Look at Mozilla

Post #25,077 by Andrew Grygus 1/22/02 5:12:18 AM Reply	Look at Mozilla AOL has poured in somewhere between $15 an $30 million, without any sign of rebellion. This is evidence they have some idea how to deal with Open Source people. With the current financial situation among Open Source businesses (dropping like flies - venture capital dried up), it's likely most would stay if AOL handles it decently - open Source programmers have to feed their families too. If AOL coordinates with Red Hat management with the right pitch, they can generate some real enthusiasm - Young really knows how to word things for the OS comunity (diametrical opposite of Ransom Love). Everyone has an interest in a strong AOL, even if you hate them, because as long as we have a strong counter to Microsoft there will be plenty of holes and corners for other approaches to live. If AOL fades away, as Microsoft intends, Microsoft will be able to sweep the field clean. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #25,213 by bepatient 1/22/02 10:28:25 PM Reply	This is my point. AOL has a horrid reputation amongst techies. Most hate it because it made the net easy for newbies....and, in their opinion, ruined the net. Ok. Some have had issues with their software...and it does have some well documented issues. Well...so do alot of other programs...including Linux. However, since its not open source...those issues don't get resolved in 24 hours. Personally...I've had it since 1993...I gave up compuserve for it (eventually). I've not had any serious problems with it. I don't use it to access the net. It has several areas that I happen to like and several features that I happen to have use for...such as parental controls and filtered access (I have kids). As you point out...Mozilla has not suffered at all. In fact...they receive much needed capital. Lets look at why AOL would OVERPAY for Redhat...and the only thing I can think of is that they would like the ability to compete with MS when MS decides to turn on them...which will be soon. With RH...they get a distro that is pretty close to desktop ready....they don't need the profit from RH to make the balance sheet look good...so they can use it to reinvest in development...and maybe....just maybe...they can get a package based distro that they could load on machines...with the AOL client software....and use these machines to eliminate the dependence on MS. If I were Steve Case...I would do this...because sooner or later...dealing with the devil will damn you...and out of the two....AOL is definitely the lesser demon at the moment. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,224 by nking 1/23/02 2:24:45 AM Reply	Not so Most techies hate AOL because the AOL Client screws up Windows configuration files. Then they have to go in and fix it. Nothing clobbers your company's Intranet better than AOL. My last employer had a policy of no AOL software to be installed on their laptops. It not only screwed up our Intranet connection, but the Citrix Terminal Server client as well. It also hosed up the Mindspring International Dialer program, when the lawyers went to travel to other countries, they couldn't connect with AOL installed. The damn thing is everywhere. My neice wanted to play a game she got in a box of Cherrios. It was "Operation", a free game on a CD that came in a cerial box. She went to install the thing, and it asked her if she wanted to install AOL, and it defaulted to yes, she just clicked the mouse because she was confused. So AOL got installed. Then my dialup didn't work anymore on that machine, and my system crashed a lot. I found out it was because the **ing AOL client got installed. After I uninstalled it, and reinstalled part of the OS, I was able to fix it. If AOL didn't tinkle all over Windows and screw around with things, techies wouldn't hate it so much. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."**
Post #25,228 by pwhysall 1/23/02 2:48:26 AM Reply	Re: Not so Nothing clobbers your company's Intranet better than AOL. What? Have you been at the crack pipe again? I've had laptops come in with AOL installed and they worked with our intranet just fine. It not only screwed up our Intranet connection, but the Citrix Terminal Server client as well. It also hosed up the Mindspring International Dialer program, when the lawyers went to travel to other countries, they couldn't connect with AOL installed. I suggest the problems with that machine go somewhat deeper than "AOL is installed" if the Citrix ICA client (there's no such thing as a "Citrix Terminal Server" client - Terminal Server is an MS product) was affected by AOL. The only possible thing that could have been