Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Red Hat Software Businesses

No Red Hat-AOL Merger In The Works, Says CNET 285

Posted by timothy from the sighs-of-relief-or-disappointment dept.
Several readers have submitted word (this one comes from n8twj) that "CNet News is reporting that AOL Time Warner apparently is NOT making a bid to buy Linux manufacturer Red Hat, said sources familiar with the matter."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

No Red Hat-AOL Merger In The Works, Says CNET More

No Red Hat-AOL Merger In The Works, Says CNET

Comments Filter:
  • I thought it would be nice for Red Hat to have such a huge company backing them.
  • We need no more conglomerates.

  • Bah (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    They can still use Red Hat's services which would give a big income to RH. I don't think the whole thing ends here.

  • Bummer (Score:3, Funny)

    by Guitarzan ( 57028 ) on Monday January 21, 2002 @06:15PM (#2879054)
    The guys at work were all ready to hear the commercials for Redhat 7.3, the "Best Redhat Ever!"
  • does this mean alan cox wont have to quit! -vikas
  • If they "are familiar with the matter" there must be something there :-)

  • Surely Not. (Score:2, Funny)

    by reaper20 ( 23396 )
    What will we do? We've already talked about this rumour enough to fill a Karma Canyon, now what hell are we supposed to talk about?

    Surely not discuss regular news, back to unfounded, ridiculous rumors we go ....
    • We've already talked about this rumour enough to fill a Karma Canyon, now what hell are we supposed to talk about?

      I say we talk about forming an orderly line to give back those ill-gotten karma points. It's not fair that we should hold onto them now that we know it was a Just A Rumor!

      [Tongue, for those impervious to sarcasm, firmly in cheek]

    • A news post, containing actual news, was actually submitted to slashdot and it was actually READ by one of the editors. :)
    • It just proves that there is a conspiracy to cover it up.

      Obviously, AOL has been spreading rumors that there is no takeover in order to prevent Red Hat's stock price from rising so that they can acquire it in a hostile action. None of the signs are there, so it must be true.

      AOL's real problem is that they've reached the logical conclusion of their intellectually insulting business strategy of eating fish that are bigger than they are. There are no fish bigger than they are. They're trying to acquire the public sector but they don't quite get it.
      • This is the real world, not X-files. No organization as large as AOL/TW (and the US Government) can keep a secret. And usually once the secret is exposed, they fess up to it. This is obviously not a merger, and it makes little sense for AOL to buy RH. Their markets don't overlap in any way, shape or form. Maybe people should think for themselves before crying "Cover up! Conspiracy!" :)

      • Think before you rant! (Score:5, Informative)

        by Shabazz ( 29233 ) on Monday January 21, 2002 @07:16PM (#2879476) Homepage
        Public companies can't lie or make any misrepresentations when dealing with questions from investors (or the press). This makes coverups very difficult because they could result in very expensive lawsuits. If they deny that they are in negotiations, and they are, then they are liable under Rule 10b-5 [uc.edu] of the Securities Exchange Act. And for the record, IAAL.
        • From the article:

          Representatives for AOL Time Warner, Durham, N.C.-based Red Hat and Microsoft declined to comment.

          So officially the companies aren't saying anything, one way or the other. The article just quotes "sources familiar with the situation" as saying that they aren't planning anything, but then if they aren't planning anything then what "situation" is there to be close to? ;-)

          And unless the source is the CEO or board member of one of the companies (who really shouldn't be talking anonymously to the press) then it's even possible that the source really doesn't know about it.

  • Slackware (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by totallygeek ( 263191 )
    Maybe AOL can get a better deal on Slackware? Someone with money needs to back them, or they will die. Anyone heard anything from Patrick?

