Warnings to Red Hat about AOL Buyout 525
andyo from O'Reilly
submitted linkage to a report he wrote over there where he urges Red Hat to
think twice
about letting AOL eat them.
Talks about GNN, as well as Netscape. I'm sure this isn't the last
word we'll hear on this subject either.
Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps AOL buying Red Hat might not be a terrible thing. Besides, as with the many alternative mp3 players, there are other linux distrobutions out there.
AOL involvement (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry about nitpicking, but there is a minor presence of AOL. Try installing a newer version of WinAMP - it'll offer you to place some AOL icons on your desktop. If you decline, nothing will happen. This is a pretty fair deal as far as I'm concernced.
BUT - have you installed ICQ 2001 lately? Without even bothering to ask me beforehand, it neatly placed six AOL links pretty much everywhere where there's place for an icon - start menu top level, start menu in some group, quickbar, desktop, favorites, and some other places. I really had to do a global search for "AOL" to wipe 'em all out.
However, if AOL involvement is limited to randomly placing AOL links somewhere on the desktop which today's Linux users surely steer clear of anyway, I'm all for it.
i do agree (Score:3, Insightful)
As a community, we have to be careful about who we decide our enemies are. Linux has benefitted in the past from corporate involvement: Corel for Example. Red Hat(also Mandrake) has been held up as the flagship product of the Linux Community many times in terms of winning over the Windows/Apple user who doesn't want to take the time to understand all of the 'computer tech complexities' that they believe Linux involves. But we have to ask ourselves: If a large number of ex-Windows users get won over by AOL/RedHat Linux, have we really lost? It seems to me that a Linux user is a Linux user and that one more Linux user is one less customer for Bill and one less pocketbook supporting closed source.
Perhaps many of us would personally like to see AOL fall on it's face for unrelated reasons, but if they want to swing some of their weight around to back the Red Hat project, I don't think that we should necessarily get up in arms over it.
Re:i do agree (Score:3, Funny)
But then how am I supposed to go about bragging to all to all the winblows userz about how 31337 I am to be that k3w1 L1nUx h4x0r?!
Shit if everyone's just as much a k3w1 L1nUx h4x0r as me then I may just have to switch to BSD so I can be a k3w1 B5D h4x0r! Oh the horror!
--
Garett
Re:i do agree (Score:2)
Re:i do agree (Score:3, Insightful)
it seems to me that one more AOL-Linux user is a Linux user who will not contribute, and who will demand features and bells and whistles over stability and security every time.
I'll pass, thanks all the same.
Re:i do agree (Score:3, Interesting)
But then, that's what you want, isn't it...
Heaven forbid Linux should ever become mainstream and popular with non-geeks...
Re:Well... (Score:3)
I had mistakenly understood that AOL were already using netscape, seems I was wrong. That's a pity because it's (imao) just as good as IE now, perhaps better in some areas, and a lot of sites might consider supporting NS better if it had all of AOL's market-share behind it. Perhaps when mozilla gets to 1.0.0 they'll take another look at it?
Re:Well... (Score:4, Informative)
The problem was not just the stability - until this past year, AOL was contractually bound to include *only* IE in their clients, in exchange for which Microsoft would include AOL on the Windows desktop. That contract was not renewed, and so AOL now has the freedom to do whatever they want browser-wise. The latest CompuServe beta has Netscape included, and I suspect if the stability is good the AOL client just might follow.
AOL is a good company, but what about Time Warner? (Score:2, Insightful)
If it were a sale to AOL there wouldnt be anything to worry about there, but Time Warner?!
The Movie Company? The Magazine Company?
Now, They do sell content, and they do sell services.
Which side are they on?
AOL sells services, I can imagine them supporting Open source even faster than I can imagine IBM doing it.
Time Warner however, is dangerous, isnt Time Warner a part of the RIAA? Their influence in Linux is what would worry me.
Re:AOL is a good company, but what about Time Warn (Score:4, Interesting)
> Time Warner however, is dangerous, isnt Time Warner a part of the
> RIAA? Their influence in Linux is what would worry me.
They (the Warner part) are a member of that barrel of sharks called the MPAA (see http://www.mpaa.org/about/), and as such, are part of all the digital rights idiocy that has been going on. That puts them in the dangerous to evil category, as far as Slashdot is concerned. I'm not that fond of Red Hat personally, but as a major Linux distributor, I think that being bought out by a major content conglomerate would be a "bad" thing. AOL/TW has their uses as a foil to Microsoft's
Despite the silly incedent with a part of IBM supporting putting DRM into harddrives, overall I think they'd be a better choice for a buyer. IBM has already done the evil empire thing, to the point of playing footsie with Nazi Germany. They got slapped down hard for it, and have had a chance to learn from their experiences. While I wouldn't trust the new IBM 100%, they are by far a kinder, gentler, wiser company now. Having their own distribution would benefit them with the ability to take Linux to the point where they could use it for everything they do. Having the IBM brand on Linux would further legitimize it. Both could benefit.
"What do you think Mothra would do?" - Moll, "Mosura" 1996
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:3)
Don't be so naive. AOL's presence will become apparent in WinAmp - just give them a little time. Have you not noticed that on the download page for WinAmp in the table listing the 3 different versions, there is a column labeled: "Built in Ads". Although all three versions currently show NONE, I wouldn't count on it always being that way.
Re:Well... (Score:2, Interesting)
They will not ignore Red Hat and just leave it as it isn.
AOL IS the RIAA (Score:2)
They've done some good things, other bad things (Score:3)
And on the other hand, they're gutting Time Magazine and using it to shill their movies and records. Are people who pick the bottom line over journalistic integrity going to pick the integrity of a linux distro over that same bottom line?
I hope that this is just a pissing contest, and that they don't buy redhat. It's really hard to make a coherent argument that MS is more evil than AOL/Time-Warner -- these guys are the worst possible people to buy RH.
