No Red Hat-AOL Merger In The Works, Says CNET

Aw by dpete4552 · 2002-01-21 11:13 · Score: 1

I thought it would be nice for Red Hat to have such a huge company backing them.

--
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares

Re:Aw by ichimunki · 2002-01-21 11:25 · Score: 4, Funny

Well, what I don't understand is why they would buy RedHat when you can download the ISOs for free. ;)

--
I do not have a signature
Re:Aw by kilgore_47 · 2002-01-21 11:32 · Score: 5, Funny

Well, what I don't understand is why they would buy RedHat when you can download the ISOs for free. ;)

Remeber, they're connected to the net though AOL.
You ever try downloading something big over AOL?

--
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
Re:Aw by nomadic · 2002-01-21 11:40 · Score: 1

Free speech not free beer. Isn't that the kneejerk answer to those questions?
Re:Aw by mangu · 2002-01-21 11:43 · Score: 4, Funny

you can download the ISOs for free

Not only that, you can get a lot of AOL CD's for free as well. They are a pair of perfectly matched companies...
Re:Aw by Cro+Magnon · 2002-01-21 11:46 · Score: 1

It's like that guy in the razor ads. He liked it so well he bought the company!

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Re:Aw by t_funk · 2002-01-21 12:00 · Score: 1

m00
Re:Aw by BlueGecko · 2002-01-21 14:44 · Score: 2

Remeber, they're connected to the net though AOL.

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 · 2002-01-21 14:55 · 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 spm248 · 2002-01-21 15:42 · Score: 1

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 rifter · 2002-01-22 05:08 · Score: 1

What's wrong with having an AOL Client 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...

Thank God. by alkaloid · 2002-01-21 11:13 · Score: 1

We need no more conglomerates.

Re:Thank God. by DecimalThree · 2002-01-22 01:36 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Thank God. by madfgurtbn · 2002-01-22 05:54 · Score: 1

We need no more conglomerates

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 · 2002-01-21 11:14 · 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.

Re:Bah by hij · 2002-01-22 02:13 · Score: 1

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!

--
Believe nothing -- Buddha

Bummer by Guitarzan · 2002-01-21 11:15 · Score: 3, Funny

The guys at work were all ready to hear the commercials for Redhat 7.3, the "Best Redhat Ever!"

Re:Bummer by cymen · 2002-01-21 11:37 · Score: 1

RedHat 7.3? Come on now, after .2 RedHat bumps to the next version so surely you mean RedHat 8.0 :).
Re:Bummer by Guitarzan · 2002-01-21 11:47 · Score: 1

Ah yes.

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.
Re:Bummer by oyenstikker · 2002-01-21 12:00 · Score: 1

its AOL. They don't do minor versions.

Redhat 8.0 "Best Redhat Ever!"

one bugfix later. . .

Redhat 9.0 "Best Redhat Ever!"

. . .

--
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
Re:Bummer by cpeterso · 2002-01-21 12:11 · Score: 1

"Red Hat AOLinux, so easy to use, no wonder it's number one!!"

--
cpeterso
Re:Bummer by Eccles · 2002-01-21 13:23 · Score: 5, Funny

...or to hear, "You've got root!"(TM)

--
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Re:Bummer by fobbman · 2002-01-21 14:12 · Score: 2, Redundant

This is horrible. I was *SO* looking forward to my free 1000 hours of RedHat...

You've Got Root!
Re:Bummer by Zordak · 2002-01-21 16:29 · Score: 1

@#&^@-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 13Echo · 2002-01-23 03:56 · Score: 1

Why don't you just make a wav. and script the machine to play it through dev/dsp when you log in as root.

Oh. That would be too easy.

"Welcome!"
"You've got root!"

but alan cox back in RH by vikool · 2002-01-21 11:15 · Score: 1

does this mean alan cox wont have to quit! -vikas

Really? by Lucky+Kevin · 2002-01-21 11:15 · Score: 1

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

Surely Not. by reaper20 · 2002-01-21 11:15 · Score: 2, Funny

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 ....

