Fw: AOL and linux
Alex Snow
alex_snow at gmx.net
Wed Mar 13 15:17:42 EST 2002
Thaught this might interest some people.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Pattison" <srp at bigpond.net.au>
To: "Multiple recipients of NFBnet GUI-TALK Mailing List"
<gui-talk at NFBnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 6:29 AM
Subject: Fwd: AOL and linux
>
>
> From: Philip Webb purslow at chass.utoronto.ca
> To: lynx-dev listserv lynx-dev at sig.net
>
> [ the story below -- The Register (UK) via Linux Today 020311 --
> contains
> news re Internet-standards compliance which should interest Lynx users
> ]
>
> AOL embraces Linux and Mozilla, plans to drop MS Explorer -- Robin
> Miller
>
> Sources 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 well under way, but AOL will
> probably not offer an AOL client for Linux in the forseeable future.
>
> According to several Red Hat and AOL employees who spoke to
> NewsForge
> but asked us not to use their names, recent negotiations between AOL
> and Red Hat that led to rumors about AOL considering a Red Hat
> acquisition were really negotiations for support contracts that will
> help AOL use Linux more effectively.
>
> 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.
>
> 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 [10]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 [11]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 [12]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
> [13]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 [14]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 "[15]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, which 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.
>
> 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 [16]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.
>
> --
> ========================,,============================================
> SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb : purslow at chass.utoronto.ca
> ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Centre for Urban & Community Studies
> TRANSIT `-O----------O---' University of Toronto
>
> Regards Steve,
> mailto:srp at bigpond.net.au.
> MSN Messenger: internetuser383 at hotmail.com.
>
>
>
>
> --
> This mailing list is sponsored by the National Federation of the Blind,
NFB.
> To view or search an archive of messages for this list, go to:
http://www.nfbnet.org
> For more information about the NFB, please call (410) 659-9314, point your
> internet browser to http://www.nfb.org or Telnet to nfbnet.org.
>
More information about the Speakup
mailing list