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."

Comments

Great...

[Gorm the DBA]

Just what we need...the number one leader in dumbing down the Internet coming out with a PC...

It's going to be like that Dilbert Cartoon

"All it has is one button, and we press it for you before it leaves the factory."

"But what's the button do?"

"Don't ask me all these techie questions"

Except in this case, the punch line is likely "Submit your credit card numbers to the central server so that we can deduct money from you at will".

So where do I sign?

Re:AOL is on drugs

[intermodal]

no...not true. people with either no reason other than email to have a comptuer buy a computer just for aol, or people who just use it for chat. Most people however use the computer for other things too, as do the people who bought the computers just for AOL, who end up also learning to play Solitaire.

CPU

[truesaer]

I'm a bit interested in this Via 800Mhz CPU. It seems very strange to see a new player in the x86 CPU field, and I wonder if this chip is based on a licensed AMD or Intel design? Or is the reason they can make it because it is only 800Mhz and therefore easier to produce than a whole line including bleeding edge chips?

First generation silicon are known to be less reliable than later designs. Can a chip made by Via be trusted in terms of reliability? (I realize they make lots of chips, but generally not this kind)

Oh well, just general questions...

Re:CPU

[T-Punkt]

No, it's based on Cyrix. VIA bought cyrix some time ago.

Re:CPU

[SonicBurst]

IIRC, this isn't really a new player. I believe VIA bought this architecture from Cyrix. I think it used to be called the C3 (or could be M3).

Re:CPU

[TandyMasterControl]

Like others say, it's not new.
I think the Cyrix C3 started out at 500Mhz --like a year and half a ago or so. Maybe 2 years now...
The neat thing about C3s is the temperature: an X86 compatible chip that costs peanuts, runs in common inexpensive socket 370 boards and the little f*ers run so cool they can actually dispense with FANS. (especially when mildly underclocked)

They are the perfect thinclient CPU, given the need for X86 compatibility out there in the world.

Re:CPU

[Thag]

My question is how can a 800Mhz C3 actually be faster than an 850Mhz AMD Duron.

From everything I've read, it's not faster. The 1ghz C3 is about the equivalent of the 800mhz Durons, at least for things like DVD playback. Could the reviewer be making this mistake because the newer Lindows/AOL software is faster?

Jon Acheson

Re:CPU

[fault0]

> But, even if it's nasty, it is cheap.

They are cheap and the run extremely cool. I have a friend who has an older C3 with a micro-ATX mobo and case. There is not even any heatsink, just a small exhaust fan in the back. He uses it as a mp3 player/server/shoutcast station.

Re:CPU

[fault0]

It's a centaur core, cyrix name. Cyrix had more brand recognition and centaur had slightly better chips (although cyrix came out with some cool stuff too).

Re:The problem

[cide1]

I use linux and have had an AOL account since 1994. AOL had some troubles when they launched unlimited service, but they are now quite reliable, and nationwide. With linux, they will support the 3 major platforms. I dont like time warner, but they give us Netscape / Mozilla, Winamp and ICQ for free. For the average American to use Linux, we need an isp like AOL that is nationwide, and supports linux.

HOORAY!

[RailGunner]

As I've said before on numerous occasions, for Linux to truly give MS a run for the money on Home user desktops, two things need to happen:

1. AOL client for Linux
2. Native game support

Now, as much as I tend to mock AOL users, being that AOL is not a convicted monopolist, they're the lesser of two evils by far. But now that #1 on my list looks like it's happening, MS better be very nervous. There's millions of AOL users who own a computer and do nothing but connect to AOL on it. There's now NO compelling reason for them to use Microsoft software.

This news has made my day. I'm being optimistic and hopeful here, but could this day signal the beginning of the end of Microsoft? (Especially since some games are coming out with native Linux support.. like Unreal Tournament 2003)

Re:HOORAY!

[daeley]

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.

Re:HOORAY!

[rseuhs]

I agree.

If the 200$ PC takes off (and I don't see a reason it shouldn't - it *IS* the cheapest PC available by a large margin), this could even pressure game companies to do Linux-ports.

Re:HOORAY!

[TheWickedKingJeremy]

... 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.

Because AOL would not own the OS, and hence would be in no position to jockey into other markets at will. AOL being popular on Linux is not nearly as dangerous as MS is now - and as other posters have mentioned, might go a long way towards convincing users that they dont *need* Windows.

Re:HOORAY!

[Jonny Ringo]

YES!
I am holding a candlelight visual for the remorse of Microsoft going into immediate bankruptcy. Please join me at West lake Mall in downtown Seattle at 7pm. :-)

Just joken, I do think this is good news fro the Linux desktop.

Re:HOORAY!

[WNight]

Because the more it strangles MS, the less money they have to put into Palladium and strangle the industry.

Re:HOORAY!

[alcmena]

No they not, and sometimes I wish they were. Their service was a whole lot better, and cheaper, than Insight's service. Unfortunately, due to the lack of Time Warner monopoly (and due to some wheeling and dealing by my landloards), my only option is Insight.

Re:HOORAY!

[truesaer]

This news has made my day. I'm being optimistic and hopeful here, but could this day signal the beginning of the end of Microsoft?

There will never be the "end" of microsoft if the current model of software and hardware remains the same. There can only be meaningful competition. If you think that eventually everyone will just choose Linux instead, you're crazy. An example....toyotas are much higher in quality than Fords. And yet, ford still sells millions of cars each year.

There are a lot of things that influence people to buy things. Features, cost, style, familiarity, etc. You can't come up with one product that serves everyone's needs all the time.

Re:HOORAY!

[swillden]

Do people who purchase a PC for the sole reason of connecting to AOL have the technical skills (or desire) to run linux instead of Windows?

Do they have the technical skills to turn the computer on, click the AOL icon and type their password? Nothing more need be required.

My nearly 80-year old grandparents use Linux and find it much easier to handle than Windows was. Mainly, they like that it just works.

Re:HOORAY!

[theCoder]

Kind of like how MS doesn't own the processor and is hence in no position to dictate their "features" like Pallidum?

Now, I'm the first to cheer at Linux's success, but I also think that AOL is going to be the next MS (in the same way the MS was the next IBM). Hell, in some day, we (the tech community) may even be cheering for MS the same way we cheer for IBM.

I don't know what's going to happen in the future, but I'm always leery of large companies who think they know better then their customers.

Re:HOORAY!

[Hard_Code]

"candlelight visual"

If you use this phrase in spoken conversation, be sure to pronounce it: "candlelight vi-gil"

Re:The problem

[mojotek]

Most people with proficiency in Linux hopefully aren't dumb enough to use AOL.

Most people with proficiency in AOL have no idea what Linux is.

Dear AOL: misleading product name

[GMontag]

The proper name for this system is GNU/AOL.

Please change it before the Hurd tramples you.

Re:Dear AOL: misleading product name

[FooBarWidget]

No, Linux is a kernel, not an OS. An OS is a kernel plus system components, or in case of Unix, system utilities. GNU and Linux together form an operating system.

And no, Win2k + Cygwin isn't GNU/MSWindows, since the *essential* system components are already provided by Windows, not Cygwin. And Cygwin isn't even installed on Windows by default.

So what's it called now? AOLinux?

[Gldm]

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!"

Re:So what's it called now? AOLinux?

[tomhudson]

Hey, maybe they'll bundle both their linux client software and oppenoffice. Kick Micro$oft in the balls twice as hard.

Re:So what's it called now? AOLinux?

[Reziac]

Tho it might not be all that bad an idea. And as much as I dislike AOL's interface, they do seem to have pretty good coders and sometimes really sensible policies.

Frex, AIM (really a pretty good little messaging client -- works very well, quite configurable, and doesn't eat much). I recall a while back when some security hole was found, rather than expect every AIM user to hear about it and download a fix, AOL chose to plug the hole at the server level. I thought this showed remarkable good sense.

I'd hazard a guess that if AOLinux ever becomes reality, it'll be a highly USABLE linux right out of the box, even for the most rank beginner who's never touched a computer before. And that is not a bad thing if the object is to increase the truly viable choices available to consumers.

Computer Junk Mail

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wait until it becomes cheap enough for AOL to ship you free computers. Imagine all the junk you'll have then!

Re:Computer Junk Mail

[reallocate]

That's not that farfetched. More than a year ago, MicroCenter was selling $399 eMachines packaged with a rebatable $400 commitment to MSN. Get the rebate, and you made one buck on the deal.

Companies "give away" or sell below cost things to entice you to spend even more money with them. E.g. game consoles.

Re:Computer Junk Mail

[Derleth]

Just wait until it becomes cheap enough for AOL to ship you free computers.

I'm just waiting for the look on Gates' face when AOL sends whole distros through the mails.

Three CDs? Cheap to crap out, easy to install, and the nail in Microsoft's coffin.

Gives you the warm fuzzies, don't it?

Re:Computer Junk Mail

[reallocate]

>> ummm no, you had to subscribe to msn and pay them.

