Slashdot Mirror


LindowsOS Will Bundle AOL Client

ealar dlanvuli writes "BuisnessWeek Online is reporting that AOL/TW and Lindows have decided to work together in bundling a version of Netscape 7 with future Lindows products. One wonders if they should instead be supporting OEone and making it scream."

73 of 181 comments (clear)

  1. Misleading Headline by krmt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Man, what a piss-poor headline. I was actually excited for a second, hoping that there really would be a client for AOL *the service* bundled with Lindows. But no... it's just Netscape 7, which isn't any more functionally than Mozilla really (less in some areas).

    I would have personally loved an AOL client on Linux. My family has used AOL for years, both as a primary ISP and a secondary service. I've had the same email account on AOL for years (yes, it's spam-ridden, but a lot of my friends still use it) and it would be nice to be able to access it via some method other than their (once crappy, now much better) webmail interface.

    In addition to that, there's the fact that having AOL for Linux would give it another crucial app for desktop migration. Not that I'd expect it to work nearly as nicely in setting up your internet connection on Linux as it does on Windows or Mac, which is where AOL really shines, but the ability to access their full service would be nice.

    But no. We get Netscape, something the whole of Unix has pretty much outgrown with Konqueror, Opera, Mozilla, and its spinoffs. Too bad, back to waiting.

    --

    "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

    1. Re:Misleading Headline by krmt · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's dwindled a lot over the years, especially as a lot of the content has moved on to public webservers. But basically a lot of media companies pay for the privledge to be a part of AOL, and they often provide some content to AOL users that they don't give to the outside world.

      I personally rarely use AOL for anything but email and AIM now that the web has grown so much. The real benefit would be the ability to admin my email account and the like, which I can't do without a real AOL app.

      But I'm a really clued user. There's millions who aren't. A lot of people stay right there within the bounds that AOL sets. It's very organized and fairly well set up. Every portal site you've ever seen is basically a rip off of the AOL model of organizing information for the user, and occasionally personalizing something. It's passe to do that on the web now, but it was once a very nice thing.

      And as for the ISP part, you can't connect to AOL if they're your primary ISP through Linux. They don't use standard ppp or the like, but something proprietary.

      --

      "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

    2. Re:Misleading Headline by DrXym · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Ho hum. Netscape *does* have more functionality in some areas. For starters it ships with an AIM/ICQ client, has a spellchecker, a radio button and ties into Netscape/AOL sites and all the content that brings, not to mention that it has been tested to within an inch of its life. You wouldn't get equivalent stability from Mozilla unless you stuck with the 1.0.x branch. It certainly doesn't have the DOM inspector, JS debugger or Chatzilla, but then most new users wouldn't care about those anyway.


      Now, is links to Netscape/AOL sites functionality? Well not to someone who knows their away around (from using the web already), who knows about Google, DMoz etc. and has no fear. But we're not talking about people like that - this is someone buying a $199 PC from Walmart here! Newbies need guidance, they need form, they need hand holding and services like AOL and Netscape 7.0 provide that. You might not like it but there it is. New users appreciate being immediately able to read news, shop, chat with friends without struggling for hours in frustration to figure it out before giving up. From Lindow's perspective it cuts down on their support calls, and perhaps Walmart will experience fewer returns too. So everyone wins, profit for Lindows & Walmart and a better experience for the user.


      It's no different from learning to swim - you can teach someone in the shallow end with water wings and instruction or throw them into the deep end and walk away. Which approach do you think will be more effective, and which will lead to severe trauma and lots of dead bodies?

    3. Re:Misleading Headline by DrXym · · Score: 2

      Bingo. And long after Mozilla 1.0 went out the door, bugs and fixes will still being applied to the branch. If you upgrade to Mozilla 1.0.1, 1.0.2 you'll get the fixes but. The trunk gets fixes and flakey new code and less testing which lowers its stability considerably.

  2. Re:Linux and AOL by technix4beos · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Imagine how many more people the linux community would add if there was a STABLE platform for AOL.

    You would have a captive audience. What more do you want?

    --
    user@host$ diff /dev/urandom /dev/uspto
  3. Good Entry Point by e8johan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is a good point to insert Linux onto the desktop of average Joe. Despite Lindows licensing tricks they open a door for open source software.

    As Windows licenses are expensive it would be nice to see for example Dell to supply computers pre-installed with Lindows. This would still let the average user to use Excel, Word, etc. But allows easy installation and adoption of applications such as KOffice, Gimp etc.

    Today it is hard to get a Windows computer to run *nix (open source) apps in a native looking way, but this could change all that.

  4. LindowsOS is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    It is official; Netcraft now confirms: LindowsOS is dying

    One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered LindowsOS community when IDC confirmed that LindowsOS market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that LindowsOS has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. LindowsOS is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

    You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict LindowsOS's future. The hand writing is on the wall: LindowsOS faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for LindowsOS because LindowsOS is dying. Things are looking very bad for LindowsOS. As many of us are already aware, LindowsOS continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

    LindowsOS is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time LindowsOS developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: LindowsOS is dying.

    Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

    OpenLindowsOS leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenLindowsOS. How many users of NetLindowsOS are there? Let's see. The number of OpenLindowsOS versus NetLindowsOS posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetLindowsOS users. LindowsOS/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetLindowsOS posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of LindowsOS/OS. A recent article put FreeLindowsOS at about 80 percent of the LindowsOS market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeLindowsOS users. This is consistent with the number of FreeLindowsOS Usenet posts.

    Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeLindowsOS went out of business and was taken over by LindowsOSI who sell another troubled OS. Now LindowsOSI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

    All major surveys show that LindowsOS has steadily declined in market share. LindowsOS is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If LindowsOS is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. LindowsOS continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, LindowsOS is dead.

