LA Times: AOL Negotiating to Buy RED HAT!

Post #24,908 by Andrew Grygus 1/19/02 11:50:34 AM Reply	LA Times: AOL Negotiating to Buy RED HAT! Hoooooo Boy! If this goes through legions of Red Hat worshipers will go through the entire denial, anger, acceptance cycle in a big way. Debian will move up front among the enthusiasts as distrust for commercial Linux companies runs rampant. "We have been betrayed!" *BSD will win converts. Caldera could move up in commercial Linux as Red Hat is seen captive to Evil Empire #2 and starts losing interest in modest sized businesses. In my opinion, Red Hat management has got to go for this if they can get a good deal. Their chance of ever becoming hugely profitable selling support for free software against the Big Blue Machine and established integrators is vanishingly slim, and I'm sure they know that. Take the money and run! Story at [link\|http://www.latimes.com/business/la-000004751jan19.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dbusiness\|Los Angeles Times] [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #24,911 by nking 1/19/02 12:48:11 PM Reply	Nooo! Nooo! Nyet! Nine! Narf! Nunka! It cannot be! What will happen to the AOL-ized version of Red Hat Linux when the source code goes back to the Linux groups? Will Linux become as unstable as the AOL client software? Will Red Hat tech support give the customers the run-around and not give out any helpful advice? Will Red Hat become like Netscape? One good thing to come out of this, would be an AOL client for Linux? Then those people who refuse to leave AOL can still use Linux? Ah well, if the SEC has any sense, they'd block the buyout. :) "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #24,915 by Andrew Grygus 1/19/02 1:05:50 PM Reply	Two things . . The SEC has no sense, and there is no sane reason, logical, legal or political, for them to protest this aquisition. They won't even blink. AOL probably wants Red Hat because it has the strongest and most mature Linux development team, which they can turn to their own needs in defending themselves against Microsoft. Anyone who does not see that Microsoft is going balls out to monopolize electronic delivery of entertainment is simply blind. I think this will go through, and I think it should go through. It will not materially hurt Linux, and could materially assist Linux. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #24,916 by nking 1/19/02 1:07:23 PM Reply	Oh like it helped Netscape, ICQ? After AOL got Netscape and ICQ, the number of bugs and the bloatware increased. I wonder if the same will happen to Red Hat Linux? If you ask me, Time/Warner and AOL joining gives them too much of an Monopoly on Media. If they buy Red Hat, then they have an OS and other apps. They could use the Monopoly in the Media to promote their software. What would be their next target? Apple? Palm? Sun? Amiga? "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #24,919 by Andrew Grygus 1/19/02 1:25:06 PM Reply	Misconception . . Red Hat is not Linux. Red Hat is not essential to Linux development. Further, AOL/Red Hat will have to contribute anything based on GPL software to the public good. If AOL destroys Red Hat, so what? Their developers will find employment with other distributions. Big deal. Netscape was a single company which briefly dominated a product line. It's spokesman was a loud mouthed brat who publically boasted that Netscape would turn Windows into a "badly debugged device driver". Billy Boy very wisely chose to believe him. By time AOL purchased Netscape it was the walking dead and needed to be sold for scrap. We got Mozilla out of the deal, anyway. AOL will probably now merge Mozilla and Red Hat technologies to create a counter platform to Microsoft's "Secure PC". They have no choice, and nor do you. The only alternative for either is total ownership of electronic entertainment by Microsoft. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #24,921 by nking 1/19/02 1:35:14 PM Reply	That wasn't what I said I didn't say that Red Hat owned Linux, but that the AOL contributions would be going back to the Linux groups. That means that any Linux based on the Red Hat source (IE Mandrake) will get contaminated. Mozilla is a good product, but I thought they open sourced it before the AOL buyout? Notice that Netscape 6.2 is more bloated and buggier than Mozilla 0.9.7 is. Mozilla is great, because AOL programmers are not doing the bulk of the coding, the open source community is. Netscape 6.X is based on Mozilla code, but AOL adds all those gee-gaws and other crap that make it bloatware and majorly buggy. Which is why some people stick to a 4.X version of Netscape, one that won't crash their browser if they fart too loud. Counter Platform? Are you forgetting Apple, Amiga, Sun, Palm, Sony, and IBM? Any of them could make a counter platform to Microsoft's. Even TVIO can be turned into a counter product. It is, after all, based on Linux. Why is AOL all of a sudden, our savior against Microsoft? "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #24,928 by Andrew Grygus 1/19/02 2:36:51 PM Reply	Counter platform? Lets see your list: Apple: Markets to the choir; run by a techno ego-maniac control freak who is, nontheless, beholden to Microsoft (Office for the Mac, Internet Explorer) who wouldn't dare challenge the Redmond giant on anything important. Billy keeps Stevies balls conveniently at hand for squeezing. Amega: No nothing. Sun: No consumer products. No name recognition. No credible ambition outside the corporate realm. No experience whatever in entertainment business. Palm: Destined to be a super cell phone. Getting pounded by Microsoft for anyone who wants PC type capabilities. No money. Will not market Be OS because no resources. Sony: Only credible challenger to Microsoft in extended game consoles, but insufficient in scope. Microsoft is well on the way to building an integrated environment from bottom (games) to top (control of Internet) with total control of home environment in between (XBox home controller, later this year (PCs too - why do you think XP has UPnP turned on by default, and why do you think it's so hard to turn off?)). Too tightly controlled by foreign corp to get much support. IBM: That's spelled "International Business Machines". No presence in home / entertainment market, not planning to get into home / entertainment, not interested in home / entertainment market. Supports Windows on the desktop as a lucrative generator of support revenue. Does not support Linux on the desktop. Tivo: "Jose's 3rd Street Tacos" has a better chance of taking on McDonalds in a world wide revenue battle and winning. The name of the game is "Marketing, Marketing and Marketing" and only established giants with consumer marketing prowess, money and technology to back it up - and an unflinching will to win, need apply. Sorry, AOL is about all there is. They are now buying technology and development skills they desperately need to survive. Further, AOL will keep the interest of many in the Linux community who are interested in games and entertainment. They will get a lot of free development supporting their platform while the rest of the Linux community concentrates on servers. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #24,949 by nking 1/20/02 12:59:08 PM Reply	Counter Counter Platform Apple: while run by an ego-manic, and beholden to Microsoft. They once had an idea named Pipin, plus they once had the Newton PDA. They also have the marketing, look at all that iMac and OSX hype. All they need to do is break the chains with Microsoft after the DOJ settlement and buddy up with the MicroApps part that gets broken off with MS. Amiga: The Amiga One platform is still in development. They used to have an CD32 Game Console based on the Amiga plus a CD Drive. [link\|http://www.amiga.com\|Amiga.com] is still up. AmigaOS is a full multimedia OS. I'd give more but my wife is screaming at me to go to the mall with her, my son, and my two nephews. Later! "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #24,956 by nking 1/20/02 5:31:42 PM Reply	Continued, Post-Monster Kids Amiga: they have the games, the multimedia, and could review the CD32 unit with a PowerPC processor to run AmigaOS 3.9, and port StarOffice and other programs. Just add a keyboard and you have a set-top console computer. Amiga has the old Commodore experience with home computers and consoles. It is a pity that Gateway sold them, as Gateway was supposed to make an Amiga based WebTV clone system. Gateway fumbled the ball here when they sold them. If someone, like 20th Century Fox, were to buy Amiga. They could pump some more R&D into it to make an alternative platform. IBM: OS/2 and eCS, nuff said here. IBM or an OS/2 OEM could bundle OS/2 and Lotus Smartsuite onto a set-top device. It could be WINTEL based, ala XBox, use a DVD drive, etc. IBM has the marketing, if they are smart enough, to pull this off. Sun: They still have that Network Computer and Javastation. They could license the JavaOS to companies who want to build their own Internet Appliance. StarOffice also could be used here. They have all the peices, they just haven't figured out how to put them together. Palm: They could turn PalmOS with BeOS/BeIA into a consumer device. A brick computer with a flat panel LCD screen for use in the kitchen or living room. Didn't 3Com already make a device like this? Sony: The Playstation 2, already has add on parts to turn it into a small computer. As their user base grows, they can start to get developers for applications. Maybe with a PC Emulator, they can run Windows and Linux stuff. There already exists a Linux for the PSX2. With an add-on hard drive, keyboard, mouse, and Ethernet/Modem adapter, the PSX2 can be turned into a PC that uses the TV screen as a monitor, and/or optional LCD screen. Sony keeps on growing. Sega: I hadn't thought about this, but someone did port Linux to the Dreamcast. Sega could license the Dreamcast BIOS and hardware to other companies that can add on the keyboard, hard drive, and other features. Also slap on a DVD drive, and MP3/VideoCD player. Call it the Dreamcast 2, and put in faster video, audio, and CPU chips. TIVO: Their user base is still growing, they are expanding into the DirectTV market with units that can run TIVO and DirectTV services. I was thinking of getting one before I got let go by my company. With TIVO I can record two programs at the same time on the DirectTV system. Many are moving away from Cable to DirectTV because of the price difference. For $6 more, local channels can be added to the DirectTV subscription. DirectPC is about to take place, which will offer broadband over the Satelite dishes. Another blow for Cable TV, if they don't reduce the Cable rates, more people will flock to satelite services. Dish network is about to merge with DirectTV. Cable companies: Many are working on their own OS or a Linux or BSD based OS that will turn digital cable boxes into home computers with a minor upgrade. Slap in a hard drive, update the BIOS, and switch on the connections to areas in the house. Charter Communications is leading the way for this, other companies are following. Maybe in the next few years we will see something come out of it. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."*
Post #24,988 by jb4 1/21/02 9:17:56 AM Reply	OT: 5 hrs. at the mall Norm? Sheeesh! jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #25,001 by nking 1/21/02 11:48:41 AM Reply	Nope, 15 minutes at the mall, 4 hours at Grandma's house making snowmen and having the kids slide down the hill on sleds. The rest was driving time. They misbehaved at the mall, at the children's indoor playground there, so we took them to Grandma's house. First snowmen of the year made due to all the snow. I was supposed to be given 15 minutes of break time to use the computer to check email and messages. It was cut short to 5, due to the kids wanting to go to the mall so bad. Just enough to fix my hosts file, log onto ZIWE and make a short, interrupted, post. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,014 by Andrew Grygus 1/21/02 3:24:29 PM Reply	Errrr . . Norm? "All they need to do is break the chains with Microsoft after the DOJ settlement and buddy up with the MicroApps part that gets broken off with MS." Norm, the Shrub DoJ surrendered, grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory. There will be no MicroApps, just the one huge monolithic Microsoft we know so well - exactly why AOL is making a move. So Amiga has a Web site. I have a Web site. Britney Spears has a Web site. Big deal. It has no market, no money and no future outside a very small niche. All the platforms you mention in this and subsequent post have a serious to fatal lack of resources except Sony. Sony (and all the others) lack what Microsoft and AOL have - Internet infrastructure and a huge base of on-line users. That would be extremely expensive and difficult for anyone else to acquire. In other words, none of the others are in the game at all. Microsoft has control of the PC (even Intel is now locked out of the design spec) and will soon be the dominant manufacturer of what passes for home PCs and devices (XBox out now, XBox home controller out later this year, Secure PC and others in the works). Microsoft has every intent of seizing control of the Internet and is well on its way to that goal. AOL has a strong desire to survive. To do that, they MUST cut themselves free from Microsoft, and MUST prevent Microsoft from making the Internet its own private preserve. To do that they MUST have their own platform, perhaps not a PC platfrom - an appliance platform will do if properly marketed. Linux has a good track record in apliances (including a couple you mentioned), but AOL needs a top notch development team - right now. Red Hat has that. Sure, some developers will leave, but money talks - most will stay. AOL will tell them of all the good they'll do for Linux on the desktop, since most of their code will be GPL'd by necessity. Since AOL is the only credible counter to Microsoft, with money, an Internet infrastructure, and on-line users, this deal needs to be real and it needs to go through - unless you pefer the "All Microsoft Future". [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #24,930 by Andrew Grygus 1/19/02 2:45:36 PM Reply	Netscape and Mozilla Yes, Netscape "open sourced" their code before the AOL buy, but as a desperation measure on their way to the scrap yard - a vain hope for get free development work since they could no longer afford it themselves. The Mozilla team judged Netsape's code too bad to salvage and pretty much started over, which is why it's taken so long. If Andresen could have keept his mouth shut, Netscape might have lived, but seeing the lion asleep, the monkey yanked it's tail, with predictable results. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #24,982 by pwhysall 1/21/02 7:29:35 AM Reply	Eh? After AOL got Netscape and ICQ, the number of bugs and the bloatware increased. I wonder if the same will happen to Red Hat Linux? Norm, that's bollocks. After AOL got Netscape, they put a whole heap of resources into the Mozilla project that's in the process of actually giving us a standards compliant, cross-platform, full-featured browser and internet suite. ICQ 2001, while ugly as all get-out, is not unstable or particularly unusable. Everyone who whales on AOL for lack of technical prowess seems to be forgetting that they run a network with 15 million simultaneous users. Go figure. If you ask me, Time/Warner and AOL joining gives them too much of an Monopoly on Media. If they buy Red Hat, then they have an OS and other apps. They could use the Monopoly in the Media to promote their software. AOL Time Warner have a media monopoly? Blimey. News to me. And Red Hat is not Linux. What would be their next target? Apple? Palm? Sun? Amiga? Dude, this is the American Way. Get over it. Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #25,004 by nking 1/21/02 12:01:49 PM Reply	AOL whoas Is itsn't nicknamed American On-Laugh for nothing. [link\|http://www.aolwatch.org/\|Maybe you haven't visited this website yet?] AOL has 15 million subscribers, but has had lost email, bounced email, interrupted services, Hell/Helpdesk people who don't know what they are talking about, almost as many security issues as Windows, sites being blocked, email being blocked, pedophiles allowed to chat with children and nothing being done about it, other Internet programs and connections being prevented from being used by the AOL software. If you want all of that for Red Hat Linux, give me a "Hell Yeah!" Mozilla is about the only good thing to come out of Netscape in a while. But wasn't the Mozilla project started before AOL bought out Netscape? ICQ, I remember when it used to be fast, and looking up an ICQ number took seconds, not minutes. Also what is up with adding greeting cards and other useless things to ICQ after AOL took it over? ICQ also never had an interruption in service before AOL took it over. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,006 by pwhysall 1/21/02 12:17:13 PM Reply	Re: AOL whoas Firstly, I said they have 15 million simultaneous users. That's out of a subscriber base of 100 million. AOL's network is feckin' HUGE. How many of the 100 million AOL subscribers (paying customers) have had a problem? When you have that many customers, even a tiny tiny percentage of them can fill up a website with complaints. My point isn't that AOL are some kind of shining light on the internet. It's that misrepresenting them doesn't help your cause (which appears to be "I don't like AOL") any. You think they suck. That's your prerogative. But don't underestimate their technical ability or their marketing skills, because you'll be wrong. You don't get to be where they are through being totally incompetent at every level. ICQ is one of those applications that has all sorts of neato features, that are almost entirely consumer driven. It has a lot of consumers, and they want a lot of different things. You might think that sending greetings cards through ICQ is useless, but I wish I could do it from here (Linux). ICQ's ability to send SMS messages is likewise neat - rarely used, but indispensible when you need it. ICQ sucks because the interface is dismal and the architecture is vile. But AOL don't have anything to do with that - because ICQ's been like that from the get-go. Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #25,024 by nking 1/21/02 6:34:26 PM Reply	if I had my choice between using AOL or not having Net I'd choose not having net. AOL is the Microsoft of ISPs. So much so that the MSN was based on the way AOL is run. An ex-coworker of mine had his AOL email bounce for over a day, he lost important messages that somehow ended up in a black hole. He lost clients, and missed important meetings because AOL had email problems. So he switched to MSN, but later had the same problems. If he had picked a local ISP like I told him to, he would not have had these problems. Part of the problem is that AOL is so freaking huge that they cannot manage all those connections. So something breaks somewhere. Despite getting slapped around like they are AOL's btch, the customers still stay loyal. They make the MacJihad look like a Girl Scout troop, you cannot buy that kind of loyalty. Some of them are Rednecks that don't know any better and bought their PC to see big hooters on that Tomb Raider girl. But enough about it, you know I don't like them. But nothing I can do about it. We might trade one really bad company for another. Exit Microsoft, enter AOL/Time/Warner/Turner/Netscape/Red Hat/Evil Ed's House Of Pancakes. In five years, instead of complaining about Microsoft, we will be complaining about AOL instead. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."*
Post #25,027 by nking 1/21/02 7:06:56 PM Reply	More about AOL They don't care about their customers or security, as long as it doesn't effect their profits or bottom line. For every customer they tick off, they get five more from free AOL CDs being included in cerial boxes, junk mail, and other weird places. Despite [link\|http://www.anti-aol.com\|Many security hacks/cracks, and documentation about AOL flaws] AOL still doesn't fix or address those issues in new versions, they only add more geegaws and special effects to the new versions. More features, fewer bug fixes. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,098 by jb4 1/22/02 10:26:38 AM Reply	Excuse me...? You think they suck. That's your prerogative. But don't underestimate their technical ability or their marketing skills, because you'll be wrong. You don't get to be where they are through being totally incompetent at every level. Flash...(that would be as in "'70s", not as in "news"). Are you talking about Micros~1 or America On-Hold? Funny, but as you approach Monopoly status, the defenders of the 1%ers come out of the woodwork lauding these guys' marketing prowess as if somehow marketing is itself a product; that marketing is the be-all-and-end-all apology for providing crap to an unsophisticated, unsuspecting populace. Form over substance...is that the altar you worship at these days, Peter? And, BTW, as you approach (or achieve) Monopoly status, you can "get to be where they are through being totally incompetent at every level."; ref Micros~1 and AOL. jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #25,115 by pwhysall 1/22/02 12:32:09 PM Reply	Crap? You called it. You show it. Why is AOL crap? And they're NOWHERE NEAR a monopoly. Nothing like. If you want to dump AOL, you have lots of options. If you want to dump MS, you don't. I'm not defending AOL - hell, they don't even register on my radar most of the time - but talking rubbish ("they're technically incompetent and can't market stuff") just makes you look daft. If you can't market stuff, you get precisely nowhere. Ask the FreeBSD crowd about that. Arguably better than Linux, certainly more coherent and focussed. (OK, so I think BSD initstuffs suck). I'd be surprised if it has 10% of the mind and marketshare that Linux does. One last thing. Why is it that whenever I express an opinion I'm accused of worshipping at this altar or that altar? If I worship at any altar, it's the altar of Ockham, Spirit Of The Facts. Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #25,132 by jb4 1/22/02 1:53:15 PM Reply	Then stop genuflecting there... One last thing. Why is it that whenever I express an opinion I'm accused of worshipping at this altar or that altar? If I worship at any altar, it's the altar of Ockham, Spirit Of The Facts. Then stop genuflecting at the altar of Marketing, the Spirit of Bullshit. (Hell, even your sig indicats that!) (BTW, isn't that Occam...he invented the Razor, didn't he?) jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #25,133 by pwhysall 1/22/02 1:59:21 PM Reply	/me slaps jb4 about with a large trout There's more to marketing than misrepresenting your Evul Corporate Empire. Marketing is done by everyone, from Linux to Amnesty International. Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #25,135 by boxley 1/22/02 2:06:13 PM Reply	is that a seagoing, fresh water or racerack trout? me dux My Dreams aren't as empty as my conscience seems to be
Post #25,138 by jb4 1/22/02 2:20:59 PM Reply	Given my history in the '70s... ...(much of which I've forgotten...) that would have to be Rainbow.... jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #25,140 by jb4 1/22/02 2:29:31 PM Reply	/me slaps the Shill about with a large Cod Yeah, Yeah, sure... Marketing comes in two forms: Professional Marketing, where the proactitioners perform such acedemic exercises as designing focus groups that don't presage the result (or, worse, "adjust" the result to suit the PR department of a client organization), do proper demographic analyses on past sales, trend analysis, product specification, et al. Then there's Bullshit "Marketing", which is just about everything else that is not Professional Marketing. You know, the type where the vidiots that have actually finagled a way to get paid for this bullshit sit around and discuss such far-reaching item of global import such as the "wow factor" and "sizzle". (Try not to laugh; I actually had a Bullshit Marketer try to tell me how certain aspects of a demo I prepared would increase the "wow factor" and "sizzle" of the product I was demoing. The product? An infusion pump!) So Peter, which do you figure Micros~1 and AOL practice? jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #25,415 by mhuber 1/24/02 12:34:14 AM Reply	Occham was all marketing... He didn't invent the concept. It was a common idea in his lifetime. He just used it a lot. And there is, i've heard, no evidence that he ever said or wrote anything that could be translated anywhere near literaly to "entities should not be multiplied beyond neccessity". A good selection tool for theories. Not an indicator of truth. Easy to over-apply. For example, the theory that there are a bunch of people out there reading this message and possibly replying to it is far more complex - particularly in the multiple-entity sense, but also in others - than some other explanations of what is happening here. A decent sim, for example. Or just one guy - I'm thinking maybe Ashton, with his very distinctive use of language as a pretty good cover for all the more formal-writing side-personae, except that what is identity when you are the whole group? No, I'm rejecting the razor - as William himself would - in favor of the more complex hypothesis here. ---- "You don't have to be right - just use bolded upper case" - annon.
Post #25,418 by nking 1/24/02 1:24:14 AM Reply	A more complex hypothesis Please do contribute to the conversation any complex hypothesis that you can think of. Don't let the dyed in the wool AOL-Lovers or AOL-Jihadists bother you just because your opinions and evidence may not agree with them. Maybe if they suck up enough they can get more free hours online? Got to squeeze out enough to make up for that $23 a month charge, so they can keep their multiple screen names from being disabled. Imagine an ISP that charges more than $20 a month for dial-up service? Who would have thunk it? Once again AOL leads the way! Maybe next you can pay $10 extra a month for them not to sell out your information to other companies? Or how about $5 extra a month to block out pop-up ads? The next feature of AOL 8.0 will be dancing screen otters, which will dance as a script kiddie runs a crack script on your client from the AOL Admin account he cracked into. When you see the otter, log off! :) "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,787 by Ashton 1/25/02 6:30:28 PM Reply	______________________S _Shhhhhhhh you fool.. (How'm I doing with the er m-bot? I fear that it's a bit overdone though. Gotta fix the doggerel generator - it's become a bit recursive as the Z-pole goes logarithmic) Now how can you be sure that 'you' aren't dreamstuff in a darkened room and .. it's My dream that 'you are'? (I used to wonder that about self* - but now I know what's dreaming 'me' ;-) *No not Karsten - he's one of Ours Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Glorp\ufffd PS - nice Leibnitzian juxtaposing. Secret: it really IS more complex (and simple) than anything 'they' told us. Erase this message.
Post #25,171 by nking 1/22/02 5:11:20 PM Reply	I've already proven that AOL is crap I had the links to web pages that detail the problems with AOL, and that AOL isn't interested in fixing them unless it effects their profit. In case you've forgotten those two links: [link\|http://www.aolwatch.com\|AOL Watch] [link\|http://www.anti-aol.com\|Anti-AOL] They have filled up at least two web sites full of user complaints and security/bugs issues, etc. Plus there are more out there. Leaving AOL isn't that easy to do, when someone wants to quit, the AOL representative offers them more free hours, and even after some quit their bank account and credit cards are still being billed a monthly fee. Also since it trashes the OS so that no other Internet connection can function, it forces the average user to RRR after leaving AOL. Plus the AOL Helpdesk appears to be staffed with idiots who don't know the first thing to software or hardware support. If this isn't hurting consumers, I do not know what is? But yes, anyone can leave AOL, but few do. Why? I am not 100% sure, but like anything it is an addiction to most. Sort of like being addicted to cigarettes or Fast Food or Junk Food, you know it is bad for you and you get crappy service/results, but you do it anyway. Like I said, for every customer they tick off and it makes them leave, they get five more. This is mostly due to their damn disks being everywhere and offering those 700 Hours free, etc. My friends keep offering me their AOL disks that they get in the mail, I politely tell them "No". "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,214 by bepatient 1/22/02 10:36:02 PM Reply	You've done no such thing. You've proven that you don't like them...and that you're not alone. I've got code that will crash Mozilla every time. But since I don't hate them...I don't post it to a bunch of copycat script kiddies so they can have fun with their friends. Whee. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,223 by nking 1/23/02 2:18:50 AM Reply	Sure, I am not alone plus many have left AOL because of their crappy service. Oh, by the way if you have code that crashes Mozilla, I hope you shared it with their development group so they can patch it. No need to post it to the public, but that AOL hacking code has been made available to the public for years and AOL is aware of it and have not made the changes needed to prevent it. Sort of like that "Resource Memory" problem that Windows has had since 3.0, and current Windows versions still have it. Microsoft is aware of it, but they'd much rather change the look and feel and add more features to the OS, than fix a bug that millions of users have complained about. I only listed two of the top Anti-AOL sites. You want more? [link\|http://my.en.com/~tfinley/index2.shtml\|Why stop supporting AOL] [link\|http://www.babeonhd.com/aol_sucks.html\|AOL sucks and why I left them] [link\|http://www.isomedia.com/homes/vertical/aol.htm\|Here is a no-brainer =AOL sucks=] [link\|http://lobd.org/aol/\|AOL Offline] [link\|http://www.ao.net/~mrbrain/aolsuxs.htm\|AOL Sux] [link\|http://www.faqs.org/faqs/online-providers/aol-sucks-faq/part1/\|Alt.AOL.Sucks FAQ] [link\|http://www.byrum.org/aol/\|AOL Sucks Pyramid] [link\|http://my.en.com/~tfinley/\|AOL The End] [link\|http://www.bikepainter.com/Aolimages.html\|AOL Sucks Images] [link\|http://my.en.com/~tfinley/remote.shtml\|Alt.AOL.Sucks Resources] [link\|http://www.zpub.com/un/unaol.html\|The Unoffical AOL webpage] [link\|http://www.motley-focus.com/~timber/aol.html\|Poems banned by AOL] [link\|http://dir.yahoo.com/Business_and_Economy/Shopping_and_Services/Communication_and_Information_Management/Internet_and_World_Wide_Web/Portals/America_Online__AOL_/Consumer_Opinion/\|Yahoo AOL Consumer Opinion] They have a category for this because it is so popular. [link\|http://www.observers.net/\|Observers.net] [link\|http://www.tfn.net/~wolfj/HOSTAtom/index.html\|FCLO] [link\|http://www.metroactive.com/cyber/aol.html\|AO Heck] There are tons of other Anti-AOL sites. I haven't seen this many ANTI sites since Microsoft put out Windows 95. But I ask you, with all these people posting Anti-AOL sites and documenting security flaws, and documenting their problems with AOL's service, isn't this evidence enough? I mean what is with the current AOL-Lovefest anyway? Is Steve Case passing out $100 Bills or something in those AOL install CDs? The way some of you act, it is like you own stock in the company or something, and AOL can do no wrong? "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,226 by pwhysall 1/23/02 2:33:12 AM Reply	Why AOL Don't Suck 100 Million Paying Customers. Get that through your head. Subscription to AOL is not mandatory, nor is it the only alternative, nor is it forced upon you when you buy your computer. Sure, they're an Evul Corporate Empire, but hey. I'm chuffed that they financed the development of the rendering engine that drives my browser (Galeon, uses the Gecko engine from the Mozilla project). I'm not an AOL customer. Never have been, never will be. I have a suggestion for you. Think about where all those customers came from, bearing in mind that AOL has had no lock on the market like Microsoft has. Personally, I hope that the AOL-buys-Red Hat rumour isn't just hot air. If MS is the enemy (and they surely are) then we need a big stick to beat them with. Red Hat Linux, with AOL driving it, could be that stick. But you seem to think that some other company, hitherto unknown, is going to step forth and challenge MS. Do tell. Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #25,227 by nking 1/23/02 2:34:32 AM Reply	AOL does suck, McDonald's syndrome I keep telling you that, despite the piss poor service, people stick with them. It is like McDonald's people know that the food is no good for them, and the service stinks, but they keep going back for more. Billions served, I have no problem with the "Billions" part, it is the "served" part that I, and "Stake 'N Shake" have problems with. Or those baseball teams like the Chicago Cubs that despite having a bad win ratio, still have tons of fans. Or the Phoenix Cardnials, they sucked in St. Louis, and they asked for a new stadium or they would move. We told them not to let the door hit them on the rear end on the way out. Phoenix loves them, despite them being some of the biggest losers in the NFL. Or Apple, despite being run by an Ego-Maniac, and price-gouging their customers (compaired to PC prices), and stabbing the Mac-Cloners and Apple Retailers (Gee I wonder why they have a web store, Store within a store, and Apple retail stores that compete with their retailers?) in the back, Apple stays in business? Must be those loyal Mac fans, they stuck with the company even when products got abandoned and the features they wanted in their OS was still vaporware (Pre-OSX days) for over a decade? Or how about the US Postal service? Slow, mail gets lost, mail gets delivered to wrong addresses, mail gets damaged or destroyed, and other services available (Fed Ex, UPS, RPS, etc) yet people continue to use the US Postal Service to send packages? BTW we get a 3 cent raise in sending a letter this summer. At least Jessie James had the decentcy to wear a mask when he robbed you! "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,229 by pwhysall 1/23/02 2:56:16 AM Reply	I see we are at that point... ...at which the facts have become irrelevant. No matter, I'll give them to you again. AOL have 100M customers. That's a lot of people. They're all paying. The ISP market is cut-throat; it's never been easier or cheaper to switch. AOL's technical ability is substantial. The sheer scale of their network (and the fact that it's still working) is testament to that. AOL don't have a lock on their market or their customers, especially c.f. Microsoft. Frexample, you want Windows Media? (rhetorical question) You're hosed on anything other Windows (mplayer on Linux don't count because it's well iffy at the moment). You want internet access and filtered content? There's only, oh, about a zillion companies offering different products. Customers who whine but don't switch are customers who are still paying. After all, if AOL's service was THAT BAD, they'd switch, right? Right. Finally, who would you like to oppose MS in the internet-access-plus-content game? `/me slaps Norm for making him defend AOL.` Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #25,231 by nking 1/23/02 3:16:20 AM Reply	I'll repeat myself again AOL has 100M customers, I never did dispute that. What I did dispute is the fact that AOL service is crap, which I have provided links to, and personal experience with, and documented issues that people have had with AOL. The ISP market is cut-thoat, I never did dispute that either. Never been easier or cheaper to switch? Rubbish! I have a local ISP I was telling a client about, she asked me which button to press on Windows to get to that ISP. I told her that it isn't pre-installed with Windows, but doesn't take special software to access. She wanted a button to press, or a CD to load. No "this is how you use the Internet Setup Wizard, enter the phone number, email name, etc", as that was too complex for her. AOL is bundled with the modern versions of Windows, and those **ing CDs are everywhere. (Skeet shoot anyone?) AOl may not have the lock on their customers, but their customers don't know that. In fact most of them barely know how to start up Windows. All they know is that they boot up that CD with the 700 hours free, and keep paying $23 a month for access. "Hey Norm, can I add you to my buddylist?" The fools don't know that they can use AIM without using AOL. They are fooled into thinking that only AOL offers the Wall Street Journal, MTV, USA Today, and other things that can also be accessed from the web. AOL plays on people's ignorence. Customers who whine and don't switch are still customers. But that doesn't mean that AOL's service and support is golden. Like I said, it is the Fast Food of ISPs. Quanity over quality. The local ISP with 100 members and phone lines in someone's basement offers 1000% times the quality that AOL will ever have. Who to oppose Microsoft? How about a group effort? Or are all the players out there want to become just like Microsoft so bad that they forgt that they shouldn't become the monsters they are fighting against? Why not have a group of companies come together to form a set of standards to be used to create an Internet access plus content game system? One that is independant of just having one ISP, or one hardware maker, or one game designer? "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."**
Post #25,241 by bepatient 1/23/02 8:14:09 AM Reply	Why bother... ...because you are associating loudmouths (in netspeak) and a couple of personal issues to the experience of MILLIONS of people. You don't get to be that big without 1) some people having a bad go of it 2) other people taking shots at you and 3) some technical issues that don't compromise user integrity that are not important enough to fix. ISP's are a dime a dozen. Most of them are significantly less expensive than AOL. Don't give me this "McDonald's" syndrome to explain it. Unfortunately for your argument...I happen to know ALOT of people who >actually like< AOL. And as Peter has pointed out...AOL has proven to be nothing other than a very strong financial supporter of open source projects. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,274 by nking 1/23/02 1:05:56 PM Reply	Oh really? 1. Some people having a bad go at it? 2. Other people taking shots at you. 3. Tech issues not important enough to fix. Explain Coca Cola, they are big, yet I don't see people taking pot shots at them, or telling them to change their secret formula. They have a much larger customer base than AOL. true, they are not a tech company, but they are really that darn big. It is more than just a few people having a bad go at it, trust me. Like the wife of an abusive husband, they stay with them even if they are mistreated. A friend of mine left AOL 8 months ago, and went to Earthlink. Earthlink was much better than AOL, cost less, gave him a free Web Cam, and never once bounced his email or cut off his Internet surfing. Yet he returned to AOL. Why? His wife complained that she didn't have that AOL screen when the Internet popped up. She wanted that look and feel, she didn't want Mozilla or IE as her browser, she wanted the AOL one. Why? Because she was used to it, and she didn't want to learn something new. So sometimes the email I send to him bounces or never gets there. Shtty service, but easy to use. Focus on the Easy to use part. If someone wrote an easy to use Client and Server software that any ISP could use, it might take some of the business away from AOL. Many people use AOL because they don't have to use their brain or think in order to use the AOL custom software. The dumbing down of the USA made it possible. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."*
Post #25,291 by drewk 1/23/02 1:36:49 PM Reply	AOL keeps changing His wife complained that she didn't have that AOL screen when the Internet popped up. She wanted that look and feel, she didn't want Mozilla or IE as her browser, she wanted the AOL one. Why? Because she was used to it, and she didn't want to learn something new. Microsoft has gotten away with this same piece of FUD. "I don't want to learn anything new." Well, besides the fact that that's pretty sad to begin with, AOL and MS have both changed their interfaces several times, and people keep learning them. Did your friend try setting the IE homepage to Yahoo? They have categories that match many of the AOL ones. Oh, or did you mean she liked the specific channels that AOL has? She likes their choice of movie reviews. She likes their selection of travel options. That's AOL's market research doing it's job the exact right way. Find out what people want and give it to them. AOL isn't really "easier". It's just more familiar. Whenever someone asks me how to do or find something on AOL, I have no idea. It takes me twice as long to do it that way as Googling for it. 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 #25,329 by bepatient 1/23/02 4:42:27 PM Reply	Really Same issue with my wife. Taught her how to search...set up portal...the whole nine yards. Bottom line...AOL has >content< that others don't. She likes that content and the way its structured. 9 years for me Norm. 7 screen names. No mail issues. No security issues. My username has never been compromised. (knock wood). I have as many friends that use AOL and like it as you have that don't. That boils down to personal preference. Irrespective of that...there is still nothing but a positive track record between AOL and open source software....so you may not like them...but they've donated time and talent to projects that >you< like. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,404 by nking 1/23/02 11:25:22 PM Reply	What can AOL provide that you cannot find on the Net somewhere else? Like was said, many of us just use Google or some other search engine. We don't need our steak to be cut up into tiny pieces for us, we can do it ourselves. I am sorry that you cannot see AOL for the company that it is. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,406 by bepatient 1/23/02 11:46:07 PM Reply	Don't be sorry... ...no need. I don't agree with you...and your opinion is not TRUTH. AOL is a media company. There is ALOT of content that is specific to AOL. It is arranged well. You like to google. Fine. My friend likes to sign on and click once. Works for him. He's actually very computer and net savvy. You have a disdain...he has a preference. His preference is shared by a whole lotta people...whether you like it or not. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,409 by nking 1/23/02 11:56:03 PM Reply	whether you like it or not my disdain is shared by a whole lotta people as well. Many of whom are Ex-AOL users. What media exists that you can only get on AOL? That is like saying I like the Cable Company because I can get local channels on it with just a click of the remote. Sure but you can also get the same media from an antenna. Want the same program channels as Cable but don't want to pay the high prices? Get satellite TV! I suppose that AOL shows CNN stories that are not viewable from cnn.com or the CNN news channel on cable and satellite systems? Or maybe they have the same, but AOL integrates the story in the same Window that you read your email from? I still do not understand what the big deal over AOL is that 100 million people want to use it. These must be the same people who keep electing the idiots into office that I never vote for? :) "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,480 by wharris2 1/24/02 12:46:27 PM Reply	Re: What can AOL provide that you cannot find on the Net Back when I used Compuserve, they provided a number of reasonably civil (sometimes moderated) forums and chat areas that you can't usually find on Usenet or IRC. I suppose AOL has a similar setup. Internet discussion group places like ziwethey are few and far between. Trying to discuss stuff on Slashdot? Hah. Kuro5hin? Almost as bad. "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #25,600 by nking 1/24/02 5:32:06 PM Reply	Oh really? Mark Two. You mean like Ezboard? :) But anyway if AOL has forums, tons of other websites have forums that can just as easily be used. Even if AOL forums may not be accessable by the web, someone else already provides the same services elsewhere. Does AOL provide moderation of forums? This is something that Ezboard and Yahoo lack, they let the script kiddies, lamers, spammers, and other evil doers take control of the forums/clubs. Usually it is up to founders or forum owners to clean them up, but very few actually do. Some just create the forum or club and then leave. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,236 by Ashton 1/23/02 6:48:22 AM Reply	Peter, I see a quite larger reason to work against AOL than mere technical BS. (However impractical it may be to in fact 'work against' YAN behemoth run by YAN sociopathic personality) It's a moot point by now, I think - just how badly engineered something can be - and still sell to millions. Muricans are stuck with mediocrity in increasing doses, anyway - and not just in gadgetry. (They also sold a lot of Ford Pintos here...) One of Norman's links above points to a problem of much larger concern (to the likes of me, anyway).. the Camel's nose well into the tent re CENSORSHIP [link\|http://www.motley-focus.com/~timber/ccapress.html\|Story begins here] The technical shortcomings as are sold to a massive group, apparently unable to use the web except by - an autoload CD that does it all - explains the appeal. Given the intellectual level also of the average PHB as described here - we may suppose that this situation won't change. Even hundreds of web hours later, these people will still not know what an ISP is, or even be willing to be talked through filling in the blanks. They NEED AOL as nanny, not only for their kids. BUT I see an active negative force in the assertions made in the link. Once again a megalomaniac biznessman is to determine CONTENT for adults, perhaps under the rubric of "the cheeldrun's safety at AOL". (That rubric fails since - their own filter software can easily keep the tykes out of the Naked Lunch reading rooms. There's more to it than that.) Yes, all those folk support AOL for having not the skills to do otherwise. But the more of them who do, and also fail to object vociferously to the censorship -- the more nails in the future coffin of.. that which we take for granted today at zIWE and elsewhere. This 'freedom period' is ever in jeopardy from the Yahoos of the world (not Yahoo\ufffd) - and Murica is lousy with sanctimonious Yahoos: just note the War on Drugs and all the other ones. AOL may prove thus to become the test-case which a Puritan government cites as evidence that, See? people don't care - let's extend AOL rules web-wide as an amendment to the Patriot Child-Protection Speech Act (Ashcroft personally qualifies for that epithet, and such aims would be consistent with his avowed Fundamentalist religious bent. I don't have to make this up.) Ashcroft + AOL makes this more than a theoretical possibility IMhO. Ergo - AOL is hardly just a bumbling 'nother Billy with delusions of world domination.. but a Significant other Billy, apparently just as dangerous to support as the Original. Possibly more-so. Still think we may safely ignore this lumbering wannabe International [Whatever] ?? Ashton PS - could AOL's 'customer service' possibly be as disdainful of the inividual user and her needs as: M/Sloth's since the first? PPS - re your post to the maillist: seems you have a bevy of European Ashcrofts to contend with on your side of the pond. It's an epidemic of panicky dumbth!
Post #25,246 by jb4 1/23/02 9:16:28 AM Reply	Hey! Watchit! Leave the Cubbies outta this! ;-) jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #25,245 by jb4 1/23/02 9:15:11 AM Reply	By that...er, "logic"... Micros~1 is the greatest company in the world, with 250 million brain-dead autommtons...er "customers".... Oh, I forgot..You already thing that Micros~1 is the greatest company in the world.... Sorry for the interruption...back to your specious argument with Norm. jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #25,261 by pwhysall 1/23/02 11:06:08 AM Reply	Re: By that...er, "logic"... Haven't you been following? I said AOL got their customers in a COMPLETELY different way to MS. MS got/get theirs via total monopolization and exploitation of that monopoly. And your comment about me thinking MS are the greatest proves you aren't paying attention. Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #24,953 by Ashton 1/20/02 4:13:14 PM Reply	Monopolizing all electronic delivery on the net. Yes, entirely - in my quite less competent opinion too: how Could that be anything but - Billy n'Bally's wettest of salacious dreams after an Ecstasy party? And with the now almost Countless! War on ___this and War on___that and this administration's proclivities, conflicts of [Enron] interests [oil] and fascist-as-possible intentions for local [Call it The Patriot Act] liberties all around.. for ~THREE MORE YEARS - B n'B might have pretty clear sailing unless.. opposed by equally vicious, unprincipled and terminally Greedy folk. QED We appear destined Not to reform our Corporate law and our election financing Glistening Cesspool for any foreseeable. So to counter a slime, all that can be done is to set another slime against it - and watch the shit fly. Vulture capitalism has just begun its downward spiral towards 1% owning everything. In that light, AOL bloody well had Better do this deal! Ashton WTF does any of us know.?. about the wet dreams of predatory assholes focussed 100% only upon the $$, and each - perfectly willing to fuck 'civilization' as collateral damage. {sigh}
Post #24,957 by Ashton 1/20/02 5:33:43 PM Reply	The Reg wears differently-colored glasses [link\|http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/23746.html\|At least, A. Orlowski does] (sigh} it's rilly Hard, tryin to root for just a slightly different-strain of megalomania.. when the evidence is in: the 'system' is mangled systematically. While all whistle past the cemetery. A.
