On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 12:03:13AM +0200, Hetz Ben Hamo wrote: > > It's called "brand name" - AOL could develop their own distribution within a > month. Costs are almost nothing (only man-power), and source is available... > - but they want the Red Hat name. > > Why didn't they back then bought Spy Glass or the Mosaic team and went > directly to Netscape? because of the brand name.
Because of the user base. Red Hat's userbase is huge and its brand name is well known, but it's all servers. Joe user doesn't know nor care. AOL's brand name and user base in consumer software and services is all they need. Red Hat hold zero value for AOL in that area. On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 12:56:33AM +0200, Hetz Ben Hamo wrote: > > If AOL wants to create an "AOLinux" - then they would have either create > their own one (and they did - look at their Gateway terminal), or could have > bought someone else - Mandrake is a good candidate. But AOL doesn't even look > at Mandrake. Hetz, I completely agree with every bit of what you said here (except for the GNOME ObHolywar, of course). I was thinking about Mandrake myself. If AOL wants to go for Linux, Red Hat would be the /wrong/ choice. So far I think AOL have much more to gain from being /seen/ flirting with Red Hat just to make MS restless than from actually going for it. Which either might be as well be what it's all about, or a deliberate exaggerating leak of something else entirely. ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
