Nooo! Nooo! Nyet! Nine! Narf! Nunka!

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!"

Welcome to IWETHEY!