With GCC you get a lot more optimizations and a lot more active development of the product. With Borland 5.5 you only have Corel/Inprise developing it. Borland claims their 5.5 compiles code faster than GCC and their product does have precompiled headers. If 5.5 does compile code faster then it might but used to develop code, but GCC will be used to compile released code. Thank you Borland. You didn't have to release it and those of us in the development community appreciate your thoughtfulness. I may choose to use an alternative product but I thank you nonetheless.
Just a walk down memory lane. About 5 years ago, a lesser known company called Nextgen was trying to compete with Intel by producing the Nextgen 80's and 90's.
The microprocessor architecture on these chips was great (x86 instructions translated into native CISC instructions and executed on multiple execution units, sound familiar K6?) with the exception of the fact that they omitted a separate FPU (at the time they made the argument that most consumer applications don't use an FPU anyway). To make a long story short, AMD bought them out and used their designs as the basis for the K5 and the K6.
Maybe the next chip after Athlon should have a name that gives Nextgen credit?
I owned a Nextgen 90 and later bought the K6-2 when it came out but switched to a Celeron because it overclocked so well (not to mention superior Quake framerates). Currently the very happy owner of a K7M with an Athlon 500 (running at 550 by bumping the FSB). The Athlon is an incredible chip. Everyone cheer for competition in the chip industry.
Although Transmeta may have peaked their interest, I thin, they're far more worried about AMD.
If the desktop processor market is a fair indicator, AMD is undercutting Intel quite severely on price. I checked the Athlon 600 vs. P3 600 and Athlon is only about 2/3 the price ($216 vs $339 for the PIII on Pricewatch).
Intel is losing ground with the recent announcements of HP and Gateway to use the Athlon chip. It makes lots of sense that Intel would move to strengthen their market share in the mobile market where AMD has yet to produce a chip to comnpare with the mobile P3's (the mobile K6's may have nice high MHz numbers but performance does lag).
Could just be the regular price reductions though.
Once again, I feel obliged to post a warning about these Linux IPO stocks. As much as we may like a company like LinuxCare that contributes to the "Linux Community", that affection does not necessarily translate into a good investment.
Don't confuse buying their stock with furthering their cause. Once the shares of LinuxCare are sold to the large brokerage houses through the IPO process, the amount of money that LinuxCare receives is fixed. Sure, if the shareprice rises, it means profits for the original shareholders but the company doesn't have more money to pour back into into Linux development (except if they use their company stock as capital to make additional investments. i.e. AOL buying Netscape).
Look at some of the figures for this company. Their revenue for the first 9 months of 1999 was only $304K. They are now $7 Million in debt. Even if revenue grows 10X next year, their revenue will still be only $3MIL. Take a close look at the market capitalization before you buy. With revenues so low, you can't really justify the huge market caps of a Red Hat (17 Billion dollars on 16 Million in sales).
Look at a well established software company like Compuware that is heavy into providing services. Its market cap is $9BIL on just under $2BIL in sales. Compuware is growing at 35% per year. Sure, there will be growth in Linux. Huge growth. But consider how much you might be paying for so little revenue let alone actually showing a profit.
This isn't a technical question or a moral one. Linux activism can only go so far.
Am I the only person who, after reading a somewhat extensive column, scrolled to the bottom of the comments (sorted by score) to see who flamed him over the flaming discussion;-)
I hope I've coined a new net saying:
"Cyber Rubbernecking" - Intentionally scanning/. posts for flames. Similar to slowing down at the scene of an accident.
Unfortunately, there seems to be little correlation between those things that make Corel a "good member of the Linux community" and actions that create shareholder value. By this, I mean financial value (earnings growth, revenue growth) rather than share price growth through market hype.
Corel has real promise in the Linux arena and many of their initiatives, particularly the investment in "server appliances" may eventually translate into strong revenue and earnings streams. Even if these ventures do turn into good business moves, the overall financial picture for Linux companies remains unproven. Read the warnings that Red Hat listed in their latest 10-Q (I freely admit these clipped to show the worst case scenario):
We have not demonstrated the success of our open source business model, which gives our customers the right freely to copy and distribute our software. No other company has built a successful open source business.
If hardware and data transmission technology advances in the future to the point where increased bandwidth allows users to more quickly download our products from the internet, users may no longer choose to purchase Official Red Hat Linux. This could lead to a significant loss of product revenue.
