AOL's Upgrade of Death 381
Kethryvis writes "CNN is reporting about the joyousness that is the new version of AOL. Version 5.0 seizes control of all Internet connections on your machine and handles all Web requests, e-mail, etc. So, if you use your system to connect to other ISPs, your business, your school, etc. and you install AOL 5.0, yer screwed. The CNN article is here. Read deeper into the story to find out how the new version can also cripple machines just by installing. Scary stuff."
Re:What else is new? (Score:1)
Message from the "Front Line" (Score:1)
Re:Not to be mean but....... (Score:1)
How do you get that he is "wishing harm" from that statment? Look, I have to basically agree with him, if you sign up for a service like AOL that causes you problems, then you deserve what you get, at least if you won't change it. The thing is, you don't enter into any sort of contract with AOL. If you don't like it, just get another ISP, it's that simple. So really, these people that are on AOL and complain about it, do deserve what they are getting because they could switch to another service.
Why didn't you do research on the English language before you presumed to write it down?
Please, let's not get into this crap of ragging on people because they can't spell. Most browsers don't have a spell checker and we aren't all perfect spellers. If you can't find anything better to attack than someone's spelling, you probably shouldn't be attacking their argument at all.
which is significantly easier to setup than any other ISP's
I'm going to have to disagee there. My ISP has a nice, easy setup program they will send you (and then walk you through using on the phone). Or, you can have them walk you through a regular dialup setup (in Windows, MacOS and Linux), or, for a fee, they will even come to your house, and do it for you. The same goes for their DSL offerings.
However, the claim that any other ISP offers "everything AOL has" is patently false.
Then let me put it a better way, a regular ISP offers everything that AOL does that matters. I'm sorry, but the small amount of "AOL only" content and chatrooms simply are not significant. Yes, I'll admit that it's not all as easily available on the internet, but really, it's not all that hard and it won't hurt most people to learn how to use the internet. The internet and computers in general are becomming a larger and larger part of our society. It is becomming quite important for everyone to have a basic, working knowledge of both, just as everyone is expected to have a basic working knowledge of English, math, science and so on.
Still, I'm still glad my parents have stuck with AOL, because it's frankly the best choice for them.
How so? How is AOL "the best for them"? What is it they do with the internet that only AOL can provide? Now you can't argue setup with me, since surely you could setup a dialup for them. Also, I'm assuming your parents are fairly bright people, so it wouldn't take them too long to learn how to use altavista or yahoo instead of the AOL search. Just what is it that AOL offers that a standard ISP can't?
AOL has provided a much more consistent and reliable connection than my friends' local ISPs as well.
In YOUR experience. Please remember that your story, as a single anecdote, is just not valid to make a broad claim that AOL is a good ISP. My parents and I ahve had quite the opposite experience. At home, my parents use a smalltown ISP, and have for about 4 years. It has been very reliable and basically is only down if the power fails. My father, however, uses AOL at work since his job requires extensive travel and AOL is about the only way to get a local number in Flagstaff, London and Sydney. But that is the ONLY reason he uses it, it has been slow and unreliable in all three cities. Please also remember that I am not alone, AOL is so bad that there is actually a site, aolsucks.org.
AOL 5.0 installs a bunch of its own software to handle its internet connection; your computer may already have other files which do analogous things
Well I can verify that AOL actually does do this and this IS a bad thing. Look, programs have no bussiness going and replacing files that the OS provides or taking over OS services. How would you like it if you installed a new game and it decided that it didn't want to use Microsoft's DirectX and installed it's own version, which had compatibility problems. Look, I don't have a problem with somethign like this if it is the explicit purpose of the software. If you want to write a program to replace the MS TCP/IP stack fine, and if someone wants to use that, fine. What is bad about the whole AOL deal is that AOL is, as you say, targeted at the newbie. Well, a newbie is very unlikely to be sophisticated enough to know that AOL is doing something like this, much less why it might be a problem or how to fix it.
Sure, this is a non issue if the person chooses to stay with AOL for life, but, funny thing, newbies learn. We were all newbies once, and now we aren't. Well, when the newbie has learned enough to want to change ISPs (maybe for the simple reason of wanting something fater like cable access), then the problems start. Thing is, though the newbie has learned enough to know that there are better options, they haven't learned enough to know why their computer is having problems or how to fix it.
Software that is intended for newbies needs to be the MOST careful with making no system modifications, as any modification to the system can have unforseen results. You just can't know what changing a DLL will do to EVERY possible system configuration. With software for more advanced users, this is still bad form, but is sometimes necessary and is at least acceptable. If you tell the user you are doing it, they should be able to undo it later if it is necessary. With a newbie, however, this will just serve to confuse them, and then if a problem does happen, they won't know why or what to do to fix it.
Further, any sort of modification to the TCP/IP stack or any other part of the networking is simply unnecessary. I mean tell me, what does AOL require that TCP/IP does not provide? Is there ANY sort of service from the Session layer on down that TCP/IP fails to provide that AOL needs? Think of the vast amount of software that can send it widely varied kind of data using nothing but TCP/IP. AOL just has no good reason to be modifing code at that level.
And some of them are MSCE's!
This is why you shouldn't make fun of other people's spelling, it will come back to bit you. It's MCSE (Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer) not MSCE.
Reflective solar cooker! (Score:1)
Re:Windows Magazine links (Score:1)
cd /dosc /pub/backups/w98.tgz
rm -rf *
tar xvfzp
Works like a charm.
Eye in the Pyramid (Score:1)
Be afraid, be very afraid [discordia.ch].
Re:Legal or Illegal (Score:1)
This isn't so new.. (Score:1)
Part of this is the way Win9x works.. Any installer can overwrite critical system files. So you commonly have installers putting in files that may or may not be compatible with *all* your apps due to version differences.
Thank god only root can do stuff like that on a *nix box.
