AOL 6.0 Bundled with Windows XP? 247
mizhi writes: "MSNBC reports that AOL6.0 will be bundled with Windows XP and given prominent placement on the desktop in exchange for exclusive Internet Explorer support. They're also talking about making Windows Media Player the exclusive player for AOL. No monopoly here... keep moving along..." What about MSN? Mozilla? If AOL isn't going to switch to a new Netscape or Mozilla browser to base their client upon, what happens to Netscape?
Re:How about this: (Score:1)
Microsoft gave away for free the products that Netscape was making its biggest revenues on: web browsers and web servers. This left Netscape without the capital and market share needed to properly improve and market its products.
So you're right, Netscape Communicator was really poor quality and the bugs weren't fixed, but this was because Netscape had limited resources to use. If Netscape *had* focused on releasing a stable version of Communicator rather than adding extras, then right now you'd be accusing Netscape of having died because it didn't keep pace with IE.
Re:How long until... (Score:1)
No, you don't have a clue . . . (Score:1)
Also, I am a webdeveloper with a non-tech-savy mother. I've found Mozilla STILL isn't as reliable for CSS/DHTML as I.E. is, and I have a hard enough time getting my mom to run I.E. -- she'd be lost if I told her to check her Mozilla build everynight, let alone if she didn't have the hand-holding features that I.E. excels in providing. The "unwashed" whom you claim WANT/NEED to tinker with the insides of their system will prob get Linux, or stick with Win2k (which is very configurable/get-your-hands-dirty, maybe you should try and USE Win2k BEFORE YOU FUD-lump it into the same category as XP). My point here is that computers are too usefull to be given ONLY to those who fully understand them -- I.E.+AOL VS Mozilla+Plain_Vanilla_ISP is almost like Automatic_Transmission VS Manual_Clutch; sure the clutch offers better preformance and "user" control -- but there are some people who just want to drive/websurf+email, and don't care that they're not using the most breathtakingly engineered way to do it.
You heard a rumor about WinXP? I heard a rumor that, late at night, WinXP will secretly start reading text from "Mein Kampf" to try and brainwash you into a Nazi while you sleep. Oh, let's DO discuss rumors, it's not like the TRUTH about WinXP is daming enough. No, I'm NOT going to put my torch away -- if it's a rumor than bringing it up is wrong, even if you say "it's just a rumor!" -- if it's just a rumor is it worth bringing up? Or do you just like to frett, worry, and namecall with Microsoft BEFORE you know that you have good reason to do so? Maybe WinXP WON'T force you to re-buy it when you upgrade your CPU; MS has been famous for coming out with a HORDE of bad ideas with each new operating system, few of which actually MAKE it to release (or make it past initial release -- channel bar). And your FUD-point makes no sense: if you're having to constantly subscribe to XP, you'll NEVER have to make a singular purchase for the system.
If XP DOES decide it needs to charge you a little more for your latest update because it has to upgrade itself to include suppport for your new processor, is that so bad? Does Win95 support all the new gadgets and things that Win98 does? Win2k? The only real difference would be that the update would happen automatically, as opposed to you flocking down to your puter store . . .
Again, it's POINTLESS to make a criticism about this unless/until we can actually SEE how it works AFTER RELEASE. I, frankly, would be glad to pay MS, say, $10/yr -- Win2k is $120, that's 12 years! Even at $20/yr, I've NEVER kept an OS for longer than 6 years! It's likely your "rumor" is true, except that its facts are a GREATLY distorted version of what, in reality, is a much more acceptable upgrade policy than your description of your rumor paints -- I heard a rumor that my Uncle died but he *really* was only very sick and is better now. See the distinction?!
There are enough problems with the subscription model of XP without having to worry about your FUD over new CPUs/disk-drives. . . Indeed, I wish someone would keep a laundry list as to what parts of XP are bad and are CONFIRMED (like cutting off support, system-wide, for MP3s by giving MS-MediaPlayer priveldged access to system multimedia) -- I have heard a lot of rumors and a few items which I can only assume are truths; I'd sure love a website that keeps track of the sins of XP yet filters out the FUD of "Oh no! It's Microsoft!"
Greed rules at AOL as Netscape loses again! (Score:1)
Oh. This really is choice. Netscape is losing the Linux desktop (there is a good article about that [mozillaquest.com] and why the Linux distributors are rejecting Netscape on mozillaquest.com [mozillaquest.com]). Now AOL is rejecting Netscape and crawling in bed with Microsoft. Greed and stupidity rule at AOL.
Re:Winamp? (Score:1)
Who cares why they pay me? The $$$ attracts chicks. Money. A home. A car. Sex. What else matters?
Re:Mozilla's usable now (Score:1)
user_pref("general.useragent.override", "Mozilla/4.77 (X11; I; FreeBSD 4.3; en)");
For you FreeBSD fans, there's a recent port for Mozilla 0.9. The only thing I'm awaiting for is LDAP auto completion.
