Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Linux
Exclusive: AOL embraces Linux and Mozilla, plans to drop MS Explorer
Share
Print
CommentsSources inside AOL and Red Hat say AOL is making a major internal switch to Linux, and the long-rumored AOL default browser switch from Microsoft's Internet Explorer to Mozilla -- or at least Mozilla's Gecko rendering engine -- is is well under way, but AOL will probably not offer an AOL client for Linux in the foreseeable future.
AOL is switching to Linux for the same reason most large companies make the change: to save money. Thousands of AOL servers are already 100% Linux, and more are switching over every day. AOL number-crunchers figure they can replace an $80,000 box running proprietary UNIX with two $5,000 Linux boxes and get a 50% increase in performance in addition to the cost savings. "Don't tell our competitors," one of our AOL contacts says. "Let them keep buying expensive crap."
We hear that every hardware vendor who approaches AOL is now being asked, "How is your support for Linux?" before they are even allowed to make a sales presentation.
Microsoft's server products have never been seriously considered by AOL, according to our insiders. "The licenses cost too much, their hardware requirements are excessive, they take too much labor to maintain, and we have enough security problems of our own without adding Microsoft's," says an AOL bean-counter who has access to the company's server cost numbers.
Good-bye Explorer, hello Mozilla
The Gecko rendering engine at the heart of the Mozilla Web browser is scheduled to replace Microsoft's Internet Explorer as AOL's default browser -- the one in the millions of free AOL CDs distributed every year -- in the 8.0 version of AOL's client software. (The current version is 7.0.) The Gecko rendering engine is already being shipped as a "beta" test product in some CompuServe client software packages, and reports from CompuServe users who have chosen to use Gecko instead of Explorer have been described as "very positive." This customer feedback is an important part of AOL's browser decision process. "We hear the question, 'What is the member impact?' whenever we are faced with a technical decision," says one of our contacts. And so far, it sounds like member impact of an AOL switch from Explorer to Gecko will be almost entirely positive.
"With Gecko, we have control over the client software and don't have to worry about Microsoft screwing up our streaming [audio and video]," says one AOL sysadmin. There is also concern at AOL about Explorer's "poor use" of the HTTP 1.1 Protocol. Our AOL sysadmin says, "HTTP 1.1 has lots more features than most people use," but AOL can make good use of many lesser-known ones like chunking, that are not supported by Explorer because, says our AOL sysadmin friend, "MSIE doesn't follow the spec correctly."
Even if future versions of Explorer manage to incorporate chunking and other features AOL wants members to use -- because they minimize download time and bandwith used per Web page delivered -- another AOL techie says, "It's still easier to optimize eveything when we finally control both the server and the client, and can make them work as smoothly together as possible."
All AOL tech people we spoke to denied that corporate dislike of Microsoft played any part in their preference for either Linux or Mozilla's Gecko rendering engine. They said their choices were made purely on what worked best in tests they had run; that their concern was not corporate politics but to make life easier and smoother -- and downloads faster -- for AOL members.
The only thing that might delay -- not stop, just delay -- AOL's change from Explorer to a Mozilla-based browser is allowing time for some of AOL's largest and most important "partner sites" to do away with any Explorer-specific features they have been using in place of W3C standards.
A browser shift by AOL is going to leave an awful lot of companies that assume their Web sites only need to work with Explorer scrambling to rewrite their code so that they don't lose AOL's 30 million-plus subscribers, or about 30% of all U.S. Internet users.
AOL for Linux users? Don't hold your breath
The basic problem with Linux support, says one of our AOL insiders, "is that AOL ALWAYS provides support for free. Hence the client is rather primitive/conservative in its feature set. This makes the AOL client reliable (relative to the software industry standards), because every 800-number support call comes right out of our profits. There are 15,000 AOL employees. Roughly 10,000 work at the Call Centers. We really, really don't want more phone calls from members.
"Now think of a Linux client. Either we completely disavow support for it (which is a very un-AOL thing to do), or we try to support every reasonably-up-to-date Linux config in the world. Even with the reasonably-up-to-date caveat, that is a hard thing to do. Where is the market and the demand?"
There was once a Linux-based AOL client "pseudo-computer" on the market that generated very few support calls, but that was because hardly anyone bought it. It was one of those "Internet appliances" every computer company was hot to sell a couple of years ago, but no consumers seemed to want it in place of a "real" computer.
Perhaps there will be an "AOL-compatible" Linux computer on the market one day, but chances are that it will be sold and supported by a company like OEone, Lycoris or even Lindows, who would probably just try to run the AOL client for Windows under WINE, anyway.
But don't hold your breath. No AOL employee we have talked to, at any level, claims knowledge of any current or future plans to offer AOL client software for Linux users.