    • Well, AOL could buy Slack, RH, Mandrake, Suse AND Debian and still have enough money left to send me 4 discs a month. I don't think getting a deal is the issue here. :)
    • I can't think of a distribution less likely to share any sort of vision with AOL than Slackware. AOL is organized around coddling the user and spoon feeding the user while Slackwares attitude is "Rm * -r? Powerful command there. Gives you what you want. You did it to /? Why would you want to do that? You didn't? Then why the hell'd you type it?". This is why there are two slackware boxes running on either side of me right now...

  • Linux manufacturer Red Hat ? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Linux manufacturer Red Hat

    Somehow this just doesnt sound right.
    Seems like there should be another way of putting this.
    • distributer is more like it. they distribute their version of linux(their distro), and they support it. I say they are distributers
    • Naw, they *build* Linux, didn't you know that? The newest model rolling off the assembly line gets an estimated 35mpg on the highway, seats a family of 6, and sings happy birthday to you every year. Long live RedHat!
    • Well, they also said "Linux uses an "open source" model, where companies also have the right to install as many copies of the operating system as they wish,", which seems to me like they're missing the point of open source (maybe that's just the financial interpretation). Of course, they also said "the two companies are not near an acquisition deal, nor have they discussed one," (-1, Redundant), and quoted some guy as saying "The applications in the U.S. tend to be apart from servers tend to be OEM set-top boxes," which doesn't seem to me like a well formed sentence. My point is, the author, and imho the news media in general, is not as sharp as they could be.

      But that's just me....
  • Big stories for little air ... also starring Alan Cox ... THAT's Slashdot ! Can't wait for the next episode ;)
  • I was scared for a while about the thought of hearing "You've Got Mail" whenever mail hits my local spool. That is a SCARY new world indeed.

    AOL/Time Warner is a monopoly if I've ever seen one.

    We NEED Microsoft to kill them.
    • > in a competitive strike against Microsoft (from article)
      Unfortunately, AOL cannot survive without Microsoft. Microsoft could very easily patch windows to make AOL 'mysteriously not work', and simultaneously offer 'free MSN for a month'. Plus, AOL software only runs on Windows, not to mention the AOL browser is just an embedded IE control. They cannot rebel against Microsoft, because MS brought them all their glory.

      • Re:Hurray! (Score:3, Informative)

        by etceteral ( 113669 )

        Plus, AOL software only runs on Windows...

        Uhhh... AOL client software works perfectly fine on classic MacOS (though without IE 5.1 integration), and they've released a decent beta of a version for OS X.

  • Why would this be a bad thing? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kwj8fty1 ( 225360 ) on Monday January 21, 2002 @06:20PM (#2879093) Homepage
    So, I honestly don't care if AOL/Timewarner purchases RH. RH is not a distro I use. Having the backing of a huge media giant may help the linux cause. Sure, it will drive features *IN Redhat LINUX*, but not in the other distros. Long term, yes, it may effect the marketplace. But having Timewarner promoting linux would be a GREAT thing. Talk about adoption in the marketplace. Linux needs more credibility, and this may be a good way to get it.
    • What makes you think that features in Red Hat Linux won't end up in other distributions? The source code is free to begin with, and Red Hat pays an awful lot of software developers to contribute to various free software projects.
    • ...on this matter, or at least his beef with Netscape getting bought out by AOL. Here: 1 [jwz.org] 2 [jwz.org]

      Both are good reads.
  • aww man! I guess this means that I'll have to keep downloading the latest version and burning my own cd's, instead of waiting to get it in the mail, along with the latest AOL CD.

    I wonder if I could have used Red Hat Pro for 700 free hours in a month before I either had to pay or start using the free distribution...

  • Rumors. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Restil ( 31903 ) on Monday January 21, 2002 @06:22PM (#2879104) Homepage
    So it WAS another rumor. We've managed to have at least 4 (who knows how many repeated articles I might have missed out on) posts about this very topic and it appears to be a non-topic afterall.

    Most likely it was one of those "what if we..." things that got tossed out in a meeting somewhere. Something along the same lines as 200 other ideas that probably got passed around the same day. Something that someone spent 5 minutes thinking about and probably never got seriously discussed, but someone overheard it, and said something about it to someone, who said something else, and so on, and so forth, until it gets on Slashdot.. then all hell breaks loose.

