Alan Cox to Leave if RH AOL Buyout Happens? 722
According to MartinG,
Alan has posted to the LKML and said "Im
insulted that anyone believes I would continue working for RH if aol/time
warner owned them. " This of course refers to the
Red Hat/AOL
Buyout Rumors that we have been
talking about
all weekend.
Good for him (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Good for him (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think anyone really likes their boss ... I mean you can get along with them, but you're not going to want to grab a beer after work with them and shoot the shit about all the pens you stole the day before from the storage closet because you're too lazy to take your kid school shoppin.
Then there's the wonderfulness of ... AOL HASN'T BOUGHT RED HAT YET ... and throwing out these kinds of attitudes can definantelly cause you to loose your job even if there is no merger.
AOL has yet to put massive controls on a company that they've acquired ... they're just looking for a solid investment ... AOL = online ... redhat = server ... these are just IT buzzwords ... and are recognizeable buzzwords ... hell I know quite a few people who will ask me if I run linux 6.2 or 7.1 ...
But Cox really needs to look at who puts food on the table ... I know if I had a nifty little job where I could do what I enjoy ... I'd work to keep it ... with or without slashdot's approval.
Re:Good for him (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good for him (Score:5, Interesting)
I regularly grab a beer after work with him.
I also often tell him to fsck off if he gives me work I don't like.
It's a good thing and its based on honesty and mutual respect.
If you don't have that, then you have to realise that many bosses will do whatever they can to exploit you as far as possible, and that old bullshit "putting the food on the table" is one of the buggest reasons It keeps on happening. Can't you see that if people weren't such cowards as to cave in to the "but how am I gonna pay the bills" argument then bosses would be forced to do more of what made their employees happy. All you "food on the table" bods are part of the problem allowing companies to become greedy and exploitative in the first place.
If your employer knows that you fear leaving them, they are suddenly in an extremely powerful position over you.
Re:Good for him (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's not forget, though, that the majority of workers are underqualified for their job, don't understand their job at all, or are completely incompetent. Now put yourself in their position and see if the "food on the table" argument makes sense. If they lose their job are they likely to be re-hired? And let's not mention the fact that not everyone is saving a portion of their income each month for that "rainy day" when they decide to tell their boss to go to hell. There is a time for standing up for yourself, and there is a time to realize that you're not the decision maker.
Re:Good for him (Score:5, Insightful)
Would anyone bat an eyelash if the potential buyer is Microsoft and Alan Cox said this?
Well, many people feel that AOL/TW is just as bad as Microsoft... Microsoft is trying to control the computer OS and application space, AOL/TW is trying to control virtually EVERYTHING you see, hear or do ALL DAY EVERY DAY. Both have extremely questionable business practices, both abuse their positions of power. Which is worse?
Re:Good for him (Score:5, Insightful)
Lest you think I'm just another lunatic, about 15 of the 20 developers I worked with also left around that time. Of the developers that remained, only one of them was a developer of any quality, and he was big into MS tools.
My point is, working for a faceless conglomerate is one thing. Working for one with significant philosophical differences from your own is another thing entirely.
Re:Good for him (Score:4, Offtopic)
You left *TIME WARNER* because you didn't like *AOL's* philosophy?
I'd love to hear more about that, in private if you like.
Re:Good for him (Score:4, Offtopic)
> You left *TIME WARNER* because you didn't
> like *AOL's* philosophy?
I had no problem working for CNN (which was owned but not managed by Time Warner). CNN was committed to providing unbiased news, and I felt they delivered on that promise.
I was there from 1998 to 4/2000. CNN employees felt like Turner employees, not Time Warner. You would have had to have been there to understand that. CNN was like a family.
Well before AOL even began to talk "merger" (which is what they told us it was), we were in talks to provide them with news feeds (CBS's contract was expiring). I got a glimpse into their idea of technology working as a developer on that project, and it was truly frightening how bass-ackwards they did things. The project eventually got canned and I gained some insight into their management during that debacle.
When the deal was announced I was wary of working for AOL, but I took a wait-and-see attitude. When I started seeing the changes they were making before the merger even went through, I saw all I needed, and I left in April 2000.
If I look at the CNN web site today, I feel it's worse today than it was 2 years ago when I worked there. I blame the acquisition by AOL for those problems, and I am glad I don't work there anymore.
As to your implication, the DMCA did not exist back then. The RIAA was not making headlines. From my perspective, Time Warner was mainly a company that made movies, DVDs, CDs, and books. I did not associate a political philosophy with them. I'm not sure if I would feel the same about them now (but maybe I would). AOL on the other hand is just as bad as Microsoft when it comes to dirty business practices. They're just not quite as good at it.
Re:Good for him (Score:3, Insightful)
What I hear from CNN people is that the top level execs are terrified of Fox News. For some reason they believe that Fox is beating them because of the rightwing bias in all their reporting. In fact the reason CNN is loosing the cable news battle is obvious if you are a viewer, they don't do news, they do soap operas. Over last summer CNN became the Gary Condit channel. CNN had saturation coverage day after day even though nothing new had come out, the world had already decided that Condit probably didn't do it but has been exposed as a hypocrite, a liar and a fool and thus not fit for re-election. Before Condit we got the Florida recount (which actually was a compelling news story for a change), but also the Monica Lewisnsky saga, Jon Bennet Ramsey, all the way back to the O.J. Simpson saga. The idea seems to be that if there is no blockbuster story that will drive the ratings, go out there and manufacture one.
This weekend I tuned in for reliable sources, only to find that it had been switched for a half hour 'documentary' to PR 'Black Hawk Down' in a theatre near you. The problem with the 'synergy' idea is that each time you use a news organization to plug your own products you loose credibility. Murdoch is much cleverer in that regard, he does not often shill for his own products in his quality newspapers, he does in his tabloids.
In the early days of the Internet boom, Time-Warner did try to sabotage the Internet with their cyberporn smear. The background to that story is that Time-Warner were trying to kill the Internet because they still believed that their Interactive TV model with centralized control would win. But shortly after Time-Warner switched tracks and decided the Internet was what they had been about all the time.