Gosling made an interesting point about Linux's licenses. Sure, in theory anyone could fork the kernel. But on a practical level, Linus gets to decide what goes in. There are enormous barriers in place that make forking key components very difficult, and RedHat pays an awful lot of developers -- the Cygnus group was a key aquisition. They control gcc.
Don't kid yourself -- if AOL buys RH, they'll have a lot of power over the Linux universe, as much as anyone. It won't be absolute, completely unchallengable power, but it will be real and substantial, and it will be wielded in AOL's interests, not in ours.
What's important? Beating MS at all costs? Is it worth it to have AOL ship a kazillion Linux cds to mopes around the world, even if the Linux on those CDs is philosophically different from what we have now?
Do we want the guys who are shooting for the $230/month cable bill standing on our necks?
Kudos to the folks at ORA for speaking up.
Re:They've done some good things, other bad things (Score:3, Interesting)
All these comments could be true only if you assume the developers would play along with evil ploys.
And I assure you that this is not the case at least for most of us.
I can't confirm or deny the acquisition rumors (my guess about them is as bad as anyone else's), but I can confirm that most of us will not allow anyone to take our work proprietary or do other evil things.
If the rumors were true and AOL played along mostly by our rules, fine.
If they were true and they try to push Linux into the wrong direction (making parts proprietary, forcing weird SSSCA-like things in), we're out of here and they can't do anything about it.
Take a look at the community-wise important people at Red Hat - can anyone really imagine an Alan Cox hacking SSSCA enforcements into a proprietary fork of Linux? Or Ulrich Drepper adding the ConnectToAOL(const char *username, const char *password) system call to glibc?
Ingo Molnar adding patches to the PPP stack that slow down dialup connections unless the server is AOL?
In reality, if this were true, I think there would be two possible outcomes:
Re:They've done some good things, other bad things (Score:3, Insightful)
This ignores one fairly important detail however - A large part of the barrier to adopting Linux in most coporations is the lack of a corporation to back it. Red Hat currently is that corporation for a lot of companies. Its destruction would set back coprporate adoptions of Linux. Although on the other hand, having AOL-TimeWarner backing a good Redhat would help our credibility immensely(How twisted is that?).
bedfellows. (Score:5, Funny)
AOL: "Yes of course."
Red Hat: "I have heard all of these nasty rumors that you are only using me for who I am and that you don't care about me at all. Is this true?
AOL: "Perhaps...Oh wait, I mean NO! NO! Who told you such things?"
Red Hat: "Your ex: Netscape."
AOL: "That stupid bitch."
*shrugs*
but the obvious.... (Score:4, Insightful)
He doesn't adress the most plausible scenario, in which AOL is mearly picking up another weapon with which to threaten Microsoft. Like Winamp, Redhat woudl probably be let alone to continue development, but AOL could say, "Look BIll, we would like to see some AIM and AOL integration with Windows. We don't need your cheeseball OS, we can take our ball and go home."
Re:That's a long way off (Score:4, Interesting)
With major news magazines and cable channels under their control they can squash anyone in there way.
Yes, clueless AOL users still use the web, but they won't switch from AOL. For some AOL is great because it's so easy. Can they make linux that easy? Yes. Because they have the source code.
The only bad thing I can see coming out of this is Microsoft Apps for linux. Closed, of course, but IE 7.0?
I kinda support this, because if AOL gets into the linux game device drivers will suddenly pop-up out of no where. I don't think they will be writing them, or the Rhat team. But a bunch of closed source drivers will show up for things we never seen before. Winmodems? First time an AOL/Linux/GNU/TW user says his modem won't work, AOL will step up their power and get him a driver.
I think RHat would be left to do it's own thing, but it will have it's bigger brother AOL/TW to get the tough shit done.
I just hope someone watches the source code.
As far as AOL depending on MS... I don't think so. Every AOL/TW daughter company has a product to kill MS.
Windows = Linux
IE = Netscape
Windows Media Player = Winamp [no video, yet]
MSN = AOL
MSNBC = CNN
What else? These are going to be two heavyweights battling it out. Hopefully AOL wins. Yes, they are lame, but they will still have linux! [zealot? me? yes!]
It's gonna be a good fight to watch.
Re:That's a long way off (Score:3, Informative)
Netscape's start page (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently, AOL hoped to capitalize on the Netscape home page, which most Netscape users left as their default when starting up their browser. That's about the flimsiest grounds I can think of for purchasing a whole company--along with the commitment to maintain and enhance its products.
Perhaps. But as many have pointed out before, one of Netscape's biggest corporate weaknesses was that they didn't capitalize on this, which virtually guaranteed an immediate and huge subscriber base for whatever on-line service they chose to offer. The fact that Microsoft chose to build a competing browser from the ground up and give it away for free, largely to do the same thing, vindicates this strategy. Remember this was when the dot-com upswing was well underway, and everybody and their uncle was turning their site into a portal ...
IE: built from the ground up? (Score:4, Interesting)
The fact that Microsoft chose to build a competing browser from the ground up and give it away for free, largely to do the same thing, vindicates this strategy.
It wasn't your point, I realize, but MSFT did not really build IE from the ground up - they started with several large bits of code and functionality from Spyglass, et al. ...)
And Netscape had been giving away their browser for free, as well (it's just they weren't bundling it with a desktop OS for which they had a monopoly
As far as Netscape not capitolizing on the traffic their portal generated; they did make some pretty nice ad revenue from it, it's just they got more interested in selling server software (because of the aforementioned lack of revenues from client software) and thought that'd save their bacon.
The points about buying the eyeballs of everyone who didn't change their default homepage (~90%+ of all users), and of getting a leverage point against MSFT are right on.
Re:IE: built from the ground up? (Score:2)
Netscape didn't start giving the browser away to everybody until quite a bit after Microsoft started. The license did allow free downloads for academic use (students, faculty, etc.), but you were supposed to buy it from them otherwise.
I remember this because I downloaded Netscape (version 2.0? 3.0?) sometime in 1995/1996, when I was still in high school, and I actually read the license because I was worried about complying with it. I remember IE was free, but it was crummy.