Re:So what? (Score:1)
Simply, yes. People who fail to do so make the world more hazardous for all of us by encouraging government regulation, monopolistic business practices, and other abominations. If we've got to live in a consumer-oriented economy, the least we can do is insist that consumers be smart about things. And failing to seek out the best is anything but. If you aren't going to research it, don't buy it. I fail to see the unfairness here.
Re:Windows Magazine links (Score:1)
difference between 'default' and 'only' (Score:1)
Re:Fun with AOL (Score:1)
I work for a financial institution who provides our customers with (among other things) credit cards. AOL will continue to place charges against a credit card even after a customer has cnacelled their account, including placing charges on cards that have been closed!
Never, EVER, pay your AOL charges with a credit card. Their billing department is more tenatious, and about as intellegent, as a Jahovah's Witness pitbull.
You need a network use policy (Score:1)
People who install AOL at work should be fired. Period. AOL is for personal use, not business use.
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:1)
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
Ever the optimist I believe in Armageddon (Score:1)
Anyway, the point is that just because things look bad now it doesn't mean we are inevitably headed towards the end of open internet access as we know it.
Fear and paranoia have their place, and ideally everyone should know of perceived or real threats to their intrests. Be it Open Source Software, Linux, Freedom of Speech, The right to bear arms, or any other cause. However I do not think it is quite time to declare defeat for open internet access and choice of ISPs. You only lose fights like this if you choose to lose them. Tell people why you hate AOL 5 when they mention it, and suggest another ISP, granted they might be a little annoyed with you for it, but hey, you're a little annoyed with them for telling you how great AOL 5 is.
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
Re:Welcome to the year 2050! (Score:2)
So what? (Score:2)
Looking at it another way, if I chmod -R 777 / and allow users to add and remove arbitrary kernel modules, and some user fux0rs my system, who's fault is that? Simple: it's my fault. Sure, properly behaved users and/or applications wouldn't hose it, but not everything is properly behaved. Some OS designers recognize that, and others don't. And the ones who don't just invite the kind of abuses AOL is perpetrating.
So don't blame AOL. They're just taking advantage of others' mistakes (both the OS designers' mistakes, and the users' mistakes for refusing to accept the reality - that the world is full of apps that can and will do Bad Things). So AOL is a trojan. Big deal. It's not the first trojan, and it won't be the last.
Is AOL evil? Probably. But the people who use it, and who use operating systems without access control, get exactly what they deserve.
-- TM, wondering why people care about this nonsense when they don't even use it
My computer came disabled. (Score:2)
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
A thousand and one uses for AOL 5.0 (Score:2)
coaster
frizbee
cutting tool
Sabotage your friends
Be a CD Hurling Ninja Like Jet Lee
alt.sex.fetish.aol
Kill MSN execs by CD stabbing thru the heart as they sleep in their coffin during the day
windchimes
These and other helpful household hints comming to you from O'Reilly books and Martha Stewart, in "AOL 5.0 for better housekeeping."
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
Breaking insecure apps isn't their problem... (Score:2)
Microsoft's problem has always been lack of discipline - their software is the worst offender in the overwriting system files on install category. That's why they didn't do the right thing - it would have involved admitting that they had routinely broken security and stability out of sheer laziness.
And this is the fuel for anti-merger talks. (Score:2)
Re:I've got a better use for the AOL 5.0 cds: (Score:2)
AOL Virus in the mail today (Score:2)
Yet I wonder if AOL is going to wind up with a class-action lawsuit for sending a deadly computer virus in the US mail. I mean - explain the difference between this and a mail-based virus? They both wreck your machine!
Get over it, L0pht. (Score:2)
Well now we've got the ULTIMATE trojan, AOL version 5.0. Not only does it completely dominate your box, but it has a chirpy voice that says "You've got mail!" Where's that feature in BO2K?
It slices! It dices! It does all kinds of things that you didn't ask it to do that we know are for your own good!
AOL 5.0: Ph33r it.
Re:I've got a better use for the AOL 5.0 cds: (Score:2)
Re:A fitting end (Score:2)
Then the OEM is committing a violation of Microsoft's license agreement. The CD should come with it, or they are probably pirating that CD.
Anyway, name one established brand that ships their computers without the CD. Not Jeb's Corner Whitebox Shop, a national brand. Just one.
Arcane technical details? (Score:2)
These include deleting and reinstalling software, and sometimes tinkering with arcane technical settings.
I thought only those Unix clones had arcane technical stuff. Are you saying that Windows can be difficult to understand?
(not a troll but a lame attempt at sarcasm)
Re:hmmm (Score:2)
There is a difference between being the "main" connection and the "only" connection.
this is why Linux is better (Score:2)
send flames > /dev/null
Turn AOL Users onto Free ISPs! (Score:2)
Here's a list page [nzlist.org] that keeps track of all free ISPs for all operating systems.
Worldspy [worldspy.com]'s system requires no ad-banner viewing (though why they want you to download nine megabytes of Javastuff to use it is a bit beyond my comprehension).
Pro-USA [pro-usa.net] offers free ISP service into perpetuity (or at least for as long as the service lasts) for a $30 total setup fee plus filling out one marketing survey per month. This service is simply the same sort of basic PPP that any ISP provides--so Linux is perfectly acceptible.
Of course, I expect that the reason many of these people continue to use AOL even with the rapid growth of local and free ISPs is the extra "value-added" services AOL provides...forums and specialized content and such. In which case many of the people will be unreachable.
But anyone who connects to AOL simply due to a promise of free hours should be told that there are unlimited free hours out there for the taking. Not to let them know is unconscionable.
I can't wait to see... (Score:2)
maybe forced video rentals of the crappiest Warner movies ever made?
----
Re:A fitting end (Score:2)
Thoughts?
Re:I HATE AOL, but...thats not true..entirely (Score:2)
LOL! (Score:2)
Thanks for making my day more fun, Mr. Coward!
