AOL in Negotiations to Acquire Red Hat

Mon, 21 Jan 2002 12:56:49 -0600 (CST)

First of all, what crawled up your ass?  Since you wanna be such a prick 
and read stuff into what I typed, I guess I'll have to take time out of my 
busy career to set you straight.  -snicker-

 On 20 Jan 2002, Luis Villa wrote:

> On Sun, 2002-01-20 at 05:46, CDale wrote:
> > 
> > How did I miss the beginning of this thread?  Forever, Red Hat has been 
> > called the AOL of Linux. 
> No offense, but the people who call RH the AOL or MS of Linux are
> uninformed, immature, or both. Period. There is/was no way to call it
> that otherwise.

I always hate it when people say "No offense, but..." and then attempt to 
offend me.  Actually, I don't really hate it as much as I find it to be a 
silly attempt to use extra words that add seeming content to what usually 
ends up being content-less anyhow.  Anyhow, there are lots of "ways" to 
call it that.  It was called that, and it stuck, so obviously some people 
agreed that it was/is a good analogy.  As immature and uninformed as you 
may think it is, RH has worked hard to make Linux user friendly, and if I 
can site the #1 answer to my question to all the folks I've encountered 
who use AOL, which is, "Why do you use it?" it is "Because it's easy to 
use."  I would say that most folks who use MS feel the same.  So the 
comparison isn't that far off base, no matter how it may bother you.

> > I called it that when I was a Slacker, and had 
> > it slung at me while wearing that Red Hat. 
> See the above: if you had it slung at you, and cared, then you're
> clearly missing a big part of the picture.

"Cared" is a big word.  What I care about is the operating system itself, 
not about how it's rolled or distributed.  Therefore, I don't CARE what 
anyone does with or calls any of the distributions.  I only care that I 
have choices, and that, bottom line, if I don't like any of them, FINE, 
I'll roll my own.  (:

> > It's a sad, sad thing, but 
> > living at that place (remember when working at a startup meant living 
> > there?) and watching the suits and suit sluts come in and do the 
> > corporation of the thing was an ugly affair.  If anyone enjoyed it, it was 
> > Mark, who walked out, stiff and tense in his expensive suit, the one he 
> > wore with a stiff back and a frown, and he didn't enjoy it till way after 
> > that, I'm sure.  But of course there was Bob there, on the board, to make 
> > sure that things would be OK.  
> Having spoken very briefly with Mark not to long ago, he doesn't really
> seem to enjoy it even now. Bob seems to have actually transitioned more
> easily into the role of corporate tycoon, though he does a lot of really
> great stuff with his money. [see
> ] 

Sorry to hear that about Mark. and Bob.  Last I heard Mark was a happy 
father who'd shed those suits that he never quite looked right in.  But this is all 
gossip anyhow.  (:  I guess what I was trying to say is that RH, the way 
it's run now, certainly isn't in any way less "evil" than AOL is.  I do 
feel sorry for the folks who have to train a whole bunch of new people 
about what Linux is and isn't, after having done this with a whole crew of 
overpaid idiots during/after the IPO.  

> As for the rest of these accusations, I still know personally (and work
> with, through GNOME) a lot of RH guys who are awfully non-corporate and
> care a huge amount about Free Software and the GPL. Yeah, they've got
> management whose priorities are a little wacky, but they generally feel
> like they're pretty well treated and they cite fairly minimal reasons
> for grumbling. And most of them still pretty much live at RH, if that
> really means all that much to you.

Sure, I know those guys too, and still talk to them quite a bit, and, 
having the kind of background I have with them, I hear a lot more of the 
griping than you ever would.  And yep, I know they still pretty much live 
there, and that that devotion is still unrecognized.  The only reason this 
means -anything- to me is because some of these people are very close 
friends, and one thing I did hope when I left RH was that things would get 
better for them in the long run.  Oh well.  It's their choice to stay 
there, and if that works for them, that's their business.  As far as this 
being an "accusation," you seem to be a bit defensive there, pal.  (:  

> > We Slackers, years ago, thought that RH would sink itself with all 
> > it's readiness to make things proprietary,and, in a way it has,
> ? Exactly /what/ proprietary stuff are you talking about? Last I
> checked, there is exactly /one/ piece of RH software that's proprietary,
> and that's the RHN /server/, and there are at least two GPL projects to
> replace that that I'm aware of.

One?  LOL  I supported the SWS for over a year.  Let's see, sure wish I 
could get the code for that u2d server.  (:  And, before you get your 
panties in a wad for onlygodknowswhatreason, please read what I say 
before you respond vapidly to it.  "it's readiness to make things 
proprietary" is what I said, and the only thing that's wrong with that is 
that apostrophe that isn't supposed to be there.  If you don't believe 
me, ask one of your RH buddies about explaining to Billy Marshall "No, we 
can't sell that, no we can't charge for that, no, that is GPL'd, nonoNO 
Billy, this is LINUX GODDAMMIT."  (:

> I'm honestly surprised that someone who claims to have worked at RH
> would have bought all the 1337 hax0r propaganda crap about RH as the
> _____ of Linux.

Buying into what?  When did I say anything about hacking or 31337ness?
Spelling things with numbers has nothing to do with analogies in this 
particular situation.  Anyhow, my whole point was: "So what?"  AOL 
will either totally fuck it up, at which point many RH users will switch, 
or they won't, at which point noone will give a damn who owns RHI.  That's 
all I really wanted to say, so if you wanna argue that, go for it.  I'll 
be over here in my Crown Vic racing spunky little military guys down Hwy 
90.  (:  (Geege, does 8 cylinders make you as hot as it makes me?  LOL)

> Luis

"My theology, briefly, is that the universe was dictated but not
          signed."  (Christopher Morley)