Financial markets don't give anyone a break. I just hope folks out there don't get burned by buying stock in great technology companies without fully understanding the risks involved in the business model. Given its current losses, it is difficult to justify using traditional fundamental stock analysis even the current $20 price. Remember, this stock sold for as little as $2 as recently as last May. Now all of sudden, it makes news when it hasn't increased more than 10X??
Give me a break.
DISCLAIMER: I do not own or trade (sell short, options etc.) in CORL, RHAT, or other Linux stocks.
The study of determining what class of problems is insoluble is an area of research in and of itself. Rather than inhibiting research, it enhances it by eliminating endless research into intractible areas to let time be better spent on more fruitfull pursuits.
Its been a few years since I studied it but what it comes down to is that certain classes of problems can be mathematically proven to be of a certain level of difficulty. If you can prove mathematically that the problem you're working on is equivalent to a certain class of known problems, you can deduct information about decidability, tractibility, etc.
Wow. That made my head hurt just thinking about that class;-)
In the midst of endless haggling over the inherent evil of Micro$oft business practices and low software quality, I'd like to share a few thoughts on the actual end result of breaking up the company.
Instead of one monolithic company somewhat wary of government intervention, you now have three new companies. The new companies have 90% market share in their respective market segments. Remember, Micro$oft has its monopolies for a number of reasons and superior products aren't generally one of them. Shady business practices contribute but the biggest IMHO is that companies cannot afford to risk not being able to interoperate with customers and across their organizations. The solution for most is to adopt the most popular solution, Micro$ofts.
Now think about what happens next. Each company will have to work harder to grow their business since the traditional Microsoft tactic of buying competitors and spreading into new functional areas is probably off limits.
Don't fool yourself into thinking these three new companies will compete with each other. Does anyone dispute that, after AT&T spun off the company, Lucent still provides nearly all AT&T equipment and infrastructure? Microsoft will be no different.
Breaking up the company looks an awful lot like lots of stuff coming out of Washington. It seems like the right thing to do but under analysis, the end results may end up worst than the original problem. Clearly something needed to be done. I just think the government missed the mark.
Although the article at first appeared well written, I am perplexed at the true thesis of his argument.
It seems something like this:
People expect Unix to be difficult, therefore they are more apt to work harder at it and be pleased with their results.
In contrast, people expect Windows NT to be easy and when it gets complicated they are more frustrated and discard the operating system.
The real truth is that Windows NT continues increase its market share despite:
1. Increased attention to Linux in the press 2. The underlying superiority and flexibility of Linux over NT.
The author of the article writes "So it would appear that Windows NT is a victim of Microsoft's considerable marketing muscle, along with OS/2, etc." Maybe I'm slow but I don't get the point. Windows NT, despite its faults is still thriving. OS/2 despite its strengths is yesterdays news.
I'm not advocating Window NT. I use Linux.
The author of the Excellent Article comment made some great points but I'd like to add a new twist. He said that Linux weeded out incompetent system administrators. True. But recognize there is a shortage of qualified and competent IT professionals. Many reasonably competent Windows NT sysadmins simply can't administer a Linux/Unix box. I'm not saying they're not trained, I'm saying they are so used to the window-based hand holding that mucking in the text based configuration files of Linux would blow some sort of fuse. With the shortages of good computer professionals, maybe its a good thing that those with lesser skills can still make a good living as an MCSE. At least for now...
Fresh off of their war on poverty, war on healthcare and war on big business, the administration is ready to take on control of the software industry. Doesn't this scare anyone besides me? Direct Whitehouse involvement should make everyone in the country shake their head in amazement that the government has taken on this role.
This is about power and it's obscene. I don't want Washington to decide how a private company might be split up. Is anyone stupid enough to think that this hasn't become a completely political action in the continual pattern of demonizing anyone who's worked hard and earned great wealth. Say what you want about Billy Boy but he has done more for America (creating jobs, preeminence of the US in office automation and OS software market etc.) than any of those idiots in Washington put together.
The private sector builds businesses and wealth. Government consumes it. They've screwed up public education with "feel good" but do nothing policies and centralized Washington control.
I would like to momentarily set aside the emotional baggage that is so unavoidably attached to the topic of Microsoft monopolistic tendencies and propose some likely results from this lawsuit.
I will not argue that Microsoft's practices were predatory. They were. I also won't argue that Microsoft is a monopoly. They are.