Ummm, that's what I said, I think. :-) Buy a $399 computer, sign a deal with MSN, and get the $400 rebate. I remember seeing lines stretching around the inside of the store and out onto the sidewalk when my local MicroCenter advertised this deal.

Re:Computer Junk Mail

[teslatug]

No man, I don't have space for coasters that big :)

Re:Computer Junk Mail

[Ed Avis]

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).

Re:Computer Junk Mail

[johnnyb]

In addition, for people who don't want to install Linux, they can simply include all of the Microsoft-replacement software in Windows versions. OpenOffice, Dia, Gimp, and maybe even throw in a Windows port of Evolution.

Wouldn't that be great? Windows being nailed into the ground by their own tactic. I like it.

On MSNBC?

[Bilbo]

When MSNBC publishes a glowing article like this, you have to start thinking it's going to take off. It still doesn't sound like a computer that I'd be interested in buying, but I know a LOT of non-technical people for whom this would be a perfectly acceptable solution.

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.

Re:On MSNBC?

[GregWebb]

And people don't do that with Windows already?

Before I moved, I was Windows support for a _lot_ of people. Part of what helps Windows is that there's already the network of friendly computer literate people that know it.

Now, I'm not saying that Linux is just as easy as Windows. Not looked in for a little while but it certainly wasn't then and information I've heard since hasn't suggested that's changed. But, it remains that Windows is already beyond many users, so Linux being so isn't as much of a problem as some people think.

Re:On MSNBC?

[ShavenYak]

Sure, I'll probably end up giving them free support and doing a lot of hand-holding when things break

Yeah, but I'd rather support Linux systems than Windows systems! What I wouldn't give for a /var/log/messages to look at when my mother's computer crashes... and no, C:\BOOTLOG.TXT isn't even close.

Re:On MSNBC?

[richie2000]

that very same public will be outraged when everything doesn't work as advertised

Oh, like Windows XP works as advertised? I have been using it for months now and I still haven't been able to fly, not to mention that I had very high hopes that the enlargement of my skull resulting from using Office XP would draw attention away from my fat ass, but my hopes have been shattered. If anything, my head has shrunk! I am outraged!

Re:On MSNBC?

[rseuhs]

If you would actually start to read some details about MS, you would realize that Microsoft are not the evil geniuses Slashdotters and MSFT-shareholders like to see them, they are a rather incompetent company that just got lucky getting to make the OS for IBM.

I'm so sick of people seeing MSFT-conspiracies in everything.

The AOL-PC is great news for desktop-Linux, why do so many people have problems accepting something positive about Linux?

Re:On MSNBC?

[HiThere]

If you would actually start to read some details about MS, you would realize that Microsoft are not the evil geniuses Slashdotters and MSFT-shareholders like to see them, they are a rather incompetent company that just got lucky getting to make the OS for IBM.

You didn't address the "evil" assertion. I never thought that they were geniuses, no more than I thought that Al Capone was a genuius. But I defy you to challenge the assertion that it's evil.

Re:On MSNBC?

[afidel]

Luck had nothing to do with it, Bill's mom sat on the IBM board of directors.

Re:On MSNBC?

[afidel]

hate to reply to myself but the previous comment was wron, aparantly my memory is faulty. The actual relationship was this "Mary Gates - Bill's mom - had served on the national board of United Way with one of the involved IBM senior executives "

Re:On MSNBC?

[rseuhs]

Excuse me, but how is that not luck?

Good review, mostly

[danger42]

The KDE desktop looks and feels like Windows, with a few exceptions. You have to double-click an icon on the desktop to get it to open...

Last time I checked, I had to double-click on the icons, too, and I am running Win2k.

Re:Good review, mostly

[LMCBoy]

Eevn more ironic is the fact that the default KDE behavior is to single-click on desktop icons...so this is a feature they've changed to be more like Windows, yet it gets cited as a difference :)

Re:Good review, mostly

[Suppafly]

although if you turn on active desktop and change some settings you can make windows more kde like and have it be single click to launch programs.

Re:Good review, mostly

[Dog and Pony]

Why would you assume that he means the systray when there actually is a toolbar in Windows that takes a one-click as opposed to the desktop?

By default: Look to the immideate right of the Start button - that is the toolbar. To the far right is the systray. Toolbar takes single click. Desktop takes double. Systray applications behave like whoever programmed them wants to, which is sometimes single, sometimes double, often right-click only and also often combinations. All this by default, which means it is changeable.

Desktop shortcuts and toolbar shortcuts launch programs, systray contains running programs.

And yes, the guy is wrong... I assume he a long time ago configured his desktop to take single-clicks and forgot that he did.

Re:Good review, mostly

[tycage]

Why would you assume that he means the systray when there actually is a toolbar in Windows that takes a one-click as opposed to the desktop?

The way I read it was that the single-click was the strange thing. Since, as you point out, a single click does launch things on the quick launch bar, I assumed that he must mean the systray, where there are often things that require a double click.

It's possible I gave him too much credit. I dunno.

--Ty

Re:Good review, mostly

[Reziac]

Systray can also include launchers that in turn run other programs (frex, Corel's DAD).

And I think you're right that the reviewer must be using XP and has it configured to single-click. (Which would drive me insane with all the closing up of stuff I didn't mean to run! :)

AOL and Linux?

[RobFrontier]

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.

Re:AOL and Linux?

[Salsaman]

How would a Linux/AOL helpdesk be any worse than a Windows/AOL helpdesk ? Besides, this is presumably not aimed at current Linux users, but rather current AOL users who want to buy a new PC.

Really, I think AOL had no choice, they could either continue to use MS software, and likely go bankrupt in 2 or 3 years when they lose all their customers to MSN, or strike out and try and distance themselves from MS.

Re:AOL and Linux?

[Drakonite]

1. AOL is the cheapest dialup connection available in my town (tied with two others)
2. When not root, linux is more difficult to accidentally break than windows. And from my experience, teaching someone who had never used a computer to use Linux/KDE to check email and surf the web is as easy (if not easier in some cases) than teaching to do the same on windows. YMMV.
3. The average Linux user likes Linux and wants it to become more mainstream. Having a corporation the size of AOL/TW supporting Linux is a very good thing, and will definatly serve to make it more mainstream.
4. If AOL/TW supports AOL on Linux, then they will be more likely to support other products in terms of Linux.

And what if it gets to the point AOL/TW makes it company policy to use Linux boxes whereever possibly and to no longer buy Microsoft products? You now have millions and millions of employees who are going to buy linux boxes instead of windows boxes, just so they dont' have to try to use something different at home and at work.

Re:AOL and Linux?

[pjrc]

Why would a Linux user want to use AOL?

Wrong question. The right one is....

Why would someone finally decide to buy a computer??

Re:AOL and Linux?

[JstSumSchmuck]

Many linux users would refuse to use AOL. But an AOL user WOULDN'T refuse to use linux(if correctly packaged). Why? Because a typical AOL user doesn't want to know what OS they're using. They want to check their mail, look at web pages and maybe use a word processor. Any OS that can allow them to do those things easily will satisfy them. So if Lindows makes it easy to setup and get online, and easy to start the aol interface the users already know and (somehow manage to) love, and easy to do simple word processing, and significantly cheaper than a windows pc, maybe it'll take off.
So I say more power to them. If 10% of aol users (that's 3.5 million people by the article's numbers) got set up with one of these, it would be a very good thing for the internet and standards. It will make that much more disincentive for sites and services to go microsoft only. Rip on AOL all you like, but they've got enough users to make some noise. What business wants to alienate that many people? I'd like to see a few million additional linux users, especially from a hard-to-reach demographic like that.
It's hard to convince non-technical people to do the right thing on technical issues. This way they'll be doing the right thing without really knowing it.
I just wish aol would give the pc away with the service, for maybe $10 per month more for 20 months or something.

Re:AOL and Linux?

[rseuhs]

And why should an AOL-user who is not into games *NOT* save over 100$ when buying a computer next time?

Re:AOL and Linux?

[Derleth]

Most if not all desktop linux users are way more proficient than that.

For the time being, sadly true.

But the glory of this deal is that Linux is slowly coming to the Mass Market. Billy Joe-Bob Windoze User will have the option of something as idiot-proof as AOL and as cheap as Linux. If Billy Joe-Bob decides that knocking $100 off the price of his next email machine is worth it for the 'store-brand' OS, he'll do it, and Linux has just swept another sale right out from under Microsoft.

This is how Linux finally meets Microsoft on Redmond's own ground.

Re:AOL and Linux?

[fault0]

Perhaps it's for new Linux or computer users. This is what Lindows is geared for anyways.

They probably used Lindows/Linux so they wouldn't have to pay Microsoft for a windows license in a 200$ PC :x

Anyways, this proves a point, Linux can be made so it's not just for geeks.

A step in the right direction

[Joe Jordan]

This goes a long way towards bringing Linux desktop to the masses. Once grandma can check her AOL mail with the "you've got mail" sound and can read the Steve Case community updates, she'll be happy with her PC since it does everything that she expects.

Sick and tired

[rw2]

I am so sick and tired of people making snide comments like "of all places" when MSNBC reports on a non-windows happening in the world.

