what is the odds of aohell buying out RH?
----- Original Message ----- From: "ABrady" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 8:43 AM Subject: Re: AOL in Negotiations to Buy Red Hat > Dave Ihnat said: > > > On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 09:14:23AM -0600, ABrady wrote: > > > I can see the new, improved slogan: > > > > > > "It's so simple, any simpleton can use it!" > > > > > > It would likely lead some windolts away from windoze and let them > > > pretend they're _real_ power users now. In about 20 minutes the > linux > > > world will be flooded with new worms and causing major overloads on > > > servers passing the new Linux Homepage Virus to everybody in each > user's > > > Evolution addressbook. > > > > > > No thanks! > > > > Well, I've lived through the predictions of doom'n'gloom due to the > > incipient presence of the hoi polloi since the early '80s; that's not > > got me so worried, per se. > > > > First, by allowing anyone on USENET--not just academia and > > business/research-- it was going to be degraded below usability. > > In some respects, it was; in others, it just picked up and kept > moving, > > eventually leading to the rise of the Internet. USENET still lives, > > but is pretty much a backwater compared to its position of preeminence > > in the early days. > > > > Then, it was allowing commercial use of USENET. THAT was going to > ruin > > it. In some ways, it got worse, but there were enough bytes to go > around. > > > > THEN, it was anyone and everyone setting up web sites; the pollution > > was going to ruin everything. THEN, in very short order, it was > > advertisements on the Web. > > > > What's fundamentally different with this is that a major resource > > will be taken over and used as a tool in AOL's war with Microsoft. > > This means it is NOT going to evolve in the same general direction as > a > > "free-range" Linux system, but rather, the focus will be to provide > tools > > and a facade that supports AOL Time-Warner's specific goals. > > > > This will probably remove it from contention as a general-purpose > server > > platform, AND as a high-end professional desktop, since even if they > > _intend_ to try to tell us they're going to continue to provide such > > lines, the inevitable fragmentation of focus, dilution of development > > efforts, and complexity of trying ot maintain several variant product > > lines is an exceedingly difficult task. And it's made even moreso by > the > > fact that Linux itself is still rapidly evolving, meaning they'd have > to > > absorb new features in all lines concurrently. I just don't think > they're > > at that level of organization in this field. Or corporate commitment. > > > > $0.02, YMMV, Pre-coffee. > > I don't argue on the side of doom and gloom often. I don't always turn > out right when I do. But I turn out right more often than I turn out > wrong. If it was the other way I'd be less inclined to continue trying. > > I don't doubt that AOL would continue to work toward some kind of linux. > Corel did, too. I look at the quality of that product (mediocre) and the > quality of most everything else associated with AOL (bad to mediocre) > when I have serious doubts about what > happens here. > > In the beginning, there likely won't be anything to really notice about > changes in things. But, as time passes, things will change. The need to > gain more and more users will be the cause for a push into areas that > aren't aimed at stability and security, but ease of use and eye-candy > and convenience. Things will begin looking a lot like the desktop for > the people that they are fighting against at the expense of much more > important things. > > I escaped windoze for several reasons. One of the components I haven't > missed is AOL being on the desktop every time I install or reinstall > anything. Or maybe I should reword that to say I miss them about like I > miss a few ingrown toenails I've had. > > I watched them gobble up Netscape. Where is it now? > > I look at their commercials (after all, they're everywhere you can look > on TV and in mags) and I see somebody pointing straight at the lowest > common denominator. Well, MS goes for the lowest common denominator. > What is the result from that effort? Ex-Pee with security holes the size > of China, problems with CD writers, themes that won't stay how the users > set them, hardware that doesn't work (even with updated drivers), > spontaneous reboots (as a replacement for the BSOD), stop errors that > are just as cryptic to most people as the hexcodes on BSODs. Not to > mention all of the problems created by the WPA: licenses expiring after > a reinstall that was required due to previous instability, booting and > getting notices that the "trial" installation they are running is about > to timeout (even though it was bought and actiuvate properly), the > inability to install multiple machines with the same release and copy > (except for the coporate versions, which allow everybody to install as > many times as they like, presumably until the BSA comes around and > threatenes to sue them for millions and coerces them into signing their > lives away forever, only using the distro du jour). Obviously, if this > distro becomes a pawn in the shell game of these two, some method will > surely be created to disallow installing parts of one with parts of the > other, so likely there'll be something WPA-like with everything AOL > owns, too. > > I look at the fact they gobbled up Time/Warner, who gobbled up Turner. > CNN is losing ground, in part because of the poor quality of their > reporting. But I don't see any major strides in recapturing the market > share they've lost. It might not be AOL's fault, but it's happened on > their watch. > > About the only thing I see that actually has grown under AOL is AOL. > I'll tell you, I'm not interested in chat rooms and buddy lists. I don't > need keywords. I don't like spending 20 minutes downloading upgrades to > who knows what every time I login for the first time that day. I did > that before. I quit doing it a long time ago. THAT's what AOL means to > me! > > What this very easily could turn out to be IMHO is a slow erosion from > the quality the was RedHat to the simplistic methodology that permeates > everything AOL. Not because of interest in spreading the use of linux, > but in the interest of attracting more users away from MS. > > I wouldn't and won't care if the quality continues as it has been. I'll > stick around unless and until I begin seeing signs of erosion. If it > doesn't, I won't > > I've lived in several cities in my life. Not suburbs, in the cities. > I've prided myself on always knowing when to move before things turned > ugly. I've been keen on seeing the direction things were going long > before they actually began to appear. I think if I'm watchful enough I > might just be able to do the same here. Again, that presumes it actually > worsens. If it doesn't I have no reason to go anywhere. I'm just not > hopeful, given the track record of AOL, that any version of linux they > own can ever be successful. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Redhat-list mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