    We've had discussions on the future potential demise of Redhat under an AOL flag. We've had the #2 linux guy's threatened defection. And the VIP's at AOL/TW are probably going "huh?" right about now as someone finally tells them what's going around in the news. Even if it IS a valid rumor, chances are it hasn't worked its way up the corporate hierarchy yet.

    And in two weeks, a bigwig from AOL will claim they're considering it, and we'll all think it was all this discussion that prompted them to consider it in the first place.

    So what is it? Are we one step ahead or two steps behind? Who knows.

    -Restil

    • Re:Rumors. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by testuser58 ( 552737 ) on Monday January 21, 2002 @06:41PM (#2879248)
      Don't direct your ire at Slashdot; it was a front page story printed in The Washington Post.

      The Post generally has very good credibility because its editors use discretion in deciding which stories are credible enough to run. They went out on a limb with this one and it snapped under them. The price they pay is the next time they cry wolf, you won't believe them. If you blame slashdot, you're giving The Post a license to be sloppy.

      • Re:Rumors. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Restil ( 31903 ) on Monday January 21, 2002 @06:55PM (#2879341) Homepage
        I wasn't really directing my ire per sae. Slashdot really doesn't do much more than post links to news posted elsewhere and allows people to comment on it. Yet, if not for slashdot's post, even with a newspaper as big as the Washingon Post, the coverage would have been significantly less.

        Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily. Its perfectly acceptable to speculate. And like I said, there's always the chance that its true to some degree and the PR people at AOL aren't aware of it.

        My point was, that for a great many people, geeks in particular, slashdot is accepted as a credible source of information. And in most cases, this is true. And sometimes they drop the ball. We complain rather viciously when other news agencies don't do so much as pick up a phone to attempt to verify the validity of a news source, yet when slashdot does exactly the same thing, we generally accept it as par for the course. This is fine if slashdot is a rumor site or if it only reflects news reported elsewhere. However, if it wants to reflect known accurate information, then it needs to make some effort to assure that while information may not be completely accurate, at least someone who is an authority on that information has verified it as accurate.

        When articles are posted multiple times, or article summaries contrast greatly with the actual content of the article linked to, the credibility, or lack there of, of slashdot is brought into light. They will make the occasional snafu. It happens. It can't be completely avoided. But they need to make at least SOME effort to avoid the obvious ones. That
        way, when they only reflect on the poor quality reporting of some other news agency on rare occasions, then ire WOULD be misplaced.

        -Restil
        • My point was, that for a great many people, geeks in particular, slashdot is accepted as a credible source of information.

          Hahahahaha..... =) Good one. I like Slashdot as much as anyone else, but I don't think that many people think of it as a credible source of *news* (I *hope* they don't!). Slashdot "editors" don't even do the slightest amount of fact-checking or investigation into the stories posted. And unlike some other forums, stories sit in a que until an editor looks at them, so you don't even have the instantaniousness (phew) of some other online forums.

          This site is interesting and valuable for it's user commentery and links to interesting stuff -- not for it's news.

          The fact that this rumor was in the Washington Post(!) makes it interesting, and makes me wonder if it's still true (it's just a counter rumor from anonymous sources that the deal doesn't exist -- neither company will officially comment on the matter).
          • Actually, I do consider Slashdot to be a credible source of news. Not the headlines. Not the stories linked to. But in the commentary.
            The editors don't check facts or investigate the stories. They expect the commenters to do that.
            News is a "What happened?"
            /. is more a "What's happening?"

    • Re:Rumors. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by WNight ( 23683 ) on Monday January 21, 2002 @07:18PM (#2879491) Homepage
      What's the big deal? It was listed as "Rumoured Takeover Plan". When my friends and I talked about it, we talked about the rumour.

      It still brought up interesting questions and let us know where people stand.