AOL Time-Warner does not appear to be quite as clueless on the DMCA and the Hollings bill. In fact it appears that Hollings is off in a world of his own along with a bunch of lobyists who are trying to make policy for their clients rather than present and purchase it in the legislature.
I don't personaly see much of a fit between Time Warner and Red Hat. The idea is probably that they are somehow going to compete against Microsoft in the computer market, just as Microsoft is competing against Time Warner in the content market. The Video Game market now execeeds the film market, Microsoft is a major distributor in games software and owns the X-Box platform.
What I suspect and fear the buyout might be about is AOL Time Warner getting Microsoft paranoia. It is never a good idea when a company stops thining about how it will make money for itself and instead concentrates on blocking a competitor.
Re:Good for him (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right, he does have to worry about keeping food on the table. He's much more likely to endanger that objective by staying onboard an AOL assimilated RedHat.
His management needs to know these things as much as they might need to know that they're grievously endangering the security and robustness of their CRM system.
If his management at Redhat is already past the point where they can't tolerate such truth, then perhaps Alan needs to seriously consider moving on anyways.
Management should view Alan as a highly accurate PR barometer.
Re:Good for him (Score:4, Insightful)
Is getting financial benefits, in and of itself, really selling out? In my mind, selling out comes when you actually start compromising your art for the sake of cash.
Whether or not it's selling out is something we can't really decide until we know what AOL's plans are for RedHat. If, for example, it's part of an effort to displace Microsoft, it's feasible that AOL might be content to just throw extra money at RedHat to get some of the classic Linux desktop usability problems solved.
On the other hand, it's possible that AOL might turn RedHat into one giant AOL ad. Just as they've done with ICQ and Netscape, they could coat RedHat in an annoying layer of ads designed to increase their user base.
Overall, though, I don't think it's fair to call it selling out just yet. It's possible for AOL to benefit from this action without compromising RedHat.
Why are so many people missing the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but who you are getting the financial benefits from does matter. Many slashdotters have sgort memories as is evidenced by the fact that one day a story on how evil the MPAA is being by pursuing the SSSCA and the DMCA can run and the next day a movie review gushing about the latest overpriced, overhyped crap from George Lucas or one of his cronies is run.
AOL Time Warner is directly responsible (via lobbying) for laws that restrict the freedom of their customers to utilize the products they have bought in a means which is generally considered to be fair (the DMCA). They are responsible for cops breaking into a teenage hacker's home (Jon Johansen's) and treating him like a criminal for writing a program that would make viewing DVDs under Linux easier. They are responsible for proposing laws that would force all electronics and computers to ship with copy protection (the SSSCA).
Given the fact that the actions of the Time Warner branch of AOL/TW are orthogonal to the beliefs of anyone involved in Free Software I am stunned that people on Slashdot can question Alan Cox's decision. I guess that the adage "be careful when you fight monsters lest you become one yourself" applies in this case with regards to Slashdotters looking for a way to defeat MSFT by any means necessary.
If RedHat was bought, wouldn't that be good? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or, are we going to start up with the "elitest want Linux to stay small"?
Linux (even the RedHat distro) has the GPL protecting it. Even AOL/TW's big lawyers can't break it. Why is it such a bad thing??
Re:If RedHat was bought, wouldn't that be good? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If RedHat was bought, wouldn't that be good? (Score:5, Interesting)
AOL
* provides free IM
* provides API (though not the nicer one) for writting your own client
* provides us with everything for OSS of Mozilla + opensourcing netscape
Evil
* overzealous marketing
* won't open up oscar
* "you've got mail" - the movie and the sound
* they are a big company, not like MS but not running around buying ISP's
I think people are taking the evil way out of hand.
Perhaps Alan wants to stay a home-spun, I don't need to wear a suit type of guy. That's good for him and all. Just wish people wouldn't assume that we all know what's in his head.
Re:If RedHat was bought, wouldn't that be good? (Score:3, Insightful)
And what cable company has? None that I know of.
*when forced to do the former demanded terms that would be unprofitable for the competition.
*bought their 2 largest compeditors and swallowed them into their dialup service.
Not like any other large ISP out there, no sir (Can we say Netcom/Verio/Earthlink?).
*provide one massive IP block with no way to be able to ban just one user.
This might be shoddy design on their part, but IMO it's just nitpicking
*provide one IM service with little to no security(ICQ).
Don't know much about this one, but I think ICQ has improved quite a lot (although it is in constant beta)
*provide another IM service with no ability to block a user(AIM).
Excuse me? The setting "Allow only people on my buddy list to contact me" isn't good enough? They also have an Allow List if that is more to your liking. I think you mean someone can put you on their buddy list without you knowing. That doesn't keep you from blocking them once they send an IM though (just click block user).
*denied every last security hole and tried to hide the fact that customer creditcards has been compromised.
This ones probably true.
I thought everything we didn't like about MS was the FUD, the embrace, extend, extinguish, the monopolistic, anti-competitive tactics, and the lousy OS (which is actually pretty stable with Win2k and beyond).
Re:If RedHat was bought, wouldn't that be good? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If RedHat was bought, wouldn't that be good? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If RedHat was bought, wouldn't that be good? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe because you're wrong.
First, nobody knows if lawyers (or judges, they still exists, you know) could "break" the GPL. Right now, we only know nobody tried it yet.
Furthermore, the important part of Red Hat are not protected by the GPL. Neither their name and credibility, nor their customer base is GPLed. (In fact, I don't even know if all their software is - AFAIK SuSEs Yast is closed source, e.g.)
Re:If RedHat was bought, wouldn't that be good? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a legitimate worry, but I'd like to say it's probably not too much of a concern. If M$ or some other megacorp thought they could break the GPL, they would have tried by now. Running "strings" on some of their command line TCP/IP utilities tells us that M$ has no problem using open source code, so if they REALLY wanted to steal GPL'd work, they would have done it by now. Destroying the validity of the GPL through legal precedent would be a big win for them, but if they were going to do it, I think they would have tried by now...