    Fact: LindowsOS is dying

  5. Re:Linux and AOL by FuzzzyLogik · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Much to our disappointment, companies like Lindows and the other "easy to use" distros are trying to convert those windows users (yes the ones that don't know how to run word if the interface suddenly looked a little funny, like gtk or qt, atleast that's the argument). In other words, having AOL for linux is a good thing for THEM, not necessarily for US the ones that know how to use our machines just fine the way they are. So with this wonderful "ease of use" comes dumbed down applications and windows looking/acting distro's. AOL has been a prime candidate for this for a long time. it was inevitable.

    Logik

  6. One would also wonder... by Jugalator · · Score: 2

    ... why they put in Netscape 7 instead of Mozilla 1.1? Why this sudden interest in AOL products?

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    1. Re:One would also wonder... by dgil · · Score: 3

      Because AOL will buy the Lindows company ?

    2. Re:One would also wonder... by evilviper · · Score: 2

      Last time I checked (hmm, about 30 minutes ago) Netscape 7.0 has nearly all the functionality of Mozilla, as well as being able to configure cookies based on privacy settings, and it's been much further tested, optomized, and debugged than Mozilla.

      So, if you want to block images frm 3rd party servers, from specific servers, or block JUST the unwanted popups (you can block js popups), then you have to stick with Mozilla. If you are willing to give up those things, and would possibly also like to have much finer control over cookies (based on a sites privacy settings), then go for Netscape 7.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    3. Re:One would also wonder... by Jugalator · · Score: 2

      Also, I have a feeling Netscape 7 lacks the new features and bug fixes of Mozilla 1.1 since it's using 1.0.1 as base.

      The cookie settings in Mozilla is good enough for me and I really like both the adblocking features of Mozilla and the abscence of AOL so I think I've made up my mind.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    4. Re:One would also wonder... by evilviper · · Score: 2
      I have yet to see a single Mozilla 1.2 feature that Netscape 7 doesn't have.

      However, I can't speak for bug fixes.

      and I really like both the adblocking features of Mozilla and the abscence of AOL

      Well, I do my adblocking through Privoxy, which gives me much finer-grainded control (I did a lot of configuration one, and it's been months of surfing various sites since I've seen an ad... Oh the powers of pattern, rather than just URLS).

      And AOL? Come on! After disabling all the crap on the personal toolbar (e.g. Shop, Search, keywords), I can't remember seeing a single ad in Netscape 7.

      Anyhow, just throwing the info out there... Use whatever you like.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    5. Re:One would also wonder... by Jugalator · · Score: 2

      I have yet to see a single Mozilla 1.2 feature that Netscape 7 doesn't have.

      Type Ahead Find?
      More shortcut keys?
      Attaching multiple messages to e-mails?
      Improved XML support?
      A rather serious e-mail bug?

      Just naming a few from the 1.2 release notes.
      Perhaps some changes was introduced prematurely in Netscape 7, but I doubt all of them were.

      This is also from 1.2. I'm not sure if Netscape 7 even has all the 1.1 improvements since it was, after all, based on 1.0.1.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    6. Re:One would also wonder... by evilviper · · Score: 2

      That is a weak list of improvements. More shortcut keys I won't call a feature, an I'd bet you won't even notice if they aren't there. Improved XML support means you click one less button. And I didn't even attempt to account for bugs.

      I can't speak for TypeAhead Find, since I did not even install that, so I don't even know what it is.

      Yes, you are able to copy/paste. It takes quite a bit more work than that though.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    7. Re:One would also wonder... by Jugalator · · Score: 2

      That is a weak list of improvements.

      ... according to you.

      More shortcut keys I won't call a feature

      So you actually use the mouse to use software quickly? I'd call more/better shortcuts a feature that allows you to use the software more efficiently.

      Improved XML support means you click one less button

      ??? I'm talking about the improved XML visualization a la Internet Explorer.

      I can't speak for TypeAhead Find, since I did not even install that, so I don't even know what it is.

      You should -- it's an innovative (and unique) feature allowing you to navigate through the links in a web page more quickly. Some think of it as the major new feature in 1.2.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    8. Re:One would also wonder... by evilviper · · Score: 2
      you actually use the mouse to use software quickly?

      No. I said that, because all the common actions already have adequate shortcuts. Just because now you can hit a couple keys to open the js debugger, and things like that, it's not a major feature.

      improved XML visualization a la Internet Explorer.

      Yup. Improved visualization for those pages that are pure XML AND do NOT have a style sheet. This is so you don't have to 'view source' to see it in this format. A trivial feature.

      Some think of it as the major new feature in 1.2.

      Hey, I'm not the one telling them to incriment version numbers for every single little feature... That said, I'll take a look at it sometime
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  7. Re:Linux and AOL by Pulzar · · Score: 2

    Here's one for you right away.

    The point is moot, anyway, since they're not really bundling the AOL client, but just Netscape (which is what the poster above is complaining about).

    --
    Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
  8. Re:Linux and AOL by krmt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'll give you one example. My family, until the last two weeks, used AOL as their primary ISP. They have tons of hard drive space, and I could have potentially set up a partition with Linux on it for when I come home, and for my little brothers to experiment and play on.

    However, I know from a lot of experience that Linux is really difficult to learn if you don't either have someone right there teaching you or an internet connection, and I wasn't going to be there all the time for my brothers. So I didn't bother with Linux because it wouldn't have been that useful or comfortable for me. With an AOL client, someone like me could get their internet connection on Linux.

    Another example is a friend who was curious about Linux after I had talked it up so much. So I installed Mandrake as a dual boot for him to experiment with. His family uses AOL as their only ISP. He couldn't really stay in Linux very long before he found he needed the internet for something. The best way to learn Linux is to use it, and he wasn't really able to use it to learn it.

    I could go on, but I think you get the idea. The ability to move over slowly to Linux is important, and it's much harder to experiment when you can't get help online (IRC, google, discussion boards are critical resources). An AOL client would help those millions of people with curious kids and AOL as an ISP to try Linux.

