On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
--]I mixed them purposely. There is an underlying principle of avoiding
--]situations of abusive control.
--]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
You pay to put your kids in a situation of abusive control?
AOL is to the net what MS is to OSS.
--]> 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.
Its not just the code. Code is the trees, look at the forrest. Censorship
as a standard part of the service, gated comminuty mindset, controled
content, and lets not forget the foot draggin it did in the face of the
--]AOL doesn't have the same evil bent as MS as far as I'm concerned.
SO know we know how your bent.
--]AOL was the first 'Online Service' to embrace the web and they did it
--]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
SO you dont see any problem with censoring, an abusive TOS, and dumbed
down software a problem?
Wowswer scooby, and I thought ai was hitting the scooby snacks harshly.
/"\ [---=== WSMF ----http://wsmf.org---===---]
X ASCII Ribbon Campaign
/ \ Against HTML Mail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:15:06 PDT