(In fact, I don't even know if all their software is - AFAIK SuSEs Yast is closed source, e.g.
Actually, I'm not sure that RH includes *any* closed source stuff anymore. I think Netscape 4.x might be the only thing, and with RH's next release, that's going to be replaced by Mozilla completely. That's one thing I have to hand to RH - they really are "dedicated" to Open Source.
Look maw, the GPL troll! (Score:5, Informative)
Sigh. The GPL grants rights to copy that ordinary copyrights don't. If the GPL does not hold no copyright holds. The GPL has been defended and no one has dared go to court because they knew they would loose.
Furthermore, the important part of Red Hat are not protected by the GPL. Neither their name and credibility, nor their customer base is GPLed. (In fact, I don't even know if all their software is - AFAIK SuSEs Yast is closed source, e.g.)
As far as I can tell, you have never used Red Hat or looked at any of their source. Most is GPL. Show me one "important" piece that is not.
Re:If RedHat was bought, wouldn't that be good? (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, this isn't AOL/Time/Warner buying out Linux, this is AOL/Time/Warner buying out Red Hat. Linux will be alive and well, and Red Hat will become whatever AOL wants it to become.
Second, AOL can provide the $$ to make RH a contender against Microsoft. Right now, Microsoft is (for all intents and purposes) the only operating system out there aimed for middle-income home users. AOL can help break that monopoly into a duopoly by introducing a user-friendly version of RH. Sure, far from ideal, but certainly better than having Microsoft still control the home market.
As long as there's Slackware/Caldera/Debian/* Linux distros, Linux will survive w/o Red Hat.
Re:If RedHat was bought, wouldn't that be good? (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, AOL is probably just thinking about grabbing an embedded platform that they can control for their upcoming media consumption terminals (settop boxes).
The company has no current interests in corporate server or workstation technology, and doesn't seem to be going in that direction. Hopefully they aren't insane enough to go head-to-head with MS in the (increasingly irrelevant) PC OS market. What happened to all of the "enterprise" software they picked up with Netscape? They turned it right over to Sun with iPlanet....
And that is exactly the problem. Sun will want to differentiate their distro so they can charge big bucks for it.
Ahh, it all makes sense now. No wonder Solaris x86 went away.
Re:If RedHat was bought, wouldn't that be good? (Score:5, Insightful)
We already have that, with IBM no less, not to mention a plethora of lesser giants. GNU/Linux will do fine without AOL/Time-Warner, and arguably better.
Or, are we going to start up with the "elitest want Linux to stay small"?
It's not about elitism, it is about the dangers of an industry which has as a stated goal the eradication of free software (at least for playing DVDs, and by extention managing digital data of any kind), has attempted to legislate exactly that, and is unlikely to change its ways anytime soon. Remember, this is AOL-Time-Warner we're talking about.
Is the evil of AOL/Time-Warner exaggerated? On the AOL side perhaps, on the Time-Warner side it is understated, if anything. Keep in mind that old-school copyright cartel content providers have been the most zealous, and most effective, opponents of free software (remember the DMCA, deCSS, SSSCA, the Hague Convention, etc.)?
OTOH the loss of Red Hat to the "dark side," if that is in fact how it turns out, won't really impact GNU/Linux all that much. Some other distro (Suse, Mandrake, Debian, Sorcerer, or Slackware perhaps) will take up the slack. More likely all of them will to varying degrees.
Hopefully the talented programmers such as Alan will find gainful employment elsewhere doing exactly what they love to do: working on Linux. IBM comes to mind as an immediate candidate for sponsorship of this kind, as do about a dozen large universities in the US alone.
Re:If RedHat was bought, wouldn't that be good? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If RedHat was bought, wouldn't that be good? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think AOL getting into the Linux business is a great thing. If anybody can bring Linux to the masses it's AOL. But why do they have to buy RedHat?
RedHat is doing well as a server OS company, not a consumer company, and it doesn't need any help from AOL in order to succeed.
Other more consumer oriented distributions like SuSE and Mandrake are struggling, could use the boost from AOL, and are a much better fit anyway. Besides that, they'd probably be much cheaper takeover targets.
Re:If RedHat was bought, wouldn't that be good? (Score:3, Interesting)
It might be a good thing if someone like IBM bought Redhat, but not a RIAA lacky/SSSCA/DMCA lackey like AOL.
IBM has corporate respect, it is serious rather than frivolous (like AOL). It already in in the linux market, and helps linux. It would be better than AOL and, of course, it isn't in bed with RIAA...
Re:If RedHat was bought, wouldn't that be good? (Score:3, Informative)
Good luck. I don't know of any lawyer who would want to deal with opening that legal can o' worms. Do you remember what happened when Mozilla started to get relicensed as dual MPL/GPL? They had to contact every person who had contributed as much as one line of code and get them to sign off that it was okay to change the license.
Even the stuff that RedHat has written in-house isn't 100% RedHat owned. As soon as they use a patch from someone else, someone who doesn't give RedHat the copyright to their code, they're pretty much stuck with GPL.
Re:If RedHat was bought, wouldn't that be good? (Score:3, Informative)
C//
Alan Cox already works for AOL/Time Warner (Score:3, Funny)
Wouldn't that kill the deal? (Score:2, Insightful)
I wouldn't think AOL would move unless they had secured Alan for. So I would think this means it's a rumor. Who would by RH without Alan signing on at least for a while?
You can't *buy* employees... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the stupidest move AOL has made since the Netscape acquisition and seeing how they ran that one, a RH buyout is guaranteed to fail.
But then since I don't particularly like RedHat, I am 100% supportive of this decision! Go for it AOL!
Re:You can't *buy* employees... (Score:3, Insightful)
*cough* name recognition *cough*...
"Soon AOL will be held holding an empty bag."
An empty bag with the name "Red Hat" on it, for them to fill as they please.
Not true (Score:2)
They have market share, they have revenues, they have contracts. These all exist outside of the contributions and dependencies of individual employees.