    --

    "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

  9. It's not "Linux" - and that's the point by Zeddicus_Z · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Lindows isn't aimed at your average Linux geek. Its core market will be people who want a cheap, functional OS (at the very least, cheap rules out MS solutions) but don't/can't/won't/ use GNU/Linux.

    To misquote the oft-cited Slashdot Linux line - "I'm going to install (%distro) on my parent's home machine!" But would you really? Would you really install Red Hat or Mandrake on your parent's machine, when you know all they need is a web browser, an email client and perhaps an instant messenger client? Would you *really* take the time to install it, secure it, solve dependency issues and then *teach* them step-by-step how to use the OS until they reached the point where they weren't calling you five times a week for support?

    The entire reason Lindows exists is to provide a cheap, functional and easy-to-use alternative to Microsoft on the desktop. They seem to have the first part worked out, but it remains to be seen if they can get the last two right.

    Linux geeks aren't going to replace their Debian or Gentoo boxes with Lindows, because its not what most of them want (primarily). If Lindows fails to get the "mum and dad" and "I just want to do my homework and then use IRC" groups of people, than it will die a slow and painfull death.

    That is why an AOL client on the Lindows desktop would be beneficial. It's a quick, easy and relatively painless way to get normal, non-tech-savvy users on the 'Net.

    Of course, this is all rather academic because if you'd read the article, you'd know that the headline is BS and that the linked story talks about including Netscape 7, not AOL.

    --
    Janie took my gun...
    1. Re:It's not "Linux" - and that's the point by elgaard · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I installed Debian on my parents computer.
      Most of their needs are covered with Konqueror,
      Kghostview (for pdf), Xmms, Kmail, Kword, xcdroast, and CUPS.
      They don't call me for support all the time. And when they
      do, it is very easy. Last week I SSH'ed to their computer,
      ran Konqueror, and changed a setting.

      I can see the use of Lindows or similar systems:

      1) You can get it preinstalled.

      2) Its supposedly easy to install. I dont know if my
      parents could install Lindows, but they certaintly could
      not install Debian. I don't think they could install Windows.

      3) Running windows programs. My dad wants to
      run an old shareware windows 3.11 atronomy program.
      (Kstars is not enough--yet).
      Maybe vanilla Wine can do it, but I will have to set it up.

      4) Easy to maintain. Adding and updating programs.

      My experience is that a standard desktop (They use KDE
      but im sure Gnome would do it too) is already good enough.
      Maybe something like Lindows can remove the need
      for a son that can install it and maintain packages.

    2. Re:It's not "Linux" - and that's the point by Wdomburg · · Score: 2

      >Would you really install Red Hat or Mandrake on
      >your parent's machine, when you know all they
      >need is a web browser, an email client and
      >perhaps an instant messenger client? Would you
      >*really* take the time to install it, secure it,
      >solve dependency issues and then *teach* them
      >step-by-step how to use the OS until they reached
      >the point where they weren't calling you five
      >times a week for support?

      I'm not going to come out and say flat out installing is necessarily the best idea for your parents, but you're overexagerating the difficulting of setting up Red Hat (not sure about Mandrake).

      Install it = 10 minutes, mostly choosing packages.

      Secure it = 5 minutes, one click to set up a firewall that rejects all incoming connections, half a dozen clicks to register the machines with RHN.

      Solving dependency issues = 0 minutes, the installer does this automatically.

      Teaching the 'rents = ??. Well, it depends. We're talking about just web, mail and IM here, right? Well, the default apps from Lindows are all the available in Red Hat, so there really shouldn't be any appreciable difference. Or, if you're like me and prefer GNOME, you can set up Galeon, Gaim and Evolution, all of which are just as easy to learn.

      My mother first learned how to use a computer when she stayed with me for six months. At the time (around 1997?) she ended up using my machine, which was running Afterstep (classic), Postilion and Netscape 4.0.x. My total time teaching her consisted of a half hour of showing her what the programs did, after which she proceeded to take over my computer for a week. When she finally *did* get a Windows PC for herself, she complained that it was harder to use than the desktop I spent five minutes configuring.

      Mind you, I'm not going to argue this is typical, but my point is that the basic functionality of two or three apps does not necessarily equate to five support calls a week. Since there's not a huge amount of difference between Windows and Linux offerings, it shouldn't take anyone long to figure out "click on new message to send, duh, a new message" or "type the url in this little box thingie to get to a web page" on EITHER platform.

      Matt

    3. Re:It's not "Linux" - and that's the point by rseuhs · · Score: 2
      To misquote the oft-cited Slashdot Linux line - "I'm going to install (%distro) on my parent's home machine!" But would you really? Would you really install Red Hat or Mandrake on your parent's machine, when you know all they need is a web browser, an email client and perhaps an instant messenger client? Would you *really* take the time to install it, secure it, solve dependency issues and then *teach* them step-by-step how to use the OS until they reached the point where they weren't calling you five times a week for support?

      Actually this is a perfect example.

      With SuSE, I pop in the DVD and less than an hour later I have a complete system, no dependency issues and no hassles complete with Office-suite, mp3 player and ICQ.

      With Windows, on the other hand, even when it's preinstalled, you would have to install Winzip, Winamp, MS Office, ICQ and a lot of other stuff.

      Of course you also have to value the bucks to buy MS Office or the time to warez it.

      Yes, OpenOffice exists for Windows, too, but that also has to be downloaded, which takes a lot of time.

      If you don't need many games, Linux is the way to go. Right now.

    4. Re:It's not "Linux" - and that's the point by jce · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I just setup a machine for my in-laws last night, Mandrake 8.2. After getting through the "you are not running Windows 4.8, that is Netscape a web browers not an OS." talk, I configured thier dial-up (Earthlink) and showed them Mozilla, Mozilla mail, and the kppp app. This is all they ever really used under windows. I did install OpenOffice.org but I doubt they will ever start it.