Post #24,945 by static 1/20/02 4:53:21 AM Reply	Actually, it might be better turned around the other way. That is, a RedHat distro with an AOL client. Moreover, AOL have experience at creating UIs for Joe Sixpack - Linux needs that expertise and this is probably a good way to get it. I must admit, it doesn't sound like a marriage made in heaven, but it's just wierd enough that it work and work really really well. And since AOL is starting to chafe under the fact that their product currently requires a competitor's OS, what better way to counter that than to buy their own? Wade. "All around me are nothing but fakes Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
Post #24,924 by a6l6e6x 1/19/02 1:57:05 PM Reply	Re: LA Times: AOL Negotiating to Buy RED HAT! Also at [link\|http://www.washtech.com/news/media/14759-1.html\|Washington Post.] Gosh, I hope it's not true, but who knows. Could be that management having suffered through the internet bubble of their own, is ready to bail. and It, could be AOL/Time-Warner is thinking set top boxes and will redirect Red Hat to that. Red Hat does have an embedded Linux effort as is. Alex Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Post #24,958 by nking 1/20/02 5:34:41 PM Reply	Rumors anyway, anything proven? Is AOL really talking to Red Hat, or is this another Red hat to buy Be rumor? Anyway Red Hat has the Cygwin and other GCC developer tools. AOL, if they get their grubby little hands on that, could try to get into the developer tool market. They might as well buy out Borland while they are at it and pick up Delphi, J++/C++ Builder, Interbase, and others. Then buy out Corel, to get Wordperfect Office, etc. Then maybe they can seriously compete with Microsoft and Billy and Bally. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,007 by Andrew Grygus 1/21/02 12:31:55 PM Reply	Robert Young: "No Comment". You can't get a much stronger confirmation than that that talks are ongoing. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #24,986 by dmarker2 1/21/02 9:12:00 AM Reply	Re: Register speaks .... However AOL is highly anxious - as shown in leaked strategy memos last year - at losing its Net franchise. Microsoft has shown every indication that intends to drain the oxygen from future web transactions, and in order to so, wants to squeeze AOL off the PC desktop. AOL has already touted Linux in web appliances and appreciates that a box giving access to AOL content and instant messaging doesn't need to be a Wintel PC. [link\|http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/23746.html\|Full Register story on the move ] Personally I think it will be the end of RedHat as we know it - leader of the Linux mob - but I agree with sentiment that says 'grab the moola & scoot' what has RedHat got to loose (grin). Cheers Doug
Post #24,992 by bepatient 1/21/02 10:15:51 AM Reply	I don't get it. Everything AOL/TW does with RH will be given back to the community...they are very familiar with the terms of the GNU Public License. They have Nullsoft and other "rebel" outfits under their umbrella already. They would have one goal that I can see. Take RH to the desktop as a viable alternative to Windows. And they have the money to do it. Why do they need to do this??? Because they are the #1 enemy of MS...however misplaced that perception is in Redmond...MS views AOL as its primary enemy. So...you want to deliver content on the internet...and you think that MS will not treat you well...and Sun is terribly expensive...so you want to shift to low cost Linux...you've got the money...BUY THE EXPERTS...and in the meantime gear development so that you can create internet appliance machines that grandma can use to access the internet....(desktop Linux). I'm sorry I don't see this as the death of RH...just an affirmation that it has really now hit the big time. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,050 by dmarker2 1/21/02 11:42:26 PM Reply	Re: You could well be right. My reaction may be as much to the type of company RedHat is(was) & I am wondering how many RedHat employees could be comfortable with being an arm of AOL Time-Warner. Cheers Doug
Post #25,068 by nking 1/22/02 2:38:35 AM Reply	What happens after the AOl buyout would a majority of the talent walk out the door to join other Linux companies? Would AOL only bundle their AOL Client software with their version of Red Hat Linux and nobody else's? Would they hijack Cygwin/GCC and make a version they sell that only has the libraries that are not open sourced and included with other versions of GCC? "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
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."
Post #24,987 by jb4 1/21/02 9:12:21 AM Reply	But what about SuSE? By most accounts, the easiest, cleanest of the distros (with possible exception of Mandrake, which IIRC, is itself a repackaging of RedHat). Or is the xenophobia factor just too great for a furrin' company to overcome? jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #25,002 by kmself 1/21/02 11:49:12 AM Reply	The Marti hypothesis Don Marti's posted his take: this is a ploy in ongoing negotiations between AOL and Microsoft over something, likely MS Windows Media Player. There's little direct benefit to be gained by aquiring RH, much substantially equivalent capabilities available without the aquisition, and significant downside (content control v. free software dichotomies for AOL, cool factor v. AOL luser for RH) for both parties. Significant cultural mismatch. Stay tuned for this to fade quietly into the background, and a minor announcement on media format pacts between AOL & MSFT in the coming weeks. `-- Karsten M. Self [link\|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com\|kmself@ix.netcom.com] [link\|http://kmself.ix.netcom.com/\|[link\|http://kmself.ix.netcom.com/\|http://kmself.ix.netcom.com/]] What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?`
Post #25,042 by tjsinclair 1/21/02 10:32:07 PM Reply	In other words.... "Dogs and cats, living together...mass hysteria!" ahem Tom Sinclair Speaker-to-Suits The maze was so small that people got lost looking for it. -- Bloody Stupid Johnson at his finest (Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms)
Post #25,071 by Steve Lowe 1/22/02 3:09:43 AM Reply	CNET: No they ain't! [link\|http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/cn/20020122/tc/sources_aol_not_bidding_for_red_hat_1.html\|Link from Yahoo] Sources familiar with the situation emphatically insisted the two companies are not near an acquisition deal, nor have they discussed one. Of course this could be a smokescreen..still no comments from AOL, RH, and interestingly, M$. ----- Steve
Post #25,172 by nking 1/22/02 5:13:52 PM Reply	it just figures more than likely some young kids trying to pump up Red Hat stock, so they can sell their shares at a huge profit. Never listen to people posting on Anonymous Forums about what a company may or may not be doing. Pump and Dump, it is called. Pump up the company with a silly rumor, and then dumop the stock when the others try to buy it out. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,086 by Ashton 1/22/02 5:42:19 AM Reply	User Friendly predicts the AOL/Red Hat results: [link\|http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20020120&mode=classic\|Welcome to AOL]
Post #25,173 by nking 1/22/02 5:16:20 PM Reply	About right! :) Click on the ads to continue your OS use. :) But seriously, why doesn't AOL just work with the Linux companies rather than buy one out? AOL could put out their own version of Red Hat Linux, no problems. Why not make the AOL Linux client, open sourced? Then include it as an option in the Red Hat Linux distrobution? "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,680 by CRConrad 1/25/02 8:54:33 AM Reply	LRPD goes to the bottom of the rumours: So, we've been discussing it for a week, and the consensus seems to be, "Why would they want to do that?". 'Xackly -- that's why they, both parties, could truthfully deny the rumours. But where did they come from, in the first place??? (The rumours, I mean, not AOL and Red Hat.) Going by the old saying, "Where there's smoke, there's fire", one would think that there was something that got them all started... As usual, the LRPD knows the answer: Oops. Wrong hat. Ah, I see -- they must have meant those "Black Hat" guys! It's all so much clearer now. Thank you, LRPD! :-) Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #25,717 by nking 1/25/02 12:56:27 PM Reply	Words of wisdom consider the source, or rather "what source"? Treat anything that the source cannot be confirmed with as a "rumor". AOl buying out Red Hat is just another unconfirmed rumor, like when Red Hat was supposed to buy out Be, or Disney to buy out Apple, etc. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."

Welcome to IWETHEY!