That said, consider the results of a Microsoft breakup. The likely scenario bandied about by financial analysts it that Microsoft could be divided into 3 or more separate companies. A typical breakout is: 1. Operating System Software 2. Application Software 3. Network Software systems. Even if the company is divided this way, Windows will still be the default operating system on > 90% of consumer systems sold. Breaking the company up won't change that and the separate company will likely have to charge MORE not LESS for the operating system to compensate for the fact that: 1. OS's are their only source of revenue and 2. They will continue to lose a greater portion of the server OS market to Linux and Sun. End result, higher OS prices rather than lower. Thanks, DOJ.
Now consider the application software business. For consumer software, simple business practice would indicate that developers would develop for OS's for which there was the greatest potential for sales. Still Windows. Think about it, IBM wouldn't port DB2 to Linux until they had a viable market in the Linux community. Most developers will hold their nose and continue to develop for Windows simply because it has the largest installed user base to which to market their product.
The monopolistic damage has already been done. Sure they're a monopoly. We just better start asking ourselves if cutting them into pieces won't just create three angry snakes to battle instead of one slightly crippled one. Lets cripple the beast, not dismember it.
I just hope everyone starts to analyze rather than emotionalize (is that a word?) this issue.
To believe the authors findings, you have to believe that all financial markets are essentially rigged through simply supply and demand. There is no doubt that the price of Micro$oft stock is driven in no small way through the demand for its shares. Mutual companies and 401K plans etc. do contribute to this continued upward pressure on the stock price. I call this DEMAND. Many stocks move without regard to the underlying financial situation in which the company finds itself. Amazon may not be the best example of this but some of the other internet startups with far less revenue and even shakier business models are prime examples.
Witness the drastic pullback in stock prices for companies that fail to meet the hype and things reverse. Any IOMEGA stockholders out there. Take a look at a 3 year stock chart and watch the stock go from 1/4 up to 30 and back down to 3 as the bubble burst. Combined with close attention and regulation from the SEC, stock markets regulate themselves. Our markets and the controls on income reporting and accuracy are the envy of the world. Check out income reporting in some emerging markets to get a feel for how bad it can be. Sorry folks this guy is a nut.
Dave NOT a Microsoft shareholder or employee unless mutual funds count;-)
As much as you (and I) may want to "give the finger to Micros~1 and Intel", ultimately the market will usually adopt products that meet the needs of the consumer.
Take the Celeron for example, when the K6-2 came out, I couldn't wait to buy one. 100MHz bus, 3dNow instructions, a super chip at the time. Problem was that it ran hot. Sure you can cool it, but still, it ran hot.
The original Celerons were obviously a huge flop. Consequently, no one bought them and Intel was forced to add the L2 cache. In the mean time, AMD increased its market share at the low end.
A strange thing happened though once the Celeron 300A hit the market: People found out that it was a great chip. It overclocked exceptionally well. It ran relatively cool (unless overclocked). And, perhaps most importantly, it gave users an easy upgrade path all the way to Intel's newer P2 and P3 chips. Consequently, lots of folks (including me) that support AMD (I owned the stock) left AMD for the Celeron. Why? Value. Celeron was just a better value for me.
The author of the original article had to confess that he was writing the article on an overclocked dual-Celeron system. Value.
Don't insist that I buy something to give anyone the finger. I will probably own a K7 at some point, probably when motherboard bus speeds and memory increase to make it a worthwhile upgrade to my overclocked Celeron 366. I certainly recommend the K7 to friends and family since its a better VALUE. Few people will buy it to make a statement.
Although it is tempting to immediately slam AOL on the technical merits of this particular hack and further lambast AOL's users as neophytes, it is important to consider what AOL actually provides.
For new internet users and those completely unfamiliar with computers, AOL is by far the most user friendly environment in which to begin to use email and the internet. Don't get me wrong. I don't use the service. But for my grandparents and my parents who aren't comfortable with computers in the first place, the service hits the spot.
Certainly AOL should take steps to secure passwords on the users systems. Regardless, the key is educating their users. I know enough not to open attachments from people I don't know. I even know enough not to open an attachment if I have no clue of its contents. Unfortunately most new users (particularly the kind that sign on to AOL) don't. Don't dismiss AOL. They provide a valuable service for folks for whom the internet and email are daunting. At least they're a step above "WebTV";-)
Slashdot Mirror
With GCC you get a lot more optimizations and a lot more active development of the product. With Borland 5.5 you only have Corel/Inprise developing it. Borland claims their 5.5 compiles code faster than GCC and their product does have precompiled headers. If 5.5 does compile code faster then it might but used to develop code, but GCC will be used to compile released code.