Re:Version 6.66 will handle your TV (Score:2)
oops, I feel like an idiot now.
~~~~~~~~~
auntfloyd
hmmm (Score:2)
My girlfriend has AOL 5.0 on her computer and has no problems connecting to any ISP (NetZero, dialup to her school, etc).
AOL is telling people what it is going to do -- it's going to be the main internet connection. If they don't like it, say no! If people are too stupid for this, what are they complaining about?
______________________________________
um, sigs should be heard and not seen?
The New Dark-Ages. (Score:2)
It seems that we're nearly living in a new Dark Age. There are hordes of the uneducate who see the miracles of technology dangled before their eyes: daily transubstantiations, revelations and manifestations. These things all obviously happen, yet there is no understanding of how, so belief is compelled and rationality suppressed. So quiet possibly the journalist is happy with just lumping the problem of the moment into the category of "AOL caused" without trying to elucidate how or why - unlike your attempt to speculate on the causes.
Re:A fitting end (Score:2)
Re:A fitting end (Score:2)
Re:This isn't so new.. (Score:2)
Two wrongs make a right! (Score:2)
Or maybe it's just another example of that saying about evil turning on itself.
One evil "upgrade" thwarts another.
Re:Windows Magazine links (Score:2)
This is also the main cause of "OS Rot", where over time as the user works on the machine, it slows down, and gets more and more unstable. As they are installing things, different versions of important things creep in, and before you know it, stuff wont work right anymore. Deleteing or (ha ha ) uninstalling the program usually doesnt fix the problem, as the uninstal routine won't nuke the new stuff and bring back the old stuff.
If you are a masochist, you can go plumbing in the depths of the system, checking files for date and size against the stuff in the cabs on the CD... but then office might not work. Often, installing office is like installing a Windows 9x service pack. Trying to figure out the correct versions becomes harder depending on how much stuff you have installed on the box.
Back in the day, when I was on the phone (convulsion) we often saw HUGE problems when people installed AOL. AOL had this nasty habit of trying to install it's own libraries for running the modem, and in many cases, replace the TC/IP stack with one that was an order of magnitude smaller than the one windows had. It would take a fiel that was roughly (running from fuzzy buffers here) 700 odd KB and replace it with one that was 40-60! No doubt designed just to run AOL, nothing else, thank you very much Steve Case. This was back in the AOL 2/3 days, but I can't imagine things have gotten any better.
If you are running a windows system, and you havent partioned the OS to the C drive and everything you use and want to keep intact to other places (and with tweakUI, you can do this easily..) then you deserve the endless ordeal of installing all your software again, and restoring data backups.
Anyway, Nuking the OS and starting over is usually the easyist way to fix problems caused by bad installs...
Re:What else is new? (Score:2)
A story: we have virtual courses here at the university (IIS, asp, etc). People using internet explorer have it easy because IE makes a lot of assumptions about what you meant when it hits EOF (closes all of your tags for you, blah blah), so you can see most of the pages even if there's an error there. Netscape gives up on this and wants complete and formal HTML.
The websites are built in front page. Problem 2. Netscape users see errors in the scripts while IE users see what was "supposed to" appear.
What happens when an AOL user (regardless of version) comes up to the website to login? Nothing! They don't even GET the login screen let alone anything after it.
IE 5.0/4.0 on their own work fine with the site. There IS a difference in AOL's version. I think the previous poster was correct when he used the phrase "based on".
Unfortunately, this also brings up explaining to an AOL user the difference between the "internet", "AOL", and "Netscape" (or IE out of AOL). They seldom understand.
Re:What else is new? (Score:2)
Bit out of date all this... (Score:2)
Hmmm...
http://www.bugnet.com/alerts/buga lert_102099.html [bugnet.com]
Re:Clicking No Can Save a Friendship (Score:2)
Neither Netscape nor IE's installers start messing with your POWER MANAGEMENT settings though. I mean, what the HELL are they doing in there? We're talking a SERIOUS amount of crap.
Sheesh.
Simon
Re:A fitting end (Score:2)
If you fail to read the installation instructions and warnings of *any* software you put on your Personal Computer, then, you will suffer consequences.
Certainly this will give AOL some bad publicity, but as has been said in the article, AOL isn't getting many formal complaints.
This isn't the "kiss of death" for AOL - they are a pretty popular ISP, and their "easy-to-use" software is targetted at the general public, not us
On another note, the laptop being hosed by AOL software is certainly a horror story, and if AOL Software was responsible, they should at least make an attempt to apologise
... maybe we can have special tags ? hehe.
Poor saps never saw it coming (Score:2)
This is AOL, right? The service for people who aren't supposed to know anything about computers and therefore can't be trusted to make the correct decision during installations, right? Way to go shoot your money cow, AOL.
"If a member picks yes, we make their lives simple," said Jeff Kimball, AOL's executive director for its client software.
Simple, eh? Well, that is the future of corporatism where everything is merged into one entity, and all you have to do is pay homage to the master and his one true way. Marge Peircy's He, She, and It [amazon.com] comes readily to mind.
I am surprised that CNN is reporting about this, with the merger with AOL and all, but I guess they were really strapping for some news since the y2k riots never materialized and they started running reruns [cnn.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I've got a better use for the AOL 5.0 cds: (Score:2)
Cable Modem (Score:2)
Kind of like the idea of not having to share my bandwidth.....
Nuintari
she still went back?! (Score:2)
To me, this is the pinical of every stereotype thrown at AOL users. To be shot in the foot and to go back for more is mind-boggling.
Yes, the article mentions she is currently "shopping" for an ISP, but come on to even think about going back after that incident is lunacy.
AOL CD uses 101 (Score:2)
-coffee saucer so you don't stain your desk with your morning cup o joe.