There is a difference. (Score:3, Interesting)
Red Hat on the other hand IS successful. It is a bit of a stretch to suggest AOL is going to kill something that is dying, because it didn't save others that were past their use-by date.
Re:There is a difference. (Score:3, Insightful)
Making it simple is not easy.
You've got Linux! (Score:2, Troll)
There is no way for AOL to destroy the modular design of Linux/GNU software. To do so, they would have to custom modify and maintain far too many packages. Why would they go to such effort and cost? The average AOL user never ever bothers to venture furthers that far, so "digital rights management" and advert cramming will be maintained by default, just like they are on M$ platforms today. AOL useres actually use AOL's client and browser there and they will under Linux. You will still be able to replace bogus packages and use the ones you want.
What this is going to be, is AOL being able to send out a shiny new CD when M$ breaks their customer's machines. The customer can sit happy knowing that they won't have to buy a new computer and that they can get the things they expect from AOL. My mom is a good example. She has used her computers for three application and only three applications. She has used AOL, Word Perfect, and Quicken. I'm not sure she uses Quicken any more. She uses AOL's instant messenger and email. The rest of her computer means nothing to her, and could be running anything. When ME meets it's two year obsolescence and her flaming nice PIII laptop starts spitting chunks, I hope AOL sends her a nice Red Hat CD. The other stuff, like Netscape, Electric Eyes, Gimp
This could kill Microsoft. It's one thing for my mom to have some friends and her son using Linux, it's another thing when she gets it, it works and does everything she wants it to. AOL has 100 million clients, think of the change in perception the world will have if just 1% revive their dead machines this way instead of buying a new $1,000 computer. AOL users, the scorn of M$ elitist derision having computers that work and cost less. Supposedly the most clueless computer population on earth suddenly having tools and stability M$ loosers pay big money for but never recieve. Surely word of mouth will sweep the world, and M$'s already weakened position with hardware makers will collapse.
Reasonable hardware standards may yet see light of day. Without M$ to hord up ever changing API's and that magic flag on the box, we may see hardware maintains stable open interfaces. I am trully filled with hope today. This is great news.
Open Source funded by AOL subscribers (Score:3, Interesting)
Think about this situation, We all could end up getting paid through AOL. AOL subcribers start paying alittle extra a month and this gets paid to us to write open source software (kinda like Mozilla)
I think for the open source economy it could be a good thing, IF AOL has good motives. Subscription for services COULD ruin Microsofts entire idea of "Pay for licenses and products"
Famous last words and pipe dreams (Score:2)
Famous Last Words, part 1.
My mom is a good example. She has used her computers for three application and only three applications. She has used AOL, Word Perfect, and Quicken. I'm not sure she uses Quicken any more. She uses AOL's instant messenger and email.
Pipe dream part 1. I don't buy this cheap market analysis, that there are these millions of people who want nothing from their computer but email and AOL. Peripheral support still matters. Plugins still matter. You can delude yourself into thinking that all of these users will have a useage profile that somehow prevents them from ever encountering any of linux's shortfalls on the desktop, but they will.
This could kill Microsoft.
Pipe dream part two. How many times has that been erroneously mentioned on this site?
Re:Famous last words and pipe dreams (Score:2)
This sounds like "thin clients" all over again.
(of course,
If you are not also Erris.. (Score:2)
the worst that could happen (Score:4, Insightful)
What's the best that could happen? They give Bill Gates a good, swift kick in the balls.
Sounds good to me.
Re:the worst that could happen (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, you can interpret a buyout as giving Bill a pie in the face... but thats the short term gain.
Long term, from a newbie's standpoint, you lose one of the distros that has a reputation of being the easiest to start up with. On top of that, you start getting the backlash, or rather, the public perception, that Linux is "Like AOL, therefore it can't be as secure as they say" (I'm talking about joe sixpack here, obviously, but Joe Sixpack also runs a lot of businesses)
Oh, and i just thought of something... what if Red Hat CD's come in the mail with my FREE! 10*10^5 hour trial of AOL? I'd love to see linux's reputation after that.
Alternatively, lets say that MS and AOL go to war over OS's like some are predicting. Linux (in the mainstream at least) becomes in the public eye a tool of the corporations (Yes, I know about the GPL... I'm talking again about Joe Sixpack who blindly clicks "accept" on the license agreement.)
Image is everything to a lot of people, and if linux's main selling point (Security, open source, stability, GPL, Free as in speech) is compromised and people see it as a "Sellout" to the 900 lb. Gorilla... I don't know if I'd like to see that.
Not quite (Score:3, Informative)
Red Hat is (AFAIK) the only distribution with absolutely no closed source-software.
Red Hat used to sell some closed-sourced stuff (CDE & Motif come to mind), but they got the religion so hard that they dumped all of it (at least from the standpoint of the Linux environment - the Cygnus stuff is still closed, AFAIK).
Red Hat seemed to be the main reason that TrollTech came up with an open-source license for Qt on UNIX (KDE) - I remember the memos on their website.
Red Hat's fanatical adherence to this open-source philosophy has carried them through some really bad releases (7.0, for example). They also do not take adequate customer input for new release development (I will never run ext[23] again, for example), and the timing of the releases is driven more by marketing/accounting than by quality technology. But you know with a Red Hat distribution that all of it is open, and it will stay open, or it won't be in the distribution anymore.
From this perspective, I wish AOL would buy Mandrake, Suse, or Caldera, and leave the real gem alone.
Re:Not quite (Score:2)
I think this is wrong. Red Hat does come pacckaged with a closed source backup package (I think). Also, I think that debian has no closed source software.
Re:Not quite (Score:2)
Re:Not quite (Score:4, Informative)
Really? I had no idea Real Audio and XGalaga were open sourced now... (they're not)
You have Red Hat mixed up with Debian. It's Debian that is based on free software... AND... Debian is the ONLY distro with a development process is transparent and democratic.
For example: If the Techies at Debian declare that it's a bad idea to include early gcc versions, then it does not happen. At Red Hat, the techies are forced into battling other parts of the company that think it's a good feature (even though those people might not use Linux at all). You can have open sourced products delivered using closed-source development techniques... for some projects it works great, for others it means too much guessing at what the customer REALLY wants.
