Slashdot Mirror
AOL's new Linux PC
minus_273 writes " MSNBC (of all places ) has an intersting article about AOLs new PC. We have already heard of Lindows , WALMART PC and there was speculation of AOL Red Hat. Well, it looks like this is what AOL decided to do. All 3 are mixed into one. AOL now has a beta 7.0 client that is distributed with Lindows along with AIM and Netscape. I wonder if this stuff will work on normal Linux without WINE."
So how long before we see AOL make their own distribution with all the "harmful" features (i.e. any type of user system control, the ability to not boot into a GUI, etc) stripped?
I'm surprised they didn't buy Corel a few years ago and try this already. "Here's a free OS on our free 1000 hour CDs! Oh, your office apps won't run now? Buy ours for only $49.95 each!"
Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!
I know now what I'm going to start suggesting to people who are looking for a "simple" setup. Sure, I'll probably end up giving them free support and doing a lot of hand-holding when things break, but I guess that's the price of being on the front lines, fighting for what you believe in.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Why would a Linux user want to use AOL? Most if not all desktop linux users are way more proficient than that. I shudder to think of the help desk they would have to set up for Linus/AOL PC users.
Guess what? Walmart is worth more than Microsoft. Don't underestimate the power of white trash.
Here in the DC area AOL has been looking for a large number of Linux software engineers as of late. I always thought that these were for "back-office" applications (account management etc., heavy desire for Perl and database experience) maybe some other positions seem to be oriented towards end-user applications.
While I'm normally gung-ho for anything challenging the behmoth (see sig for ref), and while I'm in agreement with you, I am still leery of trading one enormous, controlling software giant for a enormous, controlling media conglomerate. I don't want to be a naysayer, but extrapolating into the future produces a need to keep one eye on this bunch, too.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
This thought just crossed my mind. AOL brought Internet to the masses. This results in gazillions of lusers eating up the Net's bandwidth, but it also means that now gazillions of people care about Internet. This is precisely what we need to increase Internet coverage all over the world: a large corporation with millions of users behind it (read: hard cash). AOL's success will encourage others in other places to attempt the same thing.
Then there is AOL Instant Messenger, AKA AIM. A reliable source of "Me too" conversations, but also a way for people to communicate with each other without paying huge costs for telephone calls. It arguably sucks less than ICQ (what's that UIN again?) or MSN (Passport), and third parties are offered access to the network via TOC. True enough, AOL blocks people who try to access their network with reverse-engineered Oscar clients, and TOC doesn't offer all the features we've come to expect from instant messaging, but that can be seen as a reaction to others downright ignoring TOC and using Oscar instead, which obviously goes against the rules laid out by AOL.
Another Good Thing of AOL is that they're still sponsoring Netscape and Mozilla. This means that we owe thanks to them for what may be the best browser around at the moment. They are also using Gecko in their new software, which means that a significant number of people will be using it, which makes cross-browser compatibility of websites an issue and promotes open standards, to the benefit of all who don't use M$IE for Windows.
AOL offers people freedom of choice in that their software works on Windows, Mac OS, and, apparently, Linux. This sets an example for other companies, and possibly even the OSS movement (after all, many OSS is tied to UNIX-like systems).
Not all about AOL is good, but I do think that, on the whole, they are doing a lot that makes the world a better place, or at least insofar as computers are concerned.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
I worked on ICQ for AOL for some time, trust me, AOL's intent was to make it a less-ugly less-bloatware app. They just never got it. All ICQ's are equally shitty.
They're not bad in all respects. However, they cooperate with the PRC in censoring their own citizens. Information on this topic is readily available from Google.
I'm not saying Microsoft wouldn't do the same if they had the chance (may have the chance and may be doing the same), and I acknowledge that AOL/TW has as many employees as the entire human race 1,000 years ago, so they're going to be doing something I'm not happy with, and that there is something to be said for "engaging" China under whatever terms are possible - which seems to mean at least some censorship.
But to say that AOL is making the world a better place, at least insofar as computers are concerned, I'm not so sure about that. Censorship is the #1 threat to the vitality of the net, and since AOL promotes that in various ways, there's not many ways I could think of them as a net good.
Also - AOL supplied the internet to the masses, but the masses really wanted it. Without AOL, I think we'd have seen more or less the same landscape with more business for compuserve.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
It's good for AOL because they don't have to kowtow to Microsoft for placement on the desktop (though they shouldn't anyway, but MS frequently abuses it's monopoly power to prevent OEMs from making custom changes to the desktop). AOL can advance subscribership by promoting an easy to use Internet/Bulletin Board service on a low cost, easy to use computer. If they want custom modifications to better support their online service, they don't have to "ask permission," they can just make them on their own.