-donut holder...mmmmm donuts
-area 51 prototype toy for all the cheap bastards at Xmas and birthdays
-stack em. They make a great booster chair for your cat
-Wall coverings. Goodness knows that I get enough of them in the mail that I could have some really cool CD wallpaper (label in of course). Imagine that with a disco ball in the middle of the room. Neato.
Im sure there are more, but Im to tired to think of them now.
-------------------------------------------
Re:AOL 5.0 Versus Windows 2000 In A Steel Cage! (Score:2)
--
Re:I've got a better use for the AOL 5.0 cds: (Score:2)
Seriously. My mom is using them for her pottery. See, you put the piece onto the CD, and then when you want to move it, you have a platter! Very useful indeed, since it means you don't have to let the piece dry (somewhat) on the wheel or attempt not to deform it moving it. There are commercial things that do the same, but they cost money; AOL CDs, on the other hand, do not.
---
Quick tidbit for Sys Admins (Score:2)
Story on TV too (Score:2)
They do note AOL's recent deal with Time Warner and that CNN's parent company is Time Warner.
Re:I've got a better use for the AOL 5.0 cds: (Score:2)
Coasters would be entirely too obvious. I'm sure she has some much more inventive use for them.
And a note to every online service sending me CDs: I have an ISP and a Linux box. If your software doesn't run on Linux or *BSD, thanks for the coaster.
AOL == Frustration for everyone. (Score:2)
It doesn't help AOL one bit to make their software hard to remove. Their tech support won't even help you do it, they give you the usual Microsoft run around stating that its easy to use and they can help you get it working. When the customer comes to us to help them, he gets angry. I know most of us using *nix don't have this problem, but DUN on a windows machine is a really big hassle to reinstall. These problems just make for an angry AOL customer, who is now awake to what kind of a company AOL is. The customer then tells their friends about how bad AOL is. Bad word of mouth is can destroy good PR, even if you do own Time Warner.
The worst part is that done correctly, AOL can be a decent service for a lot of people. My brother is a geek who runs linux, but he loves Mac's, always has. He uses AOL and has so for a long time because there is this awesome mud there. I tell him there are better mud's out there, ones you don't have to pay for, and he's tried them, but he just likes this one. And I can understand that, its his preference, but even he hates the run around he gets with his connection and if he could find a game that is as entertaining to him elsewhere, he would take it up in a second.
My prediction is that AOL's burning of their own customers will be their downfall, not crap technology or terrible business ideas. For a service that touts its ease-of-use, to make so many people so angry is going to have serious repurcussions (sp?). Look at how Microsoft is today, sure they might still have the market share, but people are seriously looking into alternatives because they are tired of the problems. Everyone gets what they deserve, it just usually takes a while.
Dave
I wanted to rant harder, but its been a very long day, and I think we all have read this before, but its my tuppence.
Re:My ME-TOO! Post... (Score:2)
Win2k should fix this crap! (Score:2)
Re:Windows Magazine links (Score:2)
Having personally seen a couple of destructive installations of AOL 5.0, I can assure you that the problems it can cause are not obvious.
Re:System stability after AOL 5.0 (Score:2)
Re:Two wrongs make a right! (Score:2)
Re:Incompetence or evil intent? (Score:2)
Then, after putting out a marginal product, a company gets rewarded by its customers. They are eager to buy the next release, in order to get bug fixes and design fixes, the latter otherwise known as `new features'. They are eager to buy the company's books in order to learn how to use the obfuscated product. And they are eager to sign up for the company's support, consulting, and training services necessary to keep it running. With these benefits, a software company has little incentive to put in the (tremendous) effort to reorganize itself so that the above default result doesn't happen.
Someday, software customers, like those of other industries, may wise up and simply stop buying shoddy software. Perhaps in a few decades.
A fitting end (Score:2)
Ok, this might be a troll...
Re:Legal or Illegal (Score:2)
Your machine MAY have survived this attack. I say MAY simply becuase its effects possibly haven't shown themselves blatantly YET (such as you haven't executed the precise protocol to yeild such unsatisfactory results).
This does _not_ mean that multiple others are suffering from AOL's v5.0's installation tactics.
I would assume your machine is running the appropriate OS to handle the file overwrites that 5.0 does simply by a click of a mouse.
Take into account those running an OS which won't comply with such hidden installations.
Furthermore, this is AOL. If one is the regisered owner of the upgrade, you must acknowlegde the stereotype of the basic AOL user. (This disregards AOL users who happen to be AOL users by default, such as those home from college with parents naive enough to seek such control from AOL).
You say that they have the OPTION. Allow me to describe ONLY those AOL users who I have come into personal contact with. The average computer illiterate user who have surcomed(sp?) to the monopolized adverts of AOL. Those who trust the higher power simply becuase they are the dominant figure in the world of ISP.
When such user see's would [you] like to use AOL 5.0 for all email, news, www, ftp, they put sole trust in this dominant figure simply because they have no prior knowledge of the acronym "ftp."
Therefore, by clicking "yes," they have trusted AOL to manipulate their files in a respectable manner as to not corrupt any prior decisions on their part.
Unless they RTFM (which, according to my personal experience with the average AOL user, of course) they are oblivious to the blatant atack that AOL is undoing to their machine. Even IF they take it upon themselves to RTFM, they will not completely (or at all) understand the complexity of the explanation given to them in techno-babble.
So if you truly believe that the average AOL user has any clue whatsoever what is happening to their machine, then more power to you. Otherwise, thank you for being objective.
Let us not forget that AOL's own message board is apparently filled with complaints with people who even know what a fricken "message board" is!
Due to their prior installations of AOL upgrades, they are simply basing their judgement of clicking "yes" on what has happened in the past.
This is without a doubt a shock to all AOL users (despite those naive enough to have no idea why their machines are crashing constantly enough to the point where they give up on computers all together - which has no beneficial aspect on our society whatsoever, unless of course you are that bastard on IRC who answers well thought out respectable questions with RTFM, no matter how simple the answer is.)
just a thought.