      I think AOL (or Corel, or IBM) needs to come out with their own distro of Linux, with the WM tweaked to look much like XP. If it supports browsing, playing video, and a decent office suite most users won't know the difference.

      MS has done a lot of cool things (dragging and dropping between different programs and getting the data formatting, etc) that other OSes lag a bit behind, but really, how often do 99.9% of people use that? If given the choice between some funky features and a "name brand" office suite, and $600 savings, which would they choose?

      And it's interesting that Alan C. was willing to leave RedHat (if the takeover happened) to ensure that he not only stays free of undue influence, but appears that way to everyone else.

      All in all, many useful things were said in these threads and they caused many people to think about things they otherwise wouldn't have.

      Maybe you should just learn to ignore stories with "rumour" in them.
    • One step ahead is my guess. Out of this we get.
      1. Don't mess up RedHat. Don't even look like you might. (You get an idea why there is no official IBM distribution).
      2. Surprising acceptance by the community of an AOLinux. Simplified, easy to use. Safe and secure. "Dumbed-down" won't cut it.

  • Woohoo! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Glock27 ( 446276 )
    That's the news I was waiting to hear!

    I don't think AOL-T-W are a good corporate culture match for Red Hat...I think Red Hat should stay true to it's current approach. Ultimately, Red Hat has a great chance to define "the next standard computing platform".

    Maybe this time, it'll actually be based on real standards! :-)

    299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!

    • Re:Woohoo! (Score:1, Interesting)

      by I.T.R.A.R.K. ( 533627 )
      Wouldn't it be something if in ten years, Redhat were in the same position of power as Microsoft is today?
      Anything is possible. Look at AMD, afterall. Look how far they have come against the behemoth that is/was Intel.

  • Reread... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Chagatai ( 524580 ) on Monday January 21, 2002 @06:22PM (#2879109) Homepage
    It doesn't say that the merger is completely out of the question. Here is what the article had to say:

    Sources familiar with the situation emphatically insisted the two companies are not near an acquisition deal, nor have they discussed one.

    and then...

    An AOL Time Warner spokeswoman, as a matter of company policy, would not discuss the merger rumor, and Durham, N.C.-based Red Hat could not be reached for comment because of the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. A Microsoft spokesman also declined to comment.

    I agree, it sounds like the merger is a farce, nothing more than a ploy to rile up people and boost some stock prices tomorrow morning, but you never know...

  • Well, I have to say I'm relieved. At the same time though, would it not be interesting to see what a Corporation like that would do with an existing Linux distro.

  • I'm not buying it... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by lkaos ( 187507 )
    So the Washington Post says that people close to the companies report that there are acquision talks but then CNN says that people close to the companies report that there aren't.

    I'm not buying any of it until one of the companies makes a press announcement or until one of the companies discloses a source.

    What I find funny though, is that when given the reason why each company (MS, AOL, RH) is not commenting, RedHat's excuse is the Martin Luther King Holiday weekend.

    They sure aren't going very far if they are taking this many holidays... I thought RH _wasn't_ a dot-com company. They should of atleast had people working Saturday and Sunday...
    • They should of atleast had people working Saturday and Sunday

      We do. I can't remember the last day I didn't work, for example.
      We just aren't in the office on weekends and holidays. ;)
  • And here I was, all set to sell my shares of Red Hat and buy 'em back after this whole thing settled down.

    Damn you, Martin Luther King, damn you and your banker's holiday!

  • I see the ploy (Score:5, Funny)

    by 3prong ( 241218 ) on Monday January 21, 2002 @06:25PM (#2879135)
    I get it! This is cheap market research.

    1) "Leak" a story that you are in talks to buy Red Hat.

    2) Observe the terabytes of feedback from industry analysts, reporters, and fanatical users.

    3) After denying everything as rumor,...

    4) ...bring several million dollars worth of free research to the next board meeting.

    5) Get a raise for your ingenious idea.

    • Re:I see the ploy (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I don't know if I'd trust Slashdot to do my million dollars worth of free research.

