[Am-info] Is AOL buying Red Hat like Sony buying into Hollywood?

[Erick Andrews]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 15:03:56 -0500, Geoffrey wrote:

>Hans Reiser wrote:
>
>> Mike Stephen wrote:
>> 
>>>
>>> I agree that this makes no sense for AOL.  If they actually want an 
>>> operating system that will compete with Windows, and they are thinking 
>>> that if they spend a whack of dollars on a redhat company, they would 
>>> be much better off with FreeBSD as a starting point due to the less 
>>> restrictive license arrangements.
>> 
>> 
>> This is an incredibly marketing insensitve remark.  Linux has brand name 
>> value.  It is the only brand that can compete with MS.  FreeBSD is just 
>> hanging in there, and OS/2 is dead dead dead as a brand.
>
>
>OS/2 may be dead in many peoples' eyes, but I think it's a better 
>technical approach to competing with Windows on the desktop.  An as 
>you've noted it's all in the branding.  So, OS/2 dead?  What about this 
>new variation that has the new name, ?????station, sorry I've forgotten, 
>you OS/2 guys help me out here.
>

http://www.ecomstation.com


>So a company like IBM start's pushing this 'new' OS that is to compete 
>with windows and it'll run windows apps.  What do we think?

It appears that IBM do not want to market/hype it any more, at least to
the "consumer".  IBM were a strong contender and had a separate sales 
room in 1994 at Microcenter in Atlanta when I lived there, but seem
only to want the big corporations these days.

Serenity Systems, who now market eComStation (OS/2 based) have
a special arrangement with IBM.  They are still kind of fledgling, but
getting better every month and I am hopeful that they will continue
to be visible to offer a "packaged" desktop choice, better than XP,
Passport and .NET for those wanting some PC 'Windows feel".

-- 
Erick Andrews