Lots of AOL bashing... (Score:2)
But I admit it, I have an AOL account. Why? Well about 70% of the time I am here at school (Harvard) where we have the fat pipe bandwidth kicking it live. And the rest of the time I am either on the road for business or at home in New York. At home, I have BellAtlantic DSL. But for a period of about 2 months this service was going down every other day (until I finally got through to somebody who could fix it).
What's the point? Well, when I'm on the road for business or at home and the DSL goes down, I need something that will work, let me use an SSH/telnet client and check stuff on the web. Nothing fancy. AOL does this. Since my VAIO notebook runs Windows, AOL is fine for on-the-road usage, and it has all the access numbers there.
Is AOL a good general usage ISP? No, definitely not. My Linux boxen would all be stranded if that's all I had. I don't even really consider AOL to be an ISP per se. But AOL has been a shitpot more reliable than other dialup services for me, and they make taking my notebook on the road ridiculously easy.
Now flame away. :)
The Curse of Flat-Rate Pricing? (Score:2)
Two quotes are pertinent to AOLs latest action. They point out that flat rate pricing "...creates an incentive for the ISP to passively or actively degrade service quality, since per subscriber usage and cost decrease with worse quality but revenue remains the same." A little later, they state,
Hmmm.
(Note: for the purposes of this comment, AOL is considered an ISP, although the authors do mention that "...AOL's Internet service provision is now handled by UUNet, so AOL may properly be said not to be an ISP any more.")
AOL's New Software provides this as an OPTION (Score:2)
Re:Where do they get the anecdotal reports from? (Score:2)
They call up their friends, and they ask their friends to ask their friends till they find someone with the story to support the article they want to write. It's called truth in reporting.
Most likely this is a separate bug due to an incompatibility in AOL's custom TCP/IP stack
....
but still tries to lump it in within an article about AOL taking over the Internet services of the entire computer
Isn't AOL's installation of a custom TCP/IP stack part and parcel of the process of taking over the Internet services of the computer?
Old News (Score:2)
Ironically I discovered the Washington post story that evening while browsing the web. I'm amazed it's taken this long to get posted on Slashdot. Here's the header for the Washington Post story, can't provide a link because it's been archived.
AOL 5.0 UNPLUGS OTHER INTERNET PROVIDERS
Article 27 of 510 found
ARIANA EUNJUNG CHA WASHINGTON POST STAFF WRITER
Friday, December 24, 1999
Page E01
Section: Fast Forward
Word Count: 936
Iris Rache, a 68-year-old real estate agent from the District, may describe herself as a technology neophyte, but until last month she had few problems juggling her three online services--America Online for personal e-mail, RCN Corp.'s Erols as a backup and a residential-property database service for work. But then she upgraded her AOL software to the new 5.0 version.
From a tech support person (Score:2)
Until recently I worked at a smallish Australian ISP, with baout 8000 users. Our plan at the time was for 120 hours per month, then we started charging extra. Every now and again, someone would be tempted by the free 100 hours with those horrbile green cd's that they get in the mail.
When they did this, the "AOL dial up adapter" would destory the standard windows dial up adapter, thus disabling the normal connections.
I started tech support at the start of 1999, and we had a steady stream of ex-AOL people, and people who were tempted by free hours, and all of them needed to reinstall their DUN (dial up networking) components.
This leads me to beleive that AOL is evil, and has been using this same tactic for at least a year now.
Teo de Hesselle, teo@student.UDE.au
And so it begins... again? (Score:2)
Basically, I'd assume that AOL, Microsoft, Bubba Joe Dean Productions (an upstart from the bayou, of course), and anyone else could basically build payloads into their programs. (In a hypothetical case that would obviously be unfortunate) you could be running Windows and, say, BJD Productions' Mudbug Bucket Simulation, and all of the sudden, a window pops up advertising MS Mudbugs, at which point your program crashes and a few important DLLs are corrupted.
Now, since you agreed to a license that says MS isn't liable, you have a problem. Not only that, but every time you try to reload Bubba's sim, it ejects the CD. Of course, that's just because of the new virus-scanning software that installed itself last time you were online (paid for by MS). MS's response is to get the update to Bubba Joe Dean Productions' Mudbug Bucket Simulation (which BJD ends up charging for since it takes so much effort to keep updating it every time MS updates their "warware").
I guess what I'm saying is that we really need to (... must... say... sentence...) help the AOLers out here. We (the people who can see the future possibilities) need to hold the torch to AOL now, while this behavior isn't commonplace (outside MS and others, who are already on the firing line). And we must defeat any legislation that would take away our ability to fiscally hurt companies who financially hurt their customers (MS and AOL have a conscience that only a politician can see).
Help the unenlightened and they will find out and eventually learn to use the source.
Re:So what? (Score:2)
Incompetence or evil intent? (Score:2)
It's pretty bad that you just can't tell anymore whether this is a result of incompetence or a deliberate move to monopolize the computer. After a great deal of thought, I can only come to the conclusion that it's just incompetence.
After all, AOL is a flat rate service now. They get their monthly fee whether the user logs on or not, so they have little incentive to prevent anyone from logging on to other providers. You could even claim that they should encourage users to spend as much time as possible using alternate providers, because that way they won't be tying up AOL's phone lines.
Still, the conspiracy theory folks are going to have a field day.
Is this company run by a bunch of Monkeys?... (Score:2)
Takeover Expectations, and Precedent (Score:3)
AOL has *always* taken over your IP configuration whenever you connect, or at least it has since AOL 3.0. I figured this out a few years ago, when I realized that this one girl I was troubleshooting(heh) over ICQ had somehow managed to appear on an IP address far, far outside our dorm network.
AOL doesn't trust *anyone's* code--they put a custom VPN style interface into every windows machine they're shoved into. (This is that "AOL Adapter" thing.)