Re:Mozilla has done it's job.... (Score:1)
Re:Mozilla has done it's job.... (Score:1)
So, what's the problem again? (Score:2)
Re:How about this: (Score:2)
Linux gave away for free the products that MS was making its biggest revenues on: Operating systems and Office software. This left MS without the capital and market share needed to properly improve and market its products.
So you're right, MS Office was really poor quality and the bugs weren't fixed, but this was because MS had limited resources to use. If MS *had* focused on releasing a stable version of Office rather than adding extras, then right now you'd be accusing MS of having died because it didn't keep pace with Linux .
Re:So, what's the problem again? (Score:2)
Re:Moz had to be cross-platform from the beginning (Score:2)
However, their new cross-platform platform DOES have a big advantage -- XUL. If XUL would be widely used, it would prove itself quickly. It alone could be a powerful weapon against IE.
So we have to decide if XUL was worth creating a new platform and lots of bloat for. Maybe
"What happens to Netscape?" (Score:2)
Like it matters anymore, anyway. Netscape is a non-issue now with Mozilla being more useful and stable than Netscape could ever hope to be. Don't believe me? Grab a nightly and see for yourself. It doesn't suck as much as it used to, and it sucks a lot less than Netscape ever did.
Or am I the only one that's had to write a script to killall -9 dead netscape processes and rm ~/.netscape/lock?
-A.P.
--
Forget Napster. Why not really break the law?
Re:How about this: (Score:2)
Truely spoken by someone who uses windows
Seriously though, if they were to drop the "cross platform" thing that would really suck for a lot of people, and probably most of the mozilla advocates would stop being mozilla advocates. Lets be honest, IE is a good browser. When I'm in windows, I use it because it's fast, renders well, and is compatible.
However, 99% of my time (that is, when I'm not playing blackandwhite) is spent in linux. Having the best choice for a browser so far (IMHO anyway, please don't start the konq vs opera, vs
I think that probably (and this is a pure guess) 80% of their use is by linux people who want something that doesn't suck as bad as netscape 4.x. Dropping cross platform in mozilla might be fine for windows people, but as a linux person, I really would like a browser that is great.
Re:Mozilla has done it's job.... (Score:3)
What? XP is 2 CD's long? (Score:3)
I seriously doubt they can shoehorn two bloated peices of software on one CD.
</humor>
--
WolfSkunks for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.keenspace.com";
Hrm... (Score:2)
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/nonagres
MSN and Mozilla are the bargaining chips (Score:2)
I think you answer your own question there michael. If Microsoft switches from AOL to MSN as the default internet provider in Windows, then AOL retaliates by switching from IE to Mozilla. But if AOL switches from IE to Mozilla first, then Microsoft retaliates by switching from AOL to MSN as the default internet software that comes with Windows. The inter-relationship is too important for either of those scenarios to happen.
Re:Not sure that this is news exactly... (Score:2)
IE has one major feature that Netscape still doesn't even come close to approaching -- an API that can be used to make a custom browser (which is just a shell over the HTML/Script parsing engine that offers most of the functions of a web browser).
Um [mozilla.org]. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention? Mozilla (and therefore Netscape 6+) is easily embedded [mozilla.org].
Re:How about this: (Score:2)
If Netscape had actually put some effort and planning into Mozilla, then you wouldn't have to ask 'What about Netscape'. They designed an entire fucking cross-platform toolkit instead of focusing on the real point--a good rendering engine and a good browser FIRST, then all the extras like mail, news and AOL/NSCP Instant Messenger.
I've heard this bit of wisdom bandied about quite a bit -- only problem with it is: it's not true. The Mozilla project is based around the core Gecko engine, which has been a good solid product for some time. They're also working on the extras, because without them, they really are dead. If you want just a good solid browser, check out K-meleon or Skipstone.
Conspiracy Theory (Score:1)
Hey, since the Justice Dept. would never allow us to do it, why don't you go buy up our competition(netscape, winamp, etc..) and we will cut you a sweet deal on the desktop.
Re:Conspiracy Theory (Score:1)
maybe it's because AOL wants a decent browser (Score:1)
------------
a funny comment: 1 karma
an insightful comment: 1 karma
a good old-fashioned flame: priceless
Re:maybe it's because AOL wants a decent browser (Score:1)
also:
>>does not have major parts of the browser written in java script
>Just the UI.
isn't it bad enough that the UI is written in JAVASCRIPT!? am i the only one that is bothered by this? the UI is one of the most important parts of the browser, and they wrote it in a slow language.
------------
a funny comment: 1 karma
an insightful comment: 1 karma
a good old-fashioned flame: priceless
Moz had to be cross-platform from the beginning (Score:5)
No, the true value of Mozilla (and the Communicator suite which preceded it) is that you have a consistent set of tools available on all platforms -- including future embedded boxes. Netscape knows that trying to compete with Microsoft on the Windows platform is suicide due to Microsoft's bundle-opoly. They control the integration framework and have the power to marginalize anyone who they consider a threat. By providing a complete Internet communication suite, Netscape can provide access to the Web and email (and now, instant messaging) on Windows, and then provide a consistent experience for those users who choose to migrate to another platform. That's been the Netscape vision from the beginning -- only Microsoft caught on to their game a bit too early for them to complete it, and took steps to grind them into dust.