      Now here is where the problems start. They have a service called Callwave (www.callwave.com) that takes messages for them while they are online. This of course does not support Linux. 10 mins of explaining what this means and they think they can do without it. Next I am handed a copy of Norton Anit-virus, I don't try to explain I just set it down on the desk.

      The big problem I see is end users (my in-laws in thier 60's, your aunt Joan, etc..) see a computer as a computer, and computers run Windows (or Netscape depending on thier frame of mind) and they just don't get why this machine won't run _all_ the applications they have and anything they download or more likely are sent in an email. I know this system will be reinstalled with windows as soon as my sister in-law sends them a "homemade" greeting card generated by some windows greeting card generator that produces a dancing bear and plays a midi of happy birthday all wrapped up in B-day.exe.

      I know this will happen but I am fine with it I orginally bought this machice for my father, who has never used a PC and had no idea about windows or linux. Well his wife (not my mom) finds out that this new machine does not "have Windows" and pitches a hissy. So I take the machine and my in-laws want to try it out. I tell them it does not run Windows and they are game for giving it a go. I see this a some progress.

      Some people _need_ windows because they do things you can't do under Linux in a user friendly way, like syncing a IPAQ running PocketPC 2002 (my wife has this problem, and no she would let me put linux on the IPAQ.) But the web+email+IM=computing crowd really has no attachment to windows, apart from that is what they are use to running. I say give it a try and if you don't like it go back to windows, if you do like it you have saved some cash and made your son in-law's trouble shooting your computer problems much easier. Easier to use distros (Lindows, Lycoris, and Xandros) might make this easier but the same problems of running silly greeting cards, and applications they are use to will still remain windows has the largest base of non-tech savy user and unless someone makes wine perfect, bundles everything codeweavers makes and ports IE into a distro, we will still have problems doing the parents linux install.

    5. Re:It's not "Linux" - and that's the point by einhverfr · · Score: 2



      To misquote the oft-cited Slashdot Linux line - "I'm going to install (%distro) on my parent's home machine!" But would you really? Would you really install Red Hat or Mandrake on your parent's machine, when you know all they need is a web browser, an email client and perhaps an instant messenger client? Would you *really* take the time to install it, secure it, solve dependency issues and then *teach* them step-by-step how to use the OS until they reached the point where they weren't calling you five times a week for support?


      You don't give the agerage user enough credit. I DID install Red Hat 6.2 on my parents' home computer. (Acutally I built a new computer to replace their Windows 95 system). After a 5 minute tour of GNOME, they started using the computer, and they actually stopped using Windows, and they *stopped* calling me for support. Keep in mind 2 things that probably worked to my advantage:

      1: My parents were not very familiar with Windows.
      2: I spent a fair amount of time customizing their desktop, making sure that they could do the things that they wanted to easily.
      3: My parents use their computer for word processing, spreadsheets, www, and email. Not much else.

      Of course, they are now running Red Hat 7.1 and don't ever want to go back ;)

      AOL claims to be easy to use, but if other ISP's were hard to use, I don't think they could survive. Additionally, I see no reason why an ISP could not use an automated script (maybe in TCL?) to add their settings to a Linux box. So I don't buy the ease-of-use argument.

      The real reason for supporting AOL is one thing and one thing only-- AOL is the largest ISP. And unlike MSN, they probably are happy to support Linux users ;)

      This isn't about ease of use, it is about popularity. And I for one think that the Linux vendors who want to push into the home market will need to address this issue. Of course, what money can be made from the home market directly? I don't know, and I think RedHat and Mandrake will eventually own this market too by working with OEM's once there is market-share in corporate desktops (1-2 years).

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  10. Re:Linux and AOL by krmt · · Score: 2

    AOL uses a proprietary login scheme. You can't log in to their servers unless you've got the application layer lying well above the ethernet card to allow it. I've never been to Europe, let alone tried to access AOL there without a client, but I'd imagine it's much the same.

    And don't act like the days of modems are dead. The majority of people in the US still use them. We may be backwards, but it's still a fact.

    --

    "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

  11. Re:Anyone else notice... by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 2, Informative

    I think (I'm guessing here) that this is just the default favicon for certain Web server software (probably iPlanet). If the favicon isn't specified, it automatically becomes a Netscape logo. There are heaps of sites like this.

  12. Stop Press: AOL Claims Netscape 7 Use Icons by Jugalator · · Score: 5, Funny

    Look:

    With its AOL licensing deal, the Lindows said that consumers can enjoy the versatility of Netscape browser and communications capabilities right out-of-the-box with an icon-driven interface.

    Whoa - icons! Let me get this straight... Are they saying they'll use those new, often abstract, graphic representations of commands you give to the computer? This, my friends, seem to be a browser for the 21st century. Let's all embrace Netscape 7 in all its glory.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  13. Nice! by miffo.swe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Its nice that more userfriendly alternatives comes out on linux. If AOL supports linux it will mean that more users will have the ability to try it out. Surely not all will stay but some like me will quickly fall madly inlove.

    An interface like AOL makes lindows idiot friendly. Many of you 373343 hAxx0r5 may find that disturbing but i like the spinoffs it makes. More users means more people bugging hardware manufacturers to release drivers for consumer products etc.

    I think its high time we stop snearing at newbs and people that just want to use the box, not administer it. Compare to autos and the development from daily self service from the beginning to almost no service today. It is inevitable that things is done by automation in the future. Who wants to work on their car every day just to drive to work?

    Just like with cars self service of computers will become a hobby someday.

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
    1. Re:Nice! by Jugalator · · Score: 2

      Its nice that more userfriendly alternatives comes out on linux. If AOL supports linux it will mean that more users will have the ability to try it out.

      Why?

      Would including Mozilla stop them from trying it out? How is Mozilla harder to use than IE?