Incidentally, AOL makes for quite an excellent covert channel--high bandwidth expectation, protocol unhandled by most sniffers(as far as I know), and a Linux client. Never, ever allow AOL access out of your corporate firewalls
This latest behavior *does* seem rather insane. They're basically uninstalling the software of other companies--that's far and away beyond the expectations of the user doing the installation! That exceeds the implied contract, and has all *sorts* of problems with sheer fraud--what if AT&T phone service automagically prevented Sprint from calling you with a lower rate? What if NBC sent hidden signals to your television station removing CBS and ABC from your channel listings? (Yes, I'm noticing the irony with the recent CBS brouhaha.) Hell, what if putting in a demo for Quake 3, Unreal Tournament was wiped from your hard drive?
Lets expand on that: There'd be a significant amount of anger if Id Software sold a "competitive upgrade" for Unreal Tournament at a reduced cost that left UT unplayable, but even that would pale to the rage if the user wasn't warned prior to purchase or even installation that installing one game would remove its competitor.
In the name of simplicity, that's what AOL is pulling.
And what about the privacy implications? After all, half of privacy is the ability to sequester oneself in a private domain. (All "explicit privation" methods fall in this category, from locking one's door to calling someone on a pay phone.) AOL's behavior intentionally removes the options of accessing a private domain, requiring intentional and difficult re-enabling of those alternate ISPs.
Not good. Not good at all.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Re:AOL 5.0 Versus Windows 2000 In A Steel Cage! (Score:3)
which will tell you that you need to set
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Winlogon\SFCDisable
to 1 or 2 to disable the file protection.
what fun!
--------------------
this space left intentionally blank
Re:AOL 5.0 Versus Windows 2000 In A Steel Cage! (Score:3)
No, they got it wrong. Again. The correct, time-honored solution would be:
$ chown root.root /dosc/windows/* /dosc/windows/*
$ chmod a-w
"Those who do not understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it -- badly."
-- Henry Spencer
Schwab
Re:Legal or Illegal (Score:3)
- Remember, AOL doesn't do this until you tell it that it's OK by clicking "Yes". If a user is clueless enough not to know what the program is asking them, they are actually being helped, since they will probably want to use AOL for their email and browsing.
- For those that like AOL and use it, this is actually a Good Thing, and something that many other programs do. All that happens is that instead of Outlook Express or Netscape Messenger, you get the AOL interface when you click a mailto: link. Is it bad when AOL takes over TCP/IP when they use no other ISP?
On the other hand, there are issues that weren't discussed in the article that are a lot worse.For one thing, AOL carries with it all the TCP/IP and Winsock drivers for many different versions of Windows, and installs the versions it has regardless of the ones already existing. This has all kinds of effects, including crippling some TCP/IP programs, and re-introducing previously patched bugs and vulnerabilities.
--
Not to be mean but....... (Score:3)
I'm not tyring to sound supiror or anything, but why didn't these people do research before they signed up to AOL? If they would have, they would have read survey after survey about how AOL is rated dead last in about every customer satisfaction survey. They would have read about the horrors of 5.0 before they installed it. Not to mention they are drasticly overpaying for service. $21.95? Most of the local ISPs around here are $14.95 or under, and offer everything AOL has.
I mean, people research what cel phone company they use. They research what long distance phone company they use. But they just see a corny commerical on TV about people that "have a special kinship because they have AOL" and sign up, install buggy software, and alot of the time screw their Windows/MacOS install.
So I say good for them. They should have known what they were getting into before they handed over their $21.95 a month. Just like people that don't read long distance agreements when they sign up because if they sign up they get $25. And then realize that they pay 30 cents a minute. If someone can't do a little bit of research before they make a decision like finding a ISP, or a long distance company, and they get get screwed because they didn't, they got what they deserve.
Maybe next time, they will read a couple articles and ask a couple friends before making a decision. That is, unstead of falling for a comercial with some idiot pre-teen going "I've got mail, yipee horay!"
They're getting sued for this over here (Score:3)
Current situation: not even a full 5%. Market penetration: almost zero. Of course, there was a lot of hype about AOL, but there are already a few very well-established and powerful ISPs around here who were able to set up a defensive strategy. The day after AOL officially announced its Brazilian entry, I received a free Internet CD-ROM from ZAZ, the second largest Brazilian ISP. (I didn't install any of those, mind you. I like my neighbourhood ISP just fine, thank you very much.)
My point is, some people did install AOL's free Internet CD. The result was pretty much as described in the main article. No warning, of course, was included in the CD-ROM cover. But Brazil being Brazil, some of these people decided to avenge their lost setups. They sued AOL. Big time. They made a lot of noise about it. They got it on the cover of just about every major newspaper around here. They successfully managed to spread this meme to the near-entirety of the Brazilian Internet-using public. The end result: AOL is going nowhere here.
Let us celebrate.
(Here [oglobo.com.br]'s a more-or-less related article; it's in Portuguese, you might want to use your favourite translation program.)
This is ridiculous (Score:3)
The only difference between AOL 4.0 and AOL 5.0 is that 5.0 adds a dial-up networking connection. However, did doesn't overwrite anything.
In fact I had less troubles with AOL 5.0 than 4.0. Sure AOL has terrible connection speeds, bad traffic, stupid users, but then give credit where credit is due. If a user is so dumb that they don't read a message on their screen, then they deserve what they get. AOL targets the lowest common denominator, and they get a huge outcry about their software. I imagine these are the same people whose interactions with tech support are posted on every computer humor site. Imagine what would happen if these people were forced to install Linux... It wouldn't be pretty.
System stability after AOL 5.0 (Score:3)
Just today I had to reinstall one WinNT workstation in order to get it working properly again. Various actions on the system would reliably BSOD the machine. None of this started on this particular machine before the user installed AOL 5.0, and other than that the machine was configured just like the hundreds of others in the same organization that are chugging along just fine. Absolutely ridiculous. You think with the kind of resources they have they could put out something that works properly...but then again, look at most Microsoft products.
