Now, what on earth would they want with RedHat?? Hrmm.. Microsloth ain't
seen nothin' if that monster emerges...
On Friday, January 18, 2002, at 09:45 PM, Werner Puschitz wrote:
>
> http://www.washtech.com/news/media/14759-1.html
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"
> in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 00:45:36 -0500, Werner Puschitz wrote:
>
> http://www.washtech.com/news/media/14759-1.html
>
Forgive the mind-numbing question but, it says, "But the AOL software
could be configured to override Windows and launch a version of Red
Hat's Linux operating system, sources said."
Now, my idea of overriding Windows is blowing it away, or at least
making the system dual-boot. I'm having trouble reconciling the
concepts. Can anyone shed some light?
--
David Benfell
[email protected]
---
There's an old proverb that says just about whatever you want it to.
[from fortune]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2002, David Benfell wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 00:45:36 -0500, Werner Puschitz wrote:
> >
> > http://www.washtech.com/news/media/14759-1.html
> >
> Forgive the mind-numbing question but, it says, "But the AOL software
> could be configured to override Windows and launch a version of Red
> Hat's Linux operating system, sources said."
>
> Now, my idea of overriding Windows is blowing it away, or at least
> making the system dual-boot. I'm having trouble reconciling the
> concepts. Can anyone shed some light?
Folks, what we have here is a potential disaster in the making. AOL is
trying to compete with MicroSoft. If they buy Red Hat and replace the
world-class Red Hat support model with a MicroSoft-style support model,
I for one will go elsewhere for Linux distributions. You guys at Red Hat
-- please don't let this happen!
--
M. Edward Borasky
[email protected]
The COUGAR Project
http://www.borasky-research.com/Cougar.htm
"I'm not a saxophone, but I play one on TV!" -- Bill Clinton
I think the main conclusion to be drawn here, is that the reporter who
covered this news, is a bit clueless when it comes to high-tech
situations. I remeber reading in the article that "...Sony Corp.'s
PlayStation 2 video-game console. Linux also runs the Sony product"
Ofoucrce, i think he ment that you can linux on the sony playstation.
Anyways, gues we better get used to those types of proclamations,when
the millions of aol users start running linux <grin>
On Sat, 2002-01-19 at 23:30, David Benfell wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 00:45:36 -0500, Werner Puschitz wrote:
> >
> > http://www.washtech.com/news/media/14759-1.html
> >
> Forgive the mind-numbing question but, it says, "But the AOL software
> could be configured to override Windows and launch a version of Red
> Hat's Linux operating system, sources said."
>
> Now, my idea of overriding Windows is blowing it away, or at least
> making the system dual-boot. I'm having trouble reconciling the
> concepts. Can anyone shed some light?
>
> --
> David Benfell
> [email protected]
> ---
> There's an old proverb that says just about whatever you want it to.
> [from fortune]
> making the system dual-boot. I'm having trouble reconciling the
> concepts. Can anyone shed some light?
hopefully not, since it's not a kernel-development issue.
In article <[email protected]>, Pagani,
Ronald <[email protected]> writes
>Now, what on earth would they want with RedHat?? Hrmm.. Microsloth ain't
>seen nothin' if that monster emerges...
well - AOL could replace that nice-looking young lady in their tele-ads
(the one with the dress like a vdu) with Alan Cox in Wizard's hat n
cloak :-)
--
robert w hall
Werner Puschitz wrote:
>http://www.washtech.com/news/media/14759-1.htm
>
So does that mean there will be [email protected]?
--
Ian S. Nelson <[email protected]> 303-666-0315
Nelson Computing of Boulder Colorado
Networking/Contracting/Custom Software/Linux Fast and Personal service
On Saturday 19 January 2002 02:30 pm, David Benfell wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 00:45:36 -0500, Werner Puschitz wrote:
> > http://www.washtech.com/news/media/14759-1.html
>
> Forgive the mind-numbing question but, it says, "But the AOL software
> could be configured to override Windows and launch a version of Red
> Hat's Linux operating system, sources said."
>
> Now, my idea of overriding Windows is blowing it away, or at least
> making the system dual-boot. I'm having trouble reconciling the
> concepts. Can anyone shed some light?