Thank you Borland. You didn't have to release it and those of us in the development community appreciate your thoughtfulness. I may choose to use an alternative product but I thank you nonetheless.
Just a walk down memory lane. About 5 years ago, a lesser known company called Nextgen was trying to compete with Intel by producing the Nextgen 80's and 90's.
The microprocessor architecture on these chips was great (x86 instructions translated into native CISC instructions and executed on multiple execution units, sound familiar K6?) with the exception of the fact that they omitted a separate FPU (at the time they made the argument that most consumer applications don't use an FPU anyway). To make a long story short, AMD bought them out and used their designs as the basis for the K5 and the K6.
Maybe the next chip after Athlon should have a name that gives Nextgen credit?
I owned a Nextgen 90 and later bought the K6-2 when it came out but switched to a Celeron because it overclocked so well (not to mention superior Quake framerates). Currently the very happy owner of a K7M with an Athlon 500 (running at 550 by bumping the FSB). The Athlon is an incredible chip. Everyone cheer for competition in the chip industry.
Dave
Although Transmeta may have peaked their interest, I thin, they're far more worried about AMD.
If the desktop processor market is a fair indicator, AMD is undercutting Intel quite severely on price. I checked the Athlon 600 vs. P3 600 and Athlon is only about 2/3 the price ($216 vs $339 for the PIII on Pricewatch).
Intel is losing ground with the recent announcements of HP and Gateway to use the Athlon chip. It makes lots of sense that Intel would move to strengthen their market share in the mobile market where AMD has yet to produce a chip to comnpare with the mobile P3's (the mobile K6's may have nice high MHz numbers but performance does lag).
Could just be the regular price reductions though.
Dave
Once again, I feel obliged to post a warning about these Linux IPO stocks. As much as we may like a company like LinuxCare that contributes to the "Linux Community", that affection does not necessarily translate into a good investment.
Don't confuse buying their stock with furthering their cause. Once the shares of LinuxCare are sold to the large brokerage houses through the IPO process, the amount of money that LinuxCare receives is fixed. Sure, if the shareprice rises, it means profits for the original shareholders but the company doesn't have more money to pour back into into Linux development (except if they use their company stock as capital to make additional investments. i.e. AOL buying Netscape).
Look at some of the figures for this company. Their revenue for the first 9 months of 1999 was only $304K. They are now $7 Million in debt. Even if revenue grows 10X next year, their revenue will still be only $3MIL. Take a close look at the market capitalization before you buy. With revenues so low, you can't really justify the huge market caps of a Red Hat (17 Billion dollars on 16 Million in sales).
Look at a well established software company like Compuware that is heavy into providing services. Its market cap is $9BIL on just under $2BIL in sales. Compuware is growing at 35% per year. Sure, there will be growth in Linux. Huge growth. But consider how much you might be paying for so little revenue let alone actually showing a profit.
This isn't a technical question or a moral one.
Linux activism can only go so far.
Dave
Am I the only person who, after reading a somewhat extensive column, scrolled to the bottom of the comments (sorted by score) to see who flamed him over the flaming discussion ;-)
/. posts for flames. Similar to slowing down at the scene of an accident.
I hope I've coined a new net saying:
"Cyber Rubbernecking" - Intentionally scanning
Unfortunately, there seems to be little correlation between those things that make Corel a "good member of the Linux community" and actions that create shareholder value. By this, I mean financial value (earnings growth, revenue growth) rather than share price growth through market hype.
Corel has real promise in the Linux arena and many of their initiatives, particularly the investment in "server appliances" may eventually translate into strong revenue and earnings streams. Even if these ventures do turn into good business moves, the overall financial picture for Linux companies remains unproven. Read the warnings that Red Hat listed in their latest 10-Q (I freely admit these clipped to show the worst case scenario):
We have not demonstrated the success of our open source business model, which gives our customers the right freely to copy and distribute our software. No other company has built a successful open source business.
If hardware and data transmission technology advances in the future to the point where increased bandwidth allows users to more quickly download our products from the internet, users may no longer choose to purchase Official Red Hat Linux. This could lead to a significant loss of product revenue.