The Mozilla project is still meaningful, and I believe it is one of perhaps three or four programs whose continued existence are absolutely crucial to the preservation of a world in which Microsoft does not have 100 percent market share of all three major sectors (desktop, server, and embedded).
This message has been proudly posted using Mozilla.
--
Re:Aol Upgrades (Score:1)
This is Odd.. (Score:2)
AOL Time/Warner: We want to go back 4 years in email/imap technology and use AOLMail for email because we don't want to spend the cash on Exchange Servers and Outlook clients.
BUT, we want AOL in WindowsXP and Internet Explorer as the web browser.
My question is, what's in it for Microsoft? Browser users? I guess the AOL sheep will use whatever is put in front of them..
I really dont get AOL Time/Warner. I think the higher ups are on crack.
Use the best tool for the job. I don't care what OS or if its open or closed source, just hte best tool for the job. AOL Time/Warner doesn't. AOL mail for crying out loud. Outlook kicks its ass.
Re:How about this: (Score:2)
For one thing, it's got a helluva great UI. Saves a lotta time in browsing. Makes me more efficient.
--
Re:Mozilla's usable now (Score:2)
If the site you want to connect to only accepts
keys from certain browsers, it does not matter
what your other browser can do.
Try to connect to the wells fargo online bank
with anything but an "approved browser" and
get back with me about SSL support.
http://www.wellsfargo.com/per/browsertest.jhtml
I've asked for a way to make Konqueror fool this
site into working, but I guess it isn't a
problem for anyone else.
Re:"What happens to Netscape?" (Score:1)
I've usually had to include rm ~/core, as well, and call it from my .login file, as Netscape had a bad habit of crashing X on Linux and IRIX 5.
I think the really odd thing is that Netscape is very stable on the Macintosh. It sucked on IRIX, Solaris, Linux, Win32, Win16 (what didn't?), and Digital UNIX, but it really ran well on MacOS--better than your average Mac application.
....anyway.... I think the "What happens to Netscape" was intended to mean "Does this mean that AOL is no-longer supporting Netscape?". What about AOL/Macintosh, does it demand IE, as well? I know a lot of Mac users who won't even install Office because it's a Microsoft product--you think they'd install the program that they're convinced "killed the only decent web browser by playing dirty"?
Then again, there's really no reason they can't support Netscape 4 or Mozilla on platforms that don't yet have IE. Maybe this is just overblown like they typical Slashdot fare.
Linux Is Not UniX
Dear AOL (Score:1)
Do me a favor? Buy Netscape / Mozilla. Pretend to develop it. Pretend to care. Let it die after about a year. In exchange for this we will put AOL X.0 on the next version of Windows. Cool?
-Bill
Re:Interesting (Score:1)
The last time MS tried this (with Windows 95), they had to face a fairly long federal trade commission investigation, and while no charges were filed, it started the log-rolling towards the anti-trust case.
By including the AOL software, they've basically bought off the only business with stature to file suit against them for extending their monopoly.
Besides, anyone remember the Bill Gates comment about including a can of Pepsi in every six pack of Coke/ That's exactly what they are doing now!
--
Re:maybe it's because AOL wants a decent browser (Score:2)
Are you sure about this? I've had IE crash a fair amount of times recently. Of course, being a web developer, I also know what kind of stuff will make almost any browser crash. I just love getting the "Internet Explorer has crashed" dialog box.
You haven't used Mozilla 0.9 yet. That's all I can say.
I don't see it as a waste of resources -- it has to load a set of pixmaps/bmps/etc whether it's using a single "theme" that's part of the browser in the first place (see MSIE, Netscape 4.x), or loading multiple "themes" out of files (see WinAmp, XMMS, etc).
Just the UI.
Mozilla-0.8.1 embedded on a Pentium/120 with 48M ram. It flew. Repeat that please?
Both of which are fully optional if I'm not mistaken? Some people like doing everything out of one interface. Live with it.
Try it [mozilla.org] before you knock it. Sure, it has it's bugs, but so does MSIE.
The primary reason that I see for AOL including MSIE over Mozilla (which, BTW, has been stated many times over on this article by other people) is for getting their icon on the WinXP desktop. It's all a marketing ploy to get people to sign up with them -- if you didn't know anything about the internet or anything else, but found an AOL icon sitting on your desktop, would you be more likely to call your local ISP, install the insert-service-provider-name-here cd that showed up in your mail the day before, or use what was already there? Considering that my mother used AOL for a while.. I think it's that much more likely that they'll use what already exists on their system before installing something else or getting online with a real ISP.
Just my 0.02.