It's good for consumers because now they have a real choice for low cost computer systems. I'm not saying that Lindows is the high holy of operating systems, but it's geared toward ease of use for non-technical desktop users (people who don't want to recompile a kernel). Before, there never really was a choice for low cost systems -- you had to go with Windows. Sure you could buy a Mac, but you had to shell out an extra thousand bucks. While many people like how user friendly Macs are, they can't justify that much a price difference. Lindows gives consumers a low cost alternative.
It's good for Linux because it increases the Linux user base. Obviously, the people using these systems aren't going to go out and start coding custom kernel modules, but the software manufacturers are going to start noticing the increasing presence of Linux in the marketplace. This means there will start to be more consumer applications available for Linux as an untapped consumer market like this cannot be ignored. This means more games, more office software, more of the general desktop software that many people say is missing from Linux.
And lastly, this is good for technology (obviously). For the same reasons that Eric S. Raymond penned (or typed I guess ;) in his editorial on "Total World Domination." Total world domination by Linux means no domination by anyone. Linux can be modified by anyone, it can be modified to suit your purposes (whatever they may be) and you will always have the freedom to make those changes because no one can own Linux. No one can lock it up and keep you from looking inside. Coders will still be able to code and make custom changes to their system, and consumers can still click away not knowing what's going on behind the scenes. It's good for technology because by giving consumers a choice, it promotes consumer freedom.
What I think would really help Linux is an AOL version of something like Lindows. This would be an easy to install CD that would be given away with computer magazines and mailed out for free, and, unlike Lindows, it is all free. AOL gets to benefit because it boots up ready to log on to AOL...but it is not a requirement to use the system, so everyone benefits.
Imagine how easy it would be to get people to at least try Linux if they already had a CD-ROM of it attached to some magazine they just bought. Heck, if it goes out like AOL's current junk...everyone would be able to dig up at least five of these disks in a matter of minutes.
Usurper_ii
Ron Paul
And I highly doubt that Lindows users are going to be running a bunch of servers(that's more of a security problem). Perhaps Lindows will even default with a Firewall and whatnot.
/opt world readable so you could install say Adobe Acrobat and Java, and everything in /usr/wallpapers, /usr/icons, /usr/xmms/skins. Actually, I think *the* solution would be: for instance, you dragged a cool image from your desktop to /usr/wallpapers and it asked for your password instead of "Permission Denied."
I think it's fine. It is too difficult not running as root. Well I guess a better solution would be to make everything in
I used to run this little test of computer savviness: 1. Using a program of your choice, create a file and save it. 2. Now, using any other program of your choice, find that file.
Most people flunked. Many were stumped at "create a file".
Sigh.
On the other hand, I tend to think we often equate "capabilities" with "complex and difficult" because many new capabilities are rolled out in a CLI-only versiond. Building a GUI adds more cost and complexity. If a GUI presents the same capabilities as a CLI, that's OK with me. Capabilities will likely always be ahead of the curve, but, in the end, it's an interface issue.
For example, if an interface allows all of a machine's capabilities to be exploited while eliminating the need to be aware of an underlying file system, dropping to a command line doesn't add to the user's capabilities.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
If you want a good example of what you're suggesting (ask for admin password), look at Mac OS X. Need to make system changes? Click the lock, enter your password, and the control panel app now runs as root.
I don't like bias either. Unfortunately there is no such thing as objectivity. I think that's the post modern lesson.
I would rather listen to someone (anyone) whose bias is upfront and identifiable, then listen to someone that claims to be objective.
Objectivity, is that like where unknown to most listeners, Disney owns SFBay hatespeech radio station KGO and that makes Disney's pretty right wing KSFO seem to be the moderate alternative?
Three CDs? Cheap to crap out, easy to install, and the nail in Microsoft's coffin.
Gives you the warm fuzzies, don't it?
How can you use my intestines as a gift? -Actual Hong Kong subtitle.
Users run as "root" by default, with all rights
My first thought is: Just like Windows.
Even XP Home, by default, let's you run as administrator...
Granted, a SUID wrapper around key functions would probably be better than running as root.. Maybe in V3.0....
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
Always before MS has been able to hide the cost the consumer is paying.
... the other day, I was cleaning up at home and found the build sheet for my 486/66 (about $4K for the curious). It was extremely interesting to note that I was charged $40 for DOS 6 by the vendor and that they tossed in Windows 3.1 for NO CHARGE. That's right -- the first hit was free. And yes, sharing this little story makes me feel old ....
No joke
Even superheroes once were losers
They could send you a computer with one month's free AOL, and after that time period come to collect it back.
Or you might rent a PC as part of your AOL subscription - for $6 / month extra this is certainly possible, if the hardware costs $150 to manufacture and lasts a couple of years. It might even save AOL money by reducing support costs.
All that's needed is some way of getting a usable display on a TV screen... (I'm not optimistic).
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com