What it all means
Obviously, a major AOL support contract would be a big win for Red Hat. It's not in the bag yet; negotiations are not complete and are still "very touchy," says one Red Hat person, and that's why Red Hat is still keeping mum instead of shouting joyfully from the rooftops.
If AOL's techies have their way, the contract will go through without further delay. One of them seems to think it is already a done deal, with only a little i-dotting and t-crossing left before it becomes final. "We get to bitch to Alan Cox about kernel problems now," he says exultantly.
On the browser front, once AOL switches to the Mozilla rendering engine, Netscape and Mozilla users -- and possibly Opera, Galeon and Konq users as well -- will no longer find themselves staring angrily at "Best viewed with Internet Explorer" or "You cannot access all features of this site unless you use Internet Explorer" tag lines -- except, possibly at MSN, which already requires Explorer and Windows Media Player to listen to music. This may be bad for Microsoft, but more Web sites following industry-wide standards is good for everyone else. Maybe the Web Standards Project will finally get some of the respect and cooperation it has deserved all along.
As far as an AOL client for Linux, one Linux-using AOL employee says, "How many Linux people do you know personally who would sign up for AOL if we had a Linux client? I don't know a single one, myself. I have an account with another ISP I use at home with my Linux box, and probably wouldn't use AOL from home even if I could."
The only way AOL could provide a cost-effective Linux client, given its "total support for free" policy, would be to market a real, full-featured personal computer (as opposed to an "Internet appliance") that runs Linux and is preconfigured for AOL. The target market for this computer would not be sophisticated Linux users, but current AOL subscribers who want to replace their current boxes, and it would need to be a very low-cost item to succeed in that market.
Perhaps one of the world's many stalwart Linux entrepreneurs will eventually convince AOL management that an AOL-branded, consumer-priced Linux box is a good idea. Otherwise, AOL will probably stick to the current corporate operating system pattern: Linux in the server room, Windows or Mac on user desktops -- except that AOL-ized desktops will run the AOL browser and its Mozilla rendering engine instead of Microsoft Explorer.
Comments
on Exclusive: AOL embraces Linux and Mozilla, plans to drop MS ExplorerNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
They aren't afraid of the hardcore Linux user using the service (although how many hc users would be caught using AOL as their provider). They are afraid of the user who is using Linux for some strange reason (cheap) and is going to be on the phone with them twenty-four seven. Rather than increasing profit by gaining more users, it will cut into them with the increased support that average Linux users would require.
As for the idea of the Java Client... Bring it on. Maybe.
Disagree, especially the part about the experienced user (experienced user new to the platform should be able to figure it out pretty quickly if they are worth any salt). For a newbie they could get dazzled and confused by the huge array of apps that most popular desktops have. Only reason to call WinXP easier is because its so familier to them.
"They aren't afraid of the hardcore Linux user using the service (although how many hc users would be caught using AOL as their provider). They are afraid of the user who is using Linux for some strange reason (cheap) and is going to be on the phone with them twenty-four seven. Rather than increasing profit by gaining more users, it will cut into them with the increased support that average Linux users would require."
True, support is actually very expensive. Which might be one reason why AOL is so expensive, that $20 a month is actually covering the support equation (well at least partly), but support center's don't pay for themselves.
an absolute joy to use. It's so easy and fun
that I just enjoy the heck out of my job.
Re:Linux is not all that user friendly - Damn Lies
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 12, 2002 05:34 AMBleating, 6-finger dweezles is, I believe the correct technical description. 'Course they can screw around groping their fav low-beta electro-mechanic blo-up doll, but then 0.025% of any group performs absolutely no useful work.
Had the exact same argument with someone who worked at MS, all he could say was that passport worked with the old Netscape, but not with the new Mozilla/Netscape etc. One way to have killed support on Linux is to force people to use the old nutscrape.
Plus if it seemingly did become popular, who's to tell they wouldn't shut off support with one of those "you must upgrade to a better browser" messages.
I've prefered Mozilla to IE since tabbed browsing--especially with a middle-click, load in background in a new tab setting.
First, just because they offer a toll-free number for members to call does NOT mean that AOL "always provides toll free support". What they mean is, "we have a toll-free number that you can call, we will give you one minute to state your problem, deflect you somewhere else or send you a fix in the e-mail, and then upsell you some long distance".
Generally, for about two out of three problems, the phone rep listens to the problem and offers another number to call or explains that because it is a free product or feature, we don't support it.
The number one thing AOL reps were taught in the 90s was to get the member off the phone fast, the mantra was "send em to bubba", where "bubba" was anyone besides us (hardware vendor, ISP, microsoft, whoever).