      "So, Jimbo, what'd you come up with?"
      "Well, RedHat seems to be a no go, but there may be an alternative... Have you ever heard of the CowboyNeaLinux Distribution?"

    • Re:I see the ploy (Score:3, Interesting)

      by JoeBuck ( 7947 )

      This kind of thing is actually a common Washington (DC) manouver called a "trial balloon". If the president's staffers have an idea they aren't sure about, they leak it to see what the pundits and the customers, um, I mean, the campaign contributors react. If people hate it, then they deny that it was ever a serious proposal in the first place. If people really hate it then they deny even having discussed such a disgraceful thing. If they like it, everyone competes to pretend he or she thought of the idea in the first place.

  • Famous last words... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Logic Bomb ( 122875 ) on Monday January 21, 2002 @06:26PM (#2879142)

    As said by Michael in the first item [slashdot.org] about this story:

    The Washington Post isn't exactly a rumor site, so there's probably truth behind it.

    That about made me want to puke when I read it. :-)

    • Deep Throat (Score:2, Informative)

      by Mighty-Troll ( 549627 )
      The Washington Post is actually considered a very legitamate newspaper. Remember Woodward and Bernstein? The movie All the president's men [imdb.com] chronicles the true events of a couple of post reporters and their dealings with "deep throat" the guy to this day who no one else knows who he is, a source that led them on the trail.

      I know this is slightly off topic, but the point in hand is if I hear something from the Washington Post I'm going to hold it in higher regards then say, the New York Post.

      Crap, I just defended a slashdot editor, someone mod this down so no one can see it!
      • Yeah, yeah, I know. It was a cheap shot. I read this story, remembered how I had snorted about the line from the first one, and just felt like being mean. Watergate was an awfully long time ago though... ;-)
      • Cmon, anyone could have reported that same story about any president back to the day wire tap was invented. It just happens to be they were right about Watergate, and <conspiracy_theory> that the media had a gripe against Nixon because he ended the Vietnam war and killed their ratings </conspiracy_theory>

  • Sounds like the HP-Compaq merger (Score:3, Interesting)

    by josquint ( 193951 ) on Monday January 21, 2002 @06:26PM (#2879143) Homepage
    Didn't get get the same line with the HP/Compaq deal?
    First it was a big rumor that it was going to happen.
    Then HP 'backed out' and denied it...
    then it was back on in a week...

    hmm... Funny this happens right after Cox says he'll leave under AOL.

    .
  • How could there be 'Sources familiar with the situation' when they are basically saying there is no 'situation' and they have not discussed a deal?

    I am surely missing a point here....

    --
    It was a narrow escape, if the sheep had been created first, man would
    have been a plagiarism.
    - Mark Twain
    • gignoux writes:

      > How could there be 'Sources familiar with the situation' when they
      > are basically saying there is no 'situation' and they have not discussed
      > a deal?

      Basically, the CNet article is a rumor. They could not get representatives of AOL/TW, Red Hat, or even Microsoft to comment one way or the other. So their sources must be external to any company involved.

      Anyway, you and I would count as "sources familiar with the situation", since we've both read about it and posted our opinions on Slashdot.

      "The path of peace is yours to discover for eternity."
      "Mosura", 1961
  • "No Red Hat-AOL Merger In The Works, Says CNET"

    I didn't realize Aoltimewarner had acquired CNET already. Hmmm ...

  • 11. New metric of average customer IQ all the rage on Wall Street.

    10. Fears Red Hat may use its monopoly of the 12 Linux using AOL subscribers against it to keep it off the KDE desktop.

    9. Securing the rights to "The Life and Times of Michael Tiemann" movie trilogy their highest priority.

    8. Confused Red Hat with the company that makes the Where in the World is Carmen San Diego game.

    7. Can simply modify ad campaign to say, "So difficult no wonder you'll have to ask your geek nephew for help printing."

    6. Running out of computer users to alienate.

    5. "The kids keep teasing me about not being cutting edge, so I had to do something about it, Mom"

    4. Negotiations to purchase Microsoft not going so well.

    3. Because Red Hat said they would give them the source code to Linux if AOL Time Warner purchased them.

    2. Wanted to add to their growing stable of technological has-beens.

    1. Steve Case is following 2 month salary rule of thumb for purchasing other companies.
  • Wired is picking up on this rumor/story [wired.com] a bit late....