Good for you Alan (Score:2, Interesting)
It has seemed for quite some time the RedHat team has a certain chemistry not found elsewhere. As a RedHat user since 2.0 I can say it is by far my favorite distro, it has its shortcoming but they are they least where it matters to me most.
I can see it now, AOL buys RedHat the whole crew jumps ship and starts over again, AOL is left with a rotting hulk that smells, like......NETSCAPE
Charachter is something seldom seen in business anymore. Regadless if you like or dislike someone, it takes charachter to make a stand, This wouldnt be the first time Alan has done it.
Re:Good for you Alan (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree, that column on O'Reilly made a lot of sense. But it didn't sound like Alan was citing creative differences as a reason for leaving, because he certainly can't know what the fuck AOL plans for RedHat. Does he think AOL execs will tell him which parts of the kernel to patch? No, it sounds like Alan is being a big crybaby, again. Stallmanesque hysteria serves no one- WTF is Slashdot posting this guy's drivel, anyway?
I haven't given this much thought- I'm a technical user, not an open-source/free software fanboy, and as long as I can avoid running Microsoft's excrement on my computers I'm happy. I tend to agree that AOL will find a way to fuck RedHat up in some fashion- maybe making Linux popular at last while producing a distro that's unusable for my purposes. But Alan's claim of feeling "insulted" is just dumb- thank god Linus is the "voice of Linux", not Alan.
nice words words Alan, (Score:5, Interesting)
AOL bought ICQ, AOL bought Winamp.
Did anyone notice that one of those products did really change to the worse (besides the ads in ICQ, which is ok I guess because they are not that annoying)?
No, no one noticed, because they didn't.
But what changed is that the coders of ICQ and Winamp got nice paychecks.
So, Alan where is your problem?
Don't like opensource OS coders who dare to make money?
Re:nice words words Alan, (Score:5, Informative)
Don't like opensource OS coders who dare to make money?
Not to put words into his mouth, but maybe he doesn't want to work for AOL/TW because they're pushing for all the laws/technical solutions to not allow people to do what they want with their data and equipment (DMCA, SSSCA, SDMI, etc...)
That and the fact that AOL is nothing but dorks. I mean, ya gotta have some self respect.
--
Benjamin Coates
Re:nice words words Alan, (Score:2)
Show me how they could implement that into an opensource os...
That and the fact that AOL is nothing but dorks. I mean, ya gotta have some self respect.
Yes, they might be dorks. But you can't buy food/house/car with self respect, neither send your kids to colledge...
Re:nice words words Alan, (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they are a necessity. Without them, you turn into the kind of guy who wakes up at age 55 realizing that his entire life has been a pointless waste of time.
I think it's great to have them, and I certainly have some strong beliefs of my own, but if it came down to a choice between a matter of principle and providing for my daughter, I'd toss the principle out the window without batting an eye. My responsibility to her outweighs my hatred of The Man, just as my dad's responsibility to me outweighed his desire to be an artist.
Umm, you do realize you have just stated an ideal here, don't you? Your ideal is "taking care of my family is more important than whether or not I agree with my employer". This is actually a restricted subset of a very important ideal: responsibility for one's family is more important than all but the most serious (read: life-threatening) personal concerns. This ideal, this principle, is one of the things that keeps human society stable and functional over the long term.
You haven't tossed out your principles, you've just changed the priority of them.
Before my daughter was born I would have been right there with you, but I've learned a lot since then. Self respect is a great thing to have, but next to your responsibility to your progeny it's about as important as the color of your socks. There are much bigger and better things in life than the small amount of self respect gained from sacrificing yourself and your family on the alter of idealism.
Taking responsibility for care of your family is one of the things that should earn you self-respect. However, it is often possible to balance your ideals; you have to feed your family, but there's more than one employer out there, so you might not have to work for a scuzzball. For sure Alan Cox should have no trouble getting a job whenever he wants!
Looking for a new job is a risk, depending on your resume and the level of unemployment in your sector. How much of a risk you are willing to take depends on what you are risking--when you've got a family to support, you're risking not just yourself, but them, so it is right to be more cautious. However... it's funny how the world works, but jobs that require you to seriously compromise your ethics are frequently not good jobs to have from the point-of-view of supporting a family. Think about it, and you'll see what I mean.
Re:nice words words Alan, (Score:3, Insightful)
So the main difference between you and Alan is that you both draw the line regarding what you will do for money in a different place. You draw it at spying for an enemy state. He draws it at working for a corporation that he believes to be unethical. It comes down to a matter of opinion, about which reasonable people could disagree. I see nothing wrong with his decision at all.
I wonder if Alan has planets orbiting around him. (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, I salute the man for standing up for his
principles, but I don't think his "pre-judgement"
should receive such an attention.
He already works for a corporation, if the new
parent company promises to continue supporting the
spirit of the old company, and remains commited to
open source, then ACs comments are unjustified.
Atleast in my humble opinion.
Not just Alan, the user base (Score:4, Insightful)
So if Red Hat is bought by AOL, I expect much of their user base will move to Mandrake, Debian, and Suse.
Re:Not just Alan, the user base (Score:2)
Mandrake I could perhaps understand, but I doubt Debian or Suse would pick up a large share. Remember that there's a large number of people who are running Red Hat on servers because it has a reputation for being user friendly -- many (most?) servers are run by people who really haven't a clue.
I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few people (gasp!) return to using Windows.
Re:Not just Alan, the user base (Score:2)
You're forgetting that most of RH's userbase (the ones buying the software, not the dorm kiddies downloading ISOs) are corporate types. When you work in a big corporation, it's always easier to "sell" something like Linux to the bosses when it's backed by a big company. This is something that neither Mandrake, Debian, nor SuSE can provide.
The SSSCA prevents "fun to just code" (Score:4, Insightful)
It's interesting to see how many geeks really care about this political, idealistic stuff. Isn't it more fun to just code?