Wait... (Score:2)
These monoplies confuse me...
Re:Go on, pull the other one, it's got bells (Score:2)
AOL is no fool... (Score:5)
Now, at the same time, they fund the Mozilla effort, which as time goes on, should probably be little drain on their resources due to increasing community involvement. So overall investment there is small and it continues to give them a platform to work with on Embedded devices and non-windows desktops. As the market share of Embedded devices vs. Desktops shifts, AOL will have mozilla there to fill that need.
---
Re:Mozilla's usable now (Score:2)
Re:MS did kill it (Score:2)
To saturate the market, ms had bundled IE with everything from ITmagazine cd's, to computers, to even peripherals.
Sheesh, I remember that time. It was almost impossible to get any CD that didn't have Internet Explorer bundled into it. Everyone I know was up to their flippin ears in spare IE CDs. I'm surprised they didn't give IE CDs away in cereal boxes too.
-----
Re:How about this: (Score:3)
"It hasn't really improved, while Internet Explorer has made leaps and bounds, coming from behind, overtaking, and leaving the Netscape crowd in the dust"
I hate to point out the gaping flaw in your reasoning here, but of course Netscape got left in the dust - that is exactly what happens when a competitor cuts off your distribution channels - you can no longer afford to improve the product - helloooo, thats exactly what Microsoft did to Netscape, that is actually called "killing them off". How do you improve your product when you've been cut out of the market?
How short our memories are. IE3 and IE 4, the "competition" for NN4 at the time, were also crap products, incredibly unstable and buggy. Now a couple of years later everyone seems to have forgotten that, and now everyone compares the Netscape of 2 to 3 years ago to the Internet Explorer of today. Hardly a fair comparison.
-----
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
Re:Interesting (Score:4)
Since AOL is the money maker, not netscape, it does of course make a lot of sense.
Of course logically they will need to maintain Netscape as a viable threat in order not to get expunged from the Windows desktop at some point in the future.
Re:Mozilla has done it's job.... (Score:2)
I take it you have not been following Ximian recently? Their partners include HP [slashdot.org], not to mention the fact that Sun and Compaq have joined Ximian's GNOME Foundation [ximian.com]. There are some VERY heavy players backing Ximian GNOME as the next generation UNIX desktop, and they're in the prime position to (as they currently are with HP) get development contracts for new features and provide support to the large UNIX players.
I'd say that their business model has never wavered from reasonable. People poo-poo Ximian because they do not understand it, and they associate the failure of Eazel with Ximian.
There's always talk about how "we" certainly aren't going to pay but "Joe Sixpack" will cover the cost of our free lunch.
The desktop consumers of UNIX have always been the financial, educational and scientific communities. Mozilla, Ximian and Linux have been quickly or slowly, but always steadily converting each of those markets (or, as with Ximian, converting the market leaders in those areas).
Mozilla has done it's job.... (Score:5)
I'm not saying that I would be happy with that attitude, but is there any business reason for them to not think this way?
Re:Moz had to be cross-platform from the beginning (Score:2)
Mozilla + Netscape 6 still have less than 0.5% of market share. If that doesn't get your attention about Netscape being dead, what does?
assimilation (Score:2)
But the real battle takes place with the "last mile" to consumers. As long as there is a truly open Internet accessible to all, there's a limit to how much damage these kinds of consolidations can do.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Yes, sort of... (Score:2)
Monopolies in different fields cooperating isn't much different than a small group of competitors cooperating to screw their consumers, e.g. airlines, RIAA labels, California electricity providers.
AOL-Time-Warner is a weirder beast than a straight monopoly, however. They have enough clout to dictate certain things, within limits, and in a Microsoftian way, their power in one area can be used to force their hand in others. Putting them together has consequences I don't want to see.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Re:Moz had to be cross-platform from the beginning (Score:2)
Re:Moz had to be cross-platform from the beginning (Score:2)
Really go read about it.
Ever heard of Open Source development? (Score:2)
In fact it might be a good thing... I find Mozilla too big and cumbersome, maybe someone with a different focus might decide to split it into its component parts and we could even get a nice lightweight, standards compliant and stable browser out of it.
This doesn't NEED to be a Bad Thing(tm). Open Source has a way of coming up with the goods.
Is this so bad? (Score:2)
Second, Netscape is not dead, as long as AOL doesn't kill them off. Of course, this is virtually what's happening here, but neither AOL nor Netscape itself (pre-merger) showed any serious committment to providing consumers with something better... they were sitting on top of their own monopoly on the browser scene. Even now, Netscape and Operal are the popular options for non-Microsoft (or Apple) operating systems. They're not eliminating competition, they're simply taking the fight a step further. There's still a market for the other browsers, though.
Third, none of you people use Windows or AOL anyway. This helps all the people that use AOL and Windows. And it doesn't hurt anyone that doesn't. This does not affect the Linux crowd at all.
Finally, this saves me a step in reformatting... now I don't have to go in the junk mail pile for an AOL cd anymore. And it saves trees and plastic.
