[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev Q: lynx shopping?
From: |
Philip Webb |
Subject: |
Re: lynx-dev Q: lynx shopping? |
Date: |
Tue, 12 Mar 2002 04:42:54 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.25i |
[ 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 : address@hidden
ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT `-O----------O---' University of Toronto
; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to address@hidden
- Re: lynx-dev Q: lynx shopping?, (continued)
- Re: lynx-dev Q: lynx shopping?, Henry Nelson, 2002/03/12
- Re: lynx-dev Q: lynx shopping?,
Philip Webb <=
- Re: lynx-dev Q: lynx shopping?, Philip Webb, 2002/03/12
- Re: lynx-dev Q: lynx shopping?, Henry Nelson, 2002/03/12
- Re: lynx-dev Q: lynx shopping?, Henry Nelson, 2002/03/12