Thaught this might interest some people. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Pattison" <srp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Multiple recipients of NFBnet GUI-TALK Mailing List" <gui-talk at NFBnet.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 6:29 AM Subject: Fwd: AOL and linux > > > From: Philip Webb purslow at chass.utoronto.ca > To: lynx-dev listserv lynx-dev at sig.net > > [ the story below -- The Register (UK) via Linux Today 020311 -- > contains > news re Internet-standards compliance which should interest Lynx users > ] > > AOL embraces Linux and Mozilla, plans to drop MS Explorer -- Robin > Miller > > Sources inside AOL and Red Hat say AOL is making a major > internal switch to Linux, and the long-rumored AOL default browser > switch from Microsoft's Internet Explorer to Mozilla -- or at least > Mozilla's Gecko rendering engine -- is well under way, but AOL will > probably not offer an AOL client for Linux in the forseeable future. > > According to several Red Hat and AOL employees who spoke to > NewsForge > but asked us not to use their names, recent negotiations between AOL > and Red Hat that led to rumors about AOL considering a Red Hat > acquisition were really negotiations for support contracts that will > help AOL use Linux more effectively. > > AOL is switching to Linux for the same reason most large companies > make the change: to save money. Thousands of AOL servers are already > 100% Linux, and more are switching over every day. AOL > number-crunchers figure they can replace an $80,000 box running > proprietary UNIX with two $5,000 Linux boxes and get a 50% increase > in > performance in addition to the cost savings. "Don't tell our > competitors", one of our AOL contacts says. "Let them keep buying > expensive crap". > > We hear that every hardware vendor who approaches AOL is now being > asked, "How is your support for Linux?" before they are even allowed > to make a sales presentation. > > Microsoft's server products have never been seriously considered by > AOL, according to our insiders. "The licenses cost too much, their > hardware requirements are excessive, they take too much labor to > maintain, and we have enough security problems of our own without > adding Microsoft's", says an AOL bean-counter who has access to the > company's server cost numbers. > > The Gecko rendering engine at the heart of the Mozilla Web browser > is > scheduled to replace Microsoft's Internet Explorer as AOL's default > browser -- the one in the millions of free AOL CDs distributed every > year -- in the 8.0 version of AOL's client software. (The current > version is 7.0.) The Gecko rendering engine is [10]already being > shipped as a "beta" test product in some CompuServe client software > packages, and reports from CompuServe users who have chosen to use > Gecko instead of Explorer have been described as "very positive". > This > customer feedback is an important part of AOL's browser decision > process. "We hear the question, 'What is the member impact?' > whenever > we are faced with a technical decision", says one of our contacts. > And > so far, it sounds like member impact of an AOL switch from Explorer > to > Gecko will be almost entirely positive. > > "With Gecko, we have control over the client software and don't have > to worry about Microsoft screwing up our streaming [audio and > video]", > says one AOL sysadmin. There is also concern at AOL about Explorer's > "poor use" of the [11]HTTP 1.1 Protocol. Our AOL sysadmin says, > "HTTP > 1.1 has lots more features than most people use", but AOL can make > good use of many lesser-known ones like [12]chunking, that are not > supported by Explorer because, says our AOL sysadmin friend, "MSIE > doesn't follow the spec correctly". > > Even if future versions of Explorer manage to incorporate chunking > and > other features AOL wants members to use -- because they minimize > download time and bandwith used per Web page delivered -- another > AOL > techie says, "It's still easier to optimize eveything when we > finally > control both the server and the client, and can make them work as > smoothly together as possible". > > All AOL tech people we spoke to denied that corporate dislike of > Microsoft played any part in their preference for either Linux or > Mozilla's Gecko rendering engine. They said their choices were made > purely on what worked best in tests they had run; that their concern > was not corporate politics but to make life easier and smoother -- > and > downloads faster -- for AOL members. > > The only thing that might delay -- not stop, just delay -- AOL's > change from Explorer to a Mozilla-based browser is allowing time for > some of AOL's largest and most important "partner sites" to do away > with any Explorer-specific features they have been using in place of > [13]W3C standards. > > A browser shift by AOL is going to leave an awful lot of companies > that assume their Web sites only need to work with Explorer > scrambling > to rewrite their code