Then again, I've already been assimilated, so it's too late for me.
Re:Nutscrape vs exploder the saga continues... (Score:3)
Server-side includes and shell/sed/awk scripts are your friends. :-) You can structure a site so that it spits out standards-compliant code for real browsers, yet is able to hack a page on-the-fly to deal with Nutscrape's borkenness.
If it were entirely up to me, I'd tell the Nutscrape users to bugger off, but I had to put together a corporate website that had to be viewable with the widest range of browsers. I've since adapted the code to my homepage [dyndns.org] as well. View it with IE/Mozilla/Opera/Lynx/iCab/whatever and you get standard HTML 4.01 and CSS 2 (or is it 1?). View it with Nutscrape and you get a hack job that looks more or less like what real browsers produce with standard code.
(As an aside, iCab renders the page incorrectly. The funny thing is that it doesn't complain about invalid HTML or CSS. Given that it's a beta, it's more than likely a bug that'll get worked out. IE and Opera render the page correctly. Last time I checked it (which was some time ago), Mozilla worked OK as well.)
What happens to Netscape? (Score:2)
If you look at the way AOL positions/uses Netscape, this become obvious. AOL is not a software company (even though they write software), their only real product is their service (exempting the large Time-Warner chunk, of course).
Re:assimilation (Score:2)
--
Re:Mozilla has done it's job.... (Score:5)
MS sets conditions, including IE (which I don't understand since the browser is no charge anyway-- I suppose this helps sell IIS on NT for the server side)
The biggest problem with IE dominance is this:
If the day ever comes that [someone like] MS controls [almost] 100% of the browser market, that puts them effectively also in control of the web server market, the content authoring market, the browser plugin market, etc.
Case in point: [Someone like] Microsoft controls [almost] all browsers. They decide to implement encryption/authentication in their browsers that only accept data from certain servers (ie, [something like] Microsoft IIS), effectively putting server authors who don't pay the [someone like] Microsoft Tax out of business. After all, who wants to run a server that won't talk to most browsers?
But there will always be open source projects that will be able to emulate these "privileged" servers, right? This situation is starting to remind me of the whole DeCSS debacle. The DMCA would protect [someone like] Microsoft's servers from being emulated.
It's only a theory, and not ENTIRELY possible, but definitely food for thought.
Re:FUD! (Score:2)
Yeah, too bad it's not DOS. NT has never ever ever never not ever had DOS in it.
What it does have is -- and if you'd read that label again you'd see this -- a command prompt which looks and acts like a DOS shell. This command prompt, however, isn't DOS any more than running Bash on a Win98 machine makes it Linux.
--
Re:Not sure that this is news exactly... (Score:2)
- You can embed mozzilla in your C++ application
- there is an Mozilla ActiveX component
- Mozilla can be embedded in Java applications.
---
Re:How about this: (Score:2)
B) Do you really think the quality of Netscape had anything to do with this decision? This is pure marketing, people. Microsoft has all the power in the world, and AOL NEEDS to be right there on the desktop when Joe User turns on his new Gateway, or they're history. If Microsoft had said "Sure we'll put it on the desktop, but you have to dance on your head." AOL would have to comply.
I'm Netscape's (well actually, Mozilla's) biggest supporter, and this really sucks, but it's just business. Everyone seems to have the solution for Mozilla, but how about this: Drop the cross-platform bull shit. "Winning the browser war" and "cross-platform browser" are mutually exclusive, because you can NEVER make a cross-platform app as fast as it would be if it was only developed for one platform.
Oh well... I think the AOL linux dumb terminal thing (that I've actually seen and played with) will still work out, and it uses mozilla's layout engine. This deal doesn't say anything about AOL not trying anything else like this, so maybe it will take off.
---
Re:Winamp? (Score:2)
---
My $.02 (Score:2)
"If AOL isn't going to switch to a new Netscape or Mozilla browser to base their client upon, what happens to Netscape?"
Netscape will continue to be annoying, bloated, unstable, crappy, etc. AOL will keep supporting it at the behest of Microsoft, which wants to look competitive. Eventually AOL will let Netscape proper fade away as Mozilla and its derivatives continue to get better and more popular.
Re:What about MSN? (Score:2)
Really, though, when you think about it...what group of people are most likely to say "I hate XP"? Now, isn't that the group most likely not to use AOL in the first place?
Conversly, arn't the people that are most likely to roll over and take what Microsoft gives them also more likely to just accept that AOL is part of their "computer experience".
I'm not necessarily calling the average computer user stupid, just...inexperienced. Nieve is more like it. They don't know any better, so they get taken advantage of by computer companies. Microsoft and AOL arn't the only ones, but they are the biggest.
So is it a bad move by AOL? Probably not. AOL has proved that it doesn't value customer retention half as much as it values new customers. If it did, we wouldn't use AOL CDs like Legos. By the time these users "graduate" to MSN, there will be a whole new set of nieve users to fill their coffers.