    Mark
  • Are these the same sources "familiar with the matter" that said they were in talks to begin with?

  • Lies, damned lies and... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zillatron ( 415756 ) on Monday January 21, 2002 @06:43PM (#2879262)
    My favorite part:
    AOL subscribers swelled from 9 million in autumn1997 to 33 million at the beginning of this year. In December alone, AOL gained 1.9 million new subscribers, the company said. MSN, by contrast, foundered for years, going from 2.5 million subscribers in 1997 to 7.7 million in December.

    Translation: in several years time AOL more than tripled subscribership whereas MSN only got slightly more than three times the number of subscribers in that same time period.

    • Re:Lies, damned lies and... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by rutledjw ( 447990 ) on Monday January 21, 2002 @08:34PM (#2879828) Homepage
      HOLD ON THERE TIGER. What is NOT shown in that number is that MSN has purchased many of those users. Take Qwest (Q-worst?) for example. I was fat, dumb and happy using Qwest DSL and qwest.net. Then the BORG, Redmond division, came in and purchased the Qwest.net subscriber base.

      We were told of this marvelous "Upgrade" to the garbage that is MSN. I work from home and have had as many as 5 machines (Linux, Solaris and a windows box) networked and connected to the net at a time.

      I now pay $20 more a month to remain a qwest user so I can actually use the service.

      /rant

      Sorry, blood pressure rose there for a moment... The point is that MSN BOUGHT many of those users, or there were people foolish enough to USE the 6-month free MSN subscription with their new computers.
  • The AOL service currently is available only for Windows and the Macintosh, although
    the Netscape supports Linux.
    ...

    The applications in the U.S. tend to be apart from servers tend to be OEM set-top boxes.
    Methinks they need some editors over there...
  • Is its people. Alan Cox and all the other top flight Linux programers that work for them. If RedHat were bought by AOL/TW many of them would jump ship. If someone were to buy RedHat they would have to be someone who those people would want to work for. Or do something to get them to stay.

    However I can see AOL/TW working with redhat on set-top boxes or other projects, but not outright buying them.

  • AOL/GNU/Linux (Score:3, Funny)

    by Kappelmeister ( 464986 ) on Monday January 21, 2002 @06:57PM (#2879357)
    So easy to use, no wonder it has a negligible desktop market share!

  • Dang (Score:2, Funny)

    by Ruis ( 21357 )
    I was hoping to get a million red hat cd's in the mail.
  • ... to call the absorption of RedHat by AOL/Time/Warner/whatever-else a "merger".
  • If there are sources familiar with the matter, then doesn't that show the existence of the matter?
  • Maybe this is why the RH execs have stopped selling stock? [yahoo.com] They know something is in the works, or they knew that there was a planned leak for the AOL-TW buyout? Curious stuff.
  • It's been officially denied.

    Obviously this is going to happen for sure now.
  • It seems more reasonable to me that AOL would buy a more proven consumer OS which would be used in combination with the awesome designs of the new Macs to market to the general computer users. Perhaps a subsidy from AOL would make the iMac machines more affordable and come with all the pieces of software needed for a great user experience.