The list of things that AOL does not support is HUGE, and gets bigger every day. AOL hasn't fully supported a 16-bit client over the phone in a long time, and that's a bad practice. Think of the retired fellows with tons of money in the bank but no need for a new computer beyond e-mail. AOL locks them out from using the service, losing out on their money (getting members to shop online with shop@aol is the number one goal at AOL), and generally loses a subscriber, due to not wanting to teach new phone reps the ins and outs of older programs.
AIM: I was one of two people who provided tech support for AIM for a couple of years, and it was ONLY done via e-mail. Same thing for "products" like AOL Search, AOL Hometown, AOL Speaks, Netscape, AOL Coach, QuickBuddy, Mail Alerts.... even a paying AOL member could not get questions answered about AIM over the telephone.
Of course I could cry and say that this all started when such and such took over this and that department and now they don't care, but it happened so quickly and so gradually... truth is that back in the day, AOL cared a little bit more. Then they got sued many times for many different reasons, and now they care only as much as 1. it takes to keep them out of legal trouble and 2. they can push the phone tech slave labor without causing them to crack (a few of them did.)
AOL does maintain a large tech support team in Ogden, Utah that handles special clients and products (the sister team was located in Jacksonville FL until it was dissolved to make way for... ugh... "AOL@School"... another fine software program that had NO SUPPORT beyond installation and ordering disks.) The third party team in Ogden would probably handle AOL on Linux unless they've been dumbed down beyond their former capabilities, too.
The AOL clients that run on Java (Mandalon and .... something..... Mega? there's a different version for Netscape and MSIE) were decent last time I checked (a year ago), keep them in the browser, the way real online services are meant to be. That's the software that powered the Gateway TouchPad or Quickwhatever.... it was a failure because it was a P.O.S.
Bottom line is that AOL software is a joke, has been a joke, and will continue to be a joke, and no Linux advocate should want their fine OS sullied by the taint of AOL, no matter how far it will advance "Linux on the desktop".
Any software changes were made to either automatically eliminate problems, or to make fixing them simple. TS had a good database of problems and solutions. Often customers would call asking for help with problems that had nothing to do with our product...and those calls tend to be some of the longest.
While I understand your frustration, getting the customer off the phone serves one purpose; being able to help the next customer since you are still employed. AOL is big, so small losses won't be missed, but over all the call time must be low. If it isn't, the type of product or service you offer has to change in some way, and it can't always be in dollar cost.
They've only got 2 things going for them - but they're the most important 2 things, indeed.
1. New computer users don't have to think to use AOL. They get a disk in the mail (every week!), they put it in, they're online.
2. They're everywhere. Even hardline AOL-haters still keep an account because no matter where they go in the world, they can still get online.
The main point in this article that we all should be taking away is not that AOL is going to lean towards Linux (they have been for quite a while) and we needn't argue about that - but that we as webmasters need to make sure our sites work with all of those newbie ID10T AOL users' browsers.
As a web host, I'd love nothing more than to see people stop using FrontPage in droves because it no longer works with the majority of today's surfers... then again I'm an anti-FP bigot. ;)
They take free stuff, and make it proprietary (You may not freely redistribute or modify SuSE CDs.) Microsoft at least owns the code they're taking proprietary.
Debian is ok, but too hard to handle, and not commercially supported, which is a requirement for AOL.
Now look at Red Hat: They make a pretty good distribution (its only major flaw is the crappy choice of default desktops, which is fixed easily), and everything they do is GPL.
Go Red Hat!!!
and on a side note. i get a little tired of hearing the flame wars within our own community. if you use a *nix box. i don't care WHAT it is. be it a mac!! (ewwwh ;)
Anyway, that's just my two cents.
Besides, if they wanted a true desktop Linux, why not Mandrake, Lycoris or Xandros? These are more geared towards the desktop.
And with branding - the AOL brand is all that matters here.
No kidding. I mean, the site works with LYNX for chrissakes, yet they block Mozilla.
Insane.
I wouldn't want to to electronic banking on any bank running a website made by incompetent clueless amateurs. How will they ever understand and address my electronic banking needs, if they don't even understand the basics of the Internet such as how to make a website? I could never trust them to do the right thing, not even with two suns.
Most other banks like www.bankofamerica.com , www.citibank.com do seem to know what they're doinig. Even most credit unions can do it. I'll take my banking there thank you, goodbye suntrust.
1) They have branches close to both my Maryland and Florida homes.
2) I can do my online banking with BofA in Linux, no problem. And I wrote a nice little note to webmaster@ thanking them for making a cross-platform site and letting them know this was a major reason they were getting my business.