Re:Incompetence or evil intent? (Score:3)
That's not entirely true. AOL also sells advertising that they collect revenue on when they pop up those annoying windows. I would hazard to guess that they leverage the number of users they have in other ways than just advertising.
Remember, if you take AOL's market cap ($146 billion) and divide it by the number of users they have (20 million), you come up with $7300 per user! This to me is a clear sign that AOL sells itself in terms of the influence that it can have over its users, and the market is buying it.
And that's where the lion's share of AOL's wealth comes from. $20/mo * 20 mil = 4 bil. The monthly fee is only 2% of that company's worth. The monthly bill is not what they're going after. They want eyeballs and lots of 'em.
Re:Version 6.66 will handle your TV (Score:3)
I (stupidly) installed a copy on my parents' Windoze machine, since they still use AOL (thru tcp/ip) even though we have a better ISP now... Everything worked fine after having to reconfigure my LAN and routing settings (I dialup via a linux box with IP masquerading)
Several months later, my linux box needs to go on vacation... so I move the modem to the windows box, set it up to access our ISP, and reboot (since network changes require that)
There really wasn't much to the change... the LAN was still there, it just wasnt handling the internet access.. so i got rid of the router, changed the hostname, and installed ppp... you'd think everything would work fine...
However, I discover AOL 5.0 installed a number of windows 98 network files over my previous windows 95 files. It actually overwrote _all_ of the old network DLL's and VXD's, so even though the two sets of files arent compatible, the system still worked.... until I installed Win95 PPP....
Needless to say, I ended up re-installing windows. I vow I'll never install AOL 5 again unless I'm being tortured by a foreign government, in which case I'll tell them that I'll install AOL 5.0 in exchanged for them to stop torturing -- and of course, after I install it, their LAN won't work, and they'll be screwed! Muahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
Re:AOL 5.0 Versus Windows 2000 In A Steel Cage! (Score:3)
It happened to me... (Score:3)
After this occured the machine would always freeze upon booting unless booted in safe mode. Since I had no idea how to edit the msmouse.vxd file or even how to tell what was wrong (plus my friend was getting hysterical) I reinstalled Windows.
Also if you read the December 23rd online issue of the Washington Post where this story first broke you'll notice that the article qoutes several ISP's help desks as being swamped by calls from people who tried to install AOL 5.0. it would be a simple matter for the AP writer to call an ISP and get a story from them. On the other hand journalists famous for creating imaginary victims to humanize a story.
PS: It seems shitty code is contagious (Netscape 4.7...)
I've got a better use for the AOL 5.0 cds: (Score:3)
Re:I've got a better use for the AOL 5.0 cds: (Score:3)
Naughty CNN! (Score:4)
(CNN is owned by Time Warner, in case ya didn't know)
Maybe CNN doesn't want to be acquired...
______________________________________
um, sigs should be heard and not seen?
AOL 5.0 Versus Windows 2000 In A Steel Cage! (Score:5)
What I mean, really, is that AOL 5.0 seems to shamelessly install rogue system
For my own amusement, I tried this experiment on a test machine on my network. Sure enough, AOL misbehaved, and within seconds of completing the install, Windows started telling me it was reverting files. Amusing, actually.
I'm actively working on figuring out exactly how W2K does that - file police. I'll let y'all know if I find some way to defeat it.
Breaking News (Score:5)
"We see this advancement in AOL's networks as a breakthrough..." said Case in a press announcement earlier today. "This is exactly the kind of upgrade our customers expect from AOL, and I won't disappoint them." Later, Case was quoted as saying "With just this modem added to our networks, we're capable of handling approximately 500 more users. They'll get to share this modem, as well as the 4 others we have here at AOL's network center."
When asked what prompted this hardware upgrade, Case stated that the release of AOL 5.0 was "pivotal" in the decision. "People expect us to keep pace with the changes in technology. The new AOL 5.0 software does that, while making our customers' lives easier." We gave the experts in our test labs a copy, and had them run a test of AOL 5.0. When the software was installed, Microsoft Windows took on a different appearence. The Windows logo on the Start Button was replaced with the AOL logo, and only 2 options were available on the menu: 1) Connect to AOL and 2) Crash System. Both menu options had the same effect, and a connection to AOL was never established.
With the recent AOL+Time Warner merger, predictions are abound with AOL's next upgrade, but nothing is cerain. Eyeing the future, Case closed his announcement. "We're looking to the next phase in AOL's development. Our new strategy: "AOL Anytime, Anywhere" is going to be hugely successful. With the addition of our next modem, scheduled for 3rd Quarter 2002, we hope to be the Internet provider for today as well as tomorrow."
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Windows Magazine links (Score:5)
Fred Langra's column AOL 5.0: The Upgrade of Death? [windowsmagazine.com]
that's because AOL isn't an ISP (Score:5)
I spent Christmas with some AOL users and they were asking me questions like "how do I delete that word I just typed?" These are people who not only lack the expertise but also the volition to turn to any, purer ISP.
Since AOL sells themselves as an intermediary, they reasonably plan their software around the notion that no one will attempt direct transactions with the net. If they tried to produce software that gave full functionality to advanced users *and* coddled beginners, they probably would end up with a confusing and inconsistent UI story. It's the dumb-down equivalent of "make the common case fast".
Moral of the story: if you want to run two or three ISP's on your machine, don't install what is essentially a wrapper to protect you from the complexity of the internet!
And, just to be even-handed: AOL SUX!!!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Re:Not to be mean but....... (Score:5)
This makes me feel squeamish. No, actually this makes me feel disturbed and yet rather entertained at the same time. You're against...an internet provider? Like, I suppose I can understand this, if they ever did anything to harm you personally, or gave you bad service, or something...although I doubt you'd ever admit to even emailing someone with an AOL address. But wishing harm on their 20 million users?? For their choice of an ISP?? Huh? Did you run that statement by yourself before you wrote it??