slightly screwy is that the internet dialler would try to call AOL. Even so, that should work. She went to install the thing, and it asked her if she wanted to install AOL, and it defaulted to yes, she just clicked the mouse because she was confused. So AOL got installed. Moral of this story : don't let children install software. After I uninstalled it, and reinstalled part of the OS, I was able to fix it. Which part of the OS? If AOL didn't tinkle all over Windows and screw around with things, techies wouldn't hate it so much. And if people read the manuals and didn't touch what they neither need to touch nor understand, and called the free helpline when things went screwy, then sysadmins like me wouldn't hate lusers so much. Where are your screeds about how Office tinkles all over your system and screws around with things? Office XP (which I have on my work PC - company policy, not choice) killed my thumbnail view (because it trashes the ShellEx registry keys for the relevant file types). Sorry, Norm. All my sympathy goes elsewhere when you whale on AOL but still run Windows by choice. That's a fundamental disconnect right there. Me? [peter@polonius peter]$ uname -a Linux polonius 2.4.17-0.1 #1 Fri Jan 4 13:47:12 EST 2002 i686 unknown Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #25,230 by nking 1/23/02 3:03:13 AM Reply	AOL trouble I had to remove the Dial Up Networking and the Dial-Up Adapter, then reinstall them. That is the part of the OS that I had to reinstall. It wonked it up. I don't deny that Office tinkles over the OS, if you don't like it use StarOffice or something else. Who says I run Windows by choice? I got one Linux machine, one OS/2 machine (Thanks to Tonytib), and even an Amiga 500 in my "Basement War Room". I run Windows 2000 Server to keep my MS-Skills in shape so I can get a job. I also have a Windows 98 workstation because some software and games won't run on WINE or ODIN. If you bothered to read my other posts, you'll note that I tried to find a way to run Everquest under WINE or ODIN for my brother. But oh, let's just paint me as a MS-Zealot because I am whaling all over AOL. Microsoft sucks, so does AOL, so does Apple, so does Sun, you want my whole "Shtlist" while you are at it? "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."*
Post #25,232 by static 1/23/02 5:31:27 AM Reply	Enough with the lemons, you two. I have some anecdotes about AOL that you have both managed to overlook. When AOL opened in Australia[1] it found itself in a generally high-quality market and had to pull its socks up quite a bit before it began to acquire a decent amount of market share Yes, the AOL client has a history of stomping all over the network stack and not playing nice with other semi-proprietary dial-up clients. However, I do recall a few comments over the years from various US mags[2] about how over time the AOL client became nicer. ISTR that there was a major improvement in that arena with a major version change and a lot of problems along the lines of "it wrecked my dial-up with such-and-such!" were met with "upgrade to the newer AOL client". I have spoken to a local AOL support tech on behalf of an (ex-)emploter's client. The question I had was reasonably technical and was to do with FTP running under AOL. The guy who answered knew exactly what I was talking about - including the right answer. And lastly, surely you both know that Microsoft has successfully taught tens of millions of consumers that computers are non-deterministic and often unreliable? This would be why, if AOL is as shitty as people say it is, many subscribers simply put up with it. Wade. [1] No, they aren't "Australia On-Line", and nor are they (confusingly) "America On-Line". They are just "AOL". [2] e.g. Byte. "All around me are nothing but fakes Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
Post #25,277 by nking 1/23/02 1:08:46 PM Reply	We also forgot the many class action lawsuits against AOL becase the software wrecked the OS ability to use other Internet services. Lemons, make lemonaid. :) "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,293 by wharris2 1/23/02 1:46:32 PM Reply	One more lemon Doesn't each new version (at least the last several) have extensive histories of messing up the previous version's installation? "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #25,235 by imric 1/23/02 6:23:21 AM Reply	AOL client has killed VPNs I've worked with before. It IS annoying, Peter; it DOES have security problems, and - hasn't AOL said they want to compete with Passport-like services? That makes me shudder - if anything, even worse than MS! Hell, they market to the 'clueless', do the 'clueless' know what security even is? Now, having said that, an OSS AOL client would be a major step forward. AOL has toyed with OSS before - and changed thier minds. I can only hope they change thier minds again, and in a big way. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #25,279 by nking 1/23/02 1:12:37 PM Reply	Thanks for your support I find it odd that Peter claims that AOL does not mess with the Internet part of Windows. This has been proven time and time again that it indeed does. AOL has been wishy washy over Open Source before. As you said they did toy with the idea of an OSS AOL client. But give credit where it is due, the Mozilla project is going quite nicely. The one thing that AOL/Netscape has done well with open source. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,250 by boxley 1/23/02 9:38:12 AM Reply	AOL has their own winsock that is incompatible with other programs that are expecting MS winsock? that was the case a few years ago as well. In Siemens last year the IT department sent out memos that if AOL was loaded it was RRR because of the way it mucked up the settings particular to Siemens. AOL is neither bad nor good it is just big and aimed at the home users who prolly use the machine for writing letters, balancing the checkbook and email. I havnt used it because when it first came out you had a charge of 1.50 a minute for the phonecall from Alaska while Compuserve had a local number. I did make a lot of money fixing AOL installs :) thanx, bill My Dreams aren't as empty as my conscience seems to be
Post #25,281 by nking 1/23/02 1:14:28 PM Reply	AOL mucking up the OS Like I said in a previous post, I fixed it by removing the Internet part of Windows, rebooting, and then reinstalling it. This got rid of the Winsock, Dial Up Networking, and other files, and then reinstalled and reregistered them. But a RRR will fix it as well. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,237 by Ashton 1/23/02 7:05:22 AM Reply	BeeP, please see my post above re one of Norman's links, about censorship at AOL. Technical issues aside - got a POV on that ?? Ashton
Post #25,257 by bepatient 1/23/02 10:25:08 AM Reply	Sure... ...these folks, by paying, tacitly agree with the Terms of Service...and then actively attempt to change them. Capitalism in action. They have the right...and the option...to change if they don't like it...which is what they said they may do at the bottom. Its very simple Ashton...when you attempt to be all things to all people...you will NEVER satisfy everyone....it is impossible. Want unrestricted net access? AOL provides that...AS LONG AS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING. I can access areas of the net where free, literary speech...no matter how questionable...are at my fingertips...what AOL says...simply...is that those areas will not be on their servers...and in todays litigious global environment...they MUST be that way. Remember...AOL is not a US ISP...they are a GLOBAL ISP...and have alot more restrictive environments to worry about....like France. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,348 by Ashton 1/23/02 6:11:23 PM Reply	Yes.. all true-ish. Sorta. It's the EXAMPLE I referred to: that of, see? lots o'folks don't care if we er select.. what they may see, hear, respond to [or not]. For US = Ashcroft consumption and utilization - for just one. Jesse helms for two. ____ for n others. Never mind the worldwide forces as ever shall be: there will Always be Those Who Know What You Should[n't] See. On that scale - of course! there's no quick fix, here or anywhere. Except eternal vigilance against their PACS. Shall we then settle for Corps managing the censorship we do not allow Government to impose? (under the rubric of LCD coverage for max-$ return amortized over 15 years yada yada). Do you mean then - only remedy is: abstinence? and it will just go away (?) Like maybe a whole 1000 of us boycotting M$? Cmon.. that's more religion like the Self-Correcting Market fantasy you seem tethered to. Corollary: Only when a majority of The Market agrees I should stop kicking you - will I stop kicking you. (Maybe I'll then just abrade you a while until..) Ashton