As far as Citibank, one of the VPs who runs their online banking services was one of my favorite limousine customers back when I was still doing limo work. He and I used to talk about computer stuff all the time. I'm sure the fact that Citibank's site is 100% cross-platform (and runs on Unix & Linux behind the scenes) has nothing to do with those little conversations we used to have, nor with the fact that this consummate suit -- who was hired for his marketing and retail skills and was never a computer whiz -- took my advice and loaded Linux on his home computer and started playing with it as a way to help him learn what the (Unix) geeks who worked for him were talking about.
A Linux-using bank VP is not going to let his company's site use Microsoft-only features. There are lots of "closet" Linux people within BofA management too, I hear...
- Robin
As for why you can't find this article elsewhere -- in the news business, this is called an "exclusive" or sometimes a "scoop." Robin did his homework, got people inside AOL and Red Hat to talk to him, and reported the story before anyone else did. We like to think that happens pretty often at NewsForge, but in this case, it's a scoop that's a really big deal.
Someone has to be the first to report a piece of news. In this case, it's us.
Grant
When AOL 8.0 is being promoted heavily, I'm sure that there will be plenty of names in the press to link quotes to...though I doubt any of those quotes will have the word 'crap' in them.
They can stick to the linux tradition of just suppling good documentation and not worry about support. If the demand becomes great then they can plan support options.
Another option is to open its protocal to talk to their network to get content etc, and let us develop our own open source clients!
Jim
>>>to create a cheap computer?
HP :-)
Microsoft :-(
Seriously... Compaq supplies a lot of non-Wintel gear to AOL (or did...),
but the HP merger is likely to change the playing field considerably.
(No, not 'level' it, at least as long as Carly still has her AKC registration)
And I hope you don't think that Compaq is going to go do something like that without Microsoft's permission. Whether you or the DOJ or anyone else realizes it, Michael 'Curly' Capellas has bent over so often to let MS screw Compaq over, he's unable to stand up anymore. (Notice how much the "Access" group at Compaq, which consists of the corporate and individual PCs as well as the handhelds, "contributed" to Compaq's bottom line last year - yeah, a loss on the order of half a billion dollars? Thank you, Uncle Bill - Compaq employees didn't get a raise because of that, but Curly and Carly were promised $115 million to pull of the merger!)
No, any AOL client software for Linux should be architecture- and distribution-independent. If they did that AND did something to clean up their spam controls, and allowed users to KEEP their preferences and not cancel them willy-nilly, and not charge their AOL bills for LOCAL telephone calls (e.g., Concord, N.H.'s 369 exchange is supposed to be a local call from the local calling area, EXCEPT apparently to AOL's access numbers - how strange... wonder what the NHPUC is going to do about that??), then maybe they might show some hint of corporate responsibility.
I waited 3+ years for AOL to port their crappy client to Windows NT, and they never really did.
They "gave" the Linux community the sources to
AIM and then bitched like hell because some folks had the temerity to actually use it!
Sorry, but if AOLTW wants my business again, they'll have to work very, very hard to clean up their act and start behaving responsibly. Monopolies like Microsoft and AOLTW will, sooner or later, be required to obey the law. Remember, the bigger they are, the harder they fall. (e.g., Enron)
Umm, MS HAS been trying to "grind Lusrs up into mindless byte-slaves" (like slagging off the GPL etc, or the Hallowe'en documents, using lock-in with proprietary standards etc). It got you didn't it?
Cock.
Well I think this move by AOL will broadcast it loud and clear!
Well, I'd be happy to save the $us300 a year that my linux dial-in account soaks up. I have AOL because I have a bunch of family that use it, and refuse to move to other providers. That's the only real use I have for Windows, and I wish they'd make a client that would work in Wine, at least.
They could promote a Linux client as "experimental and unsupported", but I doubt that they will. I wonder if they're going to drop support for Opera and others as the user's browser. (You don't have to use IE for internet acccess at the moment, only for accessing their "AOL content".)
This is not about support; this is about control, source to ear&eyeball.
Re:Isn't the W3C standards the most important bit?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 12, 2002 03:01 AMI'm not the only designer/developer that quotes a customer one price for IE, NN4 and NN6.2 comaptibilty and adds $500 or more for NN6.0 compatibility.
The NN6 project began with a "screw MS/IE" attitude as the developers message board clearly demonstrates. They knew the rendering engine and DOM were broken when they started the project and refused to fix it first. They used a literal interpretation of the W3C standards despite being unusable in the "real world". And, worst of all, completely ignored YOU by having no backward compatibility with NN version 4.
The NN6 development project was merely an example of Anti-Microsoft developers having a tantrum. But, the public was smarter than they gave them credit for and it was largely ignored until they fixed most of the problems with 6.1 then 6.2. They learned that it's not what THEY want that matters. It's what the users want. Unless and until Netscape/AOL, Mozilla, Opera (one I personally like alot), can reliably render a webpage as the site owner and his viewers want it to be seen, they will continue to be second rate at best and a has-been at worst.