People, it's becoming cliche so many of you are making comments like that. For crying out loud, doesn't that mean that maybe your assumptions should be questioned!

Re:Sick and tired

[greenhide]

I think that all good, right thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not, and I'm sick and tired of being told that I am.

Re:Sick and tired

[ceejayoz]

MSNBC actually publishes pro-Linux articles quite often... so it's doubly annoying to hear the slashbots' mock surprise.

Re:The problem

[allism]

Um, ICQ was free long before AOLTimeWarner ever got their hands on it. ICQ has turned into ugly, ad-filled bloatware since it was bought out. I miss the streamlined design the interface had seven years ago.

Walmart.com page

[TheSHAD0W]

Just FYI, here's Walmart's page on Lindows OS PCs.

Re:The problem

[PhoenixFlare]

"I dont like time warner, but they give us Netscape / Mozilla, Winamp and ICQ for free. "

You do realize you can get these four programs without relying on Time Warner at all?

How are you set up that you would have to pay for them in the first place? They're all free for anyone to have, and have been for months/years.

Here's some VIA C3 info

[qurob]

It hit 1GHz back in June

Tom's Hardware

Re:The problem

[SirSlud]

The question is, would they still be free had AOL not stepped in and funded their continued development thanks to their subscribers' revenue?

Maybe. Maybe not. :)

Single click toolbar?

[SheepHead]

The KDE desktop looks and feels like Windows, with a few exceptions. You have to double-click an icon on the desktop to get it to open, but only single-click an icon in the toolbar to get the same result.

Umm.. has he used Windows? Lemme check real quick... yup, double-click an icon on the desktop, but only single-click an icon in the toolbar to get the same result. Does anyone double-click the Start menu? Quicklaunch bar? How about the Save button in the toolbar of any application?

What in the world was he expecting?

More generally, this is very neat news. I know many people's parents and grandparents who would love a new machine for $200, as long as they can run AOL.

sheephead

AOL has been looking for Linux engineers lately

[tshoppa]

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.

MSNBC

[starling]

It's time to lose the "MSNBC (of all places)" type comments. They consistently put out interesting tech stories with no bias towards or against Microsoft, and I they seem take their journalistic impartiality seriously.

No, I don't work for them.

Re:MSNBC

[FortKnox]

They consistently put out interesting tech stories with no bias towards or against Microsoft, and I they seem take their journalistic impartiality seriously

The issue, though, is Slashdot IS biased, and always writes against MS (even if its something good MS does, its written with a slander tone).

What do I think of /.'s bias? I think its immature.

Re:MSNBC

[JordoCrouse]

It's still pretty ironic, though.

Is it still ironic if:

* ABC News does a report on the new Warner Brothers movie? (ABC is owned by Disney)

* Dateline NBC interviews the president of Sony? (NBC is owned by GE)

* CBS does an piece on Fox's American Idol?

And so on.... the original poster had the right idea. Its about journalistic integrity, not pandering to the owners. Providing stories of general interest is the main mission of the MSNBC group, and as long as they are making money, I am sure that NBC and Microsoft could care less if they happen to post stories that highlight their competitors or put themselves in a lesser light. Hell, if it increases readership, they might even do it more.

Re:MSNBC

[geekd]

What do I think of /.'s bias?

I think if /. was *not* biased, they would be a much less fun and much less popular web site. /.'s anti-MS, pro-Linux stance is what makes it.

If you want un-biased reporting, go to MSNBC (apparently). I'll stay here where the fun is.

Re:MSNBC

[GigsVT]

Being pro-Linux does not require you to be anti-MS.

Sorry, it does now. Ballmer wants to crush Linux. "The GPL is a cancer... Open source leads to security problems...." etc...

At one time you could be pro-Linux and not anti-MS, but MS has made that impossible now. If you support MS, you hurt Linux and open source. It is not us who made it that way, it is MS.

Re:MSNBC

[miffo.swe]

Ofcourse slashdot is biased! Im here for linux, freebsd, techs and funny stories about how MS succeds in fscking up in such wonderful ways. If i want to read sweet stories about Microsoft i just pop over to winmag or zdnet.

Do you run around MCSE forums and rant about them being biased against linux? I have read some pretty horrid lies over there and nothing on slashdot comes even close.

Re:MSNBC

[teslatug]

and I they seem take their journalistic impartiality seriously.

No, I don't work for them.

Freudian slip? j/k

Re:MSNBC

[Dalcius]

Using Microsoft isn't supporting them [philisophically], IMO. Sometimes you just have to use things you don't like to get by.

However, I find it hard to believe that you can honestly support Linux's free and open philosophy but support MS (not as in using it). If you can like Microsoft overall and you still follow the ideals of OSS, it is my opinion that you are ignorant of the entirety of Microsoft's history, actions and motives.

I'm all up for being fair to MS. They're not all bad (it's hard for anyone to be). But given the overall picture, I think they deserve most of what they get.

However, I'd still agree that there is a lot of immature MS bashing on Slashdot. Chalk it up to trolls and move on.

Re:MSNBC

[starling]

What do I think of /.'s bias? I think its immature.

It can be sometimes, and there is an unfortunate tendency towards mob thinking in the comments. On the other hand, Slashdot consists almost entirely of editorial and user comment and so can't realistically pretend to be impartial. All it has to do is be interesting and lively.

MSNBC and Slashdot are in a different businesses and I judge them by different standards.

Re:MSNBC

[nagora]

Is it still ironic if:
* ABC News does a report on the new Warner Brothers movie? (ABC is owned by Disney)

If Disney constantly went around saying that they were going to crush WB and that WB couldn't hold a candle to Disney then, yes, it would be ironic if ABC carried news of a possibly important new support for Disney.

TWW

Re:MSNBC

[Malcontent]

There are a lot of pro MS, anti linux/open source sites out there. Why not go hang out there? Honestly why do you hang out here if you hate it? Seems silly.

Re:MSNBC

[Malcontent]

No you are an enemy of Microsoft. Ballmer officially want to find a way to make sure you will never install linux or run linux programs. Every PC without windows costs him money.

Be it palladium or bought legislation Ballmer will eventually make it impossible for you to ever run linux or open source. You will be lucky if you don't end up in jail for doing it.

Let me repeat.

If you use linux you are an enemy of microft. Ms has declared war on you. Ballmer has already called you vile and evil things like communist or terrorist and compared you to cancer.

You may choose to ignore these attacks and continue to use windows, you may choose to just be a bystander or whatever. It's a free country. Some people are fighting back though.

Re:MSNBC

[FortKnox]

I DO NOT HATE LINUX NOR OPEN SOURCE.

Why do you assume I do? I'm one of those guys that thinks Linux isn't the best for everything, and windows isn't the worst for everything.

I, personally, run SuSE7.2 at home. I also have an XP box. I just don't like being told that if I run windows, I'm an enemy to open source.

I, honestly, think that there is no need to fight MS at all to support Linux and Open Source. Use what you like, no need to fling poo. MS HAS to fight Linux because they live in capitalism. Linux doesn't (RedHat, et al, live in capitalism for support). So linux has no need to fight back.

Zealotry only makes you blind with rage.

Re:MSNBC

[Malcontent]

Like I said you may stay on the sidelines like the most of the people in the world. It's your right.

For me when I hear Ballmer, gates and their mafioso call me a communist and a cancer I intend to fight back in whatever small way I can. If it means using linux, calling them names, encouraging other to boycott them, or whatever else it takes.

All it takes for evil to win is for good people to do nothing. In this case evil is winning because too many people are doing nothing.

Another source....

[bziman]

MSNBC seems to be responding somewhat slowly, so here's an article on the same topic from ZDNet UK.

Enjoy...

-brian

Re:The problem

[phorm]

I still see people having some issues using various online programs/games with AOL, but if it works for your account then it suits your means. A lot of us were just turned off by AOL a long time ago, and found solutions which better suited our needs. I should have rephrased this that it that AOL may help lead some windows users down the linux road (despite how many of us hate them, AOL does manage to gather customers), but probably won't see many linux users going to their product.

A few kudos to AOL though

• AOL floppies were formattable (free blank disks)
• AOL CD's became coasters, the new cases are rugged and nice for DVD's/etc
• As you mentioned, they support Netscape/Winamp/ICQ.

I reserve the right to apply a -1 to AOL for ICQ adware. I use trillian so it doesn't matter to me, I use their network so they still provide me with a decent service. The needs suit the audience. If AOL can help people get online and on linux, I really don't mind them - so long as they're not lagging up my battle.net games.

3: Somebody's lagging, who's your ISP?
2: What's an ISP?
1: The company that provides your internet connection
2: Oh, I'm using AOL
1: Kill player 2 first, he's AOL, that'll clear the lag
Yes, I often saw this on b-net - phorm

Re:The problem

[EvanED]

Or would they even be around today? Netscape was doing poorly to say the least when it was bought by AOL.

Re:Lousy title

[kevinank]

The article's title says AOL PC, but it's just a bundling of AOL's linux software on a lindows box.