Your statement could have been interesting if it were accurate.
Re:the worst that could happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Best case: AOL either makes some open source enhancements and releases them to the community, or creates a self-contained PC or set-top box to run their OS. Either way, it's a kick in the monopoly pants for Microsoft.
Worst case: DRM. Weakening Microsoft's monopoly sufficiently that MS no longer has to make concessions to the "little guys". And with two major OS manufacturers supporting DRM, how can the SSSCA fail?
RedHat's response... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:RedHat's response... (Score:2)
Re:RedHat's response... (Score:2)
What do the shareholders want? (Score:5, Insightful)
If AOL offers enough money, RedHat is obliged to accept, even if they believe that being bought by AOL will mean the end of the RedHat distribution.
Re:What do the shareholders want? (Score:3, Insightful)
The scary part about this kind of decision is they might not have a chance. Depending on the layout of redhat stocks right now a certain percentage of the shareholders might be able to make the decision without the board.
Re:What do the shareholders want? (Score:2)
That's not the point.. Most of us aren't discussing "whether this should happen".. We know that it isn't up to us or even them.. It's about the ramifications.. It's about whether those of us that actually like Red Hat today have anything to worry about.
-Michael
Re:What do the shareholders want? (Score:2, Insightful)
One wonders how the majority of Red Hat stockholders might feel about getting AOL/TW stock.
Re:What do the shareholders want? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is this really true!? What if Red Hat thought the money was good, but didn't believe that AOL would properly make use of RH's assets, etc, and would end up running the company into the ground? Then it wouldn't matter HOW much they bought it for, would it? Would they still be "obliged" to take the $$$? (This isn't rhetorical; I'm genuinely curious here...)
Re:What do the shareholders want? (Score:3, Informative)
Can they get it back up to $200/share? (Score:2)
If not, I say Red Hat goes it alone. Red Hat is a server OS company; AOL has no interest in this sector.
If AOL had kept iPlanet (or ever done anything with AOLServer), then I might be saying something else, but things are as they are; AOL did it's best to bury Netscape's server product line, and they will with Red Hat's, too.
Worst case, Red Hat hires Raster back and spins him off into the Red Hat Desktop/OS, then sells him to AOL and pockets the change.
Whatever happened to that Corel Linux distribution? I bet AOL could have that for a song.
Re:Making Gates squirm... (Score:3, Interesting)
First, realize we're not sure AOL cares about Red Hat for the desktop at all. They may be interested in future net-appliances (people just don't give up on those, do they?). Or they may want it for the server farms. Either way, I suspect the goal is not to attack MS, per se, but to ensure that AOL is not dependent on the whims (and anticompetitive aggressions) of MS. Big difference.
It's never good to have your core business dependent on suppliers that (a) might not be around tomorrow or (b) won't necessarily act in your best interests. Why do you think there's a mix of HP-UX and Solaris running at AOL? Certainly not because of the similarities and ease of porting. Partly for the specific hardware configs they offer, yes, but largely to avoid a single point of (business) failure.
If Red Hat is, or can be made, stable enough, for AOL's server platform, then it's a great choice to further diversify the servers. But anyone who's been burned by a Cygnus support contract - and I suspect that would include anyone who HAS one - knows that you can't depend on them for fixes. Gotta buy them.
Similarly, if I were still at AOL, I'd be worried about what Microsoft will do for me in the future. IE integration bugs? Windows bugs or limitations that just happen to affect the AOL client? Remember DR-DOS.
Assuming you can create a novice-friendly desktop environment, which AOL excels at, getting Linux on the desktop could be a stable long-term alternative, because AOL could then ensure that the whole package works together. Any AOL-limiting bugs could be instantly fixed.
Sounds like a huge number of potential upsides for AOL, both short and long term.
Their entire stock history? (Score:2)
Their stock peaked at 20 times it's IPO price, shockingly quickly. Obviously (to anyone not following the "bigger sucker" theory of investment) it was only headed back down from there when people came to their senses. I think if you take the split into account, they're actually trading ~10% above their IPO price again, which IMHO is a pretty fair valuation finally.
Perhaps.... (Score:2)
:-\
Anyone have a mirror? Anyone?
-9mm-
URL Problem? Possibilities seem ambiguous... (Score:2)
At any rate, it's not obvious just what the results of taking over RHAT would be. There are ample possibilities for both good and ill, from many perspectives:
On the one hand, "If AOL/TW thinks there's something to it..." but then if they do something silly, credibility can get badly hurt.
Enter a new set of "policy controllers." Again, this can be good or bad.
Ambiguous again.
One interesting effect, regardless, is that a bunch of people that invested in RHAT will get some pretty substantial value out of it. If things go bad, Debian [debian.org] is still there, and we might see some made-rich hackers get into new involvements. Hopefully a little more computing-related than jwz's [jwz.org] DNA Lounge, but that's not to be a flame of jwz...
If the result is that AOL/RHAT "craters," there's always Debian, Slackware, Mandrake, SuSE, and the BSDs still around...
Why Red Hat? (Score:2)
When I think Red Hat I think servers (even though we run Debian on ours) and a decent desktop. I think it would really hurt the Red Hat image as a server OS to be bought by AOL. Even if AOL leaves them totally alone they will still be battling an image problem for a while.
Re:Why Red Hat? (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps AOL is instead interested in Linux as a server platform which it could use to compete with
Does AOL want to lose money here? (Score:2)
Furthermore, Linux as it is now is not tailored for newbies. Yes, it is ten times better than it was just a couple of years ago, but it's still not as easy to use or install or configure as Windows is, plus it lacks the software that everyone and his mom have used before at work/school. So AOL will need to build software too, now, eh? Maybe they leave that in Red Hat's domain, but now they're adding onto their expenses.