The story is INCORRECT! (Score:5)
The five-year contract between the two companies that guaranteed AOL prominent placing on Microsoft's Windows operating system in exchange for exclusive support for Internet Explorer on AOL's online service expired in January.
In other words, the story as posted to Slashdot skews the perception AWAY from the actual events. The deal is to put the AOL installer on the XP install disc... Nothing more. AOL can use Komodo/Gecko in their next revision, but it's not ready in time for XP's launch, so they're using their current installer. We should still expect to see Komodo in the future, and the article says absolutely nothing to indicate otherwise.
Winamp? (Score:2)
Less Bitching More Coding (Score:2)
And sorry, from a technical standpoint, IE is king of the browswer world right now. I recently go the latest Opera, and I *really* like it, but it does have some issues, but its well on its way. Netscape has sucked the past 3 years. Lynx is great for what it is (but I am hardly on a unix console anymore, so no reason to go text only in the land of Fat Pipes (tm)).
Anyway, less bitching, more coding. If you don't like it, go fix it. Seriously, all huge companies have to start somewhere, go create a software juggernaut that can fight these bad boys. Upstarts win in the end, but like science vs. the Church, it takes hundreds of years. So why fight the system as a hacking punk when you can do it much better as a businessman on their terms?
How long until... (Score:2)
netscape... (Score:2)
what happens to Netscape?
Netscape 4.x? Hopefully it dies and is no longer packaged with stuff.
Netscape 6... hopefully it becomes much better, tightens up, etc, so that it's good enough that people would rather use it then IE.
This is, of course, all in my own little idealistic world free of monopolies and other bad things. Well, I can dream, can't I?
-J
The real deal is... (Score:2)
So the deal basicly is:
Microsoft will work with AOL to make it possible for AOL 6.0 to run on XP as they come out and even put AOL 6.0 on the install CD.
AOL will not launch an attack against XP, but will support it and the fact that AOL 6.0 is running on XP and even bundled to it will help Microsoft to launch WinXP effectively. Something that otherwise might not happen at all.
What is at stake here? Why is Microsoft dumping MSN's business in favor of AOL? Because they make a shortterm sacrifice for a long term gain!
In other words, Microsoft is trading its future and maybe even survival for just dumping MSN business a bit in favor of AOL.
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
Microsoft has negotiated better end of the deal though, because of the exit price. When Microsoft it wants to back out, they simply delete an icon on their desktop. When AOL wants to back out, they have to retest/redo all their content and interoperability with the broswer or platform with which they replace IE. With time, the investment will become so large that AOL will be handcuffed to whatever terms Redmond demands.
But I wouldn't worry AOL, its not like Microsoft to take advantage of another company. "Hello, broker? Sell AOL!"
Two thoughts (Score:2)
Good Lordy, whatever happened to the day when the whole AOL thing fit on one little floppy that was easily removed from the magazine shrink-wrap?
But Steppenwolf will apparently not include Komodo, AOL's new software currently in alpha testing
I trust they're not referring to Activestate's Komodo [activestate.com] IDE, and that Komodo is merely a project name. It would be a shame to have one Microsoft partner sue another.
--
[OT] Ashcroft And MSFT (Score:4)
Thanks for the link, but hold off on the rhetoric unless you have something a bit more substantial to back it up.
--
Re:How about this: (Score:3)
- They designed an entire fucking cross-platform toolkit instead of focusing on the real point--
Precisely! Generally, when I build houses I like to pour the foundation last.Why not cut to the chase? (Score:2)
Don't mod me down, I am just the messenger of future times.
Re:Winamp? (Score:2)
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
Not to mention the fact that AOL just got trapped behind a big old fence of their own contraption. If they try to continue their current business tactics (which, by the way, are much worse than Microsoft's), Microsoft can let them go ahead and do it, and then when the deal breaks down (and it will), Microsoft has the perfect scapegoat: AOL doesn't want to play nice (and they don't).
Congratulations Billy and Steve, you guys win again.
Re:So, what's the problem again? (Score:4)
The problem is this: in exchange for exclusive Internet Explorer support.
Why is that a problem? Because of this: what happens to Netscape?
This is one of those rare times that the summary got all the important stuff.
Okay, let's see if I've got this straight... (Score:3)
I'm not sure, but I think I may be missing something, so I want to list off what I see going on...(these are in no particular order, except as they come to mind)
1. AOL is the most expensive national dialup ISP going.
2. XP, according to rumor, is time-limited, so the user has to pretty much re-purchase it every so often, or their box quits running XP.
3. (this is one of the things I'm not sure of) AOL at one time was in the process of switching to Netscape/Mozilla as their embedded browser; at least, until this "agreement" came along.
4. AOL and Time-Warner currently constitute one of the biggest home-entertainment conglomerates going.
5. Microsoft and AOL are buddying up on software and content provision.
6. Starting with Win2k/ME, Microsoft has been working to isolate the functions of the operating system from the user, the most obvious of these attempts being the removal of the option to boot to a DOS prompt and the loss of a DOS window in the OS as shipped.