Re:Surely Not. by CatherineCornelius · 2002-01-21 11:23 · Score: 2

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]

Slackware by totallygeek · 2002-01-21 11:17 · Score: 2, Flamebait

Maybe AOL can get a better deal on Slackware? Someone with money needs to back them, or they will die. Anyone heard anything from Patrick?

--
Click here or here.

Re:Slackware by Anonymous+DWord · 2002-01-21 11:35 · Score: 3, Funny

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
Re:Slackware by Rasta+Prefect · 2002-01-21 11:49 · Score: 2

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...

--
Why?
Re:Slackware by Cro+Magnon · 2002-01-21 11:49 · Score: 1

AOL-Slack? Ugghh!! Please, not while I'm eating!

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Re:Slackware by commodoresloat · 2002-01-21 12:13 · Score: 1

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 Rooktoven · 2002-01-21 17:33 · Score: 1

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.

--

Acquiescence leads to obliteration
Re:Slackware by Viper233 · 2002-01-21 22:09 · Score: 1

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...

Yes laugh, it's good for you :)
Re:Slackware by fire-eyes · 2002-01-22 04:40 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Slackware by Cro+Magnon · 2002-01-22 05:21 · Score: 1

"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.
Re:Slackware by rifter · 2002-01-22 05:50 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Slackware by fire-eyes · 2002-01-22 11:21 · Score: 1

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 · 2002-01-21 11:19 · 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 · 2002-01-21 11:35 · 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 · 2002-01-21 11:41 · 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 · 2002-01-21 12:02 · 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....

Guess What ? by BESTouff · 2002-01-21 11:19 · Score: 1

Big stories for little air ... also starring Alan Cox ... THAT's Slashdot ! Can't wait for the next episode ;)

Hurray! by methangel · 2002-01-21 11:20 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Hurray! by asyncster · 2002-01-21 11:33 · Score: 1

> 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.
Re:Hurray! by etceteral · 2002-01-21 11:47 · Score: 3, Informative

Plus, AOL software only runs on Windows...

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."
Re:Hurray! by DavidRavenMoon · 2002-01-21 12:30 · Score: 1

Plus, AOL software only runs on Windows...
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 · 2002-01-21 11:20 · 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 kwj8fty1 · 2002-01-21 11:37 · 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 Menthos · 2002-01-21 13:09 · 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 · 2002-01-21 14:30 · 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 · 2002-01-21 15:01 · 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 · 2002-01-21 17:32 · 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 · 2002-01-21 17:42 · 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 · 2002-01-21 18:11 · 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 maxpublic · 2002-01-21 20:01 · 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 mshiltonj · 2002-01-21 23:21 · Score: 1

Having the backing of a huge media giant may help the linux cause

... Just like having bulimia helps you stay thin.

--
Software Wars
Re:Why would this be a bad thing? by Tony-A · 2002-01-22 04:08 · Score: 1

Hehe, if it was Microsoft Windows, they would all be dead.
Re:Why would this be a bad thing? by deeboTux · 2002-01-22 04:38 · 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 fiftyfly · 2002-01-24 05:18 · 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_ · 2002-01-21 11:21 · 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...

Rumors. by Restil · 2002-01-21 11:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Re:Rumors. by testuser58 · 2002-01-21 11:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:Rumors. by Restil · 2002-01-21 11:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

-Restil

--
Play with my webcams and lights here
Re:Rumors. by WNight · 2002-01-21 12:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Rumors. by RedBurton · 2002-01-22 04:13 · Score: 1

Question:
Why would AOL ship with IE and then buy RH? If they really are planning a big buy, are they attempting to lead the opensource leader into an ambush?
Re:Rumors. by Tony-A · 2002-01-22 05:09 · Score: 2

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.

Woohoo! by Glock27 · 2002-01-21 11:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's the news I was waiting to hear!

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. · 2002-01-21 11:24 · 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."

Reread... by Chagatai · 2002-01-21 11:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

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...

--
--Chag

Thank god...but... by petesmart · 2002-01-21 11:23 · Score: 1

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 · 2002-01-21 11:24 · 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 bero-rh · 2002-01-21 22:48 · Score: 2

They should of atleast had people working Saturday and Sunday

We do. I can't remember the last day I didn't work, for example.
We just aren't in the office on weekends and holidays. ;)

--
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
Re:I'm not buying it... by lkaos · 2002-01-22 13:26 · Score: 1

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.