The copyright industry wants to take away the existence of machines on which we can "just code" by having the hardware trust an encrypted BIOS, which trusts the kernel, which trusts the apps. At this rate, we're heading toward a future where after SSSCA and Son of SSSCA have passed, all computer systems will be closed systems. (Read More... [gnu.org])
The history would repeat itself (Score:5, Insightful)
April 1st, 1999 will be my last day as an employee of the Netscape Communications division of America Online, and my last day working for mozilla.org.
I think AOL still has all the stigma that it always has, as far as image goes. My friends keep saying ``jwz@aol.com'' and then laughing uncontrollably...
AOL is about centralization and control of content. Everything that is good about the Internet, everything that differentiates it from television, is about empowerment of the individual.
I don't want to be a part of an effort that could result in the elimination of all that.
Jamie Zawinski ruined Netscape (Score:4, Troll)
It was after he left that the team began releasing frequent milestone builds, stopped adding major new features to the project plan, and.. showed signs of having a plan.
The Mozilla/Netscape 6 project is still a mess, with bug fixes and addition of missing features slated for a given milestone pushed off to infinity on a regular basis. But without jwz, it at least resembles a project and has produced what is now a decent browser and mail/news client.
Mr. Zawinski is now running a bar, and the world of software development is blissfully free of his project management "skills".
Alan Cox--who unlike jwz is a really sharp coder and a good project leader--is showing himself to be just as much a child, spoiled and twisted by too much time spent in academic computing, shooting his mouth off before he's got a real situation to evaluate. Hey. If AOL turns Red Hat into an unpleasant place by changing its focus in distressing ways, or by engaging in massive, traumatic waves of layoffs, of course he'd be right in leaving. If Red Hat lets him pick his projects and AOL instead wants him to port the AIM stock ticker to KDE or sit in meetings all day, of course he'd be justified in leaving.
But this knee-jerk aversion to a parent company just because it's a big company? Or because of AOL's commitment to actual ease of use that Cox, jwz and RMS all abhor?
What if AOL is trying to assemble all the pieces necessary to go after Microsoft with Free Software? Doesn't Red Hat also employ some Postgres maintainers? If they bought Staroffice/Openoffice from Sun, they'd be on their way to something mighty compelling. If an AOL-owned Red Hat lets him continue working on low-level kernel pieces and device drivers while they fund an aggressive desktop-oriented Red Hat, why wouldn't he want to come along for the ride? Because they also own an old-line record label and film studio with rabidly protected intellectual property? Okay.
I wish the best of luck to any company, school or organization that wants these guys on its payroll.
And he'd not be the only one to react this way ... (Score:4, Interesting)
As I said it's a matter of perception.
Now, while AOL/TW wouldn't care one bit about all the Linux users ceasing to use RedHat products (their goal in buying the company, after all, would be to use its knowledge to create a AOL-OS) it cerainly could help on RedHat's end, as they'd lose any and all goodwill that they have from the community.
And when a significant amount of work is saved for a Linux company by having the community on your side and contributing various things, this certainly would be nothing but a pain for them.
RedHat is no longer an OS. (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you, AOL, for pointing this out to us.
Not that surprising (Score:2, Interesting)
This could be dumb. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's plenty of time for him to leave afterwards if it looks like AOL/TW is going to do a Bad Thing, but up to and until that time, I think it's in his best interests, and Linux's best interests, to take advantage of the possible benefits of being backed by one of the largest, richest companies on the planet.
Re:This could be dumb. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope. Perhaps you have not worked with/for AOL/TimeWarner, or any Very Large Corporation (tm)?
..Brent
There is no way on God's green earth that Alan Cox will be put in the position of Project Manager or any position of real power. Therefore, the assertion that he is giving up this imaginary position is untenable.
Only Steve Case and the other executive committee/steering council weenines decide what goes into RedHat and what its primary focus is - Alan has *much* more influence as is. After the merger he will be at best a small fish in a *big* pond.
I would seriously run for the door if i was him - we can use his talents to more productive use than being a lackie for AOL.
AOL only RedHat? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:AOL only RedHat? (Score:2, Insightful)
Question Is: Where would he go? (Score:3, Insightful)
A good question is: who would pick him up?
I could definitely see IBM bending over backwards to get Alan, but would he work IBM, given IBM's overwhelming Linux support?
Mandrake might be a good fit, seeing as their distro is similar to RH. Then again, the fact that they have centralized their development out of France might not be a good deal for him...
Gee, get named to the T100 and ya get all huffy ! (Score:2)
I mean after all, if I just bagged a nomination as the top young technology innovator by Technology Review, I too might make a fuss
what if (Score:2, Insightful)
Now I'm not naive enough to forget that with money comes advice but... let's say AOL wants to create version of Red Hat Linux more targeted for Windows lusers. So now Red Hat might have a product line like: Embedded, Standard, *Home*, Professional, Deluxe Professional, Data Center, etc.. How is this bad for the community and Red Hat in general? I know alot of people don't want to see Linux beginning to pander to Windows lusers, but does anyone in their right mind think that Linus & Co. would pander to Windows users or Red Hat for that matter? Is Lindows going to destroy our beautiful Linux and wonderful community? NO! Then why do people think that Red Hat will allow itself and it's goals to be destroyed by a lesser evil than Microsoft?
I believe the stability of Red Hat is important to the future of Linux becoming mainstream. One more thing.... necessity makes for strange bedfellows.
This is a Good Thing(tm) (Score:5, Interesting)
AOL/TW is an 800lb gorilla.
MS is an 800lb gorilla.
The RH acquisition would be like giving one of them a dart-gun: while it may hurt, it would stil only be a little weapon.
As a consequence, RH's gameplan would change from Red Hat Domination via Linux to AOL/TW world domination. Linux is dropped from the big picture, and only becomes a little piece of the puzzle.
Having Alan leave for a company that would support the World Domination thru Linux initiative (like Mandrake or SuSe, or Debian) would be a good thing for Linux.
What a martyr! (Score:4, Flamebait)
Standing up for your ideals is one thing, but by leaving, you're tossing those exact same ideals out the door.