Even with software support, no de facto AOL user will ever be talked into switching operating systems. It isn't a newbie-level task. The only hope is if vendors sell the computers with this Linux distro already on it, or if AOL gets into the computer hardware sales arena, which would be beyond crazy, especially when considering the entrenched market leaders are having a difficult time in this economy. So AOL would have to convice Compaq/HP/Gateway/etc. to sell Linux versions.
Of course, Microsoft wouldn't like this and would strongly encourage them not to do this. Ad campaigns would convince the newbies that if they bought AOL Linux they couldn't use their favorite software, or play their favorite games. Come on AOL, you can spend your money better than by trying to compete against Microsoft in the desktop arena. Stick to your ISP business, stick to your media empire - dominate there and work WITH Microsoft to blend the media and the computer age.
I'd like to see it (Score:2)
If AOL could create an easy-to-use OS that could run Windows programs, I'd consider buying it, as, I think, many others would. However, as you mentioned, this would require years and billions of dollars. And, of course, the time and money it takes AOL to start this project, Microsoft, of course, is innovating and continuing to swallow up more market share.
To restate what I sort of skimmed on at the end - I think AOLs best bet would have been way back before MSN was created to partner with Microsoft. Now it may be too late, with MS entrenched in MSN and the like, although who knows. It would be kind of neat to see a merger forming AOL-MS-Time Warner.
Hmmm, closed source? (Score:3, Insightful)
If AOLTW took Red Hat closed source, Mandrake and other Red Hat based distributions would be up the creek. Mandrake (the slickest desktop Linux now) would have to change their base distribution, at great cost and delay. The resulting loss of momentum would surely hurt them and might even stagnate and kill Mandrake. This wouldn't be good.
AOL doesnt sell software they sell services (Score:3, Informative)
They always supported open source because they dont sell the software itself, they sell the services. The subscribers of AOL pay for winamp, netscape, icq, and so on. You dont buy this stuff, its free.
I dont think we need to worry about them closing source.
As far as other companies, do you really think IBM would sit around and let AOL take over their Linux? Hell no.
IBM would most likely Buy Mandrake and compete with AOL and keep Mandrake Open Source.
IBM invests 1 billion in Linux every year, Mandrake only costs about 20 million from what i hear.
Re:Hmmm, closed source? (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm, closed source? (Score:2)
I'm not as concerned about them not complying with the GPL, as I am about how they would license software who's copyrights are now owned by Red Hat. I really don't know what portion of a standard Linux distribution is copyrighted by Red Hat, but I'd imagine there are several significant components. Red Hat Package Manager comes to mind.
Existing code would still be subject to GPL provisions. But the copyright owner can move in any future direction they like. I haven't noticed anything about AOL/TW's past behaviour to inspire confidence that they wouldn't seek advantage any way they could get it. Imagine an AOL subscriber's RPM-based system updater, for example. You certainly wouldn't want your competitors to get their hands on such an intellectual asset now, would you?
Re:Hmmm, closed source? (Score:3, Informative)
Anyone else worried ? (Score:3, Insightful)
On Slashdot the news of potential purchase of RedHat by AOL has mostly been received with much rejoicing [slashdot.org] at the potential demise of MSFT's monopoly power.
I am curious as to why people don't fear AOL/TW. From where I sit they already own too much and already influence the perceptions of millions of people with their ownership of Netscape, Nullsoft, ICQ, Time magazine, CNN, WB television network, Time Warner records, Warner Bros. movies, and a lot more that I can't remember right now.
Microsoft may own the OS that most people run but AOL/TW controls the news magazines they read, the music they listen to, the movies and television shows they watch, and how they connect to the Internet as well as most of what they view while online.
Interestingly I'd like to see how a user modifiable OS like Linux interacts with AOL/TW's music and movie divisions that would like to see DRM support implemented in all software from operating systems to browsers. This should be interesting (kinda like NullSoft releasing Gnutella only for AOL to get mad [slashdot.org])
Re:Anyone else worried ? (Score:3, Insightful)
And here's my reply - also copied from Kuro5hin! (Score:5, Informative)
MS got to where they are today by taking advantage of several business practices tied directly to their ability to "lock in" their users and partners. For MS, it's all about leverage, not to higher profits, but to doing what will lock in their users in ways that are profitable to them.
With Linux, that's impossible. Due to licensing and open technologies, you can't hide system calls, you can't obscure protocols or file formats. You can stamp up and down and insist that only you can change the technology, but nobody will realy listen, even if you're using an embedded box. (Thus the arise of the Tivo hacker.)
What MS has been trying to do is to extend their lock-in beyond just desktop software -- to servers (mission 40% accomplished), set-tops, portables, and now to data and the internet itself, first with MSN (where they learned it's not so easy) and now with .Net and Passport (where they'll learn they haven't learned their lesson yet, IMO).
If they were to be successful at creating a model that allows them the same sort of monopoly lock-in with set-top boxes as they have had with software, the big corporate media nonsense you see happening right now would be a pittance. Want to burn a copy of that Universal CD you're listening to? MS wants to be the company that gives you the permission - or prevents you - from doing so. Want to play XBox Madden 2005 against your friend in Springfield? MS will make it possible, with your Passport data from zone.com - and keep a record of what you've done.
This is all wild, idle speculation of course. My crystal ball has been totally wrong before. But MS is close to reaching the upper limit on the desktop, as far as how much revenue they can squeeze out of IT departments for forever upgrading Windows and Office. that's why they're now going to software "rental" plans, anti-piracy raids, and XP installation verification.
That's difficult stuff to push on a bust market that's a little skeptical of the promise of tech, but MS has no choice really; if their stock price does not continue to increase, their employees take the hit. For MS, it could be a case of grow or perish. They already gave more stock out once to counter the employee's needs when the stock stagnated for a while... they surely can't do that during an extended period of time.
Battle of the Titans (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's where the American Dream(TM) dies: with corporations controlling everything, the amount a small firm can change lessens. By letting these two companies get bigger and bigger, we let the smaller guys get pushed around.
RedHat has a huge influence on the Linux/Free Software community, like it or not. If AOL/TW buys it, I guarantee AOL/TW will influence RedHat and therefore the Linux/Free Software community.