--
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));

Curses by Skyshadow · 2002-01-21 11:24 · Score: 2

And here I was, all set to sell my shares of Red Hat and buy 'em back after this whole thing settled down.

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 see the ploy by 3prong · 2002-01-21 11:25 · Score: 5, Funny

I get it! This is cheap market research.

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 · 2002-01-21 11:40 · 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?"
Re:I see the ploy by Ilgaz · 2002-01-21 11:46 · Score: 1

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 · 2002-01-21 12:17 · 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.
Re:I see the ploy by mshiltonj · 2002-01-21 23:37 · Score: 1

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.

Microsoft could call the bluff, though.

Just a theory.

--
Software Wars
Re:I see the ploy by Tony-A · 2002-01-22 04:57 · Score: 2

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 · 2002-01-21 11:26 · 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 · 2002-01-21 11:26 · 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 · 2002-01-21 11:26 · 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.

This just in... by Guitarzan · 2002-01-21 11:27 · Score: 1

A news post, containing actual news, was actually submitted to slashdot and it was actually READ by one of the editors. :)

Lack of evidence doesn't disprove something by sam_handelman · 2002-01-21 11:28 · 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 · 2002-01-21 11:53 · 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 · 2002-01-21 22:03 · 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 · 2002-01-22 03:05 · 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...

--
Have you read the Moderator Guidelines yet?

Strange... by gignoux · 2002-01-21 11:33 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Strange... by Melantha_Bacchae · 2002-01-21 17:56 · Score: 2

gignoux writes:

> 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 · 2002-01-21 11:35 · 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!

--
I live under the bridge, in a pile of feces.

Re:Deep Throat by Logic+Bomb · 2002-01-21 11:38 · Score: 1

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... ;-)
Re:Deep Throat by testuser58 · 2002-01-21 11:50 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Deep Throat by ahde · 2002-01-21 15:36 · Score: 2

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 · 2002-01-21 11:35 · 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 · 2002-01-21 11:36 · 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.

--
Still #1 -- Lonely Gay Geek

Re:Top 11 Reasons AOL Wants to buy Red Hat by PlaysWithMatches · 2002-01-21 13:11 · Score: 1

Wow that's so funny. Congrats on new levels of plagiarism.

--

Mozilla's a nice operating system, but it needs a better browser.
Re:Top 11 Reasons AOL Wants to buy Red Hat by GeorgeFrancisco · 2002-01-21 13:57 · Score: 1

Nearly covered my monitor in tea when I read number 10. Curse you funny man. :-)

Wired... a bit late by Geeyzus · 2002-01-21 11:41 · Score: 1

Wired is picking up on this rumor/story a bit late....

Mark

Sources? by Smertrios · 2002-01-21 11:42 · Score: 1

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.

Lies, damned lies and... by Zillatron · 2002-01-21 11:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

My favorite part:

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.

--
Hey!!! the parentheses are good for something

Re:Lies, damned lies and... by rutledjw · 2002-01-21 13:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--

Computer Science is Applied Philosophy

said sources familiar with the matter by natslovR · 2002-01-21 11:49 · Score: 1

"... said sources familiar with the matter."

I bet they meant "... said sources invovled in the negotiations." :-)

Eureka by 3ryon · 2002-01-21 11:49 · Score: 1, Redundant

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.

--
Kind thoughts do not change the world

Re:Eureka by qurob · 2002-01-21 16:23 · Score: 1

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

It might have been by prisoner · 2002-01-21 11:54 · Score: 1

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 · 2002-01-21 11:55 · 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 · 2002-01-21 11:55 · 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 · 2002-01-21 11:57 · 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.

--
Erlang Developer and podcaster

AOL/GNU/Linux by Kappelmeister · 2002-01-21 11:57 · Score: 3, Funny

So easy to use, no wonder it has a negligible desktop market share!

That was too quick! by markov_chain · 2002-01-21 11:57 · Score: 1

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!