Post #25,387 by bepatient 1/23/02 9:32:26 PM Reply	You seem to have a decidedly US-centric view... ...of the "way the world should be". AOL has to abide by the laws of more than just the US...and didn't we have a shining example of how much more "censored" those places are with our Yahoo France situation a short while ago. In addition, they have advertised and have delivered a more "child friendly" internet. In exchange for this...we have groups deciding that if I say "fuck" in a poem...AOL MUST LEAVE IT...or its CENSORSHIP...regardless of the fact that they agreed to the Terms of Service on a monthly basis...each and every time they paid the bill. You deem this "corporate censorship". AOL would view this as delivering the product they promised and doing their best to operate within the laws by which it is governed. It has nothing to do with abstinence or boycott. AOL is not a monopoly. They control nothing. If you don't like their terms there are dozens of other companies that are willing to provide unfiltered net access. That had NEVER been promoted by AOL. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,388 by Ashton 1/23/02 10:09:29 PM Reply	You are making the distinction correctly or at any rate - ideally. I believe however - that such distinctions won't be made, should this or that lawmaker wish to display the 'AOL experience' as justification for extending the censorship. Many religious groups would like everything to be childproof and childlike, according to their worldview. Just as many believe that every sperm is Sacred and think we all ought to believe so, too. And should AOL achieve the near-monopoly status postulated in this thread in the form.. ~ "Well if we don't support AOL's use of RH to counter M$ monopoly" (not that it matters whether we 'support' it!).. ie fight One monopoly by helping create a similar one (?) Then: same point. An example of a now even more widely used Corp policy of.. censorship (for all Those Good reasons which every censor always has). Yours is the logical view and likely the legal view. I don't believe that our laws - espcially in panic situations like now - derive from that process, nearly so much as from emotional spin. I believe That is the concern which is forgotten at (our?) peril. A.
Post #25,401 by bepatient 1/23/02 11:01:27 PM Reply	Still... ...you are speaking of "censorship" from a US point of view. This has really made to the point of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater should be protected as long as the yeller did it "artistically"...otherwise...as was so aptly stated in the "Holy Grail"..."Help...I'm being repressed!" You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,403 by nking 1/23/02 11:20:53 PM Reply	Censorship and freedom of speech AOL having a censorship feature to prevent kiddies from viewing porn or swear words may be fine, but adults who want to see that sort of stuff should be able to see it. When every freaking thing that could be objectionalable is censored, even to adults who want to see it, then that is going way too far. The users should be able to use Net Nanny or Cyber Sitter to prevent kiddies from accessing the wrong sites. Then they should have a password to bypass it. There are more things censored than just poems with the word "fuck" in them. Anything that speaks out against AOL gets censored, and any homepage on AOL that speaks out against AOL gets removed. They wanted an area, free from children, to post poems that are not subject to any TOS and not censored in any way. But AOL would not do it. Also, let me ask you, what violates the TOS in this poem: Silence ~~~~~ I cannot hear the wind today. No cricket sings sweet melodies. Birds are silent in the trees. The reeds are quiet bent. I feel cement beneath my feet, wait patiently for an echo that never comes. Children do not laugh or call as they play. Traffic passes without a screech, honk or motorized hum. At the cafe on the corner, the band's vibrations jar my bones in silent air. I want a particular song -- feeling it will be enough -- but the ink of my note fades; I have no way to ask for it. The waitress looks expectant, lips never part. My mouth moves issuing mute words. I must point to my choice, but pages have been torn from my book. Fireworks light the sky, no familiar bang follows, and I wonder who celebrates this deaf world? Soundless sobs wrack my chest. I would give anything for a bit of noise .... the chirp of a cricket, serenade of a bird, laughter of children, or at least, the words to make it happen. (c) 1995 Trina It was on the AOL [link\|http://www.motley-focus.com/~timber/archive.html\|banned poetry] list. No "fuck" in there. Nothing but facist censor-heads. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,408 by bepatient 1/23/02 11:51:03 PM Reply	AOL is under no obligation... ...to provide any adult any access beyond what they provide. So they don't. You don't like it...you don't use it. CAPITALISM IN ACTION!!! AOL's TOS are completely at their discretion. If these "adults" can't understand that...I feel very sorry for them. Its not censorship. Its AOL, by its own (and agreed to) terms doing what it wants with its network...in order to be able to provide the service it wants to its customers. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,411 by nking 1/24/02 12:01:06 AM Reply	So they can violate the rights of US citizens and get away with it? I suppose that next they will block access to MSN and Hotmail? Or how about they block access to Opera and iCab? How about blocking access to Yahoo and Google? Let's get rid of any web site that might compete with AOL, shall we? The Fox Network, UPN, and PBS, also blocked. Next thing you know, they will be burning any books that are not made by their parent company? This is why I advocate people to leave AOL, and it has been proven that AOL does these things. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,419 by pwhysall 1/24/02 2:18:56 AM Reply	They're not, though. It's only a violation of your rights if you have no choice. You don't like it, you choose another provider. Hardly a violation of anything. (Although one might say that the sodding annoying adverts with that daffy woman are a violation of good taste) Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #25,440 by nking 1/24/02 9:07:55 AM Reply	That is like saying to a woman that her rights are not being violated because she was sexually harassed at work, because she has a choice to quit that job and work someplace else. D'oh! "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,444 by Silverlock 1/24/02 9:25:18 AM Reply	Doh! back atcha Norm. Try to understand. AOL provides a paid for service. You don't like the way they do that. You are free to not pay for it. Nuff said. When I visit the aquarium, the same thought keeps running through my mind; Leemmmooonnn, Buuttteerrr, MMMmmmmmm good!
Post #25,611 by nking 1/24/02 6:03:42 PM Reply	Customers and users still have rights that is why there are people suing AOL. It is not just people getting ticked off because they got a busy signal for five hours to try and connect to the AOL service, so they put up an Anti-AOL web site. Freedom of speech is more than just protection from the government. [link\|http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/harass/\|Freedom of Speech Vs. Workplace harassment] But anyway about people suing AOL: [link\|http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/25/aol.lawsuit/\|Lawsuit against AOL for pop-up ads] [link\|http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/02/02/aol.lawsuit.02/\|Disgruntled AOL 5.0 users seek $8B in damages] [link\|http://www.a-g-s.com/netaolp.htm\|Join the class action lawsuit against AOL for violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act] [link\|http://seattle.bcentral.com/seattle/stories/1997/01/13/daily15.html\|Attorneys file lawsuit against AOL for not proving the access it promised] [link\|http://personal.riverusers.com/~s/aolsuit2.htm\|AOL execs accused or wire fraud and racketering] Also: [link\|http://www.zdnet.com/products/stories/reviews/0,4161,2435999,00.html\|AOL's conflict with other ISPs] Don't use it? Exactly my point, AOL should not be used. I won't use it, don't make me. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,623 by bepatient 1/24/02 7:21:14 PM Reply	Wow...there are some good ones there... ...like the lawsuit that says pop-up adds should be free time! Lets take that to Comcast next...tell them they have to rebate me for 12 minutes of every cable hour for the last 25 years... I'm about to retire now. Your only right is your right to not use it. You are well within your rights at this time. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,632 by nking 1/24/02 7:45:16 PM Reply	You may have a point if the cable company charges you per hour instead of per month. AOL, last I checked, had a rate that was per hour, and another that was per month. If you are paying $3/hr and it takes 15 minutes of your hour to look at pop-up ads, you might want a refund as well. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,639 by bepatient 1/24/02 8:26:07 PM Reply	Think. ...20% of television is ad time. That would mean that the cable company is making double income for that time. The lawyer in the AOL suit thinks thats illegal. (hint...its not) Point...you linked to alot of spurious lawsuits and one good one. The one from 1997 when AOL subscriber growth outpaced the infrastructure. I never had a problem connecting...but I did get something as part of the class action...I forget what the actual settlement was. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,719 by nking 1/25/02 1:06:57 PM Reply	Think again With the exception of PBS, local TV stations are free to the consumer and paid for by the advertising. The consumer is not paying an hourly fee to watch the local news, or other programming. If they are, then you might have a point. All the cable company does is rebroadcast the signal over their cable lines. They do not charge extra for this, it is part of their basic package. Or at least most cable companies are like that. Sometimes they replace the commercials from the local station with their own commercials. Like that Dog Food commercial gets replaced with the cable comapny's "Pay per view" movie ad. I am glad that you got something for your troubles. Someone sending you email could have had it bounce, maybe at 2am in the morning, and maybe that person sending it was SPAMMING you, but still even if you didn't know about it, you could have had a loss in service. It was proven in court that a loss of service did happen, somehow your name got on their list as someone effected by it. Even if you got 35 cents, that is something for your time. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,448 by Andrew Grygus 1/24/02 9:44:00 AM Reply	Getting a little off base, aren't we? I seriously doubt many AOL users have such a dependence on AOL access it would threaten their livlihood and survival to leave. Nor do I think there would be a long period of searching and rejection trying to get accepted by another ISP. The ugly truth is, most AOL users became AOL users because AOL made it easier than anyone else. The vast majority of AOL users stay with AOL voluntarily, because the service suits their needs well enough. Some like the proprietary content, too. Some with other ISPs desire that proprietary content enough to pay $14 / month (recently raised) to access it without an AOL account. A few, however, get in tiffs and show their psychological dependency on mother AOL by putting up bitter anti-AOL Web sites, just like an overly dependent spouse or lover when their partner gets tired of it and moves on. If AOL doesn't suit you, don't use it. I don't. Many I know do. And, incidentally, free speach is not an issue. The Constitution applies to government repression of free speach. "Censorship" is a "service" of AOL many appreciate. If you don't, they have no obligation to you. Use a different ISP. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #25,521 by bepatient 1/24/02 2:11:01 PM Reply	Thanks AG...saved me some typing. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,445 by drewk 1/24/02 9:34:48 AM Reply	Hmm, what about this I believe however - that such distinctions won't be made, should this or that lawmaker wish to display the 'AOL experience' as justification for extending the censorship. Many religious groups would like everything to be childproof and childlike, according to their worldview. Yep. I know there are people who will do that. And I'll vote against them at every opportunity. But just because I may want to view porn, doesn't mean I should be able to force its availability on anyone who doesn't want it, any more than they can force its exclusion on me. AOL provides a filtered service. The filtering is explicity advertised as a benefit. People who use AOL either use it because of the filtering, as BeeP has said; or they use it in spite of the filtering because AOL also provides some other service, as Norm has said of his friend. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #25,674 by Ashton 1/25/02 8:29:34 AM Reply	Nothing can legally be done 'to' AOL, nor should (need) it be (yet?) I question the idea of aiding them in $ or spirit to emulate BillyCo, for all obvious and some subtle reasons. The idea of fighting one masssive wart on the world's ass by inducing a boil on the other cheek - intuitively sucks. Is analysis needed? Imagining that AOL cannot become as oppressive in its own way and as example for legislative skullduggery - seems as absurd as.. continuing to imagine that "the market will correct itself" - would seem to Ed Curry. Oh well. It won't happen on my shift. A.
Post #25,718 by nking 1/25/02 1:01:41 PM Reply	Of course it cannot because so far a majority of our laws benefit the corps out there, rather than the citizens. With the exception of antitrust laws, and others like the food and drug laws, etc. But what if AOL bought out Sprint or MCI/Worlcom? What if AT&T and AOL merge? What if AOL and Sony merge? Many New Internet Computers have failed, and many companies have tried to make Internet appliances and failed. Eventually some company is going to learn from those mistakes and make one that will not fail. The only way to beat Microsoft is to make a platform with open standards that anyone can use, and find a way to market it to the masses as something better than Microsoft can make. So far, no company or group has done that yet. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."

Welcome to IWETHEY!