      An interface like AOL makes lindows idiot friendly. Many of you 373343 hAxx0r5 may find that disturbing but i like the spinoffs it makes.

      The browsers of the current major Linux distributions are easy to use. The Lynx days are fortunately days of the past. You can make Mozilla identical to IE with a simple reskin.

      I still fail to understand how AOL would automatically make a Linux distribution easy to use, where no involvement with AOL would make it mostly just useful for "l33t h4x0rz".

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    2. Re:Nice! by miffo.swe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I didnt mean that this is the mother of all usability. What i meant was the more alternatives the bigger chance of someone hitting the spot.

      The world is full of greyscales not black and white.

      "I still fail to understand how AOL would automatically make a Linux distribution easy to use, where no involvement with AOL would make it mostly just useful for "l33t h4x0rz""

      I complained about how some of us that have used linux a longer period sometimes snear at the average user. I can manage linux quite well but thats because i love it and have the incentive to mock around with settings. For someone that wants a clean tool it can sometimes be a little to complicated and if someone caters that need it will benefit us all in the long run.

      An AOL client would make the transition for those used to it much esier on linux. As for mozilla its a developers version and that shows whenever you want to install a new plugin or java. Netscape is more targeted at the normal user of windows and not the normal user of linux. The normal user of windows is what this would target.

      --
      HTTP/1.1 400
    3. Re:Nice! by Jugalator · · Score: 2

      The world is full of greyscales not black and white.

      Heh... I didn't sound like that from the statement: "An interface like AOL makes lindows idiot friendly". Period. Sounded pretty definite to me, but I get your point now. :)

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    4. Re:Nice! by rseuhs · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I still fail to understand how AOL would automatically make a Linux distribution easy to use, where no involvement with AOL would make it mostly just useful for "l33t h4x0rz".

      It's all marketing. AOL has like Apple a great marketing department, anything AOL or Apple does will be called easy to use while the same features will be called "only for geeks" when some normal distribution offers them.

  14. All this Lindows hype - What about Mandrake ? by bushboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It seems Mandrake always gets left out in the cold when it comes to hyping a "Linux for the masses" desktop solution.

    Mandrake is perfectly positioned to fill all the needs of a home Linux user, from the beginner right through to the advanced user.

    As for AOL teaming up with Lindows - all that is mentioned in the article is Netscape 7.0 being 'integrated' with Lindows.
    In short, all this means right now is that Lindows will use Netscape as it's primary web browser.

    The whole thing is just one ugly "Lets get on the Linux bandwagon to screw Microsoft" marketing stunt.

    The last thing Linux needs is meddling and interference by AOL/Time Warner - can you just imagine. If they adopt Linux in a big way, in a few years, they'll be claiming they invented it and will add tons of proprietary closed source bunk.

    --
    A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
    1. Re:All this Lindows hype - What about Mandrake ? by bulbul · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Although Mandrake is personally my favorite distro, and it what i'm using even as i write this, it's still not streamlined enough for the type of user Lindows is targeting. When i go into the "Terminals" submenu, i find that there are six different terminal programs. There are also six text editors. Five browsers. Configuration tools are still redundant and confusing. How does the user know what the difference between "Userdrake", "KUser", and "User Manager"? This plethora of choices may be great for a power user, but it's just confusing for the market that Lindows is going after. This is why Xandros, Lycoris, and Lindows exist.

  15. Re:Linux and AOL by evilviper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Everyone has already nailed you with the "Lindows is going after Windows users", but I've got something else to add.

    I would say, if someone would write a single control panel-type interface, where the important things could be configured in a centralized locations (e.g. network, software packages, display, keyboard, mouse, etc) and make it blatantly obvious that it should be used (links on the desktop, and in an obviously labeled menu) then I would put Linux up against Windows.

    The problem with Linux isn't that there's no tools to configure it... the problem is that the tools often don't quite work, there are a lot of different ones (at least one for each subject) and their interfaces aren't always as easy as windows equivalent (although some do surpass their counterparts). In fact, being able to configure everything in one place, and having it work right the first time, every time, would be a substantial improvement over Windows!

    If any distro got to that point, I would distribute it to every non-gamer I know (games are the big hold up, keeping people I know, from switching).

    So, in case you got lost in bracket-hell, I'll say it again. With just a LITTLE work, I think Linux would be user-friendly enough to completely replace Windows.

    That said, I still think more could be done with OpenBSD than Linux. Since it detects all hardware at startup, and loads drivers for hardware automatically, you would only need a very simple program that parses dmesg, then automatically reconfigures XFree86, and put up any messages, like "A new NIC was found, please type the IP address".

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  16. You've got r00t! by cscx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Doesn't LindowsOS constantly run as the 'root' user?

    1. Re:You've got r00t! by rbb · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yup.

      A couple of days ago I tried their 2.0.0 version and from a Linux user's point of view it's the worst piece of crap I've ever encountered.

      Half of the stuff doesn't work, it's slow as hell and almost anything makes you run into their Click-N-Run program (for which you need a $99 a year subscription).

      I sincerely hope this'll be the very last time I ever see a /root/My Documents folder.

      --
      In God We Trust, Others We Monitor
    2. Re:You've got r00t! by Jugalator · · Score: 2

      Doesn't LindowsOS constantly run as the 'root' user?

      Yes, but the target group of Lindows users doesn't care?

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    3. Re:You've got r00t! by SCHecklerX · · Score: 2
      Yes, but the target group of Lindows users doesn't care?

      Which is exactly the reason it should not be allowed.

  17. Re:Thank you by krmt · · Score: 5, Informative

    Interesting. You're right, there it is. AOL client 7.0 sneak preview.

    So my next question is how do they do this? Is the client fully native? Compiled with winelib? Just run through wine? Will this work on my debian setup?

