Slashdot Mirror
AOL's new Linux PC
minus_273 writes " MSNBC (of all places ) has an intersting article about AOLs new PC. We have already heard of Lindows , WALMART PC and there was speculation of AOL Red Hat. Well, it looks like this is what AOL decided to do. All 3 are mixed into one. AOL now has a beta 7.0 client that is distributed with Lindows along with AIM and Netscape. I wonder if this stuff will work on normal Linux without WINE."
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?
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)
The proper name for this system is GNU/AOL.
Please change it before the Hurd tramples you.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Just wait until it becomes cheap enough for AOL to ship you free computers. Imagine all the junk you'll have then!
It hit 1GHz back in June
Tom's Hardware
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.
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.
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
This thought just crossed my mind. AOL brought Internet to the masses. This results in gazillions of lusers eating up the Net's bandwidth, but it also means that now gazillions of people care about Internet. This is precisely what we need to increase Internet coverage all over the world: a large corporation with millions of users behind it (read: hard cash). AOL's success will encourage others in other places to attempt the same thing.
Then there is AOL Instant Messenger, AKA AIM. A reliable source of "Me too" conversations, but also a way for people to communicate with each other without paying huge costs for telephone calls. It arguably sucks less than ICQ (what's that UIN again?) or MSN (Passport), and third parties are offered access to the network via TOC. True enough, AOL blocks people who try to access their network with reverse-engineered Oscar clients, and TOC doesn't offer all the features we've come to expect from instant messaging, but that can be seen as a reaction to others downright ignoring TOC and using Oscar instead, which obviously goes against the rules laid out by AOL.
Another Good Thing of AOL is that they're still sponsoring Netscape and Mozilla. This means that we owe thanks to them for what may be the best browser around at the moment. They are also using Gecko in their new software, which means that a significant number of people will be using it, which makes cross-browser compatibility of websites an issue and promotes open standards, to the benefit of all who don't use M$IE for Windows.
AOL offers people freedom of choice in that their software works on Windows, Mac OS, and, apparently, Linux. This sets an example for other companies, and possibly even the OSS movement (after all, many OSS is tied to UNIX-like systems).
Not all about AOL is good, but I do think that, on the whole, they are doing a lot that makes the world a better place, or at least insofar as computers are concerned.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
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.
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.
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?