[thelist] AOL wants to buy RH Linux??

[Lachlan Cannon]

--- Keith <cache at dowebs.com> wrote:
> 
> > 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.  

Microsoft were convicted of trying to use a monopoly to
create a monopoly. They bundled a free internet browser
with their software. you could still use other browsers
with the O/S. Furthermore, they never said "If you don't
use Internet Explorer such and such won't work" which was
one of the suggested ways of them using Redhat with their
users. In any case, both companies have done a lot of evil
things. It's hwta big companies do. I don't love Microsoft,
and don't agree with lots of things they do, but that
doesn't mean AOL doing things like that is better.

> 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. 

No, but if they buy Redhat they could develop it in the
direction of being an AOL-only platform. Once again, just
one possible scenario. And no, we don't know that a buyout
is happening for sure, but if you look around you find many
people talking about it. That is because the possiblity of
it happening is important enough.

> 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:


So I'm a 'Microsoft apologist' now, simply because I think
AOL have done worse things before than Microsoft have? Or
because I'm seen arguing 'on Microsoft's side' in this
debate? Does that mean that you're in love with AOL? No.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to bring a debate
onto such a petty personal level. I'm sorry if I
misinterpreted what you meant, but it certainly seems you
meant that to me.

> http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/01/19/1848219

This article is as said there purely opinion. I found it to
be no more than an attack on Microsoft. Yes, not all of
their products are crash hot, but if they were doing
everything so wrong, then why would so many people use
them? It talks about Frontpage producing MS only markup,
but I've heard (not comfirmed) that the latest versions
have been a great improvement. No mention of that. It talks
of banks, not serving content to people not on IE. Any bank
stupid enough to do that deserves to go out of business. It
talks about IE only sites - as if forgetting that there
used to be as many Netscape 4 only sites out there as there
are IE only sites out there.

"But we should also feel a little sorry for the people who
deal with reader email at sites like MSNBC and all the rest
that run stories online created with MS Word. They are
going to get thousands of, "Your site is broken, there are
question marks and funny symbols all over it, what is wrong
with your site?" complaints from AOL users who suddenly
discover that Microsoft's word processors don't use
industry-standard text markup symbols. 

Please try not to gloat if this happens, okay?"

I think that quotation tells us enough about the person who
wrote this article's views about Microsoft. Also, he should
research what he's talking about better.

"Remember the first personal computer manufacturer? They're
gone! Others have taken their place. Lots of others."
That should be 'he is gone'. The first personal computers
were manufactured by a man (I don't remember his name) and
advertised in his local newspaper, however it fell over
when he didn't have enough demand.

"I doubt that it would take long for this combined crowd to
come up with an auto-installed Linux variant running in a
Windows partition, with a Mozilla-based front-end GUI fully
integrated with AOL's logon screen. Throw in just the word
processor element of StarOffice 6 for free, and offer the
total suite as a download (through AOL) for $29.95. "

Why the hell is Linux needed? Mozilla runs on windows.
StarOffice runs on Windows.

> 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.

Who says I even have a website?
Once again, this point moves into personal teritory. There
si no need to say things such as "Someone needs to get away
from the computer for a few weeks." Good arguments stand up
without personal attacks. I never said that AOL isn't tech
savvy. I said their users aren't, as a rule. that's why
they're with AOL. AOL could tell them that if they get
linux, their computers will never ever crash, and they'd
say 'Wow! Cool!' (no offence to AOL customers intended).
And AOL is not 'evil' because of it being a media compaany.
It's evil because of the amount of companies it has bought,
and fucked. As .jeff said, at least Microsoft uses the
products of companies they buy.

> 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.

Wrong wrong wrong! What is said is that Microsoft gobbles
things up, while  AOL gobbles them up, chews a little then
spits them out. Which one leaves more pointless destruction
behind 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?"

This is simply low. No one had made a comparison like this
before, and it should have been left out of here. There is
evil and there is evil. Just because some acts of evil
involve ruthless murder, doesn't mean acts of evil whereby
great things are mangled are not evil at all. Microsoft is
not above reproach at all. Neither is AOL. No one should
ever be above repproach. I like Mozilla for example, but if
in the future they decided to stuff around with standards,
I'd be on their back. Microsoft never support standards too
well, but they've a better record of standards support than
Netscape do. Netscape have turned that around now, and good
on them!

> 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. 

Gee I dunno... why is any product ever released with bugs
in it? Because programmers are not perfect! You seem to
intimate here that Microsoft left that bug in deliberately.
Not only would that be careless of them, but when trying to
create a new service like that, it would be stupid. And say
what you will, Microsoft have proven they're not stupid. No
software greater than a 'hello world' program is bug free.

> 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.

Companies exist to make money. Bill Gates does this well.
Is there a problem that he suddenly wants to emphasise
security? Just  because it's emphasised now, doesn't mean
it wasn't there before. You try having as many customers as
MS and not having security problems found.

> ... 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.

And you say they aren't evil?! If only they mailed these
out with return envelopes like some 'spam' snail-mailers
do. After having a few bricks sent to them at their own
expense they might stop flooding everyones mail with
garbage.

> 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. 

I'm not a linux person, but I'd hope they'd be smart
enough.. for competitions sake. No I don't hate MS, but it
doesn't mean I don't wish there were alternatives. Simply,
none of the ones I've tried have been viable yet.

Lach

<tip type="CSS" author="Lachlan">
If you supply your users with alternate style sheets, be
sure to give them titles. This is how Mozilla labels the
choices in their UI, and presumably how other browsers will
do it in the future too.
</tip>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/