Re:Isn't the W3C standards the most important bit?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 12, 2002 01:18 PMThere is no difference between the 'NN 6 project' as you put it and the NN 6.1 or NN 6.2 projects. They are simply the same Mozilla project at a pre-beta, early beta and late beta stages.
Re:Isn't the W3C standards the most important bit?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 12, 2002 03:45 PMSo, to reiterate, How is Netscape releasing 6.0 different than Microsoft releasing any of their products with known bugs. Arrogance is arrogance and it doesn't matter who's logo appears on the product.
Re:Isn't the W3C standards the most important bit?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 14, 2002 04:34 AMAll Linux users really need is for AOL to provide good, *solid*, well-priced ISP service and they'd be a big hit. *Just* ISP, no clients, nothing else. If they could partner with someone to offer broadband as well, that'd be great.
The only support calls they'd get would be for network-related stuff (DNS, routers, etc) that they'd get from Windows users. But since there's no AOL Linux client, just solid connectivity with the existing Linux network tools, AOL wouldn't have that headache (to the degree they would if they offered more than just connectivity & email / web hosting).
...they already offer broadband aol.
My point is.. they are doing a good job at being a business.. AOL doesn't cater to the minority.. they cater to the majority, because the majority is where profits lie.
If AOL would just limit themselves to being a *great* ISP, without any client s/w at all, that would be MORE than enough.
"If you use Mozilla, we cannot promise the AOL browser works on future Windows versions , but here's an IE licensing deal that solves such problems...".
You're forgetting that with 1/3 of the US ISP market, AOL has a lot of clout. AOL is no Netscape or Borland, and there would be a HUGE AOL backlash against M$ if they ever tried to sabotage AOL on Windows, otherwise, they would have done it already.
Hope the Gecko/Mozilla thing doesn't backfire
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 12, 2002 04:13 AMLike most others here, I'd be very happy to see IE's stranglehold broken. AOL using a Gecko-based browser would go a long way towards making that happen.
What I think MS will do, though, is to start spreading FUD about "use MSN, AOL's browser is broken". In other words, they'll start having ads that list the (broken) IE-only sites, and put the spin on it that Joe Average should "get a browser that can render all these sites". It's ugly, but not beyond MS's marketing department. That could backfire on AOL and Mozilla in a nasty way.
Re:Hope the Gecko/Mozilla thing doesn't backfire
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 12, 2002 05:19 AMThe big part of this isn't whether they should have the choice of IE or not, I don't think any of us want to deny anyone their own choices, but it is people who don't care that use what they are given. This is the AOL demographic (if you can call it one), and they just want what works "out of the box", in this case their AOL cd box. Let's hope that with this particular "use what they are given" group we are able to give website owners/maintainers enough to think about that they no longer build websites on proprietary standards that choke off competition.
If this happens, I can see the PERCEPTION being enough to bring people back to open standards so they don't worry about what the future has in store for them if they use proprietary technology that might be obsoleted.
As we all know, open source and free software evolves, only commercial software is obsoleted.
Re:Hope the Gecko/Mozilla thing doesn't backfire
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 12, 2002 05:20 AMMozilla has consistantly been a better browser than IE yet received little popular support simply because it didn't come default on most machines.
With AOL pushing it, I'm sure we'll see those numbers turn around again.
j
It's one thing to test whether your site works in several different browsers (as you should). It's another entirely to "optimize" it to use special features only available in that browser -- that's why many sites don't work in Mozilla in the first place!
http://www.pengaol.org
I did write this comment with a Mdk 8.1 logged to AOL.
Cheers
Netraken
*this* is why we need the Linux Standards Base
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 12, 2002 06:14 AM ""Now think of a Linux client. Either we completely disavow support for it (which is a very un-AOL thing to do), or we try to support every reasonably-up-to-date Linux config in the world. Even with the reasonably-up-to-date caveat, that is a hard thing to do. Where is the market and the demand?" "
Linux is already a small market... it doesn't need further "fragmenting" which is provided by differences in file locations, library versions, etc. People have the nerve to demand Linux client support from AOL, but they are not thinking how difficult it is to support system-level software on it.
Porting AOL to Linux is MUCH MORE than a skin on top of Mozilla! AOL is made for newbies and so provides a lot of system-level handholding. AOL will even do things like prompt you to adjust your system configuration, so you get up and running if your modem is configured. Have any of you folks set up modems on Slackware? If you target the latest libraries in RH 7.2, it won't run in Debian. Look at the platform specific hacks in Webmin, or Linuxconf, etc.