Reread the tail end of the article. The writer spends a bit of time describing his experience with the early access release of AOL7.0 for Lindows. Pretty broken right now, but he believes that it will rapidly improve. (Hmm. If you have to have network access to download software through Click-N-Run, and AOL7.0 for Lindows is on Click-N-Run, then that is a bit of a catch 22 to using AOL for new owners of these machines.)

AOL Isn't So Bad After All

[RAMMS EIN]

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.

Re:AOL Isn't So Bad After All

[DoctorFrog]

This results in gazillions of lusers eating up the Net's bandwidth

which in turn results in gazillions being spent upgrading the infrastructure.

Microsoft helped popularize cheap PCs, AOL helped popularize cheap Internet, Walmart may well popularize cheap Linux PCs. Every silver lining has a cloud, or something like that! ;)

specs

[danger42]

- VIA C3 800 MHz processor offers comparable performance to the 800 MHz Celeron processor
- 133 MHz frontside bus
- 128 MB SDRAM, expandable to 1 GB
- 133 MHz memory speed
- 10 GB Ultra-ATA 100 hard drive, 5400 rpm (total accessible capacity varies depending on operating environment)
- 52x CD-ROM drive
- Integrated Trident Blade 3D/Pro Media AGP 4x graphics
- Up to 8 MB shared video memory
- Integrated AC '97 Audio with 3D enhanced sound
- Integrated 10/100 Ethernet connection
- Micro ATX tower case (14"D x 7"W x 14"H)
- Available drive bays: one 5.25-inch external, one 3.5-inch external, one 3.5-inch internal
- 2 PCI slots
- 1 ISA slot
- High-speed serial port
- Parallel port
- 2 front and 2 rear USB ports
- Game port
- 104-key keyboard
- 2-button mouse with wheel
- Audio port (line-in, line-out, mic-in)
- Stereo speakers
- LindowsOS operating system (pre-installed)
- Software includes mail, word processor, Web browser/file manager, address book, calculator, CD player, MP3 Player, PowerPoint viewer, Word viewer, Excel viewer and Image viewer
Games include Tron, Battleship, Poker, Minesweeper, Potato Guy
- Special Offer - Select up to 10 software applications at no charge from the Lindows.com Click-N-Run Warehouse
- 1-year warranty, return to Microtel

Re:specs

[fault0]

Not sure about 800mhz part, but a 1ghz C3 is about equivalent to a 800mhz celeron in int tests, and vastly worse in float tests.

It seems that it has a horrible FPU, and fairly decent ALU. Hey, it's 200$ for the whole machine, not bad if all you want to do is web browse, play 2d games, check email and go on AOL chat rooms :p

But I agree, this is not good avertising to call it similiar to a 800mhz celeron (or 850mhz duron, which is even more far fetched).

Re:specs

[Reziac]

Yes, but the target market has no real use for the FPU and wouldn't miss it even if it were entirely absent. The closest they'll come to exercising the CPU might be cropping their kids' birthday photos and mailing 'em to grandma.

As to specs vs price, this is comparable to the usual in a low-end (well, what's low-end now) barebones system at a computer swap meet -- so a pretty good deal for the target market, being mainly people who aren't so sure they need a computer at all for $500 and up, but at "only $199" it sounds a lot more attractive to these folks.

Best part - REAL cost of Windows being exposed

[WarpedMind]

It only got one line of play in the article but that fact that Wal-Mart is selling the same computer for a $100 more that includes windows is significant.

Never before has the public been offered such clear presentation of the real cost of Windows. (At least not in such a large forum.)

Always before MS has been able to hide the cost the consumer is paying. Now that Wal-Mart draws it out in black and white, users will finally have a REAL choice about what OS they want to use on their PC.

Re:Best part - REAL cost of Windows being exposed

[pjrc]

... that fact that Wal-Mart is selling the same computer for a $100 more that includes windows is significant.

Don't forget that the REAL cost of Lindows is $99/year OR learning to download and install software the "linux way" (or perhaps Debian or Redhat way would be more accurate). It can only be good for the free software community if people who opted for a cheap $199 computer also opt for the cheaper way of obtaining free software.

And the $100 extra includes the $30 modem not present in the $199 computer, so in truth you're paying $70 for 'doze. Still, that's 35% of the cost of the basic machine.

Re:Best part - REAL cost of Windows being exposed

[teslatug]

Don't get your hopes too high, those with enough wit already know the cost of Windows...Wallmart customers will just think the PC with Windows is just "better" somehow (everyone knows yo get what you pay for).

Re:Best part - REAL cost of Windows being exposed

[pjrc]

No Modem? And after Microtel fixed the softmodem issue in their Mandrake Version? This makes no sense.

According to the article, and Walmart's site, the computer is $230 if you want it with a modem.

Makes perfect sense... attract attention with the $200 price tag, and then "up sell" to a better one. If you look at the walmart site, you'll see they have many similar machines in steps from $200 to $500... but the next jump is $230 to $300.

What doesn't make so much sense, is that Walmart's site suggests buying a $350 flat panel monitor. How smart is that suggestion, pairs with a bargain-basement PC ?? They ought to be suggesting the cheapest monitor. Oh well.

No, it's not the same.

[FreeLinux]

The ZDNet article is simply talking about Netscape 7 being included with Lindows. The MSNBC article goes into far greater detail about Lindows and is talking about the AOL client rather than just Netscape.

Re:No, it's not the same.

[bziman]

You're right of course... my mistake. A little trigger happy on the submit button.

Comments about Lindows?

[mach-5]

I was just wondering if anyone has actually experienced Lindows? Can anyone comment about stability, useability, installation, boot-up time, configurability and system management?

Re:Comments about Lindows?

[Reziac]

Thanks for the info. BTW that was exactly my stumbling block on my first foray into linux -- "Okay, it's installed, and You've Got Desktop. NOW what??"

Man, imagine that scenario -- AOLinux boots up and that suave voice announces, "You've got Desktop!"

I never understood

[nizo]

why AOL didn't do this much sooner. I figured once they bought Netscape, the first thing they would do is start offering their "AOL" PCs. Imagine a PC where if the user has problems, you can debug their machine remotely, via a recovery CD that lets the machine dial in to AOL and a tech logs in and checks out the problem. If only I could find my post from ages ago about this... :-)

Re:I never understood

[Reziac]

My understanding was that AOL bought Netscape for the NS server technology, not for the NS browser.

But I think the main reason they didn't do it sooner was that the cost of PC hardware simply hadn't dropped enough to make it attractive to the newbie market who isn't sure they need a computer in the first place. NOW, you can build a whole PC for under $200 and still make a buck on it.
Obviously an AOL OS is not going to be taken seriously in the experienced-user nor enterprise markets (at least not at first), but it would be very marketable to newbies -- IF it were cheap enough and IF they didn't have to do more than plug it in and turn it on. That is a MUCH larger market than the geek crowd realises -- probably half of all users.

yes it does run on wine

[neowintermute]

I send all my patches back to the public wine tree, and in fact, our wine is just the public tree, with any obvious bugs fixed (which we also send back).

So, if you pick up wine from cvs, it will run AOL7.

See wine-patches and wine-devel for discussion.

Re:It looks like Wine to me

[Salsaman]

It doesn't necessarily run under Wine, it could be just a rebranded NS7.

Re:Click-N-Run

[tomhudson]

There have been a few articles this past week at various sites re: Lindows and its' limitations.

Mind you, there's nothing to keep someone from installing Mandrake 9.0 (Dolphin) from CD, and re-installing AOL 7.0 for Linux.

Why the plug for mandrake? - Just finished installing it on one of the office boxes, and it looks sweet.

Re:Internet Made Easier

[DickBreath]

"Now i can check my email, IM my friends, surf the internet, all that in the AOL computer. It is so simple!"

So braindead to use, no wonder it's number 1!

Boycott Lindows

[Eloquence]

Lindows is dangerous and should be boycotted by all security-conscious users. The reason is simple: Users run as "root" by default, with all rights -- a single wrong click or command and the whole system is made unusable. Or turned into a full-powered skript kiddie battle station.

This kind of philosophy has been the main cause of many destructive worms and viruses on the Windows platform. To repeat this error endangers the Internet ecosystem as a whole and gives Linux a bad name. Furthermore, it gives people a justification to run as root -- this practice should be discouraged. Any operating system that is insecure by default should be boycotted.

Lindows.com is currently stating that they are doing this in the name of convenience, a stupid argument (how hard can it be to ask for an administration password?). As long as they do not reverse their stance in this matter, Lindows should be boycotted by all technically competent users. I'm getting enough e-mail worms per day as it is.

Re:Boycott Lindows

[timeOday]

I disagree. I think people use accounts on single-user linux systems mostly just because they're there.

On a system with many users, limiting the damage caused to a single user to himself is a necessity. On a system with one user/administrator, it's meaningless.

Besides, can you really think of any single click that can render the system unusable? In any case, if the user is persuaded to enter a command or install a trojan, forcing them to type the root password first makes no difference.

Having users and accounts also doesn't help Internet security much. Email worms aren't affected at all, and many important servers (like sshd) have to run as root anyways. And a server running as a lesser user can still cause just as much harm to the Internet, for instance by participating in a denial of service attack, or relaying spam.

