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."
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Not only that, you can get a lot of AOL CD's for free as well. They are a pair of perfectly matched companies...
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.
Credit For:Top 11 Reasons AOL Wants to buy Red Hat
by
GooRoo
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Dude, at least give credit where credit is due.
Original link is from BBspot and can be viewed here.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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
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
Not only that, you can get a lot of AOL CD's for free as well. They are a pair of perfectly matched companies...
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.
Dude, at least give credit where credit is due.
Original link is from BBspot and can be viewed here.
...or to hear, "You've got root!"(TM)
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.