[thelist] AOL wants to buy RH Linux??

[Keith]

> The fact that they could force the O/S on their users?
> I'm sure you wouldn't be happy if you went to
> the local supermarket, and wanted to buy potatos, but they
> forced you to buy a turnip for every potato you bought...
> and there was no where else you could buy it from. 

This is a perfect description of Microsoft, they were convicted of 
using exactly the tactics described above.  

There has been only one unattributed news article reporting that 
RedHat and AOL are even discussing a buyout or merger, written 
by Alec Klein of the Washington Post. All other articles so far have 
been about his article. In that article Alec paints a "chicken little" 
scenario about how AOL *could* override Windows and force/trick 
a user to install Linux from the AOL CD. What?? AOL doesn't need 
to buy RedHat to do that. AOL could have been doing that anytime 
they wanted to, if they wanted to. 

What's amazing about Alec's fantacy is how quickly, irrationally, and 
vehemently Microsoft's apologists reacted to the remote possibility 
that Microsoft's monopoly might not be secure. "the lady doth 
protest too much, me thinks" comes to mind here. What the hell are 
you people scared of anyhow? What causes such a knee-jerk 
reaction that totally distorts history and reality in your panic to 
defend Microsoft and trash AOL? Why this sudden, irrational urge 
to assume that AOL/RedHat will use the same predatory tactics 
that Microsoft has perfected over the years? If the buyout does 
indeed happen they will not need to resort to the kind of extortion 
and "dupe the suckers" strategies that Microsoft relies on, they 
have much better options available:
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/01/19/1848219

1) AOL is somehow *evil* because it'a a media company while 
Microsoft is above reproach because it's a software company. *IF* 
that was true I'd suggest that someone needs to get away from the 
computer for a few weeks and realize that without email the internet 
is still a disposable novelty in our society, not a catechism that 
somehow bestows righteousness. But that assertion is patently not 
true. Time/Warner is a media company, AOL is one of the top five 
most successful software companies of all time. It's not a dialup, it's 
a content rich community of 33 million users that operates on non 
http software that's been a success since before W3C. Incidently 
AOL is also an entrance to the web. Measure AOL's "software 
savvy" against thousands, no, tens of thousands, of failed dot 
bombs. The real objection here, I suspect, is not with AOL 
delivering rich content to it's subscribers on a proprietary platform, 
its fueled by an elitist contempt for the "lowlife" subscribers 
themselves.  Like I said above, someone needs to get away from 
the screen for a week or two! That's one out of 6 visitors to your 
websites.

2) AOL is somehow *evil* because it eats road-kill after the 
Microsoft truck rumbles by. Netscape was dead when AOL bought 
it's portal. Look back at that deal. AOL did not want, buy, or get the 
browser because Netscape Communications no longer owned it.

3) Microsoft is above reproach because they support the standards 
that some developer finds useful. And Mussolini made the trains run 
on time. Well the good patriots of Italy also uncerimoniously shot 
that bastard trying to flee ten years later. What's your point? That 
*evil* is somehow so trivial that adherance to web standards is the 
yard stick? Damn! I can hear Osama growling from his cave, 
"adhere to web standards and they can't touch you! Damn! Who 
would have guesssed it?"

4) "Since day one" Microsoft has only been trying to produce good 
software. Microsoft has never tried to produce state-of-the-art 
software, they produce state-of-the-market software. It's about 
power and money, not software. One of countless examples: if 
Gates cares about the quality of software why did Microsoft release 
Passport with a hole that allowed me to steal your identity, and then 
*force* people to signup for it to activate the software they had paid 
for. Because sucking the blood out of e-commerce is just too 
damned juicy to waste time worrying about security? Why does 
Microsoft wait to declare February "security month" and launch an 
effort to clean up it's act until *after* the National Academy of 
Sciences recommends that Congress repeal the product liability 
exemption that protects Microsoft when I steal your identity? Why, 
because Bill Gates understands and responds to money and 
power, not good software.
http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/opinion/sveditorial/edit011802.ht
m

And FWIW, who even said that AOL is trying to gobble up RedHat? 
No one. Even Klein admits that that doesn't make sense, RedHat 
offers nothing that AOL needs. But AOL does have some real 
estate that RedHat needs, free transport on wasted space on the 
CDs mailed out twice a year to everyone AOL knows about. Since 
all new computers come with a non-RedHat OS pre-installed how 
better to offer Linux as an alternative than to offer it as an optional 
install on a CD that almost everyone gets?  

It's quite possible that RedHat is the one who initiated the 
negotiations. And just as likely that SUN initiated them. SUN, since 
it's acquisition of Cobalt, is the largest single distributor of RedHat 
servers. The relationship between SUN and RedHat has been 
described by both parties as a "Strategic Alliance". And of course 
SUN is a formal Strategic Partner with AOL, currently providing the 
actual employment for most of the Netscape employees that AOL 
inherited when it bought the portal. Less than two weeks ago Scott 
McNealy announced that SUN would soon launch a major 
campaign to rebrand itself as a desktop software company instead 
of a server software company. That's tied to the upcoming release 
of StarOffice6, SUN's open source competitor to Microsoft's main 
source of revenue. SUN also wants space on that AOL CD, for the 
same reasons RedHat would want it. Who know what else this 
package might include. 

But like Klein's article said, talks are still "fluid" which means they're 
all still in the hot tub drinking beer and no one's sobered up yet. It's 
still possible that AOL will want more than just equity in exchange 
for space on that CD vehicle. But AOL has blown billions before 
trying to buy nothing more than legitimacy, so maybe AOL is the 
chump here and RedHat is a whole lot smarter than many linux 
people are giving them credit for. Sure it would be a case of the tail 
wagging the dog, but hey, that IS how innovation works.

keith