Re:Boycott Lindows

[Tim Doran]

Besides, can you really think of any single click that can render the system unusable?

Oh c'mon... happens all the time... drop your coke on the keyboard, hitting the following keys: "rm -rf / [enter]"

Whew, thank god I wasn't running as root! ;)

Re:Boycott Lindows

[atrus]

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.

Re:Boycott Lindows

[dpilot]

Perhaps we need "constructive engagement" with the Lindows people, and help them improve the security of their machines. At this point, it's in all of our best interest to not see Linux responsible for a net security fiasco.

There are ways to take care of this, beginning with establishing a default non-root id and enough sudo or setuid configuration tools to do what needs to be done. Remember these boxes are for non-Linux users, so the configuration needs should be simpler, as well.

Re:Boycott Lindows

[Gaetano]

Anyone know how OSX handles "root" access separately from other users? I'm just curious.

Re:Boycott Lindows

[Eloquence]

On a system with one user/administrator, it's meaningless.

Bullshit. My system is set up in such a way that all data I no longer work on frequently is moved into a non-writable archive. That also includes all media files like MP3s, movies etc. If a malicious executable should wreck havoc, it can delete a few days of work at most. (Backups are nice, but even nicer if you don't need them.) I see no reason why this shouldn't be wrapped into a nice GUI and made standard behavior.

As for possible damage, SuSE's example for the damage root can cause has always been a user who typed "ls > /dev/hdb1" (he wanted to redirect it to the sound device to see what would happen). Similar accidents can happen easily with drag & drop, and Unix is a lot better at deleting files that are in use than Windows. Trust tech support wisdom: users do stupid things. It's irresponsible to put them in an environment where they can cause a lot of harm, especially when we're trying so hard to teach newbies that they can experiment freely without being afraid of computers. If you're root, better be afraid.

You're right that non-root users can still cause damage to others (although they can't listen on low ports, for example), but the infection is much easier to fix. Getting rid of a kernel-based rootkit and cleaning infected system binaries is hard, removing something from .xinitrc or .kde/Autostart is not. It's really not that difficult: There's a difference in having write access to 2 megs of files versus the entire system.

Re:Boycott Lindows

[iceT]

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....

Re:Boycott Lindows

[sardonic2]

I disagree on this. Boycotting Lindows, why? All they are doing is trying it help, maybe its not the perfect but its a step in the right direction. Running default as root is pretty dangerous, but then again this is a altenative to windows, you have to give the users a "similar" experience. A lot of Windows users that might buy a WalMart Lindows PC might not know whats going on when they get prompted for a password, might think its broke or get scared. I know its a sad truth but the majority of the markey still aren't very tech savvy. I also believe AOL for Lindows will hopefully get the word out that Linux is also for the desktop not for those enormus expensive servers.

Re:Boycott Lindows

[Paul Komarek]

The idea of a "single user computer" is a little strange, unless you're referring to a palmtop or live alone. If you have a girlfriend, spouse, or kids, or have family and other guests visiting, it seems unlikely only one person will use the computer.

When guests come, I open an account for them and let them know that they can't do anything to hurt the system (except hit the power button). I think it helps them feel more comfortable.

Completely unrelated: when I see guests using Mozilla to check their outlook mail from my GNU/Linux machines, I realize just how dangerous Netscape might have been to Microsoft. A few minutes after logging in, they appear to have forgotten they're not running Windows.

-Paul Komarek

Re:Boycott Lindows

[mjh]

On a system with many users, limiting the damage caused to a single user to himself is a necessity. On a system with one user/administrator, it's meaningless.

No it isn't. It's the single thing that keeps virii from propagating on linux. I don't mean worms like slapper, I mean things that attach themselves to executable code. The fact that almost all binaries under linux are not installed writable by the average user, limits the effectiveness of classic virii, if not completely irradicating them.

Now, I'll grant that this is not a particularly populer form of malware anymore. But running as non-root makes you virtually impervius to it. There are LOTS of other advantages to not running as root, but to be able to completely eliminate one form of malware is something that can't be ignored.

$.02

Re:Boycott Lindows

[atrus]

yeah, I admit, it wasn't painfuly obvious to click it (even though it usualy said "click the lock to make changes")... but whatever :) Its better than running as root all the time.

Re:Boycott Lindows

[bigdavex]

Were you planning on buying Lindows otherwise? Are you sure you're boycotting, or just not buying it?

Re:Boycott Lindows

[Valar]

Hm, flinging insults will do you no good. The point is, non-root users can't modify ALL of their files (I know I know, root users can't even alter files if the permissions are wrong). And yes, I do have important files. The solution with those is to make back ups, not to change the perms so you have to change them back everytime you wish to make an edit.

Re:The problem

[reallocate]

You know, choice of OS or ISP isn't a measure of intelligence. The idea is to make computers easier to use, not more difficult.

Full-powered skript kiddie battle station

[FreeLinux]

That's really funny. I like it.

Just to be devil's advocate here, Root by default is simply a page from Microsoft's very successful history.

yes!

[geekoid]

Now when I say 'you should try Linux' to my non-technical friends and family that can't argue 'it doesn't run AOL arguement'
I know several people, and everything they do online is through AOL, like it or not, thats true for millions of people.
Next time they're looking at a forced MS upgrade, I will probably get them to try it Linux, since it will save them 100 bucks.

I can probablt get 4 people to switch as soon as they get a stable release.

Re:The problem

[landaker]

Wow, an "Anonymous Coward" has the courage to stand by his statement. Am I the only one who senses a bit of irony? =)

Red Hat?

[brettlbecker]

What's this talk about AOL Red Hat? I heard something about this awhile ago, but as far as I know, this new Wal Mart PC running Lindows doesn't contain any Red Hat Linux at all... Lindows itself is based, according to their FAQ (at lindows.com) on Debian Linux... so what's the deal?

Actions in China count heavily against them

[sam_handelman]

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.

Re:Actions in China count heavily against them

[Planesdragon]

However, they cooperate with the PRC in censoring their own citizens.

So what? They're a business, not a charity.

I do think it's better to support a government and encorage that government to be good, than to blacklist that government and leave them no way to save face and back down at the same time...

Hey, wait, that's the USA's national policy towards China! And AOL Time Warner's an American Company... hey, wow, we can hate companies just for helping the government! It's 1962 all over again!

[Hey, and I'm -18... sweet! No taxes for 34 years!]

Re:WhINE

[tomhudson]

Except that it will run faster, smoother natively, and everyone wants their apps to look the best. This is a compromise ... such is life (sigh).

Mind you, that "piece of shit computer" is better than almost anything sold on the planet 5 years ago.

And it comes without the Micro$oft tax. When someone can buy 4 complete computers for the price of 1 wintel box, Micro$oft Windows and Micro$oft Office, this really puts the Micro$oft tax in perspective.

Good all around...

[Omega]

This is the sort of thing that's Good For Everyone(TM).

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.

Re:Good all around...

[Papineau]

This means more games, more office software, more of the general desktop software that many people say is missing from Linux.

Have you checked the specs of the box? Not much current games will run smoothly on that, Windows or Linux. It's a box designed to do basic things: power on, get on AOL, power down.

Linux on AOL free CDs

[usurper_ii]

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

Re:Linux on AOL free CDs

[usurper_ii]

Well, thinking about it for a minute more, the one thing that is going to hold AOL back from doing this is DRM. At some point someone up top at Time-Warner is not going to like that their AOL Linux distro lets people bypass all the new DRM software being built into Windows. AOL Linux would then become a "circumvention device," and the jack-booted thugs would have to start spending a lot of time stomping on all those free disks.

Usurper_ii

You can actually make a boewulf cluster of these!

[AltGrendel]

Nuff said.

Re:very cool

[rseuhs]

Why?

I don't see any reason why somebody using AOL and not much more on a Pentium1 on Win95 should not buy this 200$ PC when his old PC breaks.

He saves at least 100$ and it does what he needs.

This is a great step for Linux on the desktop. This will give pressure to peripheral-builders to release Linux-drivers.

But I guess whining about "probably isn't enough" is probably more l33t, I guess.

Choice of OS != intelligence? (Re:The problem)

[phorm]

You know, choice of OS or ISP isn't a measure of intelligence

Indeed it is not, nor did I mean to imply that it was. OS choice is however, often a measure of proficiency (sometimes computing intelligence, but not intellectual).

It's also a measure of judgement, not getting suckered in or brainwashed by a big name which you hear on TV or see in banners every minute. This seems to be a large part of AOL's strategy, hear the name, buy the product. AOL isn't better than others, it isn't cheaper than many. It's becoming more and more visible as they attempt to push their way into every aspect of life, and that lends to an increase in marketing audience, which is probably what this is mostly about.

The idea is to make computers easier to use, not more difficult.
As for those that use linux, they don't use it because it's easier, the use it because it's functional. Making computers easier to use doesn't help much if they're not functional enough to do what I need. Calculators are easy to use.