If you're watching AOL, and your intentions really are true (ie, get into the Linux world for a complete CD distribution/coaster), buy Mandrake, the 'easy to use' distro. Or perhaps Lindows, or some distribution of your own. Wouldn't the announcement of AOLinux be enough without needing to own the most influential of Linux pushers? Look at what IBM is doing! Look, no buyout; hell, they don't even have an IBM-brand distro (AFAIK).
Re:And here's my reply - also copied from Kuro5hin (Score:3, Insightful)
...with builtin copy protection, etc. AOL/Warner would own your linux box and control a good part of what you did with it. If legislation passes (the SSSCA or whatever it's called) then Redhat, with AOL at the controls, would become the only valid version of linux in the USA (and other contries the USA bullies into passing similar laws) because it would have that builtin copy protection crapola.
Who knows... (Score:2)
If they did that, as much as I hate AOL, I'd applaud them and potentially support them by buying the product.
Let's face it, there seems to be a LOT of people out there who don't know any better and use AOL, so maybe AOL saying "use this OS instead of MS" to their subscriber base could be what it takes to turn the tide.
AOL eating Red Hat (Score:2)
distribution clout (Score:3, Interesting)
aol CDs are EVERYWHERE, every stop at wal mart i grab a dozen or so for coasters and frisbees. imagine if redhat were like that. instead of d/ling the new distro, you just grab it on your way out of the grocery.
i know AOL is dumbed down and simple, but they may be able to streamline redhat and make it as simple to use as aol which would allow aol user types to switch to redhat.
I'm not worried about AOL taking over Redhat (Score:2)
Re:I'm not worried about AOL taking over Redhat (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, I think that's the least frightening prospect of the whole thing, since you KNOW the AOL executives are gonna leave that thing alone. There's no strategic market value or power in a compiler, so even if AOL has evil motives or just dumb ideas, the compiler itself is going to remain safe.
And if AOL dev had any control over gcc, I can think of quite a few bugs that would have been fixed much, much more quickly. (The LONG_MAX nightmare comes to mind.)
One good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Why AOL wants RedHat (Score:5, Insightful)
AOL wants it for two reasons:
1. So Microsoft can't buy it
2. So they can become larger, richer, and more powerful, which would be partly stymied by #1 above.
Let me explain. AOL/Time-Warner knows its business quite well, and its business has nothing to do with software and everything to do with charging people for access to content they desire.
They can't do that if Microsoft, through MSN, is charging people for access to THEIR content instead. Therefore, they must counter or thwart every attempt by Microsoft to eliminate other options by which consumers might get to ATW (not MS) content. Since Microsoft pretty much owns the desktop, and with the sellout of the Justice Department effort against them has pretty much a clear shot to extend that domination into online content.
And not just web content. We're talking interactive messaging, video-on-demand, online commerce and a bunch of other potentially-moneyed pursuits that AOL wants to have or keep for itself.
I think AOL realistically looked at it and realized that (as a piece I read on CNet the other day pointed out) most consumers online in Murka are not the techs and geeks of the old days, they're just McCitizens who (a) don't know about and (b) don't care about "the desktop," "the operating system," or even the hardware. They just wanna send pictures to their Aunt Edith, buy some stuff off Eddie Bauer, check out some choice pron, or watch "Sudden Impact" for eleventeenth time.
How they do it, they don't care. In the 1930s, nobody knew what tubes were in their Philco radios, they only wanted to hear Jack Benny. Or how about now -- can you name the theatre chain in which you saw "The Matrix?" Do you really care? What color was the wallpaper?
This means AOL has "network appliance" in their heads. They've watched the stuff being done with embedded Linux (like the DVRs that aren't all that popular yet but they work). They looked to see who was the big cheese, the Biggest Name In Linux, and it was RedHat. They buy RH, they can have them develop an AOL Network Appliance, basically a box you turn on and it delivers... AOL and Time-Warner content. No Microsoft anywhere to be seen, which means no chance for Microsoft to hijack future revenue streams.
I personally think AOL is torqued off about the whole go-round with Instant Messaging and vowed never to get dicked by MS like that again.
This is not the end of Open Source. Anyone who thinks so radically overestimates the influence of RH on the Linux world. Yes, it's a big influence, and a lot of the way things are can be traced to them, but if RH vanished tomorrow, someone else would step up. I wouldn't be surprised, as a matter of fact, if AOL didn't slurp up the company, then spin it right back out after working out some very favorable licensing deals and pulling in key development staff.
Their track record is strange: they pretty well fouled up Netscape by forgetting there are non-AOL users of the tool, but they left Nullsoft alone and they're as fine as ever. But the strength of open-source is... we don't "need" any one distribution. If we did, we'd have been hosed long ago.
Turtle
Re:Why AOL wants RedHat (Score:3, Insightful)
1. User joe gets emails with
2. User joe buy his PC at the mall (best buy, fry's, etc) - they don't hand him Linux preinstalled - they give him Windows XP home edition + tons of useless stuff that he never uses.
3. User Joe just bought a nice brand new digital camera which uses Firewire and all he got with the camera are Windows drivers and manual which exaplains how to use & install under... yup, you guessed it, Windows...
I could go on and on with this but I think you got my point. It's not just the AOL thing, it's the apps and accessories - if user Joe wanted just the AOL client - then he might wanted to buy back then the gateway terminal - which, may I remind you, failed totally...
Got other explanations?
I don't understand the warnings (Score:3, Insightful)
You statethey pretty well fouled up Netscape by forgetting there are non-AOL users of the tool...
Posting from Mozilla on Debian, I have no idea what you people are talking about. Netscape makes fine browsers that are far from dead. There are enough people, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commision, www.nrc.gov, using their server software with good results for me to not understand that either. While Netscape is far from the "asshole in the middle" that some people might want it to be, the rest of us are happier dealing with the one sphinkter they we own and don't think of immitating it. Did AOL fire everyone at Netscape? Is that what I'm missing? While that would be sad, the remaining people seem to be able to continue providing an excellent bunch of software to the world using Open standards and free software.