Actually it'd be quite simple so long as they don't want to support NT
based systems. Linux distributions in various shapes and sizes did it
for years, and there is no doubt some that still do it. All you have to
do is add a shortcut on a windows desktop that reboots it to MS-DOS
mode and runs LOADLIN.
However I find this unlikely, esspecialy with NT-based desktops
becoming more common, be it Win2k or XP.
Plus the journalist obviously doesn't have much technical background,
so for all we know he took what sources told him and inverted it,
reversed it, inverted it again, and then ROT13'd it to get the final
result.
The move by AOl will have a major impact on the linux community.
Linux will enter the consumer market in mass !
IBM is pushing linux on the business(server) side.
Cheers,
m a
On Sat, 19 Jan 2002, robert w hall wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Pagani,
> Ronald <[email protected]> writes
> >Now, what on earth would they want with RedHat?? Hrmm.. Microsloth ain't
> >seen nothin' if that monster emerges...
>
> well - AOL could replace that nice-looking young lady in their tele-ads
> (the one with the dress like a vdu) with Alan Cox in Wizard's hat n
> cloak :-)
>
> --
> robert w hall
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
> well - AOL could replace that nice-looking young lady in their tele-ads
> (the one with the dress like a vdu) with Alan Cox in Wizard's hat n
> cloak :-)
>
> --
> robert w hall
Well I've no idea on the rumours (and if I did I wouldnt tell you!) but Im
insulted that anyone believes I would continue working for RH if aol/time
warner owned them.
Alan
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Alan Cox wrote:
> > well - AOL could replace that nice-looking young lady in their
> > tele-ads (the one with the dress like a vdu) with Alan Cox in
> > Wizard's hat n cloak :-)
> >
> > -- robert w hall
> Well I've no idea on the rumours (and if I did I wouldnt tell you!)
> but Im insulted that anyone believes I would continue working for RH
> if aol/time warner owned them.
Sadly, I've heard statements like this before; I've even made them :-).
If it were a choice between AOL/Time Warner/Red Hat and not working on
Linux, would you still make that choice? If it were a choice between
working for AOL/Time Warner/Red Hat or working for Red Hat and competing
with AOL/Time Warner/Mandrake, would you still make that choice? The
world of business, where money talks, presents us with interesting
choices from time to time :).
--
M. Edward Borasky
[email protected]
The COUGAR Project
http://www.borasky-research.com/Cougar.htm
How to Stop A Folksinger Cold # 5
"Where have all the flowers gone..."
Beats me.
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 12:06:35 -0800 (PST)
"M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Well I've no idea on the rumours (and if I did I wouldnt tell you!)
> > but Im insulted that anyone believes I would continue working for RH
> > if aol/time warner owned them.
>
> Sadly, I've heard statements like this before; I've even made them :-).
> If it were a choice between AOL/Time Warner/Red Hat and not working on
> Linux, would you still make that choice? If it were a choice between
> working for AOL/Time Warner/Red Hat or working for Red Hat and competing
> with AOL/Time Warner/Mandrake, would you still make that choice? The
> world of business, where money talks, presents us with interesting
> choices from time to time :).
Hm, I find it particularly interesting that you seem to classify AOL/Time
Warner as "bad boys". I can't really agree on this, based on a simple
thought: this deal (if it really happens) is purely strategic from their
side, they will not earn a single buck with it. Instead chances are high
RH is going to be a high flyer afterwards, we all know where they want to
go tomorrow :-)
I can see big chances arising, why not take them?
Just go ahead, Steve!
(I can say that frankly here, he's not going to read it anyway ;-)
Regards,
Stephan
On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 21:06, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Well I've no idea on the rumours (and if I did I wouldnt tell you!)
> > but Im insulted that anyone believes I would continue working for RH
> > if aol/time warner owned them.
>
> Sadly, I've heard statements like this before; I've even made them :-).
> If it were a choice between AOL/Time Warner/Red Hat and not working on
> Linux, would you still make that choice? If it were a choice between
> working for AOL/Time Warner/Red Hat or working for Red Hat and competing
> with AOL/Time Warner/Mandrake, would you still make that choice? The
> world of business, where money talks, presents us with interesting
> choices from time to time :).
D O N ' T F E E D T H E T R O L L ! !
;)