    Still, thank you for pointing this out. This is great news, especially if it can run in Mandrake and the like. Hopefully we'll know more soon.

    --

    "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

  18. Re:Linux and AOL by Wdomburg · · Score: 3, Informative

    >The point is moot, anyway, since they're not
    >really bundling the AOL client, but just Netscape
    >(which is what the poster above is complaining
    >about).

    Right now at least... But, if you go to their website, they say they working on it:

    Even though AOL can't currently be used as your
    ISP to connect to the Internet from within
    LindowsOS (that's being worked on)

    And provide a link to download it:

    http://www.lindows.com/aoloffer

    And give you screenshots of AOL 7.0 running under Lindows:

    http://info.lindows.com/aol/#client

    It would hardly suprise me if, come the time of their Lindows 3.0 release, there was an AOL icon on the desktop like you get with a lot of OEM manufacturers.

    Matt

  19. Re:Where'd that headline come from? by dj28 · · Score: 3, Informative

    They are testing an AOL client for Windows. For some reason, the story didn't post to it. Anyways, here's the URL: http://www.lindows.com/lindows_products_details.ph p?id=15

  20. Re:Linux and AOL by evilviper · · Score: 2

    There are already plenty of APIs for game programmers to choose from, but so little gaming is done on Unix that there's little happening in that front.

    While many people may buy software all the time, you just have to get them accustomed to using something like Lindows' internet software install... thing.

    With the most recent addition of OpenOffice, I really think all the bases are covered. All the software most anyone would be spending several thousands of dollars for is available in a free, improved, and stable form on Linux. Some might not like to adapt to that new idea, but I have yet to meet any of them.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  21. No, One Doesn't Wonder by Quarters · · Score: 2
    "One wonders if they should instead be supporting OEone and making it scream."


    (shakes head in disbelief)

    Lindows isn't for Linux users, Timothy. It's for people accustomed to Windows who might want a choice. It's for people who aren't really hard-core computer users but want a bit of choice in their computer purchasing. Putting an obscure (relative to Windows) front end on Linux will not accomplish that. For Lindows to work it has to, for the most part, behave like Windows.

    OEone is interesting, just like any random Linux distribution is interesting. That doesn't mean that they're easily understood by the masses of the computer users who get their boxes from Dell and/or Best Buy, etc...
    1. Re:No, One Doesn't Wonder by asmod42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Do you actually have any idea at all about what OEone is building? It's not just some light shell slapped over a command line. It's an entire integrated operating environment designed from the ground up to be usable and understandable by the very masses who do buy their boxes from Dell and/or Best Buy. In fact it's also intended for the huge mass of people who haven't bought a computer at all because they find them to difficult to use.

      AOL should be climbing all over OEone. It's the perfect vehicle for providing easy computer/internet access to the majority of people out there who still think Windows is to hard to use.

    2. Re:No, One Doesn't Wonder by Hemos · · Score: 2

      Quarters,

      Timothy didn't write that - look at the FAQ. The stuff in italics is the reader submission.

      --
      Yeah, I'm that guy.
    3. Re:No, One Doesn't Wonder by Quarters · · Score: 2
      HomeBase is truely something new and different.


      Which is exactly the point I was making against it for casual users. Lindows is positioning it's OS offering as a way for Windows users to leave Windows for something else. It looks like Windows, acts like Windows, and runs certain Windows applications just so the user will have an easy and comfortable time making that transition.

      Making someone use a new UI is *not* the way to get a casual user to switch. Most people are afraid of their Windows boxes. To try something completely different in an OS and a user experience isn't anything they would want to willingly do. Lindows understands this. OEone, for all it is, is not the way to get Windows users to switch to Linux. It's too different.

      If casual users willing to leave Windows wanted a UI that was "truely somthing new and different" they would've come to Linux w/KDE or Linux/GNOME long ago.
  22. new AOL commercials on CNN by theflea · · Score: 4, Funny

    Will the AOL commercials on CNN change significantly? Old commercial: grandma type says "it's like having a verbal chat [twiddles fingers]...electronically!" New commercial: father type says something like: "AOL uses ipchains/procmail filter/ext2 file system/gecko rendering engine....and that's important to me"

  23. Slashdot, you're killing me by sethadam1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can't believe the growing ridiculousness of this website.

    First off, what terrible research. You should have linked to the actual website, where'd you see that there actually is AOL for Linux coming our way.

    Secondly, rather than let the uncompromising, closed-minded crowd continue to hate LindowsOS because it appears to be stylish amongst the l33t, you should have posted an actual story (submitted and rejected) that would be truly informational about LindowsOS, like this story.

    This is turning into selective and irresponsible technology reporting.

  24. Re:Linux and AOL by rseuhs · · Score: 2
    I would say, if someone would write a single control panel-type interface, where the important things could be configured in a centralized locations (e.g. network, software packages, display, keyboard, mouse, etc) and make it blatantly obvious that it should be used (links on the desktop, and in an obviously labeled menu) then I would put Linux up against Windows.

    SuSE does exactly that - their YasT2 modules are integrated into the KDE control-center and you can manage *everything* from there, from IP-adress to the default link color.

    If any distro got to that point, I would distribute it to every non-gamer I know (games are the big hold up, keeping people I know, from switching).

    Do that.

  25. Has anyone actually READ the EULA of OEone? by Spackler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    OEOne sounded good, so I figured, what the heck. I cranked up the script in lynx, and let it rip.

    Well, the EULA that pops up makes Microsoft look tame.

    It starts with the usual disclaimer of how they "take no responsibility for the
    consequences of running this script."


    That seemed pretty standard, although worded a little harsh.

    It then goes through some normal install stuff, then comes the fun!

    Issue 1. Your bound by the license of any other software they install, even though you don't see them.

    Issue 2. Any software, or plugins they OEOne installs can ONLY be used while using OEOne's desktop, and can not be called directly.