I used to hate AOL... (Score:2, Interesting)
Redhat is NOT some AOL competitor like CompuServ that they're buying out to fend off competition. They want to do something with it, and the entire OSS community stands to benefit.
Alan Cox won't like it... (Score:3, Funny)
AOL doesn't care about the desktop (Score:2, Interesting)
Unlikely reasons:
We need to face the music here, kids, the only ones who care about a Linux based desktop are all here, except the two that forgot to read this site today.
AOL *did* keep the parts of GNN that proved useful (Score:2, Informative)
Personally, I do not care for the way that AOL tries to make their dial-up customers dependant on them. The browser brokenness that their customers and many webmasters have to endure ("AOL customers click here...") would probably not persist if AOL didn't lock less-savy users in the way that they do.
But they have dumped a bunch of money into some very cool stuff and have set it free with an astonishingly small number of strings attached, and I for one have trouble not being thankful for that much.
AOL already owns a piece of Red Hat (Score:2, Informative)
AOL buying Red Hat is merely one more sign that AOL is looking to sock it to Microsoft in the core of their business - the OS market, and with AOL's huge amount of capital/resources, perhaps they'll be able to grow RH from a minority player to something much more prevalant. Perhaps the ultimate release of the AOL/Redhat OS would be a distant version of what we know now, but like Apple [apple.com]'s OS X, if there's a unix based kernel at the core of the OS, it will let the tech-folk play dirty while the non-geeks can still have a simple-to-operate user experience.
Re: AOL/Red-hat (Score:2, Insightful)
What is the one and only real objection to the SCSSA bill at the moment? It's that Linux will never accept digital rights management, and even if they did, we'd all work on it from outside America, leaving the US wallowing in a technological vacuum.
So what do we see now? We see AOL buying redhat, and installing digital rights management on it. We see longtime redhat supporters (especially businesses) buying it anyway, and even better, we see it given to all the clones running AOL at home.
Think ahead. It's going to become socially acceptable to lock down and license every piece of electronic equipment, unless the public can see where they're being led, and what they can do about it.
Buyout = Demise? (Score:5, Informative)
- GNN: That was a flop. No question. It was also one of the first buyouts AOL ever did, and frankly, few people at AOL had any idea what to do with the Internet at the time (like much of the rest of the world). The clumsy attempt at infrastructure integration also hurt. At the time, we were still running on an old, clunky, non-modular architecture that was largely unchanged from its days running Q-Link and PlayNet. Also, if I recall, GNN used BookLink's browser, because we hadn't integrated IE yet. I'm surprised the AOL GNN lasted as long as it did.
- Netscape: I think that's going to be a ninth-inning major success. I think getting the Netcenter home page was certainly one goal, but another was hiring lots of experienced Internet developers, and that's been a HUGE win. Also, now that the Microsoft exclusive contract has expired, I definitely think AOL's gonna end up replacing IE with Netscape. The latest Compuserve beta has the Gecko engine. CS has a few million members, so it's a natural testbed for a technology before it goes into full distribution in the AOL client. Bang.. out of nowhere comes W3C compliance and serious competition for IE.
As for AOL failing to pick up Netscape's vision, well... I'm not sure Netscape had any particular vision by the time we bought them. Heck, most of their executive team did stay on and continue to run the show. Any lack of vision is simply something AOL failed to add, not something they took from Netscape.
- CompuServe: Took a dying service running on 36-bit PDP-10s running custom-made hardware (!) and managed to transition the vast majority of it to a web-based service using the AOL client as a dialer/browser. In effect, this is really the service we tried to create so many years before, but it worked this time. True, you never hear anything about it, but it's still more successful than MSN, so who cares?
- Time Warner: Waaaaay too early to call, but I think there will be some wins. These are two huge companies, and they are being very careful about trying to force them to integrate for buzzword's sake. When I left AOL in August, there was a big push to use AOL's developers as TW's technology infrastructure group, they were setting up ways to find-the-smart-guy-in-the-other-company, and they had combined the help-desk and other support infrastructure. I'm not sure how much difference it will make to end customers, but there are certainly efficiencies they can get as a company.
And don't forget about the less well-known purchases:
- Navisoft. Resulted in AOLServer, one of the best-performing web servers ever, which is free and open-source.
- WinAmp. Still doing fine.
- Personal Library Systems (www.pls.com). Resulted in some excellent intelligent-text-search functionality in the AOL service.
I think Red Hat could be great for a few reasons, aside from the obvious potential for giving Microsoft a run for its money, and creating a workable UI for Linux. Most importantly, AOL has one of the most demanding infrastructures of any site anywhere. We were regularly finding bugs in every OS we ran, even the fault-tolerant ones. And the AOL approach to system operation is fairly rigorous, requiring a lot of maintenance and reporting tools and 24x7 hot-pluggability of everything.
Red Hat could really become a leader in stability, performance and monitorability if AOL is buying it for their own back end.
Anyway, food for thought.
seems everyone is missing the point. (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Most of the software people use is either private/non-Open sourced, or its the open source software that makes up the huge chunk of what we think Linux is.
2. Even the Redhat specific software (the RPM system, for example) isnt going to change, why would they acquire a company w/ the most popular Linux distribution and then change it up so that it doesnt work w/ previous releases (the same reason you can still run some 16-bit code on WinXP)
These people know what they are doing, they're professionals at acquring other businesses...and the whole deal about Time-Warner being part of the RIAA, that's as about irrelevant as you can get.
Think before you post, folks.
What's the problem? (Score:3, Funny)
I've been telling AOL to eat me for quite some time now.
What's the problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
But why this hostility to AOL as an investor? Their funding of Mozilla seems to have benefitted the open source community greatly. Without that, I doubt Netscape or Mozilla would still be around in any form.