7. Another rumor has it that once XP is installed on a machine and registered to it, if the user upgrades either the HD or the CPU they have to buy another copy of XP, because theirs won't work and can't be reinstalled. (Yes, I did say this was a rumor. Put the torches away.)
What does all this add up to? IMO it's a combined attempt to make sure of three things: the general user base doesn't ever get its unwashed fingers inside the workings of either their machine or the fancy, overpriced and oversized OS that Microsoft demands drive it; the user only can use the software and content that Microsoft (with AOL at its side) approves of; and no matter what happens, both Microsoft and AOL are guaranteed their revenue streams pretty much in perpetuity.
Would someone please tell Microsoft and AOL that they're about 17 years too late for this crap? And all the FUD they can spread won't change the fact that some of the "unwashed" they want to protect from such things as working code can, in fact, make their own good decisions? AND this is really the worst time for them to be trying this, with the (admittedly myopic) eyes of the USDOJ, among others, gazing down upon them?
Okay, that's my rant for the day. Thanks for paying attention...I'll be here until Saturday. Don't forget to tip your waiter.
This is just foreshadowing... (Score:2)
*shudder*
---
Check in...(OK!) Check out...(OK!)
Re:Not sure that this is news exactly... (Score:2)
Actually, one of the coolest things about Mozilla is it's Gecko rendering subsystem, which CAN be used just like the IE API to create, say a custom browser. NeoPlanet, one of the custom browsers designed around IE's API actually had available a "Tech Preview" that used the gecko renderer instead of the IE one.
Re:Mozilla's usable now (Score:2)
!!Damn I can't believe I just typed that url from memory, and I think it's right too.
Who the Illuminati *really* are... (Score:2)
The illuminati is.... Disney, AOLTW, and M$. They've been working together for a long, long time, but are slowly becoming a force that the world will see, but by the time everyone realizes it, it will be too late. They will control everything (they already control everything, but when they are one company, you won't be able to live without their products and support).
Interesting (Score:5)
It makes a certain amount of sense. (to me at least) It even makes sense that AOL will keep funding development it to keep Microsoft honest.
Of course this does make it a little tough to figure out who the good guy is here...
Aol Upgrades (Score:2)
They get Aol 6 incorporated into XP.
Then the AOL 6.1 upgrade option has "Do you want to upgrade to browser to the superior performance of the Latest Browser?" with the options:
"yes I want to upgrade"
"No thanks, I'm happy with inferior performance"
In other words, borrow a page from the MS upgrade language handbook.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip
Re:Nutscrape vs exploder the saga continues... (Score:4)
I understand and appreciate that point of view. I've done my fair share of web development with netscape and have been just as fed up as others with all of it's crap.
However, I can't agree with that point of view simply because I don't use windows. I have used IE on friends and familly's windows machines and I agree that it rocks. But the more I see web pages come up with messages that say "Get with it! Netscape is dead! Switch to IE like the rest of the world!" the more angry I get.
You see, I can't switch to IE because I choose to not use a system on which IE is available. I agree that this is my choice and I have to live with the consequences. But please realize that not everyone can "get with it" because not everyone uses winblows. Maybe 95% do, but I am in that 5% that actually likes to get some work done. If you don't want to support me that's your choice, just realize that I can't "get with it" like you suggest I do.
And I realize that you personally have probably not done something like what I have mentioned. I just felt that this was an appropriate opportunity to express how I feel on that issue :O)
However, the desire for an IE for Linux has encouraged me to start the Cheetah Web Browser [sourceforge.net] project.
--
Garett
Re:Mozilla has done it's job.... (Score:2)
It may be that in this case there is nothing tipping MS's hand and that AOL recognizes that they need to be on the desktop from first boot and that their CD-mania is not a primary driver in sales. I can't imagine that OEM's are telling MS that they won't ship Windows if they don't have AOL-- especially since the OEMs could add it. So this is all about AOL making concessions-- probably they noticed that sales of Netscape server software was pathetic compared to AOL subscription fees.
Old, Old News (Score:3)
No conspiracy - Maybe it just isn't good enough (Score:2)
Compare Mozilla against IE, the current browser AOL supplies. Their customers would revolt if forced to switch.
The fact is, Mozilla is bloated, slow, and unstable, and even though I'm rooting for them, even an AOLer can see that IE is better. Maybe AOL just doesn't want to deal with a bunch of support calls...
Re:Nutscrape vs exploder the saga continues... (Score:2)
Re:Mozilla has done it's job.... (Score:2)
- Mozilla irreparably sucks.
- Free software development is hopelessly unprofitable. (I said developing software is, not packaging or supporting other people's work, which is obviously plausible.)
