Tom WSMF wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
> --]In a sense, choosing IE over Netscape/Mozilla is akin to choosing a
> --]controlled audio format over MP3.
> Bzzzzzzzzzzt you have mixed the concepts.
> IE is a browser of formats (html, etc) MP3 is a format.
> So chosing IE is chosing a reader of formats not the format itself.
> I could understand it if you had said "its like choosing PDF over HTML
> back in the early '90s"
I mixed them purposely. There is an underlying principle of avoiding
situations of abusive control.
> --]> Its actually quite shameful if you are right. AOL has
> --]> a Linux version built, yet they wont even let a beta out
> --]> for linux users to try? And we all know that linux
> --]> users are far more likely to be technically savvy
> --]> and deal with beta issues. Yet still AOL is mum?
> Why the hell would AOL want tech savy people on its service? Specialy
> people like Linux folks who will start raisng the expecation bar of the
> user base, even , horrors, start and OSS wave.
AOL, in the long run, wants everyone on its service. Of course that
would be bad; we need completely independant ISP's, at least for elite
users. Still, I pay for several accounts for my kids to use (and
historical reasons) along with a number of other Internet access
> AOL is about as antiLinux as MS. Its Closed minded versus Open (well at
> least linux says its more "open")
For the most part, I disagree. There are (security) reasons why their
client is closed and development reasons why they are Win32 mostly and
Mac slightly. I can't say much more than that.
> ANd why the heck would a linux user want to go on AOL? Talk about
> supporting a Proprietary CLosed SOurce Company, AOL should be on top of
> your hit list with MS.
AOL doesn't have the same evil bent as MS as far as I'm concerned. They
have their problems and they certainly make motions at certain kinds of
market dominance, but they only screw their partners/advertisers, not
their users for the most part. There is a general sense that they want
to help their users, not screw them the way that I feel MS screws me
when they can.
AOL was the first 'Online Service' to embrace the web and they did it
pretty well. Their software is free. They supported free publishing
early. They didn't try to limit email or chat (like stupid Prodigy).
Their only screwup was the .ART format and everything related to it,
although it did buy them a bit in caching. Well their other major
screwup was not letting (My) Instant Images go live (bastards!), but I
> /"\ [---=== WSMF ----http://wsmf.org---===---]
> \ /
> X ASCII Ribbon Campaign
> / \ Against HTML Mail
-- email@example.com http://sdw.st Stephen D. Williams 43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax Dec2000
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:15:06 PDT