Worst of all, there's no central repository for all this information. Microsoft might have fragmented their Windows platform and there ARE differences, but they are documented for the most part.
The LSB looks like it's gettning closer to being adopted. This should improve things tremendously.
Lie lie lie lie lie!
And it's not EVEN april 1st yet.
The answer is plain if you just think about it for a second. You can answer it in three letters.
M S N
Microsoft wants a part of the on-line subscription pie (naturally the shape of a Microsoft wedge is a complete circle). Microsoft is a direct competitor to AOL. Would you use as your fundamental technology resources that are fully controlled by your competitor?
Yes, AOL would love it if they could cozy up to a non-competing MS and use the MS desktop to hawk their wares, but they realize that is not going to happen. Their options are to either fight and risk a quick death, or submit and die a certain slow death. I don't know which is preferable from a corporate point of view, but it appears someone at AOL has done the calculus, and the former option looks more appealing.
Definitely straw horse arguments, especially after he/she insisted there was no Quake3/Half life/RTCW on Linux (which there is!)
Presumably Microsoft put it there.
Checking through our webserver reports our top combination is IE 5 on win 98 but our top domain is AOL.
And we are just in little old New Zealand.
I completely understand why AOL is not thinking about a client for Linux... it is not feasible financially... they will spend more money on development than they will bring in from new Linux customers.
Another thing to note is many years back when AOL first started, they only had a client for GeoWorks... a little known graphical shell that ran on top of DOS. That didn't go very far, but as soon as a client was developed for Windows, it took off. The OS/2 community went as far as to offer devlopment of an AOL client for OS/2 for FREE... even to the point of handing the code over to AOL when they were done. AOL turned them down. So not only is there no real use for a Linux AOL client, it's very unlikely to happen any time soon.
A couple of months ago there were some news stories about most government services in the UK now being available online - the catch is, you HAVE to be running IE. I don't know how big aol is in the UK, but they do have a presence. http://www.aol.co.uk/.
I'd just like to share a little discovery I've made about the hotmail login, as I'm using Opera 6.0 as my preffered browser.
If I set opera to be identified as itself, or netscape, I get the message that the browser doesn't support some needed functions, as one normally expect from MS. However as soon as I set it to identify itself as "IE 5.0" I have no problems, this I believe comes from either a server-side or client-side script checking up, either way it stores a cookie with the name and version of your browser after completed authetification (of the browser).
So basicly this is not a problem with the browsers, just MS that doesn't want you using anything but IE to browse the pages.
Happy fraggin'!
Many years ago, when I worked at a relatively small regional ISP--we had a telemarketing campaign aimed at moving people off of AOL, onto our service. About 70% of the technical support calls, generated as a result of these signups were along the lines of "Hi, I have a problem.. I got connected with no problem, but it's not doing anything. I see the little dialup networking icon sitting in the systray, but it's just my desktop--the welcome screen didn't open".
A while back, AOL experimented with the idea of offering standard dialup service, you may recall Global Network Navigator (or, "gnn.net"). They quickly killed it..
The content, and *gasp* support -- is probably the only reason AOL is able to charge people $23.90 a month, and not have a dramatic backslash from their customers when the rates continue to climb......... my 2 cents.
You Linux zealots are hitching your hopes to AOL, an ISP that is known to be horrible!!
Not only that, but the hypocrisy shown here is priceless!! OSS people supporting AOL, a company whose main product is a *proprietary* on-line service. When using AOL, one actually has to take special and explicit action in order to escape the AOL sandbox and use the wide-open Internet. I mean come on, "AOL keywords"? This is the kind of thing you OSS types are supporting? ROTFLMAO!!
My penultimate point: You guys are actually claiming that you want a Linux AOL client?? Please!! There is no way on earth that you guys would use it, so why should AOL bother? Not only that, but since Linux only has 0.24% desktop market share, it is not cost effective fro AOL to support a Linux client. But then again, you OSS guys have never been much good at understanding how business works. Witness the demise of Loki, the downfall of your precious VA Linux, and the pathetic and laughable condition of Mandrake, who is now begging for donations in order to stay afloat. And here I was, thinking that Mandrake was a for profit company, not a charity. Guess I was wrong. LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!
My last point: You anti-MS types desperately need to grow up!! For example, Mandrake's plea for donations (http://www.linux-mandrake.com/en/mdkfuture.php3) spells Windows with a $, showing that Mandrake is unprofessional, immature, and not a company to be taken seriously. A second example is the MS bashing comments made by AOL employees in this article. Again, displaying your unprofessionalism for all the world to see is not a good thing. Similarly, the MS bashing and personal attacks on Gates made by McNealy and Ellison show those two individuals to be the jackasses that they are.
