[Am-info] AOL in Negotiations to Buy Red Hat

[Joe Moore]

On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 04:56:06PM -0500, Felmon Davis wrote:
> I'm wondering a couple of things:
> 
> (a) AOL does servers and broadband. could they offer these services 
> more cheaply to business using Linux (if they don't already)? 

They can use RedHat's software for free.  They gain nothing (technologically)
from buying the company.

> (b) They could do whatever without having RedHat but wouldn't they 
> like some brandname recognition and a cute logo?

Many Linux advocates already think of RedHat as the AOL of Linux 
distributions.

If AOL could make a "RedHat Linux for the Masses" (cf "email for the masses")
and make it "So easy to use, no wonder it's number 1", it still wouldn't
be competitive with the applications available to Windows, except perhaps
in an embedded (set top box) system.

And even so, AOL can do this without purchasing RedHat.

> (c) On a different part of the thread (or thread of the skein?), 
> aside from the licensing of Linux, what are the two or three 
> _technical_ deficiencies(briefly!) it has that make it a poor 
> operating system in some people's minds?

Technically, Linux is on par with other operating systems (at least in my 
mind).  It is trying to be more ambitious than, for example Windows NT, or
the commercial Unixes, because it is intended to run on a variety of hardware
platforms.  This could be a liability because designs to make Linux portable
could compromise platform-specific "tweaks".

Otherwise, there are a few "deficiencies" that are commonly cited criticizing
Linux:

Linux is based on the Unix security model.  This means that some of the
restrictions that are expressible in NT security are harder to express.  (not
impossible, just requiring more forethought in how you set up users and groups)

Linux is based on "30-year old technology".  (NT is based largely on VMS which
predates Unix by ~10 years)

Linux has "no controlling authority, no long-term vision, and no 
accountability for the developers".  These are all true, but...
No controlling authority means that the operating system is NOT tied to
any particular company's performance.  Look what happened to the OS/2 
adopters when IBM dropped OS/2.
No long-term vision means that Linux is not going to try to force you
to fit into a long-term revenue stream for the developers.  The long-term
vision for Linux is to create an operating system that delivers what the
user needs.  Not to pull all transactions through a pay-per-use "passport"
or a "must run our server code" .NET framework.
No accountability?... Has anyone successfully sued Microsoft (or any other
OS writer) for flaws in their OS?

--Joe
-- 
When you find yourself on the cutting edge of technology, remember:
   The trailing edge is sharper than the leading edge.