John B, You bring up some good questions. My comments are below.
> -----Original Message----- > From: john beamon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 9:40 AM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: Re: [brluglist] AOLinux? > > > The first news posts I read anywhere about the AOL-Red Hat > talks pointed > immediately to AOL's tendency to require certain intellectual property > standards in their whole program suite. They don't have what > I'd call a > favorable record with third-party software vendors. Good point. AOL does want control. > This is one of those companies that gave independent ICQ a > moving target > in an IM protocol for MONTHS. When AOL finally bought ICQ, > updates on the > software stopped for nearly a year. When I lose connectivity > to ICQ -- > regularly --, it's because a traceroute stops at an AOL > router on the east > coast. Yup, AOL has experienced significant network failures in the past. > AOL bought Netscape. AFAIK, the default browser in an AOL > installation is > STILL ie. Why a company would pay license fees to a use a > competitor to a > product they OWN is beyond me. I suspect Steve C. went eye to eye with Bill G. and blinked. Who knows what deals are made in backrooms? I think AOLinux may be Steve C's come-uppance. > When Larry Ellison found > Oracle, Inc using > third-party software in their own business infrastructure, he cleaned > house and built that "saved $1 billion using Oracle software" > campaign. > AOL hasn't gotten the message yet. Yup, good point, but like I said above, I think they are reasons we are not aware of. How ever, like Tim F. points out, AOLServer is a good product in use at AOL and other places. And I'll bet that iPlanet (old Netscape server suite) is being used as well and in other places. > Call me cynical, but I could see this merger going through > amid great PR > hype and going absolutely nowhere. AOL won't use software > they own that > didn't bear their company name from birth, won't release a > Linux client > for their ISP customers, and won't open their connection protocols for > anyone else to do it. I just don't see this going anywhere > productive. I disagree. I think this could be AOL's opening volley against M$. As Lucifer said in _Paradise_Lost_, "Non serviam!" > As for the huge AOL user base, well... that client may be an enormous > kludge, but it is NOT an operating system. Not sure of your point here. Of course the client is not an operating system, hence the purchase of RedHat to build that operating system. > You've got a million online gamers trying to play quake online through an AOL dialup, and > there's no way they're going to give up their entire OS just to see if > "They've Got Mail!" They have 29 million other users who don't play Quake, and Quake does exist for Linux. And this is also supposing that AOL drops M$-Windows support entirely, though I assume M$ will do what it can to force AOL's hand. I think AOLinux may be something like an "info appliance" app. The timing is good, compared to the negative press about M$ XP and the subscription license pricing, etc. John Hebert ================================================ BRLUG - The Baton Rouge Linux User Group Visit http://www.brlug.net for more information. Send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to change your subscription information. ================================================