I'd much rather suck up my pride and tell people that I was employed by AOL, but trying to make it better, then tell people I gave up rather than try.
AOL buying RH may not be that bad.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Enough dissing AOL (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll post anonymously, and nobody will see this unless it gets moderated up. Moderators, this post is at your mercy.
AOL has done a lot for the net by getting a lot of people online in places that would not otherwise have had access. Sure, many of these people are lamers who ask stupid questions. But they learn. And then they can come to contribute. Diversity is a GOOD thing, but in order to have diversity, we do have to put up with a bit of noise. That's life. The real problem with AOL is not the users, but the fact that AOL builds a kind of fake internet that tries to contain its users inside a mall full of commercials. But give them a break. Noone else has as many dialups for the little towns out in the boondocs. In that respect they are doing a great thing. Even if they are making money at it.
Morale grounds (Score:2)
Damn... (Score:3, Funny)
Sounds like a lame ultimatum. (Score:2, Offtopic)
Ma and Pa Kettle on AOL don't know who Alan Cox, Linux Torvalds, Theo de Raadt, Jordan Hubbard, or any other GPL/BSD software luminaries are. AOL is a brand to which Red Hat may make a nice addition with its products. If Mr. Cox thinks AOL or Red Hat will pass up a deal because he might leave, I would suggest he will be in for a shocking reality-check.
Why RedHat? (Score:4, Interesting)
If AOL is making a push into the desktop OS market, like some leaked memo's said before, why RedHat? Someone else mentinoed reading about AOL pushing into the web appliance market like the WebTV boxes.
In either case, why are they looking to buy RedHat? They could very easily hire 1/2 dozen talented admins and programmers to put together their own distribution in 6 months or less. I'd personally be more than happy to be collecting a nice steady paycheck from a company I know is going to be doing well no matter what.
The scenerio we've come across that seems to work logically is that RedHat is having financial problems, and they're looking for a buyer. If this is the case, Alan is screwed anyways.
If they don't find a buyer, he's out of work.
If they find a small buyer, he'll take a paycut, or potentially loose his job anyways.
If they find a big buyer, he'll cry that a big company got him.
I think Alan is trying to cry like JWZ . He doesn't know how to handle the whole thing, so he knows another hacker cried about the same type deal years ago. Not saying JWZ was right or wrong, but that was years ago with a different scenerio.
AOL adopting Linux is a great thing. He should recognize and embrace it. I'd rather see them develop their own distribution though. The more big companies that start working with Linux the better. That's how Micro$oft got into the market, they got everyone to start working with them.
This would be a *GOOD* Thing (Score:2, Insightful)
Its not like Microsoft has Bill coding the kernel all day long all by himself, and they sure as hell don't have one person making fixes.
I'm sure of AOL buys up redhat, they could afford to do what they wish. Infact I bet the AOL purchase would force Alan Cox out to begin with. I can't imagine a company of such keeping someone onboard who hates the companies idealogies 100%. I hope Alan quites and starts his own company or goes over to Mandrake.
Capitalism.
Is everyone forgetting the point? (Score:3, Interesting)
Wait, we don't know AOL's motives yet (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, this could be a corporate dilution of a community-supported company. But it might also be an awesome opportunity to expand Linux's presence infinitely.
Certainly a corporate giant such as AOLTW is not a philanthropic patron, but maybe they will support Linux the way they have supported a profitless project like Mozilla for years. Not for charity, but enlightened self-interest.
let's not forget who owns Netscape... (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember when Time-Warner cable said "Disney took your ABC away?" in New York... Those problems will only get worse as AOL Time Warner push more of their own content down "their" pipelines.
Who says... (Score:4, Insightful)
Red Hat has some pretty nice embedded stuff going on, and a big name in the market. AOL may very well want Red Hat to provide some type of embedded Internet appliance that will allow them to bypass M$.
Think about this:
AOLinux/Red Hat appliance that uses a Mozilla front-end (like the OEOne device) to connect to Sun Liberty Alliance systems and utilizes Sun's Star Office and stores files on AOL servers (powered by Sun or Linux...).
Alan doesn't figure highly into such a plan, but eCos and other Red Hat technologies would.
Reasons Why (Score:5, Funny)
Warning!! Wolf in lambs clothing! (Score:3, Troll)
I dont understand the hostility here. (Score:5, Insightful)
AOL/TW (The TimeWarner part is very important, this isn't your daddy's AOL anymore, where elitest-non-AOL-attitude might be the primary driving force in Alan's decision) is not just any old large company.
As I mentioned in another post (a reply, actually), if the company considering buying AOL was Microsoft, nobody would bat an eyelash about Alan Cox saying this stuff. Well guess what? AOL/TimeWarner is just as bad, if not worse, than Microsoft. Not only are they wanting to control computer use as much as Microsoft does (just doing a poorer job of it), but they want to control virtually everything you do! Do you have any idea how much of everything you see at the movies or on TV or on the web is eventually controlled by AOL? In many ways they are much more powerful than Microsoft has ever been.
AOL/TW (again, TW being important) is directly involved in much of the backassward technology & lawmaking that Slashdotters decry every day: DMCA, copyrighted CDs, SDMI...
If you REALLY disagree with those laws and the very idea of huge media conglomerations controlling everything we see, how could you possibly suggest someone should just shut up and be happy working for AOL/TimeWarner?
I'm one of the people who often attack Linux users and programmers for their stupid elitest attitudes, but in this case I say bravo, Alan.
AOL are NOT interested in Linux!! (Score:5, Insightful)
AOL will not be happy to have competing version of Linux and they will do what is needed to "standardise" Linux after they have bought it.
And that will be their attitude - they will not act as if they've bought just one distro. Think about why they want to buy RH. They know that, to the extent that the public know about Linux at all, they think of RH (at least in the US). So they are, in the eyes of the general public, buying Linux. For god's sake, how many posts have there been on /. over the years complaining about people equating RH and Linux!?