  • Linux CDs in the mail? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cosyne ( 324176 ) on Monday January 21, 2002 @07:41PM (#2879595) Homepage
    Think about it. Why wouldn't it be a good thing for everyone in the US to get a CD with the AOLinux distro on it every month or so? I just popped in a CD off my spindle of AOL CDs [ucsd.edu], and it had like 200 megs of blank space on it. They could leave the windoze (and macintosh?) clients intact, and use the other 200 Megs for a compact linux distro. There's no reason they need to use redhat- people like my mom just want to be able to email, surf, write letters, and print. Throw in an MP3/CD burning suite, and you've got just about everything covered. (If AOL wanted to, they could even make DVD playing software that the MPAA, and thus the average consumer, is happy with). I'm sure AOL could fund their own team to put together a little distro which is reliable and secure and targeted to towards people with compaq, dell, hp, or gateway systems that they got off the shelf at frys or compusa (think of it like a PC-to-internet appliance conversion). Ignoring, for now, the implications of having AOL in charge of your operating system (what, like that'd be any worse than M$?), it could be beneficial to the average luser to have a single monolithic system installed on their machine in which all the applications they want are designed to work directly with the OS. From AOL's point of view, it could be nice to have control over the OS that their client is runnig on, and not having to worry about what little component of the system microsoft botched this week. And from the /. perspective, it could be good to expand the linux user base to some signifigant fraction of AOL's. Plus, once you get a bunch of family PCs out there with linux, their 13 year old kids can start using linux to run more than just the AOL client.
    Just a question.

    • Whoa! For a minute, I thought you said, "from the /. perspective, it could be good to expand the slashdot user base to some significant fraction of AOL's."

  • At first, I thought it would be great if AOL built a kiosk around Linux. Target it for the five year old PCs that families are now replacing. Make an AOL kiosk out of it and give it to the kids or Grandmom. But then I got to thinking, and realized that the GPL doesn't do anything to stop AOL from releasing all their code as closed source. There really is nothing saying that they are going to contribute back to the open source community.

    Then you have to look at the difference between Linus and the GNU project. Did Linus really want everything that runs under Linux to be GPL'd, or did he just want to build a solid development platform leaving room in his plans for closed-source applications?
  • I think it's sad that it won't happen. Red Hat was the wrong distro for them to buy, of course, since it is highly priced because it has a brand name. AOL doesn't need the brand name in the slightest, and would not pay a premium to get it.

    AOL/TW has a giant brand, and it would make sense for them to buy or start a linux distro, and produce a bundle with OS, browser, AOL software, basic applications suite, photo/video/media suite and some games.

    This could happily run on older PCs, too but the AOL PC, based on one of those all in one motherboards would be dirt cheap and a serious competitor.

    And it would do wonders for Linux. As millions of these units got deployed, there would finally be a user base and market for Linux products, and a stronger demand for hardware vendors to provide linux drivers.

    Everybody, including Alan Cox, should welcome AOL pushing linux.

  • 1. The people who started the rumor in Silly Valley and told their "friends" to buy RHAT have already sold.

    2. The "friends" of the people who started the rumor asked for a pullback so they could get in too.

    Notice that friends is in quotes. I don't want to sound too cynical, but with stakes like these it's hard to have real friends.

    I think scenario 2 is more likely. Why else would you build up such a fevered pitch over the weekend and then demolish it before Wall Street has a chance to trade?

    Of course it's entirely possible that there is no market manipulation going on at all (snicker).

  • Red Hat, or Dark Helmet? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21, 2002 @09:03PM (#2879926)
    "AOL Time Warner Inc. is in talks to buy Red Hat Inc., a prominent distributor of a computer operating system, an acquisition that would position the media giant to challenge arch rival Microsoft Corp., according to sources familiar with the matter."
    "CNet News is reporting that AOL Time Warner apparently is NOT making a bid to buy Linux manufacturer Red Hat, said sources familiar with the matter."
    This just in: "Ha ha! Foooooled you!", said sources familiar with the matter.