    Issue 3. Automatic communication. They can do any communication they want to, but you can shut off "MOST" of it in the pref settings. (MOST? Oh, that's nice and gray for a EULA. Stated clearly, it means that you can't shut it _ALL_ off)

    Issue 4. DRM. Yup, it's in there, and they can stick in as much as they want.

    Fortunately, you can hit cancel, and throw it all away. I looks to me like they are trying to complete directly with Microsoft, with restrictions, and control over my machine. I switched to Linux to get away from that crap! Sure, the screenshots looked nice, but I'll never be seeing this on MY machine.

  26. Give Netscape some credit by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm tired of all the Netscape-bashing. AOL has spent a lot of money developing Mozilla -- true, there's some amount of outside development, but the bulk of it has been funded by AOL for use in their Netscape product. The least you can do is lend a few kind words. Personally, I use the Netscape-branded browser (Netscape 7 is a very good browser on all three platforms) and I use their portal site. You should, too. All of this stupid Slashdot groupthink of "Mozilla good, Netscape bad!" completely ignores the fact that if there were no Netscape, there would be no Mozilla. Or the more likely scenario -- if AOL hadn't acquired Netscape, Netscape might have gone out of business without the backing of a big tech player, and most of you would be using Mozilla 0.2 right now.

    Give Netscape some credit, folks. They're trying to be a good open source citizen. Don't disappoint them with a childish "take take take" attitude.

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
    1. Re:Give Netscape some credit by ichimunki · · Score: 2

      As long as Mozilla is truly Free Software, then good for Netscape. Thank you Netscape and AOL-- Mozilla and its derivatives are great browsers and I will gladly contribute money to further their development (especially a gtk2/Gnome2 version). But I have no intention of giving up my freedom for the sake of convenience or to show my gratitude, that would defeat the whole purpose of being excited about Mozilla in the first place.

      --
      I do not have a signature
  27. You've just described Mandrake by puppetluva · · Score: 2

    That said, I still think more could be done with OpenBSD than Linux. Since it detects all hardware at startup, and loads drivers for hardware automatically, you would only need a very simple program that parses dmesg, then automatically reconfigures XFree86, and put up any messages, like "A new NIC was found, please type the IP address"

    Mandrake 8.2 has all of these things. Mandrake Control Panel is the control panel you describe and they have a hardware scanner called "kudzu" that does exactly what you are describing ("New hardware has been found". . . etc).

    The next version of Mandrake is almost out. . . you REALLY should give it a try if you value all of these features.

    1. Re:You've just described Mandrake by evilviper · · Score: 2

      Since 6.2 RedHat has had Kudzu.

      I was recently playing with Mandrake 8.2. First of all, there are tons of programs in the settings section... You just have to guess which one you'd like to use. That is a very bad feature. If it was the only thing there, new users would know to use it.

      Besides that, it still sucks. Lots of stupid questions that would confuse a new user, and don't need to be there. Just their interface is lowsy... why do you need a 20 step wizard to set your IP address?

      Additionally, it doesn't work. Configured a NIC, mandrake showed the correct driver and all that, but it didn't actually make the change to /etc/modules.conf as it should have. Not a single configuration program with Mandrake cared that a card not in the computer was being loaded, and one in the system, was not having a driver loaded for it.

      Conclusion, Mandrake sucks.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  28. Re:Linux and AOL by Sinistar2k · · Score: 2

    Well, good, at least nobody read the article.

    The AOL ISP client is not being bundled with Lindows. It is just Netscape 7, which has AIM, but that's about as far as it goes for interoperating with the AOL service.

    So, right now, NOBODY has AOL for Linux. You can all relax.

  29. You're correct by bhsx · · Score: 2

    I agree with you on the user front. I was trying to explane to my mother that I had my new site up, bhsx.yi.org, and she kept telling me she couldn't get to it. Now this is a woman who ran the offices for Consumer's Digest Magazine (failed .com and all) for 16 or so years, she's a woman who used to pass around WordStar pirate discs, when WordStar cost something like $550/seat. So I thought maybe I screwed the DNS pooch, somehow. But after logging into a remote server and using links, I realized she didn't really know what she was doing. She was running win98/IE and somehow couldn't get to my site. So one day I decided that she should show me what she was doing when trying to reach it. She went right for the "Yahoo Search" form that yahoo embedded into her IE. I tried to correct her, and said "No, no, the URL field... the bar at the top." So she clicks the Search form on Excite (she was checking her mail... I can't believe she still uses Excite/SpamHaven, but I degress). So at this point I point to the URL bar, and she understands. So what does she do?

    She starts typing in www.bhsx.yi.org....

    True Story, just happenned last week.

    --
    put the what in the where?
    1. Re:You're correct by reallocate · · Score: 2

      Your mother's not alone in making that "mistake". After all, it is called the World Wide Web.

      When you have a choice, not using the "www" convention might be considered tantamount to bad interface design.

      AOL's keyword navigation system means users don't have to understand domain structure and URL's. Frankly, I can't think of a reason why users should need to understand that, anymore than they need to know how a cathode ray tube works before they can watch television.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  30. Re:Linux and AOL by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2
    Much to our disappointment, companies like Lindows and the other "easy to use" distros are trying to convert those windows users (yes the ones that don't know how to run word if the interface suddenly looked a little funny, like gtk or qt, atleast that's the argument). In other words, having AOL for linux is a good thing for THEM, not necessarily for US..
    An interesting point. His Majesty Satanic has demonstrated pattern genius at targeting the lowest common denominator in the market,
    in contrast to Linux targeting the lowest price point.
    Now, if Lindows can bring the two of these together, particularly in those Wal-Mart boxen, there would be some serious weeping and gnashing of teeth in the Red Pits of Redmond, where Beelzebilly rules.
    The problem of business world penetration, where file compatibility is crucial, is a different question than fixin' up granny to move .jpg's of the grandkids...
    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  31. Re:Linux and AOL by Fig,+formerly+A.C. · · Score: 2
    Much to our disappointment, companies like Lindows and the other "easy to use" distros are trying to convert those windows users

    If you think this through a bit farther, you won't be too disappointed at all.