>You Linux zealots are hitching your hopes to AOL, an ISP that >is known to be horrible!!
I hate Aol. They are alot like MS, in that they are proprietary, proprietary, proprietary. That they say MS isn't worth their weight in source code, that I whole-heartedly agree with.
>You guys are actually claiming that you want a Linux AOL >client?? Please!!
The only way I'd ever use AOL is if they provided a true TCP/IP dialup instead of their proprietary one. That they are switching to Gecko, I applaud. That they'll probably screw up the integrated Gecko based browser, well, that's just AOL.
>Linux only has 0.24% desktop market share
Maybe in Redmond.
I'll quote this website about the Linux, and here's the link, too. This is talking about Slashdot, but it applies here as well. We both are doing the 'Anonymous Coward' bit...
http://www.cybernothing.org/~holychao/slashdot.htm l
"everyone with two brain cells to rub together is already running Linux (or at least working on getting it running) and the rest are beyond hope anyway.
Amen Selece Dragon!
Well, Microserf, what have ye to flame me for?
>But then again, you OSS guys have never been much good at >understanding how business works. Witness the demise of >Loki, the downfall of your precious VA Linux, and the pathetic >and laughable condition of Mandrake, who is now begging for >donations in order to stay afloat. And here I was, thinking that >Mandrake was a for profit company, not a charity
Yeah, programmers aren't good businesspeople, but then again, it's a monopolistic mega-corporation run by a ex-programmer that Linux is up against. Linux worries MS, becuase MS realizes that if enough people would get over their fear of the 'big and evil' command-line, they'd actually find Linux is actually easier, faster and more stable. MS does all it can to discredit Linux, saying that it can't handle large websites and service providers, and also that it is difficult to use. To debunk that theory, I'll point out several things.
#1. The TCP/IP protocol itself was developed, in the first half of the '70s, on what, by today's standards, is a primitive version of UNIX. Unix as we all know, is the 'older brother' of Linux. Microsoft would rather people NOT know this.
#2. Check out Http://www.rootsweb.com
Did you know that they are in the top 10(worldwide) for hits on E-mail, FTP, HTTP, message boards, forums, etc., and they run exclusively on Linux? To this day, they still refuse to use 'proprietary Microsoft technology'. I know more than one person IRL who is involved with Rootsweb.
#3. Find out exactly how many websites use Apache servers and find out how many use NT servers... Now tell me the ratio of NT to Apache, and how fast MS is losing market share in that area because of their unstable, buggy, easily hackable, and slow OSes...
#4. Go to http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/ The site says it all. Those of us who have computers that have/use oddball browsers, or even older versions of IE and Netscape can't go to those MSIE only sites. I love finding 'Any Browser' sites, as they will work on my 386 laptop that runs Arachne for DOS, or the browsers I use on either of my Linux boxes.
To conclude, Windows is for newbies, and those who think they are power users, not realizing that they are power lusers(hacker term for loser user). I'm the nieghborhood geek who fixes computers for his friends, co-workers and nieghbors. All my Linux friends never need my help with unstable computers, all my Windows friends, well, I'm always playing tech support for them. I rest my case.
Anyhoo, back to the main topic,
The only way AOL on Linux would work is if they ditched the proprietary dialup, went with a TCP/IP dialer, and let the Linux user use their browser of choice. We know that won't happen, so why even bother with AOL?
Open Source Rules!!!
Do not meddle in the affairs of (Linux based, of course!)hackers, for they trash script kiddies, and eat Microsoft servers for breakfast.
2. More Mozilla more often! Meaning a better chance of enforcing open standards such as many of the w3c standards that neither Netscape or Microsoft perfectly adhered to in the past
They'd never look back. Who wants to switch if it'll cost too much?
touchy," says one Red Hat person, and that's why Red Hat is still keeping mum instead
of shouting joyfully from the rooftops.
That is why I am not sure I wanted to see this article just yet, even though I consider
it interesting and very good news. Premature talk may scuttle these kinds
of strategic decisions. Eg. You-Know-Who might step up his FUD or make AOL
management an offer they cannot refuse: "If you use Mozilla, we cannot promise the
AOL browser works on future Windows versions <wink>, but here's an IE licensing deal
that solves such problems...".
Keep in mind that the change from IE to Mozilla is not the same as hiring RedHat to support Linux servers. There may be some overlap, but if there is any I can't see it.
As for the Mozilla support, AOL/TW owns Netscape so they have ample support for the switch.
RedHat will probably get the contract, but even if they don't there are other companies with Linux experts that would be very willing to step in.
Try http://www.renault.fr :)
"This site needs some stuff that isn't supported by your browser, use IE or a recent version of Netscape 4.x"
Right...