If RedHat investors find it advantageous to sell the company, I don't blame them if they do. RedHat's business model never really impressed me, and it might well be better off as an AOL subsidiary, kept alive as a hedge against Microsoft. And given that Linux is GPL'ed and that AOL has been reasonably well-behaved in the past, I don't see a problem. Let's give these people a break.
Iliad's opinion (Score:3, Funny)
way to read the article (Score:2, Offtopic)
first few lines:
Think Twice, Red Hat
by Andy Oram
Jan. 19, 2002
Not all big companies are evil (Score:3, Interesting)
AOL for a big company has earned alot of Respect.
They have never directly put any other company out of business, and when they have they purchased the Company right before it did (CompuServe?)
AOL buys alot of companies that were doomed and saves them, for our sake, not really because its profitable (Netscape, Mirabilis, Nullsoft) all of these companies would have went out off business if AOL didnt save them.
The one buyout AOL made which i didnt like was the buyout of TimeWarner, I dont like Time Warner.
What I worry about is Time Warner controlling Redhat, if it were AOL(before the merger) there'd be nothing to worry about.
I'd sell Redhat if it were to AOL, but time warner worries me.
It could be an attempt to CONTROL the last grasp of freedom we have, Linux.
I dont know if its a good move to sell because I dont trust Time Warner, not because I dont trust AOL.
AOL seems to be on our side for the most part, as is IBM, I wouldnt mind IBM buying Redhat either.
By being on our side I mean they want to sell services to the consumer, not sell content.
Re:Not all big companies are evil (Score:2, Insightful)
Imagine a future where many people run AOL-RH Linux in a fairly standard setup. They're running a version of Linux with strict DRM etc. There'd soon be plenty of 'modkits' available to change settings, disable DRM software, etc. (Remember: all those AOL customers would be essentially running the same Linux distribution.)
Also, there are plenty of other distributions out there. Of course, I'm not expecting the average 'Joe Sixpack' to install Debian, or even know about Debian.
I don't think it'd be that disastrous, actually.
Who says the DRM part of AOLINUX would be open? (Score:2)
They could do a few things.
1, make it so the OS itself doesnt run any programs directly, All your programs running off of AOLs main server which you can only access when you are subscribbed to AOLs network. AOL offers a napster like program which you can only access when subscribbed to AOLS network, also allowing Access to movies and so on through their subscription.
Service based software.
While this isnt all that bad, AOL will become your portal through which all your software runs, another version of
Want access to the code? They'll force you to subscribe.
Another possible situation is AOL, the RIAA poisining the Linux Movement with $$ influence.
Controlling where development goes, slowing it down in places they dont like, so they dont like your software which breaks the DMCA, they make their package management and installer core software closed source and only allow licensed developers to use their nice installers, now your anti DMCA software becomes so hard to use that only programmers can handle it,
Fine for programmers like us but for casual users who dont know linux at all, they are locked out of all the little hacks to the AOLinux software
Re:Even if AOL bought redhat.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Even if AOL bought redhat.. (Score:2, Insightful)
- embeded linux for handheld emailing
- linux on internet pcs
The "problem", well for AOL atleat, is that they can't decide what OS the user has. Since the average AOLer uses windows they can't make much of a difference there. What they could do though is along with redhat make a new side distro or whatever you want to call it that mimics windows in use and setup. This is though a double edged sword, sure this could help take a piece of the OS pie from MS, but it could also led to the downfall of redhat.Re:Even if AOL bought redhat.. (Score:2, Interesting)
they can cast to the winds and reach the consumers between pages
of a magazine and their mail. The Linux distribution will be stamped
``AOL Bonus OFFER!! A Powerful Internet Connectivity Experience Suite.
Exclusively for users of Windows 95/98/2000 only!!''
The user installs the CDROM on his drive which (1) repartitions the
users hard drive and makes the computer dual-booting or (2) Installs
a small boot portion of itself on the Windows partition allowing
the user to click-boot ``AOL icXP'' via the bootable CDROM.
Presto! Linux has conquered another drive. AOL now gently offers
to make AOL icXP the default boot OS. Of course, in order to satisfy
the requirements of the GPL, AOL puts a 5 pt typeface blurb on the
inside back cover of the installation manual about GPL, Linux etc.
If AOL icXP is any good, it will have an office suite, a browser,
and an IM client. No one will need to boot Windows anymore.
Re:What about a partnership? (Score:3, Informative)
Hate to break it you, but Linux != RedHat.
And, as someone pointed out in the previous discussion, Linus Torvalds owns the Linux trademark and various other legal rights. If RedHat would stray too far from what he has in mind he'll just ask them to stop calling it RedHat Linux, Linux is safe, and the world is a happy place once again.
Re:What about a partnership? (Score:2)
Could Linus really enforce the Linux trademark? I'm probably wrong, but doesn't a trademark lose its value if the owner doesn't vigorously defend its usage. And Linus has basically let everyone under the sun use the term Linux wherever they want.
Re:What's up with AOL? (Score:2)
AOL also owns Netscape which has cross platform browsers. AOL also provided Tik, a tcl/tk AIM client and a native linux port using Gtk. As well as a native (but unreleased) Linux client for AOL ISP services.
.
AOL won't dare produce their own distribution that is incompatable with current linux installs; they would get chewed up in the same grinder BeOS did. What AOL will do is get lots of users one less reason to use Windows and port a lot of good applications to Xwindows/linux.
AOL is not new to linux, but it has been a snake in the grass waiting to strike. Sure, they will be a big company.. but they will do great things, for linux on the desktop; if linux on the desktop is something you really want. This can be a very good thing. As long as the masses realize that that Redhat/AOL != Linux. Redhat has already ported/developed via their several daughter companies an almost complete suite of multimedia applications for Linux; This will be their final slap in the face to Microsoft.
Re:What's up with AOL? (Score:2)
Re:Quel terrible! (Score:2)
this fact is less significant than it might be if AOL/TW stock was prone to go up as a result of this announcement.
hm. i wish i had bought some red hat last year. rising value in my portfolio is a good thing in my opinion.
-jon
Re:An AOL/Red Hat merger might be cool. (Score:2)
Jaysyn