Now, Mozilla still isn't replacing IE or Konqueror on my desktops, but it's definitely climbed out of "sucks" territory. And now AOL may be showing us a novel angle to making free software development profitable -- as a bargaining chip you can't directly earn revenue from anyway. Now that the "We'll make money from our automatic update service!" Eazel/Ximian mentality is collapsing, hopefully there'll be more clever angles like this to work.There's always talk about how "we" certainly aren't going to pay but "Joe Sixpack" will cover the cost of our free lunch. (It was never clear why Joe Sixpack was so hungry for updates of libtermcap that he'd spend money on such a service but..) In this case, it looks like Joe really is going to pick up the tab for Mozilla and Galeon users.
Of course, it helps if you're AOL, or IBM or Sun and you can afford to throw millions at a minor strategic maneuver.
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
Re:Mozilla has done it's job.... (Score:4)
Last I looked it was the system builders who bundled the online goodies on the desktop (just before it put them all in the recycle bin.)
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
Does this mean no Linux based terminals? (Score:2)
Seems to me this announcement would pretty much shoot that all to SBN (some burning netherworld), what with IE for UNIX being a complete myth (other than an early bad version for Solaris and the Carbonized Mac OS X port which won't run anywhere else).
--
Mozilla and AOL (Score:3)
Re:Mozilla and AOL (Score:2)
What about MSN? (Score:3)
It's a good move for Microsoft, because AOL users would more likely get XP, since there would be no need for them to install the AOL client.
It's a verrry bad move for AOL, because in doing so they are exposing themselves to the "I hate XP and therefore I hate AOL" mentality. Childish if you ask me, but then we're talking about the general public.
As far as the other stuff AOL owns (Winamp and the like), I don't see AOL pulling the plug. AOL will feel it needs to remain more than a virtual subdivision of MS on the XP desktop.
For Netscape, couldn't care less, since Netscape no longer exists as an independant company.
As far as Mozilla is concerned, they need to ink a deal with SONY to be on the playstation.
That'll mean that every (nearly) 10-14 years old will get the Mozilla browser along with their game box (and isn't that what most home PCs are for these days?
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Yes, but that was in the Windows 3.1 days. And even then it would download additional artwork and other "features" when necessary. I recall back in the days there being several areas of AOL that would take 30 minutes or more to access for the first time because it had to download all the information for that area. In today's world of big hard disks and CD-ROM distributions, it makes sense to distribute as much of the data as possible on media instead of downloading it, especially when you remember that the overwhelming majority of AOL users are still using dial-up access instead of broadband.
Besides, IE5.5 by itself is a 20-30 MB download (depending on options installed). How big do you think that un-compresses to?
How about this: (Score:5)
If Netscape had actually put some effort and planning into Mozilla, then you wouldn't have to ask 'What about Netscape'. They designed an entire fucking cross-platform toolkit instead of focusing on the real point--a good rendering engine and a good browser FIRST, then all the extras like mail, news and AOL/NSCP Instant Messenger.
--
Re:why don't you quit... (Score:2)
That's the theory. The practice is that if a user tries to override or turn off style sheets many sites fall apart.
I find you statement a bit unrealistic anyway. Even slashdot have customised colors.
Not if you choose "Light" mode. You see, Slashdot does give users this option, and, unlike style sheets, it works. More sites should do that.
The W3C is is not responsible for bad web-designers.
No, but the W3C is responsible for the standards it releases and when it releases them.
why don't you quit... (Score:3)
Better yet, just turn away anybody who isn't using your favorite browser from your sites. It saves both you and the web browsing public a lot of trouble.
Re:Nutscrape vs exploder the saga continues... (Score:3)
I don't think it's much better than Konqueror or the latest releases of Mozilla. IE is faster on low-end hardware, but that's easy to fix, and IE has its own set of really annoying behaviors.
Re:AOL is no fool... (Score:2)
Microsoft is king of the home user desktop, while AOL is king of home user internet. With each subsequent version, AOL is becoming less service-like and more like a OS. And now that Microsoft is making their OS more like a service in XP, M$ and AOL and virtually merging their products.
Microsoft and AOL/Time Warner have equivalent products on many fronts:
It would seem to be only a matter of time before we have a Micro$oft AOL/Time Warner merger. Or some sketchy deal that essentially does the same thing. Embedding AOL 6 into XP is only the first step.
I believe this is what M$ calls innovation????
RC
Like that's new (Score:2)
----
Re:Not sure that this is news exactly... (Score:3)
There's actually an interesting strategic reason that they purchased Netscape--so that AOL could couple advertising with its browser:
AOL shelled out 4.2 billion for Netscape (in a common stock transactaion). At the time of the acquisition, Netscape had an installed user base of 28 million users worldwide. Divide that and you come out with $150 per person. They couple the browser with AIM--whose user base had exploded to 35 million users, and was rising fast--in order to attract more users to AIM. Stick the ads for AOL on those and in Netscape, and you have one very large way of putting eyeballs on your advertisements, at a very low dollar per capita rate.
Interesting that it all comes down to marketing your product.