With this approach, what do you think AOL's attitude to SuSe and Mandrake will be - a spirit of healthy competition? Does they sound like AOL/TW to you?
AOL's one worry in the world is losing the content control war to MS. They will want, and try to make, one, standardised, non-MS, copy-regulated, platform for their content and that is why they want Linux - because they can't have Windows. Standardised means not letting "little guys" do their own Linux and they will do what it takes to get rid of them.
Do not fall into the Charybdis of AOL just to avoid the Scylla of MS!
TWW
AOL/TW == !Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
What a strange assumption I keep reading, that AOL-Time Warner actually have any interest in Red Hat Linux in particualr, or GNU/Linux in general. What advantage would that give them, distributing an OS that actively encourages its users to get a clue and consider alternatives?
What I'd expect to see is for them to buy up a bunch of developers (Red Hat or any other) and set them to work in the bowels of the AOL/TW Death Star producing something based on a Linux kernel, with most of GNU stripped out, no daemons, no package manager, no compiler, a brand new GUI, AOL-only apps with built in copy restrictions and automatic billing (already got your credit card number), and a daemon that hunts down and kills non-AOL approved processes, all for your security and convenience. I expect it to ship branded as "AOL", not "Red Hat" or even "AOL Linux". Possibly "Secure Linux" if they want to resell it as a perfect Son of SSSCA compliant implementation.
Impossible, you say? How much would it cost to develop? Ten million? Twenty? Fifty? A hundred million? A billion dollars? To control the desktop and the distribution and billing of content before Microsoft get in there first with Blackcomb and Homestation, that's pocket change.
They don't need any particular distro to do that, they just need developers. So run Alan, run for the hills, and take as many as you can with you.
It's the PRINCIPLE, Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Fact: Alan Cox has serious issues [linuxsecurity.com] with the DMCA, both practical and philosophical.
Fact: AOL/Time-Warner, being an industry leader in the area of movies and such, is a proponent [loc.gov] of the DMCA and other similar laws.
Alan, being a man of principle, probably feels that the merger would be a bad thing becuase of this, and his working in the resulting company would comprimise things that he believes in. Unlike many people in this world (and, it seems, on slashdot), he feels the finding a new job is the proper course of action in this case.
As an aside, the non-Alan consequences of this are interesting - AOL/TW owns RH, in order for RH to play DVDs (which is an important feature of a modern desktop OS) it needs to violate the DMCA, AOL/TW supports the DMCA. So with AOL/TW owns a product that endorses breaking the DMCA, or they give RH (and by that, perhaps all of Linux/x86) a "legal" (if not open) method to play DVDs.
Give me a break... (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate AOL as much as the next person, but for all you Netscape fans out there, if it weren't for AOL, netscape would not be around. (This would actually have been a blessing to those of us developing websites.)
AOL has a lot of money. Who's to say that they won't offer Alan an agreement such as, "We won't interfere or tell you what to do, we'll simply keep paying your bills."
Maybe even give Alan more resources than he currently has to get things done.
I thought linux was suppossed to be for the openminded person who can think past windows. Shouldn't the development be the same way?
Re:Whooptie fucking doo (Score:4, Insightful)
Heaven forbid that a company with the clout to get Linux out to the masses get involved. Then Linux might not be just for the computer savvy anymore.
The ongoing hypocricy astounds me. Most Linux users don't seem to really want Linux to succeed. Having used Linux since long before it was 'fashionable' to do so, I for one hope that if this purchase comes to pass, it helps get Linux out to the unwashed masses of computer users out there.
Re:Whooptie fucking doo (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure they do. They just want the core personnel to be independent of consumer-oriented behemoths like AOL.
Re:Whooptie fucking doo (Score:2)
If this purchase goes through, you better stick to the distribution you used before Linux became 'fashionable'--unless you want to be forced to install AOL Instant Messenger everytime you run rpm.
Re:Whooptie fucking doo (Score:2)
I do have a Red Hat box, but it's a Sparc.
I also use Win2K, WinXP, OS/2, and BeOS. I'm agnostic. Operating Systems are not the stuff that religions are built on.
Re:Whooptie fucking doo (Score:2)
Re:Whooptie fucking doo (Score:2, Interesting)
AOL CANNOT BUY LINUX, they can only buy Linux COMPANIES, and DISTRIBUTIONS.
Let's see them try to coax Debian into going closed source...
No big deal guys, it will mean either more funding for cool shit or one less player in the Linux distro market.
Perhaps you don't realize... (Score:4, Informative)
...that AOL/TW is a member of the RIAA and MPAA, which are organizations that are funding head-on assaults on our constitutional protections?
Alan Cox no longer feels physically safe in traveling to the United States. Should he willingly work for one of the forces that made this so?
Re:Whooptie fucking doo (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know which elitist linux users you are talking about, but if the're like the ones I've seen then they sure as hell don't use Redhat.
Most Linux users don't seem to really want Linux to succeed
Let me guess. By "succeed" I bet you mean one or more of:
1) "Become more popular"
2) "Make more money for it's owner"
3) "Get easier to use"
In my mind linux is already a tremendous success and no one company (including either or both or RH and AOL/TW) can change that.
I just happen to want to see Redhat continue to succeed.
And in case you're wondering what I mean by "succeed" I mean:
1) continue to create products based on what their users want not based on the interests of some other division of the corporation
2) continue to allow the employees the free creativity they require to achieve that (and other) goals.
Judging on past experience I have no reason to believe for a second that (1) will happen, and judging by Alan Cox's comment, he perhaps would agree with me that (2) would be more difficult after any AOL buyout.
Re:Whooptie fucking doo- To You too.. (Score:3, Interesting)
No, your right. Linux will be the transparently embeded operating system that runs the next generation in hi-tech stupidity boxes (super television). People will not know, nor care that its linux or any other operating system, they will just know that they can find out whats on 2 hours from now, and that they can stick a smart card/national ID card into a slot next to the couch and purchase some neat shit they saw on an infomerical.