I'm not tyring to sound supiror or anything, but why didn't these people do research before they signed up to AOL?
Well you sure as hell don't come off looking too "supiror". Why didn't you do research on the English language before you presumed to write it down?
$21.95? Most of the local ISPs around here are $14.95 or under, and offer everything AOL has.
Erm, no. AOL is still a proprietary network community that allows access to the internet. They have their own dial-up procedure, which is significantly easier to setup than any other ISP's; they have their own integrated interface; they have their own content, searchable by keyword, and their own communities. Now, you and I know that at least 99% of the information available on AOL is available for free on the internet--although much of it can be harder to find reliably, even for someone who knows what he's doing. And we (or, at least I know; you seem mighty ignorant) know that the internet connection AOL provides is technically inferior for some internet activities (read: playing Quake). However, the claim that any other ISP offers "everything AOL has" is patently false.
Now, I'm not afraid to admit that I've been an AOL user. Indeed, my family's used AOL for over 7 years now, and I've been on the whole moderately happy with it. I was definitely happy to have it 7 years ago, on our 486sx with 4 MB RAM and a 2400 baud modem, because that box--and especially that modem; ugh--sure couldn't handle Netscape (1.0 had just come out IIRC), and as a 13 year old I got a lot more use out of AOL's content than I could have with just FTP, telnet, and USENET (which AOL provided me anyways). So I wasn't 133t in my prepubescent days. Sue me.
Of course, now that I'm used to my fat pipe at college, I'll never go back to a narrowband connection, and if for some reason I were to get one for myself, I'd go with another ISP than AOL. Still, I'm still glad my parents have stuck with AOL, because it's frankly the best choice for them. It may be incomprehensible to someone as supiror as you, but for many people who aren't terribly comfortable with computers, it's just easier to find what you're looking for on AOL.
As for AOL's reputation as a god-awful ISP...AOL supported my 56k modem before most all of the local ISPs in my hometown (St. Louis); and over the past 7 years, AOL has provided a much more consistent and reliable connection than my friends' local ISPs as well. (Yes, I just said that. But while I'm sure the whole "busy signal" fiasco may have been truly awful in the rest of the country, in St. Louis it was only a bit annoying for a month or so. Meanwhile, whenever one AOL station is giving me trouble, there's about 50 other local numbers I can dial; when a small-time ISP goes down, it's down.)
As for this ricidulous FUD filled article, I find it outrageous that you or any true
As pointed out by someone else here, this is exactly the same behavior that just about any program these days that handles a standard that other programs may handle--be it a web browser, a media format player, or whathaveyou--does. Wow. Criminal.
And then they trot out the CTO of Prodigy, and some random Win95 user who suffered conflicts and crashes after installing a large piece of software (that's certainly never happened before!) to spread some FUD. Top it off with some third-hand hearsay from Windows Magazine [windowsmagazine.com] which amounts to, AOL 5.0 installs a bunch of its own software to handle its internet connection; your computer may already have other files which do analogous things (though they are not the ones AOL is designed to work with); therefore this is...bad. And it potentially may not work, even though, uh, it actually does work. (I can confirm this; I keep a copy of AOL on my computer at school just in case the fancy to log on strikes me; I upgraded to 5.0 with absolutely no problems or interference with my university internet connection.) Oh, and several people emailed me to complain about AOL. And some of them are MSCE's!
Conclusion: this isn't the sort of thing that deserves to be posted on
Shame on you for being a techno-elitist (or maybe the correct term is "asshole") who wishes ill on people just because their choice of ISP (I mean, of all things! How ridiculous!!) doesn't square with yours. And shame on most of the rest of
You forgot to read the fine print (Score:5)
I presume you know how to hook up a KD?
Where do they get the anecdotal reports from? (Score:5)
Peg Graham of New York installed AOL's latest software on her laptop weeks after its initial release in October with disastrous results: Her computer crashed. In vain, her laptop manufacturer urged her to reinstall her entire Windows operating system -- she did three times -- before she finally paid a local repair shop $145 to fix it.
Afterward, she returned to an earlier version of AOL's software she considers less risky. She suspects the new program suffered conflicts with the laptop's network hardware she used to connect at her university.
How does the author of this AP news story find out about Peg Graham? Also, her problem is entirely unrelated to the issues of AOL taking over the Internet duties for the entire computer. Most likely this is a separate bug due to an incompatibility in AOL's custom TCP/IP stack, or it could be a problem with Windows. Obviously, if she reinstalled the operating system three times, and was still unable to fix the problem, there was something else going on. The point is, the author of the article does not know what caused her $145 worth of damage nor whether her story is unique case, but still tries to lump it in within an article about AOL taking over the Internet services of the entire computer. The author does this to make the story seem bigger and more urgent.
Re:I HATE AOL, but...thats not true..entirely (Score:5)
So who's going to know, reading this, what exactly they mean? If IE or Netscape ask you this, it means simply that - for HTTP requests they will be the default. The mail apps included with them ask, also. The checkbox for that option isn't too hard to find, and it's described in the help file.
That's a pretty far f*cking cry from what AOL 5 is doing, IMHO. If one were to assume that AOL operates the same way IE and Netscape do (reasonable, I think, for most people), then you'd say, "Yeah, I want AOL to be my browser - duh - that's why I'm installing it." If the warning had said "AOL will disable all other Internet apps until you sacrifice a chicken, dancing around while sprinkling the blood in a prescribed pattern on the motherboard, singing a Vanilla Ice song" (which is how most people view the inner working of Windows) I guarantee that many people would have given different answers.
If you lie to your customers and literally damage their computers, and the find out, they get pissed off. If your customers get pissed off but can't leave you for a competitor, you're a monopoly. But what about a monopoly where the only thing keeping your customers with you is their wanton ignorance?