One of the big problems is in that making everything "easy", we make people less proficient. As soon as the GUI as gone, 95% of users will probably crap their pants at a CLI. Not to complain, it keeps me employed, but we're making things prettier and users dumber, PC skills wise.

Do you know how many people can't even format a disk, or run a program that's not in the start menu or desktop? It's scary. Linux is an operating system of choice. GUI's have been made that make it nicer, and easier, but by far the most useful part of it is still within the little icon entitled "terminal." AOL users moving to lindows will likely not be any more PC-smart than their windows counterparts, not will the learn much about linux.

However, I do hear screams of anguish resonating from MS-headquarters - phorm

Re:Choice of OS != intelligence? (Re:The problem)

[reallocate]

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.

Re:Choice of OS != intelligence? (Re:The problem)

[electroniceric]

Here's the rub:

It's also a measure of judgement, not getting suckered in or brainwashed by a big name which you hear on TV or see in banners every minute. It's becoming more and more visible as they attempt to push their way into every aspect of life, and that lends to an increase in marketing audience, which is probably what this is mostly about.

Pardon me if this comes across as a rant, but I see a lot of this kind of crap in the Linux community, and elsewhere, and frankly I think it hinders not helps the process of acheiving a fair body of law about corporations. I don't much like modern marketing tactics, nor is there a lot of love lost between me and most large companies, but casting the decision to use a different ISP than AOL as a battle against the dark forces of consumer capitalist imperialism seems melodramatic with a self-congratulatory undertone for "freeing" yourself from these entraining influences. What about all the people who DO like AOL, are they yearning to break free and don't know it? Perhaps more simply not everyone wants to dedicate himself to outsider stance of opposing the everyday elements in his life, based on a veiled premise of a moral superiority?
Again, apologies if that sounded like a personal attack - it's not meant to be. I just think that constantly staking out the high ground is counterproductive. Come on down and play in middle, where things happen.

One of the big problems is in that making everything "easy", we make people less proficient.

This problem is the consistent bane of teachers. What people need to know to be considered "educated" is in tremendous flux these days, and really has been since the opportunity to seek higher education was offered to more than just a few elites. It's a tough question in computing. I agree that it's important that people understand enough about the machine to be able to control it, rather than the other way around. However, I don't necessarily think that GUI is dumber. It's just that, as in teaching, it's hard to design software that accounts for and leads users through widely varying levels of skill and experience.

Do you know how many people can't even format a disk, or run a program that's not in the start menu or desktop? It's scary.

See 1st point. Not wanting to know how to take apart a point-and-shoot-camera is not scary. Don't confuse undereducated with not technically oriented.

Re:Choice of OS != intelligence? (Re:The problem)

[phorm]

See 1st point. Not wanting to know how to take apart a point-and-shoot-camera is not scary. Don't confuse undereducated with not technically oriented.

I mean, even in windows, they can't format a disk or other simple tasks. In DOS it took 1 command, maybe a few presses of enter, and a lot of people can do this. In windows it's right-click, format, (etc) OK. Fairly easy as well, but most people aren't willing to try and figure it out.

There are many other less technical things that people just refuse to try and learn on their own. It's not that users should know everything, but they should have a decent grasp of how to use their equipment functionalities in a reasonable manner.

Nowadays, it's a tech admin's nightmare. When the tech is getting called on constantly for little thing after little thing, a lot of the important jobs get little time in them. If they focus on the big jobs, then the people with little jobs often get annoyed or irritated at the admin rather than trying to find their own solution.

It's FINE to have to show somebody something once, but if you've explain it, given out documentation, etc and people still refuse to do it, then there's no reason that the users can't in some small ways fend for themselves.

In one case, we have a tech who constantly gets called/emailed to add users to the proxy/email/etc lists. There are scripts that make this simple, it's just a few commands, and they've been given out. Yet various people insist on calling for help, because they are afraid of something that doesn't have a GUI with a 50-line description, a help button, and an OK/NEXT button.

Often enough you can find a secretary who ends up learning many of the small tasks that the IT admin can't be bothered with (format disks,etc,etc) and that other people are too afraid to do. There is an inherent fear of computers as unstable devices, and anything that's CLI nowadays becomes the realm of "those tech people."

The computer will not hurt you, nor will it explode, you don't have to be afraid of it - phorm

Re:The problem

[thomas.galvin]

You know, choice of OS or ISP isn't a measure of intelligence. The idea is to make computers easier to use, not more difficult.

No, at least not necessarily. I am sure some very intelligent people use AOL, or WinME, etc.

Still, it is a sign of how proficient you are with a computer, and this may have a more direct correlation to intelligence. Intelligent people usually like to play, and the more they play with the internet, the more likely they are to realize that there is more out there than what AOL is pushing at them. The more proficient they are with their computer, the more they are likely to want things there way, not AOL's way.

My first home connection was AOL; I minimized it and ran explorer anyway, because I didn't like the AOL interface. Soon, I had dropped AOL altogether. I imagine that just about any average-to-above-average computer user would have the same reaction.

Other Way Around

[reallocate]

It's the other way around: getting AOL users to use Linux.

Forget about mainstreaming Linux by convincing everyone to learn Unix. Hasn't happened in 30 years; ain't gonna happen. If/when Linux becomes a mainstream desktop OS, it will be as WIMP-ish as all the rest. OSX is a good precursor of what it will take.

Solitaire?

[Geeyzus]

Games include Tron, Battleship, Poker, Minesweeper, Potato Guy

This may sound dumb, but hear me out... why isn't Solitaire included?

My mom plays Solitaire on Windows. So do most users that don't do much more than browse the web and check email. Half the people here at where I work do. Why not include solitaire?!?!

It's just one more thing that a Windows user could ask. "I really like playing solitaire. Does this computer have it?" "No."

Maybe a dumb point, but it just seems like it would have made sense to incude it. It's not like Microsoft has a monopoly on solitaire.

Mark

Re:Solitaire?

[geekoid]

how about:
"no, but I can download any number of solataire games for free. How many do you want?"

It is a good point, but it also gives a glimmer on how Linux's marketing people(us) need to improve are skills at conviencing the majority of computer users why they should choose Linux.

Need AOL/GNU/Linux...

[VivianC]

My mother-in-law and two brother-in-laws all have computers. Here is a list of the software they use:

• Word Perfect 8
  
• AOL
  
• Photoshop

If AOL goes stable on Linux, I can get their P-233s off Win98 and save myself a lot of support headaches.

Re:Need AOL/GNU/Linux...

[wackybrit]

How does that help you with Photoshop though? The Gimp is a piece of crap (really). Is there any decent alternative graphics software on Linux that isn't The Gimp that I could check out?

It's only a matter of time...

[einstein]

til they start mailing these to everyone on the planet..

Oh, crap, 3 more computers from AOL this week!

--

Re:It's only a matter of time...

[Arandir]

Whoohoo! I can have a beowulf cluster of these things in a month!

Lindows == Windows 3.1

[garoush]

If you look deep into the installation of Lindows (striped down version of any major Linux distribution, running as root, etc.) you will see that it compares to Windows 3.1

Most consumers will think twice before buying one. I can see Joe consmer thinking: "Why is it so cheap? It must be junk. I am getting a Dell". Think about it, a decent Dell with Windows XP (which has a lot more functionality then Lindows does, multimedia, et. al.) is only few hundred $$ more then a Lindows box.

Re:The problem

[Drachemorder]

I'd agree with you, except for one thing. A lot of software I want/need to run is not available on Linux. If Linux develops to the point where "average morons" use it --- even if it's not a particularly overwhelming percentage --- more software companies will find it worth their while to port their products to Linux. Therefore I do have a significant interest in seeing widespread adoption of Linux by average users.

Here's a wacky thought...

[VivianC]

I was just looking at the Gentoo Linux page when this thought hit me:

What about AOL sending out a bootable CD that runs a basic Linux distro and AOL on top. It might be a bit slow and have trouble recognizing all the different modems, but it be cool when it worked.

Almost there

[Nyarly]

Screw this installed on a $200 WalMart box crap. What would be the killer situ is if AOL started to put their Lindows distro thing on those stupid CDs and DVDs they clutter your mail with. Imagine millions of users who get these CDs being able to install Lindows on their boxes. That's Microsoft's terror and no mistake.

It is how AOL got market penetration. It's how they became worthy to buy into Time Warner (more, it was a merger); why not piggy-back Linux onto the AOL distribution process? And when Linux is as catholic as Windows is now, imagine the glory! Whoo-hoo.

Granted, I wouldn't touch the support desk for that with a ten-hundred foot pole. "Um, where did Windows go?"

Flamebait?

[Bilbo]

Hey -- if I had any moderator points, I'd have given this a +1 Funny

Actually, I agree that there is certainly more going on here than meets the eye. I'm sure that MSNBC goes out of its way to appear unbiased and objective (as if any source of news is ever truly "unbiased"), especially when covering technical issues. I wouldn't be surprised if they are snickering under their breath, hoping that the whole venture fails. However, if they are, then they have done a better job than usual in this article in hiding their usually thinly veiled derision.