Wow! What a coup for the linux crew. Linus must be proud that he has come so far. You can bet that this is the right direction to take to get linux to the masses, just as long as they don't thave to think about it.
I for one applaud Alan for his commitment to not playing ball when one of the top 5 media giants is considering buying the company he works for. Go Alan. Its good to see someone stick to their ideals and not become some pavlovian idiot at the first sniff of profit potential (ala VA whomever they are)
YAY Linux.
Re:Quick heads up, Alan (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Quick heads up, Alan (Score:3, Insightful)
I hardly feel as though I have to defend Alan Cox, but he's not one-dimensional. He knows much more than just the Linux kernel and as far as I can remember he didn't even work in the operating systems business before he started working for RedHat (was it telecom? I don't know for sure).
But how this post gets modded up is beyond me (and that's why I'm picking on it). It's obvious Alan is a very very good software developer. Who cares how bad the economy is, good developers can get a job anywhere.
It's the bad developers that need to worry when the economy goes sour.
Re:Quick heads up, Alan (Score:3, Insightful)
That's simply not true. I've recently found myself in a situation where I was forced to either accept a promotion at my present job or hit the street. I don't consider myself middle-management material, and I don't particularly want that job, but my efforts to find another job have gone nowhere. I'm not a great programmer, but I'm good, and several companies told me that they'd be happy to make me an offer just as soon as their executives lift the hiring freeze.
Don't be arrogant enough to think that just because you're good at your job you can find employment in bad times. More likely you'll be unpleasantly surprised.
My solution? I'm taking the promotion. Better hours and a lot more money, but more responsibility and I don't get to do the fun stuff any more. But it goes down on my resume while I keep looking.
Re:Quick heads up, Alan (Score:2)
I'm sure he would have companies lining up to employ him. (IBM, SUSE, Mandrake...)
Re:Could be worse.. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Can RH prevent this? (Score:2)
That depends on whether or not RH still owns 51% of itself.
Re:Stupid AOL (Score:2)
This may come as a shock to you, but Alan Cox isn't the only competent employee of RedHat.
Re:Who really cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
1. The AIX and HP-UX kernel devel lists probably aren't open for public view, so we really don't know what they talk about.
2. Some of the programmers probably do make political statements -- who doesn't? -- but they don't get much attention because they're not as well known.
3. If you look at Linux as the equivalent to Sun or IBM, Alan is about at the same level as Bill Joy or Larry Ellison over at Oracle. They make political statements all the time. Alan is employed by Red Hat partly because of his skill and also because of his status in the Linux community. They could hire someone just as talented, probably, but they wouldn't have the same priviledges when it comes to working on the kernel. Red Hat can't buy that priviledge -- it has to settle for hiring someone who has it, or submitting code to someone who does.
4. If you disagree with Mr. Cox, that's all well and good -- it wasn't his choice for someone to report his statement on the mailing list. He's discussing something in his usual forum. The fact that it's been widely reported and speculated over is not his fault, nor do I really think he's trying to call undue attention to his opinion.
Obviously, many people do care what Alan thinks -- why does that bother you?
Re:Who really cares? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, if you work with them, probably. I'd guess they sometimes chat about politics in their offices just like anyone else is doing.
The office of Linux kernel hackers is the internet. So, when Alan chats with his co-workers, everyone on the net can see that. This doesn't mean he's arrogant or feels like a mighty political figure or something. This impression is created only by the free software world's tabloid press (i.e. Slashdot). It's not like Alan asked for this story to appear on Slashdot, did he?
Re:Shocked -- well, no not really (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, cause if they were right-leaning conservative hand wringers, they'd stand up for Truth, Justice, and the American Way, and never sell out the Linux community just to make a quick buck!
Re:Shocked -- well, no not really (Score:3, Interesting)
AOL/TW didn't get to be a huge megalithic company by purchasing niche companies and destroying them. If there's one thing that you can be sure of, one thing that AOL/TW can be honest about, it's that they're in business to make a profit. If they perform an action, it is in some way related to increasing profits or the potential of increasing profits later on down the road. People give capitalism a bad name, but it does guarantee predictability: companies will usually do what is in their best interests first and everything else second. And if I worked at that company or was an investor in same, that's exactly what I'd expect.
If AOL/TW acquires RH, it will be to put pressure on MS, pure and simple. They'll market the hell out of it and pump all sorts of marketing info into RH for product development, but if they have a goal it's to push RH and make money with it. As long as the core principles of Linux don't get compromised (and "hard to use so it remains elitist" isn't a core principle of Linux), the expansion of the Linux market is something everyone here should be rejoicing about, not condemning.
Alan does a disservice and shows a bit of immaturity by making the statement he did. It is not principles he's sticking to by saying this, it's politics, the same thing he condemns other for "on the other side of the fence".
Re:Don't get mad Alan... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't worry about AOL taking an established, successful company with a real future and running it into the ground. Hasn't happened yet. (Netscape, GNN, CompuServe were already dying when we bought them. CompuServe is a relative success, GNN couldn't be saved, and Netscape has a new lease on life now that the MS contract is dead.)
Don't worry about AOL taking open stuff and making it proprietary. Hasn't happened yet either. (Everything that's proprietary at AOL started that way, and has slowly, if much-too-slowly, grown more open.)
Don't worry about TW's influence on the AOL side. There isn't any. Steve Case and Bob Pittman run the show.
Worry, instead, about people who simply don't want to be associated with AOL, cuz it isn't cool. Is it immature and short-sighted? Probably. Are geeks known for their maturity, social competence and rational decision-making? Not particularly.
Too bad, because when AOL buys a smaller company, that's usually what they're really buying - the brains behind it. Redgate got us Ted Leonsis. WAIS got us Brewster Kahle for a while. Netscape got us hundreds of net-savvy software engineers. Ditto CompuServe. Medior got us Barry Schuler - well, can't win them all.
It's stupid for Red Hat employees to announce they'll leave simply because they don't want a triangle with an O above their main entrance, but if they do, then THEY will have killed Red Hat, not AOL.