open-source computing giant Red Hat has reached a deal to move into the vacant Lucent Technologies Building on Centennial Campus, according to the firm's director of corporate communication.
I imagine that Alan Cox has a nice block of stock options that are likely to vest immediately in case of a corporate buyout.
... that would be cool ...
So sure, he'd leave AOL/RedHat, and he'd have enough money to stop working for money, and then he could work on whatever he wanted for the rest of his life.
Fuck yeah
I read this story, remembered how I had snorted about the line from the first one, and just felt like being mean. Watergate was an awfully long time ago though... ;-)
You're not the first one to notice that; shit-disturbing journalist Greg Palast lamented the lack of hard journalism in contemporary North American media in an interview with GNN's Anthony Lappe. The man reported shit for the BBC that should have brought down the Bush regime before it even got off the ground, among other spectacular scandals, that are passed off as "conspiracy-theorist lefty crap" on this continent. Journalists have had numerous stories embarrassing for large corporate entities shot and buried before they saw the light of day, or buried under litigation soon afterward.
As someone who has covered two mid-sized demonstrations in Canada, in a small hacked-together broadcast room and on the front line respectively, I can tell you that mainstream media try to avoid disturbing the status quo as much as possible, even if it means burying or exaggerating parts of certain stories to uphold the authorities' story.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
I guess we can all see now what happens when a well respected News site as Slashdot posts a story from that rumour driven site with redundant poorly worded stories that have bad grammer and grossly misrepresent the facts and on top of it is run by a group of greeks that will jump on anything that smells even remotely of Linux or the downfall of Microsoft or of just some lame techi-toy that every nerd wants to have!
I stole this Sig
I'm predicting that much of M$'s future income will stem from refferal fees and charges for being party to secure online transactions: not the retail cost of the OS. M$'s Passport already got the industry talking. Also deals like the digital photo printing services and online music: all generate referral fees. Even if it's less than 1c per deal, it's worth millions of $'s. This is a situation that AOL helped to create by supporting IE all these years. In fact, in the near future, it'll make business sense to give away copies of windows and the like. AOL can get part of this growing cake of referral fees by getting in in the OS market. AOL have the customers, the size and the infrastructure to make this work.
I thought they just took other peoples worked and patched it?
Any fool can talk, but it takes a wise man to listen.
... the sign of relief coming out of Bill Gates.
Is GNU/AOL/TW
:-)
Thank you,
GNU/rms
Umm... Why does anyone give a second thought to anything said by CNET? If anything, the whole Mozilla-Office crap CNET reported a while back should have shown everyone that CNET is essentially an online tabloid for the (only slightly) technically inclined.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
http://www.bbspot.com/News/2002/01/Top_11_redhat.h tml
Doesn't AOL hate M$ as much as we do? Just think, the AOL distribution. Put the CD in your drive, reboot, and you've got AOL. Completely bypass WindowXX and just boot into AOLinux.
Run the whole system off a live filesystem on the CD, save to the Windows hard drive. Or just install Linux.
Good way to subvert MS. If AOL/TW could keep the right philosophy going.
How can there be sources close to the matter?Isn't that like talking to eyewitnesses of something that didn't happen?
Because if they respect open source, you could get a huge dev team participating with "luser oriented politics" such as :
"Dumb mode install"
"Dumb mode kernel Patch"
"Dumb Mode Make World"
It'll really become a pleasure when I see a Gran'ma speaking kernel issues outside a College 8))
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
I've been suspicious from the start about this issue. My theory is that MS planted this FUD to shore up their anti-monopoly arguments. Only thing that doesn't fit this is why no one at AOL-TW-N nor RH didn't outright deny this earlier.
But M$ has always argued that integrating windows with IE, WMP, Office, etc., was just the wave of the future... convergence. If it looked like AOL was trying to do something similar (as if they would really want RH, no offense), then M$ could settle a lot easier.
Runner up theory: AOL was serious: Their goal could have been to take out the most viable (from a business point of view) threat to (now, try to think outside the anti-MS box) the corporate IT controllers... an unholy alliance of M$, AOL-TW-N, RIAA, MPAA, GWB, and, of course, GM.
Am I nuts? We'll see soon enough....
Has anyone else noticed that the 'open source' model is what made Windows so pervasive? Most people have installed a single copy of Windows on all of their systems and at $249.99 per copy, can you really blame them? Most of those people who installed the OS on all their machines actually ripped a copy off from their employer. Why buy it when you can give it that little "test-drive"? Those same dingbats buy an upgrade to Windows and install that on their home systems. However, MS Office isn't so lucky. The price of Office is so outrageous, even for the pathetic upgrade. So, they copy the Office CD-ROM and install that too. The only way to bring down the giant (Microsoft) is to freely-distribute Linux. The copying and installing of Microsoft products in the previously stated methods are known as a 'free distribution' model. We could only be so lucky to have AOL on our side! Microsoft's business practice will experience 'technical difficulties' because of the registration methods for XP. The inability to copy the CDs will inadvertently destroy their marketing and distribution channels. Eventually their mandatory online registration will become undermined by the cracking community and fully-cracked versions of XP will surface on BearShare and KaZaa. The only drawback to this is it will continue the Microsoft Desktop stranglehold instead of just bypassing the overpriced bloatware. The AOL/RH merger would probably have propagated a single-user, easy to install, low-overhead version of the Linux/GNU targetted at the typical home-user. After that, the development community could flourish and begin making high-quality games, applications, and business apps.
-- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
Rumors are for profit.
Moving at the speed of government.
Here's one rumor page...
www.oreillynet.com
I really don't want to choose between AOL and MSN in the future, so keep up the free source!
Moving at the speed of government.
...on this matter, or at least his beef with Netscape getting bought out by AOL. Here: 1 2
Both are good reads.
Zodiac Survey
I know. I was just being an ass.
"Adequacy.org: Where congenital stupidity is not an option, but a requirement."
Yahoo has this story about the alleged merger.
Apparently an AOL/TimeWarner spokesman said they are not in negotiations.
Ravishly searching for the next big rumor.
-- Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.
The problem with AOL buying RedHat is that the user bases couldn't be more oppposite! This little story is a prime example of what I'm talking about.
Linux hades 2.0.36 #7 Sat Jan 9 16:46:55 CDT 1999 i686 unknown
hades:~$ uptime
3:21pm up 469 days, 22:16, 11 users, load average: 0.37, 0.32, 0.28
apollo:~$ uname -a ; uptime
Linux apollo 2.0.36 #3 Sat Jan 9 23:54:29 CST 1999 i686 unknown
3:22pm up 350 days, 19:43, 4 users, load average: 0.17, 0.12, 0.11
Just two of many enterprise boxen. Check out the uptime...Slackware is ready for primetime.
Click here or here.
Whoa! For a minute, I thought you said, "from the /. perspective, it could be good to expand the slashdot user base to some significant fraction of AOL's."
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.