I am still concerned about some if the issues with Lindows -- issues which have already been rehashed add nauseum in this forum. However, I still think these computers are still a step in the right direction, and appear to be making progress quickly. I still hope they catch on.

Re:Flamebait?

[jvmatthe]

Thanks for the virtual +1 Funny mod. I'm beginning to think I need to post gigantic ASCII art smileys for all the not-quite-with-it moderators around here. :^)

"GNU/Windows" is actually used

[yerricde]

I guess anyone with CygWin loaded on a Win2k box should call it GNU/Microsoft Windows.

I detect sarcasm in your comment, but what you claim is actually the case. The name "Cygwin" was originally short for "Cygnus GNU/Windows" or something like that. Even the stripped down version of Cygwin based on msvcrt.dll rather than cygwin1.dll is named MinGW, for "Minimalist GNU/Windows".

"Optimized for WINE" on the box

[yerricde]

Every time you run an app using WINE, you take one more incentive away from app makers to move away from Windows.

Yet you give one more incentive to app makers to make their Windows binaries run well on WINE as well as Microsoft's flavors of Windows. Here's the game plan for proprietary software publishers:

1. Read feedback form results that ask politely for a port of your software (which is currently at version 2.2) to Linux.
2. Make version 3.0 of your software work on WINE.
3. Work "Optimized for WINE" into your box art. Possibly license the Lindows logo.
4. Sell version 3.0 to users of x86 Linux and x86 *BSD.
5. Profit.
6. As you maintain 3.x for Windows, you find that the feedback is now asking you for a "native" port to non-x86 operating systems.
7. Port version 3.5 of your software to Winelib (an implementation of the Win32 API in a *n?x shared library) for more predictable performance across the *n?x spectrum. This should be relatively straightforward, as you did most of the dirty work on the Windows side when you got rid of the calls that Wine doesn't support.
8. Your app is now *n?x native. Work that fact into the box design.
9. Ship version 3.5 with Linux, BSD, Solaris, and Win32 binaries.
10. More profit.

AOL client is at least a dialer

[yerricde]

So what is porting AOL over to linux going to acchieve ?

Compatibility with a dial-up protocol that Linux currently doesn't support. Linux currently supports PPP and SLIP; with AOL's contribution, it'll support AOL-Dial as well, probably through some sort of proprietary network interface driver for aol0 (analogous to ppp0 or eth0).

Heisenburg, Hunter S Thompson, and Post Modern

[jerryasher]

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?

Re:Heisenburg, Hunter S Thompson, and Post Modern

[brooks_talley]

Really? Suppose you've got two choices for articles to read:

1) Here's your upfront and identifiable bias: a bible-thumbing fundamentalist ranting and raving that evolution is nonsense, that abortion is murder, that atheism should be illegal, and that all non-Christians are sinners who will burn in hell

2) Here's your pseudo-objective type who probably has bias: A theology professor, who has studied the world's regligion in depth, discussing the similarities and differences between them and the challenges they face in an increasingly secular and technology-focused world.

Who would you rather listen to? Now, which example is closest to the tone of the /. community when Microsoft is even peripherally brought into the conversation?

Cheers
-b

Re:Heisenburg, Hunter S Thompson, and Post Modern

[swillden]

I would rather listen to someone (anyone) whose bias is upfront and identifiable, then listen to someone that claims to be objective.

Pushing that a bit further, I think the movement towards "objective" journalism that began in the early part of the 20th century has been bad for Americans and bad for the American press.

Read some newspapers from the 19th century or earlier and you'll see that the norm was for journalists to wear their biases on their sleeves. And it was common for educated citizens to subscribe to multiple papers so that they could find their own version of the truth among the different slants on the facts. Having an informed opinion in those days meant having to apply a little thought to the issues rather than being able to quote the day's sound bites.

Less efficient? Maybe. But we'd all be better off if more of us engaged our brains a bit more frequently. "Objective" reporting tries to convince us that we don't have to do that. Problem is, "objective" news does not and cannot exist as long as humans are writing it.

Re:Heisenburg, Hunter S Thompson, and Post Modern

[jerryasher]

Yes, I think you're right about the call letters being reversed.

I'm not sure where I would place Bernie Ward. He's not that much of an alternative and he uses the same tired hatespeech radio techniques to troll listeners and to drag 30 seconds of content into 30 minutes.

KGO (then) also has Pete Wilson -- funny I liked him more when he was just the TV talking head.

Regardless, will either of these Disney affiliates talk about Eldred vs. Ashcroft (and Disney?)

Re:Heisenburg, Hunter S Thompson, and Post Modern

[jerryasher]

Why do you believe you have only two sources to listen too?

Perhaps because anyone can post to /., I find a very large amount of pro Microsoft information in /.

Re:Heisenburg, Hunter S Thompson, and Post Modern

[NeMon'ess]

What would be really great is if reporting would cover the who, what, when, where, why, and how of stories like they're supposed to, of all the sides or parties involved. Articles are so cropped to fit more ads and articles into the same page that journalistic principles get cut too. Another problem is owner or newsroom biases. An example is the Palestinian-Israel conflict. Some newspapers almost only feature crying palestinian mothers and children, but not the families of Israeli civilians or soldiers. Often all that gets shown of the carnage is the bombed wreckage of a bus or building. It seems that since the Palestinians are getting killed almost every day by soldiers before they can blow themsleves up, that doesn't make the pages. When Isreal retaliates for a successful bombing, that goes on the front page of the World section and those without a clue wonder why Israel killed two and injured forty bystanders in an attempt on the top Hamas bombmaker.

TV is worse of course, by condensing everything into sound bites it rarely covers the five W's like it should.

Re:Heisenburg, Hunter S Thompson, and Post Modern

[swillden]

You're saying that it would be really good if journalists could offer more complete reports so they could be more objective.

I'm saying that objectivity is imposible. It would be better to have two newspapers, one of which is blatantly pro-Israel and the other of which is blatantly pro-Palestine. Readers of both would then understand the issues far better.

One of the great things about the web is that those who are on-line and interested *can* get all sides of the story in this fashion.

And this differs from Windows98 in what way?

[alispguru]

Maybe someday there will be a Lindows-equivalent for something Windows-esque with a better security model. For now, Lindows is an attempt to fill a need, and there is a chance they'll improve, but only if they have some degree of commercial success now.

I'll worry more about this when I hear of the first Trojan specifically aimed at Lindows - which will be evidence that there are enough Lindows boxes out in the wild.

With users comes support.

[miffo.swe]

When enough users use linux (insert your favourite vendor here) will also start supporting linux. Dumbing down or as i like to see it abstract the GUI from the user is very different on linux and MacOSX than on Windows. All the options and commands lies right there beneeth the surface and are ready to use if you want to something more advanced. In windows you are constrained to the GUI but in linux its most often just a matter of sending a normal command from the gui to linux. Something that you yourself might aswell have typed in is now done with a button.

We need this support if we want drivers to continue to come for linux. What do you do the day you sit there with linux and nothing is usable on the internet because it lacks support from all big vendors?

Re:With users comes support.

[wishus]

In windows you are constrained to the GUI but in linux its most often just a matter of sending a normal command from the gui to linux.

Actually, both of them work the same way, and neither of them work either way that you've described. Windows or Linux, when you activate that shortcut icon or click that start menu item, you are passing a command to the shell.

And get this: When you double click on a Word document on your Windows desktop, the program manager looks up the file association in the registry (hopefully finding out that you want to open .doc files with word) and then sends the command "winword.exe /o something.doc" to the shell - the /o is the command line argument for "open".

It is possible to run all your windows software from the "Command Prompt." You can even set up your $PATH variable so you can run winword.exe no matter what your current working directory is. Most people agree that "Command Prompt" is a crappy shell, though. Some people replace it with bash. Most of us don't bother and just use the GUI. Here is some info about replacing the shell.

Re:With users comes support.

[miffo.swe]

Yea i know but how easy is it to send register keys and most of all to remember them?

c:\>progman 3219487198237921873921873

I dont think it even resembles what you can do with bash. And yes i can rebuild windows to work a bit like linux but whats the point?

I meant that its workable whitout the GUI in a way thats not possible with windows if you like it even if some abstraction takes place in the GUI layer. The GUI and the underlying kernel is more separated than in windows and that makes it non destructive to stupidify because everything looks as normal to us geeks under the surface.

No, Tetris is on drugs.

[yerricde]

Linux has no useful apps or games

Are you kidding me? Linux has lots of games. For instance, Linux has XBill (shoot the evil computer crackers), Tux Racer (snowboarding), Tetanus On Drugs (a tetris clone with a twist, literally), all of the GNOME Games and KDE Games, and several id Software games. For more, go to SourceForge Gaming Foundry or Freshmeat's games section, both brought to you by OSDN Keiretsu.

And through emulation and virtualization, you can run even more games. Most of the 2D games run on WINE. Older PC games should run on DOSEMU, plex86, or Bochs with FreeDOS installed. If you have an NES cart reader (hard to find), Linux has every NES game ever produced, through FCE Ultra. If you have a GBA cart reader (easy to find in online stores; look for the Visoly Flash Advance Linker), Linux has every GBA game ever produced, through VisualBoyAdvance.