Financial markets don't give anyone a break. I just hope folks out there don't get burned by buying stock in great technology companies without fully understanding the risks involved in the business model. Given its current losses, it is difficult to justify using traditional fundamental stock analysis even the current $20 price. Remember, this stock sold for as little as $2 as recently as last May. Now all of sudden, it makes news when it hasn't increased more than 10X??
Give me a break.
DISCLAIMER: I do not own or trade (sell short, options etc.) in CORL, RHAT, or other Linux stocks.
The study of determining what class of problems is insoluble is an area of research in and of itself. Rather than inhibiting research, it enhances it by eliminating endless research into intractible areas to let time be better spent on more fruitfull pursuits.
;-)
Its been a few years since I studied it but what it comes down to is that certain classes of problems can be mathematically proven to be of a certain level of difficulty. If you can prove mathematically that the problem you're working on is equivalent to a certain class of known problems, you can deduct information about decidability, tractibility, etc.
Wow. That made my head hurt just thinking about that class
In the midst of endless haggling over the inherent evil of Micro$oft business practices and low software quality, I'd like to share a few thoughts on the actual end result of breaking up the company.
Instead of one monolithic company somewhat wary of government intervention, you now have three new companies. The new companies have 90% market share in their respective market segments. Remember, Micro$oft has its monopolies for a number of reasons and superior products aren't generally one of them. Shady business practices contribute but the biggest IMHO is that companies cannot afford to risk not being able to interoperate with customers and across their organizations. The solution for most is to adopt the most popular solution, Micro$ofts.
Now think about what happens next. Each company will have to work harder to grow their business since the traditional Microsoft tactic of buying competitors and spreading into new functional areas is probably off limits.
Don't fool yourself into thinking these three new companies will compete with each other. Does anyone dispute that, after AT&T spun off the company, Lucent still provides nearly all AT&T equipment and infrastructure? Microsoft will be no different.
Breaking up the company looks an awful lot like lots of stuff coming out of Washington. It seems like the right thing to do but under analysis, the end results may end up worst than the original problem. Clearly something needed to be done. I just think the government missed the mark.
Dave
Although the article at first appeared well written, I am perplexed at the true thesis of his argument.
...
It seems something like this:
People expect Unix to be difficult, therefore they are more apt to work harder at it and be pleased with their results.
In contrast, people expect Windows NT to be easy and when it gets complicated they are more frustrated and discard the operating system.
The real truth is that Windows NT continues increase its market share despite:
1. Increased attention to Linux in the press
2. The underlying superiority and flexibility of Linux over NT.
The author of the article writes "So it would appear that Windows NT is a victim of Microsoft's considerable marketing muscle, along with OS/2, etc." Maybe I'm slow but I don't get the point. Windows NT, despite its faults is still thriving. OS/2 despite its strengths is yesterdays news.
I'm not advocating Window NT. I use Linux.
The author of the Excellent Article comment made some great points but I'd like to add a new twist. He said that Linux weeded out incompetent system administrators. True. But recognize there is a shortage of qualified and competent IT professionals. Many reasonably competent Windows NT sysadmins simply can't administer a Linux/Unix box. I'm not saying they're not trained, I'm saying they are so used to the window-based hand holding that mucking in the text based configuration files of Linux would blow some sort of fuse. With the shortages of good computer professionals, maybe its a good thing that those with lesser skills can still make a good living as an MCSE. At least for now
Dave
Fresh off of their war on poverty, war on healthcare and war on big business, the administration is ready to take on control of the software industry. Doesn't this scare anyone besides me? Direct Whitehouse involvement should make everyone in the country shake their head in amazement that the government has taken on this role.
This is about power and it's obscene. I don't want Washington to decide how a private company might be split up. Is anyone stupid enough to think that this hasn't become a completely political action in the continual pattern of demonizing anyone who's worked hard and earned great wealth. Say what you want about Billy Boy but he has done more for America (creating jobs, preeminence of the US in office automation and OS software market etc.) than any of those idiots in Washington put together.
The private sector builds businesses and wealth. Government consumes it. They've screwed up public education with "feel good" but do nothing policies and centralized Washington control.
Sorry about the rant. Flame away.
I would like to momentarily set aside the emotional baggage that is so unavoidably attached to the topic of Microsoft monopolistic tendencies and propose some likely results from this lawsuit.
I will not argue that Microsoft's practices were predatory. They were. I also won't argue that Microsoft is a monopoly. They are.