Dang by Ruis · 2002-01-21 11:58 · Score: 2, Funny

I was hoping to get a million red hat cd's in the mail.

This gave me a really good laugh... by rseuhs · 2002-01-21 12:00 · 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*) · 2002-01-21 12:12 · Score: 2

A-S-S-I-M-I-L-A-T-I-O-N
Re:This gave me a really good laugh... by fobbman · 2002-01-21 14:14 · Score: 2

No kidding. I just got back from the store where I merged with a gallon of milk and some M & M's.

"sources familiar with the matter" by samgrover · 2002-01-21 12:10 · 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 · 2002-01-21 12:16 · 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 · 2002-01-21 12:50 · 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 · 2002-01-21 16:15 · 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.
Re:Think before you rant! by Shabazz · 2002-01-21 20:21 · Score: 1

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 CaptIronfist · 2002-01-22 02:29 · 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 ;)

So Suprising.... by RadioheadKid · 2002-01-21 12:16 · Score: 1

Really that's not real, you mean /. had a incorrect story/rumor/bs...

--
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -Homer Simpson

no, a publisher by Xtifr · 2002-01-21 12:16 · Score: 1

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 · 2002-01-21 12:17 · Score: 1

And realized that they don't have to buy anything to use linux.

RH execs stopped selling stock? by molo · 2002-01-21 12:19 · Score: 2

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 · 2002-01-21 12:22 · Score: 2

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?

Credit For:Top 11 Reasons AOL Wants to buy Red Hat by GooRoo · 2002-01-21 12:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

Dude, at least give credit where credit is due.

Original link is from BBspot and can be viewed here.

OK, we all know what that means... by Junior+J.+Junior+III · 2002-01-21 12:29 · Score: 2

It's been officially denied.

Obviously this is going to happen for sure now.

--
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!

Microsoft owns CNET?? by tutal · 2002-01-21 12:34 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Microsoft owns CNET?? by tutal · 2002-01-21 12:46 · Score: 1

An interesting note word count in article:

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 · 2002-01-21 12:35 · 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. =)

--
Still #1 -- Lonely Gay Geek

Re:Credit For:Top 11 Reasons AOL Wants to buy Red by Ironix · 2002-01-21 12:38 · Score: 1

Damn Spell check! I meant PLADGERIZE not PIDGINIZE

But I do suppose I could say pidginize as well. ;-)

--
Still #1 -- Lonely Gay Geek

Why don't they just buy Apple? by ab11 · 2002-01-21 12:40 · 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 · 2002-01-21 14:20 · 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 dangermouse · 2002-01-21 19:14 · 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.

See what happens? by jimlintott · 2002-01-21 12:41 · Score: 1

Have you ever stuck your toe in water just to watch the ripples?

Linux CDs in the mail? by cosyne · 2002-01-21 12:41 · 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.

Next rumor by sunhou · 2002-01-21 12:43 · Score: 1

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 · 2002-01-21 12:52 · 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.

--
Get your Unix fortune now!

Re:Credit For:Top 11 Reasons AOL Wants to buy Red by Captain+Nitpick · 2002-01-21 12:55 · Score: 1

Damn Spell check! I meant PLADGERIZE not PIDGINIZE

ITYM plagiarize . HTH.

You should also be attributing your .sig quote to Richard Feynman.

--
But then again, I could be wrong.

And of course.... by ajdecon · 2002-01-21 12:55 · Score: 1

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

Not Debian by Goonie · 2002-01-21 13:00 · Score: 1

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.

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?)

Re:Not Debian by spamkabuki · 2002-01-21 14:21 · Score: 1

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.

--
Sig?
Sigue Sigue Sputnik!!!

After thinking about it.. by LinuxHam · 2002-01-21 13:00 · 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?

--
Intelligent Life on Earth

Re:Credit For:Top 11 Reasons AOL Wants to buy Red by Ironix · 2002-01-21 13:00 · Score: 1

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

It would have been glorious by btempleton · 2002-01-21 13:17 · 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.

--
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation

a long article, signifying nothing by Apostata · 2002-01-21 13:19 · 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 · 2002-01-21 13:50 · 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 · 2002-01-21 13:58 · 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 · 2002-01-21 13:29 · 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.

