Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AOL To Finally Switch To Mozilla?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the yes-it-appears-to-be-so dept.

pitabutter writes "Sounds like AOL is joining the list of companies making the internal switch to Linux, taking their default browser choice along with them. Oddly, second article in a short time linking AOL and Red Hat. " As with all things with AOL/Mozilla, I'll actually believe it when the darn thing ships - but the internal switch to Linux is something that I've also heard from people.

6 of 383 comments (clear)

  1. Doesn't this say it all? by wackybrit · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As far as an AOL client for Linux, one Linux-using AOL employee says, "How many Linux people do you know personally who would sign up for AOL if we had a Linux client? I don't know a single one, myself. I have an account with another ISP I use at home with my Linux box, and probably wouldn't use AOL from home even if I could."

    'Linux people'? It's no surprise that Linux won't make it onto the average desktop with that sort of attitude.

    Their reckoning is that.. all Linux users are nerds so they don't need to use such a crappy ISP. That might be true now but if AOL doesn't offer a Linux client then they're implying that they think Linux will continue to remain a nerd interest.

    With support like that from the biggest companies in the world, who needs enemies?

    --
    mogorific carpentry experiments
    1. Re:Doesn't this say it all? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 4, Interesting
      'Linux people'? It's no surprise that Linux won't make it onto the average desktop with that sort of attitude.

      Actually (hides face in shame) I would have loved an AOL Linux client a while ago. My family used AOL at the time because a) it was cheap and b) it worked freecall with the UK cable network. An AOL client would have been great - unfortunately there wasn't one of course so we had to leave AOL and switch to NTL World which are pretty bad, worse even than AOL!

      So while they may have a point now, the makeup of 'Linux people' is changing, and is moving further away from the geek demographic all the time. thanks -mike

    2. Re:Doesn't this say it all? by Surak · · Score: 5, Interesting

      With support like that from the biggest companies in the world, who needs enemies?

      I'll make a prediction right now...Do I have to say it? Oh, I guess I do...

      AOL/TW will buy Red Hat. They're looking to break free of Microsoft, especially since Microsoft basically screwed them over with XP. They will finally make good on a Mozilla/AOL client, they will release versions for Linux and Windows and continue with the strategy that Linux is the cheapest way to get AOL into every household in America.

      People buying computers just to get on the Internet (there's still a lot of those) will buy Linux machines (without really knowing why) that have AOL installed on them. Microsoft will slowly lose their grip on the consumer desktop market...

      They'll continue to own the commercial market until the same twits who insist on the use of Windows in the commercial market because it "looks just like what i've got at home" will have Linux at home, and then they'll want that because it "looks just like what I've got at home."

      Boom, Microsoft's stranglehold on the desktop fails, Linux takes over and utopia finally sets in.

      Whatcha think? Too far fetched? :-P

      --
      My journal has hot /. gossip.
    3. Re:Doesn't this say it all? by liquidsin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'd like to take that one step further though. I'd like to see AOL/TW buy RedHat and develop it into AOL-OS (or some such named product). All the power of linux, all the ease-of-use of AOL - which is to say, damn simple. Eventually, phase out the Windows version entirely. You want AOL? Gotta use AOL-OS. But that's a good thing, since it's cheaper than Windows and, with all that AOL/TW cash behind a linux distro, way more stable. Now THAT'd be cool...I'd almost use AOL for that ;)

      --
      do not read this line twice.
  2. Less IE specific content (hopefully) by cheekymonkey_68 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't care if they're just doing this to save money, the end result could benefit all web users so its "a good thing" tm and the only people this will hurt are those companies making IE only sites

    This could mean that web developers might finally be allowed to write html conforming sites, rather than the current notion of supporting the current two generations of IE and thats it.

    Perhaps the bean counters will start to think of making websites more accessible when a large minority of users suddenly don't use IE.

    Like it or not AOL users make up a significant number of internet users (30% in the US for ex), and if AOL uses Mozilla for the client it can only increase web standards compliance... hopefully we'll start to see more sites that don't purely rely on Microsoft's interpretation of the html standards and actually try to reach the widest possible audience by making standards compliant web sites.

    From the article:-

    The only thing that might delay -- not stop, just delay -- AOL's change from Explorer to a Mozilla-based browser is allowing time for some of AOL's largest and most important "partner sites" to do away with any Explorer-specific features they have been using in place of W3C standards.

    A browser shift by AOL is going to leave an awful lot of companies that assume their Web sites only need to work with Explorer scrambling to rewrite their code so that they don't lose AOL's 30 million-plus subscribers, or about 30% of all U.S. Internet users.

  3. ThreeThings I Want To Know... by great+throwdini · · Score: 4, Interesting

    1. We all seem to know that AOL on Wintel utilizes the Microsoft rendering engine. What does AOL for MacOS use?

    2. Has AOL ever used a rendering engine for either platform other than the one(s) used now?

    3. If AOL has switched in the past, what was the motivation then?

    (Finally, a reason to use my +1 bonus.)