That said, consider the results of a Microsoft breakup. The likely scenario bandied about by financial analysts it that Microsoft could be divided into 3 or more separate companies. A typical breakout is: 1. Operating System Software 2. Application Software 3. Network Software systems. Even if the company is divided this way, Windows will still be the default operating system on > 90% of consumer systems sold. Breaking the company up won't change that and the separate company will likely have to charge MORE not LESS for the operating system to compensate for the fact that: 1. OS's are their only source of revenue and 2. They will continue to lose a greater portion of the server OS market to Linux and Sun. End result, higher OS prices rather than lower. Thanks, DOJ.
Now consider the application software business. For consumer software, simple business practice would indicate that developers would develop for OS's for which there was the greatest potential for sales. Still Windows. Think about it, IBM wouldn't port DB2 to Linux until they had a viable market in the Linux community. Most developers will hold their nose and continue to develop for Windows simply because it has the largest installed user base to which to market their product.
The monopolistic damage has already been done. Sure they're a monopoly. We just better start asking ourselves if cutting them into pieces won't just create three angry snakes to battle instead of one slightly crippled one. Lets cripple the beast, not dismember it.
I just hope everyone starts to analyze rather than emotionalize (is that a word?) this issue.
Dave
To believe the authors findings, you have to believe that all financial markets are essentially rigged through simply supply and demand. There is no doubt that the price of Micro$oft stock is driven in no small way through the demand for its shares. Mutual companies and 401K plans etc. do contribute to this continued upward pressure on the stock price. I call this DEMAND. Many stocks move without regard to the underlying financial situation in which the company finds itself. Amazon may not be the best example of this but some of the other internet startups with far less revenue and even shakier business models are prime examples.
;-)
Witness the drastic pullback in stock prices for companies that fail to meet the hype and things reverse. Any IOMEGA stockholders out there. Take a look at a 3 year stock chart and watch the stock go from 1/4 up to 30 and back down to 3 as the bubble burst. Combined with close attention and regulation from the SEC, stock markets regulate themselves. Our markets and the controls on income reporting and accuracy are the envy of the world. Check out income reporting in some emerging markets to get a feel for how bad it can be. Sorry folks this guy is a nut.
Dave
NOT a Microsoft shareholder or employee unless mutual funds count
As much as you (and I) may want to "give the finger to Micros~1 and Intel", ultimately the market will usually adopt products that meet the needs of the consumer.
Take the Celeron for example, when the K6-2 came out, I couldn't wait to buy one. 100MHz bus, 3dNow instructions, a super chip at the time. Problem was that it ran hot. Sure you can cool it, but still, it ran hot.
The original Celerons were obviously a huge flop. Consequently, no one bought them and Intel was forced to add the L2 cache. In the mean time, AMD increased its market share at the low end.
A strange thing happened though once the Celeron 300A hit the market: People found out that it was a great chip. It overclocked exceptionally well. It ran relatively cool (unless overclocked). And, perhaps most importantly, it gave users an easy upgrade path all the way to Intel's newer P2 and P3 chips. Consequently, lots of folks (including me) that support AMD (I owned the stock) left AMD for the Celeron. Why? Value. Celeron was just a better value for me.
The author of the original article had to confess that he was writing the article on an overclocked dual-Celeron system. Value.
Don't insist that I buy something to give anyone the finger. I will probably own a K7 at some point, probably when motherboard bus speeds and memory increase to make it a worthwhile upgrade to my overclocked Celeron 366. I certainly recommend the K7 to friends and family since its a better VALUE. Few people will buy it to make a statement.
Dave
Although it is tempting to immediately slam AOL on the technical merits of this particular hack and further lambast AOL's users as neophytes, it is important to consider what AOL actually provides.
;-)
For new internet users and those completely unfamiliar with computers, AOL is by far the most user friendly environment in which to begin to use email and the internet. Don't get me wrong. I don't use the service. But for my grandparents and my parents who aren't comfortable with computers in the first place, the service hits the spot.
Certainly AOL should take steps to secure passwords on the users systems. Regardless, the key is educating their users. I know enough not to open attachments from people I don't know. I even know enough not to open an attachment if I have no clue of its contents. Unfortunately most new users (particularly the kind that sign on to AOL) don't. Don't dismiss AOL. They provide a valuable service for folks for whom the internet and email are daunting. At least they're a step above "WebTV"