Two Possibilities by istartedi · 2002-01-21 13:40 · Score: 2

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"?

Re:Two Possibilities by gwillden · 2002-01-22 01:36 · Score: 1

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.

Re:So Cox really did scare them off ... by mboedick · 2002-01-21 13:56 · Score: 1

> Guess they didn't want Redhat without Cox.
> So now they just pretend it never happened.

They love the Cox.

Red Hat, or Dark Helmet? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-21 14:03 · 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.

You're kidding? by ahde · 2002-01-21 14:18 · Score: 1, Offtopic

C'mon, how reliable is this source?

Red Hat means saving money? by kenneth_martens · 2002-01-21 14:32 · 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 · 2002-01-21 18:12 · 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.

Of course they deny it by Amiga · 2002-01-21 14:33 · Score: 1

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.

Explanation/Correction by Jay+L · 2002-01-21 14:33 · Score: 2

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."

Re:Explanation/Correction by Kirruth · 2002-01-22 08:41 · Score: 1

"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."

Re:So Cox really did scare them off ... by The+Pi-Guy · 2002-01-21 14:44 · Score: 1

No, they knew that if it went through, AOL.com couldn't handle the /. effect! :-P

--joshua

Of course.. by Ogerman · 2002-01-21 15:29 · Score: 1

..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

Huh? by Hal-9001 · 2002-01-21 15:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

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 · 2002-01-21 16:08 · Score: 1

Gig ethernet * 30 million users - 300baud

sounds about right

Commentary, not news. by isaac_akira · 2002-01-21 16:29 · Score: 2

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).

Re:Commentary, not news. by Tony-A · 2002-01-22 05:32 · Score: 2

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?"

Linux users amuse me. by magnwa · 2002-01-21 16:32 · Score: 1

"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

Re:Really who cares? by greymond · 2002-01-21 16:50 · Score: 1

I own redhat stock and run 7.1 on my system - it affects me :)

--
Ave Molech Setting

Oh well. by rice_burners_suck · 2002-01-21 17:01 · Score: 2

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

Purchase Be. by Picass0 · 2002-01-21 17:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re:Purchase Be. by evand · 2002-01-21 17:37 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Purchase Be. by Junta · 2002-01-22 04:33 · Score: 2

*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:No Free Red-Hat CD's in the mail? (by the dozen by Pogue+Mahone · 2002-01-21 18:35 · 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]

Alan's golden parachute ... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-01-21 18:53 · 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 ...

Saw it coming by quantaman · 2002-01-21 19:29 · Score: 1

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 · 2002-01-21 20:06 · 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 · 2002-01-21 20:30 · 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.

Why listen to CNET? by evilviper · 2002-01-21 20:56 · Score: 2

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

RedHat and AOL Know More than CNET by nagora · 2002-01-21 21:07 · Score: 1

And they haven't denied it yet, AFAIK

TWW

--
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"

Would it really be so bad? by doggo · 2002-01-22 00:27 · Score: 1

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.

I'm puzzled. by jakew · 2002-01-22 00:27 · Score: 1

How can there be sources close to the matter?Isn't that like talking to eyewitnesses of something that didn't happen?

You're too negative... by da5idnetlimit.com · 2002-01-22 02:07 · Score: 1

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:And not just them... by Red+Rocket · 2002-01-22 02:42 · 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!

Maybe everybody should look at JWZ's comments... by Brendan+Byrd · 2002-01-22 03:41 · Score: 2

...on this matter, or at least his beef with Netscape getting bought out by AOL. Here: 1 2

Both are good reads.

--
Zodiac Survey

And the "definitive" answer is... by gwillden · 2002-01-22 06:45 · Score: 1

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.

Two different audiences... by Yoda2 · 2002-01-22 09:08 · Score: 1

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.

Slackware uptime by totallygeek · 2002-01-22 09:26 · Score: 2

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.

--
Click here or here.

You had me worried by jdavidb · 2002-01-22 17:19 · Score: 2

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.

Slashdot Mirror

No Red Hat-AOL Merger In The Works, Says CNET

191 of 285 comments (clear)