  • Red Hat means saving money? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kenneth_martens ( 320269 ) on Monday January 21, 2002 @09:32PM (#2880027)
    According to the article, one of the reasons Red Hat might gain market share outside of the United States is because "a desktop vendor in Latin America or especially China, if they can save 50 to 60 bucks on a PC that's a big deal." Having lived overseas (the Philippines) I can say from personal experience that at least some of the desktop vendors do not pay for the copies of Windows they install on new systems. So a free OS may not be that big an incentive. (And I don't believe for a minute that the Windows XP registration will put a stop to this sort of piracy--it will only stop the casual home piracy.)
  • A man looking eerily like William Kennedy Smith was overheard today at the Old Dominion Brewery, Ashburn, VA:

    "The guy at Sports Authority tells me it will work my shoulder muscles and improve my swing. So I say, sure, I'll buy a lead bat."

  • Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Hal-9001 ( 43188 ) on Monday January 21, 2002 @10:46PM (#2880237) Homepage Journal
    AOL Time Warner apparently is not making a bid to buy Linux manufacturer Red Hat, said sources familiar with the matter.
    If there is no matter, then how could these sources be familiar with it? Am I the only one who has a problem with this? Even if the author meant "highly placed sources," I'm not sure I would take them at face value.

    On the flip side, predicting that AOL will never buy Red Hat is like predicting the end of the world--no one cares if you're right, and everyone just makes fun of you if you're wrong...

  • In my not-so humble opinion as a leading expert on this subject, AOL should not purchase Red Hat. The reason for this is simple: AOL is not and should not be in the operating system business.

    A company should have its focus on a specific thing, and then put all its energy into being the best at that thing. As AOL is clearly in the business of providing Internet service to its subscribers, it should concentrate on that endeavor.

    This does not, however, mean that AOL cannot make some sort of agreement with Red Hat to bundle a native Linux version of the America Online client software. In fact, I believe that AOL and Red Hat should make a "strategic alliance" in order to compete with the Evil Empire, otherwise known as Micro s oft.

    In fact, Red Hat should make such strategic alliances with every company out there that competes with Micro s oft on any level. For example, the Quicken people, just as an example off the top of my head. Having so-called "brand name" commercial software available for the Linux platform would certainly give millions of Windows users out there a plausible alternative.

    xx O xx H xx xx W xx E xx L xx L xx

  • Purchase Be. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Picass0 ( 147474 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2002 @12:13AM (#2880478) Homepage Journal
    If Palm is actually dividing the hardware and software sides of the house, they just might be interesting in selling or licensing Be to AOL.

    From AOL's perspective this might be a more desireable move, as Be's source isn't open to all, and It doesn't have a reputation as a "hacker OS".

    Be has better multimedia support (important to Joe Average).

    AOL doesn't need to worry about code forking with Be ,which could happen on numerous Linux projects if AOL gets in our pool. There are some strongly independant types who would do everything they could to insure incompatability with Red Hat AOL. That's not an issue with Be.
    • *Might* have been true at one point, but no longer. Might still be a superior architecture for content creation/changing, but the file format/codec support was always insufficient, though it was better than Linux at on epoint (Linux has now passed it, easily). Be's Media player was absolute crap, couldn't even playMPG system files well, they would have horrible frame loss. Media was decoded faster under linux on my 200 MHz machine than it was on my 400 MHz under BeOS. I truly admired the OS and thought it would be awesome for Desktop users, but I never did accept the claim that it was a superior multimedia OS, I thought it *could* be, with a lot of work, but for now if I had to do content creation quickly, I'd still have to use either Windows or Mac. The tools are coming slowly for Linux, but nothing on the level of Premiere...

      That being said, if they would want to put some work into Be's media capabilities, It might be a good choice for a net appliance. Of course, *if* AOL wants to acquire an OS, it'll probably just let it sit still for the most part and just use it as leverage to keep MS from yanking the carpet out from under them...
  • Umm... Why does anyone give a second thought to anything said by CNET? If anything, the whole Mozilla-Office crap CNET reported a while back should have shown everyone that CNET is essentially an online tabloid for the (only slightly) technically inclined.

Slashdot Top Deals

There is no opinion so absurd that some philosopher will not express it. -- Marcus Tullius Cicero, "Ad familiares"

Close