On the hardware side, Linux supports game port joypads, USB joypads, and even game console joypads connected through a parallel port adapter.

because it was written by a bunch of stupid communists.

One of the most popular video games in the world, Tetris, was written by citizens of a Communist country as well.

Re:No, Tetris is on drugs.

[fault0]

Don't forget ut2k3, which will probably become the most popular competitive FPS soon.

Not Clock-speed equivalent.

[mbourgon]

Check further in the above's post - while at some things the speed is abhorrent and other times good, it's not equivalent to a 800 mhz celeron. Most times it scores worse than a 667 Celeron, but sometimes up to a Celeron 1300 (UT2003), but LAME encoding takes 3 times longer (1224 vs 451 seconds) than a 667. Those numbers are really fubar'd.

fuck lindows. look at this

[7-Vodka]

They sell mandrake PCs too:

Wallmart design your mandrake PC

Why buy a computer with a linux ripoff that charges you $99 a year and has everyone running as root. I almost forgot, they rebrand all the apps other people wrote too.

Mandrake is the OS I'd recommend to new linux users.

Re:No...you've got it all wrong

[scrytch]

Why do you think the IBM PC exploded at home, when it SUCKED at Games/Graphics/Sound up until the mid-late 90s??

Because the market was radically different then, and the games basically sucked, appealing only to the same intellectual professionals who bought them in the first place. PC's are largely bought as entertainment devices these days, a fact that you ignore at your peril.

Re:Twilight of the Nerds

[MaxQuordlepleen]

dude it's 2002 ...

Confused!

[LoudMusic]

Ok, now I'm really confused. AOL ... Linux ... Walmart ... Microsoft ... who are the good guys? Who do we hate? The lines are becoming fuzzy.

~LoudMusic

Re:The problem

[fault0]

yup, icq99 was great.
and 98 was even better.

$40 for DOS 6, Windows 3.1 Was a Freebie

[UNIBLAB_PowerPC]

Always before MS has been able to hide the cost the consumer is paying.

No joke ... 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 ....

Of course!

[fault0]

Yup, that's actually a quite true statement. People who work for netscape are AOL/timewarner employees.

Re:The problem

[fault0]

> Mozilla is not owned by AOL.

AFAIK, much of Mozilla would be copyrighted by AOLtw since they pay many of the full time hackers who work on Mozilla.

> Mozilla is a entirely separate browser which was built on the GPL'd code from Netscape Navigator buy people who had no connectionn to AOL.

Uh, the source released wasn't GPL'd at all. I beleive it was originally NPL'd. And it was released with people with definite connections to AOL: Netscape employees who work on Mozilla for *gasp* AOL!

> You're probably one of those idiots that thinks Apple is now owned by Microsoft, too.

Congratualations, you're now an idiot who knows nothing about Mozilla's history.

In January 1998, the Netscape Browser source code will be made available for free on the Internet. In November 1998, NS was bought by AOL. Most of the current Mozilla was written after that, under AOL. AOL is actually quite supportive of Mozilla. Check out an email sent by Steve Case after AOL bought Netscape.

Re:ROFLMAO

[fault0]

Actually, hick.com is the original hoster of goatse. If you resolve goatse.cx, you'll get hick.com's address. Goatse.cx is just a virtual server that points to hick.com/goatse.

To the moron who modded me down

[bogie]

You mod something as overrated when its been modded up by others and you disagree with that, not when 2 is someones starting score.

Cheap hardware, Linux, AOL. I love it!

[Chris Tucker]

For many years, computers were the rich person's toy.

This is a system that almost anyone can afford.

Now there is a decent little box, running a decent Linux OS that can also run some Windows stuff and there will soon be an AOL version that will run on it.

For a lot of people, this is just what they need for themselves or as a computer/homework machine for the kids.

Sure, the savvy Linux user won't touch it with a stick. To quote Frank N. Furter, "I didn't make it... FOR YOU!"

Stop lamenting about what it doesn't do. Contemplate what it DOES do.

With one stroke, millions of people who formerly could not own a computer, can now have their OWN COMPUTER. They can access the internet. They have the WWW at their fingertips.

This is wonderful. This is nigh-miraculous.

FInally, WE ALL OF US were clueless newbies the first time we sat before a keyboard.

Let the clueless newbies who buy this $200 system make their mistakes and learn from them.

Eventually, they will grow curious and try something new. Something new like a Mandrake or Debian or Red Hat distro CD.

Personally, something like this that chafes the corporate scrotum of MS can't be all bad.

Re:Today's games don't suck?

[scrytch]

Grim Fandango, Black and White, Neverwinter Nights, Quake 3, the list goes on. There was never a golden age. You are simply forgetting the long list of games that sucked, then as now.

Even Cheaper

[Vegan Pagan]

They could sell it even cheaper if they used this tiny case. Why aren't they?

Re:The problem

[EvanED]

At the time when NS was bought up, I would have taken IE for $0 over NS for $0. (Before then, and recently I've taken a $0 NS over IE for the most part.)

But *why* they were almost bankrupt is immaterial; the point is that they were. I'd say the chance they'd still be around today had AOL not eatten them would be slim to none. Thus we likely have AOL-TW to thank for their continued existance.

Re:The problem

[N3WBI3]

That piss porr attitude is what keeps Linux in the 0.5% range. I would lvoe to move my father off of windows and I can except he loves AOL, and for **HIM** its the right solution, maybe not for you. Point is this will make it easier for those of us with friends and fam who we would like off of windows to use something else..

aol is going to do what the linux community hasnt

[deft]

linux community, you are a great experiment, bravo.

but now aol is going to do what you havent been able to yet, and thats:

1. bring a massive amount of normal users to linux via their client.

2. make the normal things that people do with the net possible on linux, with a simple easy to use interface.

3. most importantly in my eyes, this statement will be made by a real normal user: "oh, yeah, my mom uses aol on her lindows/linux whatever computer, and its not complicated, i guess it used to be hard, but its totally cool, tell your friend to just get the cheaper one, you dont need windows."

linux as it stands is the kickass power user platform... and soon it may be the platform for doing things that normal people do (just email, chat, mp3, and shopping).

i see this as a win for you all. congrats. you attracted a major player to your little gem. its a good thing!

if you want

[tacokill]

If you want people to enjoy computers and integrate them into their lives, it must be easy. Period.

The "internet appliance" finally done right?

[aquarian]

The hot thing a few years ago was the internet appliance- the i-Opener, 3Com Audrey, etc. These were a great idea, they just lacked what was really needed to make them work- AOL! AOL was the one company that could have pulled this off. I think it could have worked at the time, and I can't for the life of me figure out why AOL didn't do it. I still think it can work. Maybe it will happen.

Think about what most people use their computers for. Certainly a lot use them primarily for net access, and a lot of those just for AOL. Add to that writing the occasional letter, creating the occasional greeting card, and uploading the occasional picture. An internet applicance can handle all these things through web services, at much greater convenience to the user. It's not for everyone, but it's the perfect solution for many. I hope someone at AOL has their brain turnied on.,.

Re:The problem

[Sj0]

From what I understand of AOL, you're still an not that bright. Am I to understand that you get charged twice the price of other ISPs, yet are inundated by advertising sent by the ISP, DESPITE the higher charges?

Sorry freind, you've been had.

Re:The problem

[zapfie]

Yep, really. Do a WHOIS on mozilla.org. You will get:

Mozilla Dot Org (MOZILLA2-DOM)
501 East Middlefield Road
Mountain View, CA 94043

Now do netscape.com. You will get:

Netscape Communications Corp.
501 East Middlefield Rd
Mountain View, CA 94043

Same address! And guess who the registrar is for netscape.com? Let's check the WHOIS record:
Registrar...............: America Online, Inc.

Doesn't take much connecting the dots to figure that out.

Re:Today's games don't suck?

[ceejayoz]

Homeworld! Half-Life!

Apologies in advance

[sacrilicious]

Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of THESE?

"Wow, this cluster displays AOL advertisements and spam at ten times the rate of my old machine!"

Re:The problem

[Bedouin X]

Winamp wasn't free before AOL took over. It was $10. Which I thought was fair for the quality software that it was.

The AOL client will be native

[Nailer]

I wonder if this stuff will work on normal Linux without WINE."

I'm pretty sure the AOL client will be native, because I already have a copy of the AOL 6 client for Linux RPMs lying aroundsomewhere on my hard disk 0. This client was used in a AOL / Gateway set top box, and was basically Mozilla with a skin.

Re:No...you've got it all wrong

[Tony-A]

PC's are largely bought as entertainment devices these days, a fact that you ignore at your peril.
Yep, you're right. But a $2000 PC is still a poor replacement for a $200 TV.

Re:The problem

[jmccay]

It may not be a mater of dumb enough, but rather be a mater of money. Like someone getting the service free through a family member or a friend? If it's free to you, then I don't think you'd care.

User Friendly

[TheSHAD0W]

Well, Iliad has weighed in on the subject...