Now tell Konqueror or Opera to pretend they're IE, and enjoy the [lame] site.
And do as I did: tell the webmaster he's a ridiculous moron.
I didn't plan to buy a car from them anyway...
I doubt it. When Windows desktop real estate was up for offer, this was possible. Those talks broke down over a year ago and I've seen no movement on either end...even when AOL/TW switched Compuserve customers over to Mozilla.
Microsoft is threatend by AOL/TW. AOL knows MS will do just about anything to run the AOL part of AOL/TW out of business.
My only surprise is how conservative AOL has been in making the switch. True a change like this should be at a major revision, like 8.0, but I'm surprised that there haven't been rumors of live beta code available for testing.
A reasonable time to float a beta release is a few weeks after the Mozilla 1.0-based Netscape 6.x appears to see if there are any major snags. Rumors of AOL's 8.0 software will probably start appearing 2-3 months from now; May/June.
Re: "Even so, will we all not be better for it all."
I'm guessing you ment something like 'Either way, we will be better off because of AOL's considering/threatening a switch from IE to Mozilla.'
-An evil user of slashdot
-LWolenczak - lw@lwolenczak.net
Besides, how many AOL users wish to use Linux? How many Linux users wish to use AOL? There's simply no market.
Isn't the W3C standards the most important bit?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 11, 2002 09:33 PM"AOL's largest and most important "partner sites" to do away with any Explorer-specific features they have been using in place of W3C standards."
Well, not only AOL's partner's, but the internet as a WHOLE will be a much more pleasant place once people can *choose* what browser to use on the internet - Diversification will help reduce the impact of the seemly constant flow of IE specific security problems ;) - It's getting tiring having all these big business types ignoring non-IE users on their websites - Having AOL based on an alternative can only improve things for the rest of us ;)
Its not anti-microsoft sentiment, as much as its pro choice sentiment.
I want to just choose what I want for a browser/os and not worry about it being or not being able to render something.
As for Linux support, why not offer a "Beta trial" to existing AOL customers. This can be kept low key. It can guage the interest in Linux and ultimately produce a quality Linux AOL client. I am not sure why they are reluctant to add Linux. It is up and coming technology and is already quite solid. They have the Linux Mozilla code and the rest should not be all that difficult.
1) AOL make their own distro that is configured for aol client, and only support aol on that distro. Of course they would still have to have binaries and source available for DIY-er's to put together for their own distros'
2) release the client code and the community may pick up the project and run with it.
AOL Linux client not needed, just connectivity
Posted by: Anonymous [ip: ] on March 11, 2002 11:00 PMThis is usefull for their customers who want to check their email etc. from a place with no direct AOL connectivity. It seems like it would be a small step for them to permit standard TCP/IP connections at some of their POPs. They could do this with little fanfare. Conversely they could support just a dialer program, binary only if the liked. It seems that that would require comparatively little support. And it would allow, in fact require, the user to bring their own browser.
Either of these options would allow a linux user to use AOL as their ISP, and conversely allow AOL users to try linux with out the trauma of complete AOL withdrawl.
AOLs "total support" is admirable and necessary for the broad market they are aiming for. But I'm sure it has it's limitations. I mean are they going to talk you through a complete reinstall of Windows XP if you need it? I don't know but I kind of doubt it. Support for linux connectivity could likewise be limited to just that, just the connectivity. Something like:
Can you boot your system?
No? I'm sorry you'll have to seek help for that else were
Yes? Can you bring up the dialer?
Do you hear the modem dial?
What number are you dialing?
Is it dialing the number?
etc.
I wouldn't use an online service that required me to use their software. Linux users are more used to bing on their own than most other computer users. And I suspect anyone savey enough to use linux could find browser support elsewere. Simply being able to connect to AOL would be a (small) pluse for both parties.
My little sister uses Linux, she doesn't know jack, and is not used to configuring her computer. I set up her machine, I send her update disks, I login via SSH and make any changes that confuse her.
When she originally got her machine, I sent her a video tape showing her exactly how to use her machine...including mouse movements and important tips. She still calls me up and asks how to do even basic tasks.
Simply work with the large distro's (perhaps > 1Million installs) and make the AOL client available in each.
AOL really needs to re-think this no-linux client. I know a number of ppl who will switch to it when companies like AOL switch to it. And if not, they will simply stay on MS and switch to MSN later
That would certainly solve the cross platform problems, and the current JDK would work fine for such an app. It would really show off client-side Java, which still has it's share of sceptics.
I guess that'd make too much sense...
Java AOL client...
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 11, 2002 11:31 PMThat would certainly solve the cross platform problems, and the current JDK would work fine for such an app. It would really show off client-side Java, which still has it's share of sceptics.
I guess that'd make too much sense...
#