so that they don't lose AOL's [14]30 > million-plus subscribers, or about 30% of all U.S. Internet users. > > AOL for Linux users? Don't hold your breath > > The basic problem with Linux support, says one of our AOL insiders, > "is that AOL ALWAYS provides support for free. Hence the client is > rather primitive/conservative in its feature set. This makes the AOL > client reliable (relative to the software industry standards), > because > every 800-number support call comes right out of our profits. There > are 15,000 AOL employees. Roughly 10,000 work at the Call Centers. > We > really, really don't want more phone calls from members. > > "Now think of a Linux client. Either we completely disavow support > for > it (which is a very un-AOL thing to do), or we try to support every > reasonably-up-to-date Linux config in the world. Even with the > reasonably-up-to-date caveat, that is a hard thing to do. Where is > the > market and the demand?" > > There was once a Linux-based AOL client "[15]pseudo-computer" on the > market that generated very few support calls, but that was because > hardly anyone bought it. It was one of those "Internet appliances" > every computer company was hot to sell a couple of years ago, but no > consumers seemed to want it in place of a "real" computer. > > Perhaps there will be an "AOL-compatible" Linux computer on the > market > one day, but chances are that it will be sold and supported by a > company like OEone, Lycoris or even Lindows, which would probably > just > try to run the AOL client for Windows under WINE, anyway. > > But don't hold your breath. No AOL employee we have talked to, at > any > level, claims knowledge of any current or future plans to offer AOL > client software for Linux users. > > Obviously, a major AOL support contract would be a big win for Red > Hat. It's not in the bag yet; negotiations are not complete and are > still "very touchy", says one Red Hat person, and that's why Red Hat > is still keeping mum instead of shouting joyfully from the rooftops. > > If AOL's techies have their way, the contract will go through > without > further delay. One of them seems to think it is already a done deal, > with only a little i-dotting and t-crossing left before it becomes > final. "We get to bitch to Alan Cox about kernel problems now", he > says exultantly. > > On the browser front, once AOL switches to the Mozilla rendering > engine, Netscape and Mozilla users -- and possibly Opera, Galeon and > Konq users as well -- will no longer find themselves staring angrily > at "Best viewed with Internet Explorer" or "You cannot access all > features of this site unless you use Internet Explorer" tag lines -- > except, possibly at MSN, which already requires Explorer and Windows > Media Player to listen to music. This may be bad for Microsoft, but > more Web sites following industry-wide standards is good for > everyone > else. Maybe the [16]Web Standards Project will finally get some of > the > respect and cooperation it has deserved all along. > > As far as an AOL client for Linux, one Linux-using AOL employee > says, > "How many Linux people do you know personally who would sign up for > AOL if we had a Linux client? I don't know a single one, myself. I > have an account with another ISP I use at home with my Linux box, > and > probably wouldn't use AOL from home even if I could". > > The only way AOL could provide a cost-effective Linux client, given > its "total support for free" policy, would be to market a real, > full-featured personal computer (as opposed to an "Internet > appliance") that runs Linux and is preconfigured for AOL. The target > market for this computer would not be sophisticated Linux users, but > current AOL subscribers who want to replace their current boxes, and > it would need to be a very low-cost item to succeed in that market. > > Perhaps one of the world's many stalwart Linux entrepreneurs will > eventually convince AOL management that an AOL-branded, > consumer-priced Linux box is a good idea. Otherwise, AOL will > probably > stick to the current corporate operating system pattern: Linux in > the > server room, Windows or Mac on user desktops -- except that AOL-ized > desktops will run the AOL browser and its Mozilla rendering engine > instead of Microsoft Explorer. > > -- > ========================,,============================================ > SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb : purslow at chass.utoronto.ca > ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Centre for Urban & Community Studies > TRANSIT `-O----------O---' University of Toronto > > Regards Steve, > mailto:srp at bigpond.net.au. > MSN Messenger: internetuser383 at hotmail.com. > > > > > -- > This mailing list is sponsored by the National Federation of the Blind, NFB. > To view or search an archive of messages for this list, go to: http://www.nfbnet.org > For more information about the NFB, please call (410) 659-9314, point your > internet browser to http://www.nfb.org or Telnet to nfbnet.org. >