    Lindows still has a linux kernel, right? It's still linux? If we swell our numbers with enough of those windows users, Linux might actually get more native development for games/apps from manufacturers.

    Since you'll still have versions of linux that are not dumbed down, I fail too see how having more native games/apps available is a "disappointment".

    --
    Murphy was an optimist.
  32. Why Learn New Ways to do Old Things? by reallocate · · Score: 2

    OEone might turn out to be the slickest piece of software ever written, but that won't sell it.

    The biggest mistake /. readers and many Linux supporters make is assuming everyone else shares their enthusiasm for change. They don't. People want to stay with the comfortable and familiar. The discomfort of learning new ways to do old things mitigates against widespread adoption of new software.

    I hope OEone is compelling enough to counter that inertia. Linux needs it.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  33. You can get the client software from a bisk by yerricde · · Score: 2

    Uh...so, like how do I get to the installer? Through your ISP of course! My ISP is AOL.

    This is not a catch-22, as you don't have to download the client software through the Internet but rather through the Postnet. Simply ask your ISP to send you a bisk[1]. Stick it in your computer's CD-ROM drive, and it'll mount the filesystem. Then, from nautilus or konqueror, open the CD and find the little "linux-install" icon. Open it, and You've Got Spam!

    [1] "Bisk" refers to a copy of client software for any online service that uses a proprietary dialer and does not use standard PPP, especially such a copy distributed without charge (and often unsolicited) through the postal service.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  34. Why you need an AOL client by yerricde · · Score: 2, Informative

    Would including Mozilla stop them from trying it out?

    Including Mozilla 1.1 but not the AOL dialer would not allow users who pay AOL to give them access the Internet. AOL uses a proprietary protocol to dial the Internet, not standard PPP. Linux distributions support only standard PPP out of the box.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  35. You totally missed the point by MrResistor · · Score: 2

    The point the origional poster was trying to make is that this is not an AOL client .

    OK, great, Netscape 7 has stuff Mozilla doesn't, and some of that stuff is related to AOL. Whoop-a-dee-doo! You still can't connect to AOL as your primary ISP. You still can't admin your AOL email account. You still can't access the special AOL-only content.

    This is not adding AOL support to Linux, which while I personally wouldn't care, it would at least be newsworthy. This is just a distro shipping with the latest version of Netscape, which is, quite frankly, about as newsworthy as "RMS puts his pants on one leg at a time".

    --
    Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  36. Re:Linux and AOL by zurab · · Score: 2

    I would say, if someone would write a single control panel-type interface, where the important things could be configured in a centralized locations (e.g. network, software packages, display, keyboard, mouse, etc) and make it blatantly obvious that it should be used (links on the desktop, and in an obviously labeled menu) then I would put Linux up against Windows.

    Just an FYI, SuSE did this at least a year ago with their YaST2 modules being integrated into KDE Control Center, which makes that Control Center tool able to configure KDE, desktop, windows, look & feel, sounds, etc. as well as hardware, network, routing, internet connection, firewall, NFS, NIS, you name it.

    That said, I still think more could be done with OpenBSD than Linux. Since it detects all hardware at startup, and loads drivers for hardware automatically, you would only need a very simple program that parses dmesg, then automatically reconfigures XFree86, and put up any messages, like "A new NIC was found, please type the IP address".

    Again, most major distros that I am aware of (Redhat, MDK, SuSE) are able to detect new hardware on boot and configure it.

    These arguments were very valid ones couple of years ago. Not so anymore. My experience has been that hardware setup is much easier on major Linux distros than Windows any version.

  37. Re:Linux and AOL by evilviper · · Score: 2

    SuSE has an awful license. I'll be avoiding it as much as possible.

    And the last time I took a look at it (~6.3) Yast2 wasn't very impressive.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  38. Re:Linux and AOL by evilviper · · Score: 2

    I should have mentioned licenses....

    I haven't seen lycoris, but I'd bet it suffers from the same problems as the others... And i

    It's those problems you mention that need to be worked out, and can fairly easilly be worked out.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  39. Re:Linux and AOL by evilviper · · Score: 2

    You aren't very experienced then. They are vaild problems, today as the tools provided don't work. Even if they did, the user-friendlyness of these apps is actually worse than a few years ago, and it's more difficult for new users, as there are 50 apps to configure your NIC, and distros include them all, despite not a single one properly seeting everything up. It's a real half-assed state of affairs... and the commercial push has just resulted in a lot more non-workinhg programs being pushed out the door. Lack of forethought on the distre developers' part has be a big part of the lowsy experience new users have.

    Check other posts on this thread for more details.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  40. Re:Linux and AOL by rseuhs · · Score: 2
    SuSE has an awful license. I'll be avoiding it as much as possible.

    You are allowed to do everything you could do with GPLed software (copy, redistribute, modify, redistribute modified versions) except you are not allowed to resell it for money (or create a commercial distribution out of it)

    And this is true only for YaST and SaX, most of SuSE's work (ReiserFS, ALSA, contributions to XFree, KDE, Linux, etc.) are released under free licenses.

  41. Re:Linux and AOL by evilviper · · Score: 2

    Oh really? Then tell me where can someone download an ISO of SuSE's latest release?

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  42. Re:Linux and AOL by evilviper · · Score: 2

    Both Photoshop and GIMP work great. If you don't think so, it's most likely because you haven't taken the time to learn the Open Source programs, as you likely have with the commercial ones.

    The single problem I've had with Office compatibility is fonts on one platform don't exist on the other... If you've got an example file that can demonstrate a problem, go ahead and post it... Otherwise, I doubt onyone will be paying attention to your complaints.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant