Anti-AOL.org - AOL news, humor and more!.

Humor &
Information

AAO's Home

AOL Humor

AOL Info

Special Features

Interviews

Just the FAQs Ma'am

FAQ Index

Anti-AOL.org

alt.aol-sucks

alt.o-s.a-o

alt.aol

Gettin' Personal

Dan's Diversion

KnightHeart's Realm

Cool Stuff

'Love' letters

Linkage

Legal Junk

Legal Junk

Elementary, My Dear Sherlock (Part 2)

"Incidentally...how much do you know about AOL's email servers?"

Not a whole lot I'm afraid. I started at AOL just before the transition from one set of servers to another...I had to deal with all the stuck mail flags, but other than that, email was never an issue much talked about even among some of the most irate members.

"oh...do you know what kind of servers they went to?"

Not offhand. My guess is that they threw email onto some Sun Sparcs and left it at that.

"LOL...Now that would be funny...an OS they don't even support runs all of their behind the scenes stuff."

Most of their servers, to my knowledge, were actually running HP-UX.

"At any rate...what do you know about the proxy server that AOL employs?"

I really learned of that one after I left. Again, it was one of those things that members rarely complained of (likely because they didn't know about it any more than the techs did)....

"Not too surprising...to be honest. Ok...well then let's concentrate on the software itself"

We were never told that AOL ran web proxies, but it would certainly explain the frequent difficulties that some had accessing the web when it was a server based problem.

"Really...you were never told that?"

Not even once, and my trainer was a hard core tech himself. He ended up at NOC.

"You would think that they would want their techs to know about things like that."

Yes and no. Even if there were problems, there would have been no chance for us to troubleshoot something like that.

"Yeah...but knowing that AOL is running a proxy you could tell the user that...and check on the status of it, etc..."

It would have been a liability as the less savvy techs would no doubt have used the web proxies as an excuse every time somebody couldn't get to the web (which was often).

"Good point..."

System status was uninformative. The problems rarely showed up in system status before they were already fixed. If something was happening right then, you could assume that system status would know about it 30 minutes to an hour later.

"You would think that there would be some way to update it instantly..."

The high level techs did what they could, but there weren't enough of them to troubleshoot and keep everyone informed.

"Actually, I know of one program that updates every 5 seconds or so...IIRC it's called 'what's up gold.'"

It wouldn't have been to difficult to implement, but again, it probably wasn't deemed mission critical, and it would have cost some money that they wouldn't have seen any obvious return on their investment.

"Yeah...I'll grant them that..."

Anyhow, on to the software.

"On the subject of software...AOL (insert ver number here) seems to be rather buggy to say the least, constant crashes... etc...did AOL ever give any reasoning behind this?"

In a way yes. They have a certain percentage (less than 1%) of acceptable crashes for any particular "tool." A tool in this case is any *.DLL file that is AOL proprietary. It was calculated that if each tool crashed 1% of the time, the client itself would only work 34% of the time...

"HAHAHA...how pathetic."

It's shameful to consider, but AOL's programming seemed so discrete (much like Microsoft's strategy of having different departments work the same thing) that it doesn't surprise me that the files didn't work all that well.

"Heh... yeah you would think that the more people you have working together to solve a problem the better..."

There was also the issue of how much of a resource hog the program was. There were examples of poorly written Rainman forms that once opened would suck 5-10% of the system resources and not give anything back after they were closed.

"But having a client uptime of only 34% was acceptable to them...you would think that this would drive their clients away. Rainman is the server side programming tool correct?"

In fairness, the client was up more than that; the problem was that it really depended on how crash proof the DLL files were. Some were better than others. Rainman, from what little I ever learned about it, was the programming tool responsible for all the AOL "forms" (what the members saw on their screens when they went to KW: HO for example). There was actually a place out in Virginia called AOL University that taught Rainman to AOL employees and 3rd party developers and content partners.

"So basically it is/was the language that AOL uses to provide 'content' areas?"

Yes. I understand that it is something of a cross between Visual Basic and HTML, but there weren't really any examples accessible to us in the call centers. Supposedly, it's on its way out, but I don't have any way to confirm that.

"Well, I do know they cut off rainman to the remaining CLs, and AOL seems to be going web based more and more...hell, one day they just might become a regular ISP."

They would just as soon see the community leaders disappear. Their jobs are meaningless anymore.

"Yeah... it does seem so...All of AOL's 'content' seems to be more and more ad partnerships rather than anything actually useful to the end user."

It had to happen. There are fewer and fewer CLs monitoring greater numbers of people. The CAT has taken over the function of punishment, and it's presumed that the members will be the ones to take action and report abuses.

"How overworked would you say CAT is usually?"

There was once a rumor going around the media (and I think it hit Wall Street particularly) suggesting that AOL was trying to switch to more ad driven income rather than getting the majority of its income from memberships. Vicious rumor; died quickly.

"Heh...unfortunately true though."

It varies in CAT. I remember some months ago when there was a crisis after AOL began automatically TOSsing bulk emailers. They ripped dozens of techs from the floor and trained them in about 2 days to do the job of a CATRep.....

"Back to the previous question...it seems that AOL is rather unresponsive to user complaints about other users...or their software...or anything else for that matter."

Members would be on hold for 20 minutes or more just trying to get through and figure out why they couldn't sign on. Many even called other departments only to be told that they needed to and could only speak to the CAT. I wouldn't say unresponsive as much as distanced.

"So...rather that they really aren't in touch with what the user wants? More like they don't know?"

On the floor, we wanted to do everything that we could to help these people. We were paid to do that, and it didn't reflect well if we didn't. However, we had no power. CAT had a little power to deal with other users, but that depended on proof, and most members didn't know how to copy and paste. They didn't understand that we needed the proof in "writing." We couldn't just take their word for it, and cancel someone's account on their say so. Back to problems with the software: the members had no one to tell their problems to...

"The techs couldn't report problems?"

We were powerless to really fix inherent problems. We had no access to the servers. We had no access to the people directly responsible for maintaining the servers. We had our supervisors who sometimes knew somebody who knew someone else that could take care of the problem. Or, we could ALog the problem and hope that they would fix it.

"Hrmm... sounds like a breakdown in the system...bug reports and breakdowns never really reach who they should."

I think the higher level techs suffered from two things: a) they were too far removed from the real call center atmosphere. They weren't on the phones with members on a regular basis. b) I think they understood how generally incompetent we were. Problems would be ALogged that were really client problems that the ALog team couldn't handle. All of this generally being the responsibility of a small team out in Tucson: AZTog

"heh...saw an ad in the paper...they are hiring like 20 people right now."

Call center reps I presume?

"No...looking for server and net techs...not call center. It required a degree in CS and things of that nature."

Interesting. Those positions are often reserved for internal promotion. At least they used to be.

"Got me...but this is the second time in the last year or so that I have seen that type of ad."

That always got me. They went on this huge spree of advertising positions in Virginia at the NOC. They went to all the call centers, and I even applied at one time. They wouldn't even give me an interview, although they interviewed my roommate at the time despite zero Unix experience and no experience in networking (both of which I listed).

"Oh...the mandatory updates...it has been suggested that the AOL client downloading 'art' is actually being forced to update the ads that appear the next time the user signs on... any thoughts?"

Not true...AOL already has the ability to push ads through while you are online. Yes, the files will download to your main.idx file, but that's not what the "updates" are for at all.

"Then what are the updates for? I assume bug fixes...but what about the 'art' updates?"

I'm not sure what "art" updates you might be referring to. AOL does load up some extra "art" during the installation, but other than that, the updates that occur when members sign off are updated *.DLL files most typically. It's rather invasive, but used properly, a nice system in the sense that users don't have to seek bug fixes and updates, the fixes come on their own. I suppose there are rare instances when AOL will say that it is downloading extra "art," but it's usually for a complex form or series of forms.

"Ahh...incidentally, the person who suggested the ad thing was Cassel in an interview with some big news outlet...like CNN or something. AOL denied it but I figured I would get the scoop from someone who doesn't need to cover the companies arse. :)"

I'm willing to be fair about it. I didn't enjoy working for them for some time, but there is enough that they do wrong/immorally/inappropriately without having to make things up.

"Indeed...and I appreciate your honesty. :) Have you seen any of these mandatory updates actually screw up the AOL client worse than it was before the update?"

Yes. There was a period of time when AOL was sending an update to the 4.0 16 bit client that was essentially broken. The update itself was okay, but the mechanism for delivery was flat-out busted. The update would download and then upon decompression it would say that it was corrupted. Some people lived with this (a 5 minute DL every time they signed off) for upwards of two weeks and never called. The fix was that we actually needed to rename ALL other instances of the Dunzip.dll in every directory except for the AOL home directory. It was a disaster. So many techs misdiagnosed the problem. Needless loss of information when members reinstalled unnecessarily. AZTog and such were busy for days trying to find out what had happened. Some people even had to resort to Winzip to manually decompress the update and extract it to the right directories.

"Why didn't they just kill the download until they figured out what was going on?"

They did for a week or so, but it was really too late. Everybody had already downloaded it the first time they signed off. Usually there was a rollout procedure, but it either wasn't seen in rollout or because it was the less popular 16 bit client they rolled it out too quickly.

"Yeah...that would be my guess...I mean really...how many people are still running 16 bit clients? I honestly can't remember the last time I laid eyes on Windows 3.1."

I talked to them everyday. ;) There were still a huge number of people running old machines (386s and 486s) with insufficient RAM and Win3.1. Some of their machines just couldn't run even 3.0 16-bit. None would support software (aka win)modems. It was disheartening to have to tell someone that their computer would not run AOL; they would have to buy a new one.

"Yikes! Telling them to buy a new computer to use an ISP. Man, as a user I would be pissed...a modem is one thing...but a whole new box..."

Such is the price for being on AOL. I had people email me a few times saying that they had gotten a new computer just so AOL would run better. It was overkill, but they were kids in the candy store.

"Now what's this about E-Machines? They only had a 2400 modem?"

Well, actually, the modems worked rather well at 2400 bps. ;) All kidding aside, I would get probably 10 calls a day from members using e-machines. Usually, it was a connectivity problem. E-machines came with PCTel modems that are almost completely host controlled. Usually, the members were disconnected or couldn't get on in the first place.

"HAHA. I have that modem...when I bought it the guy told me that I would NOT connect to AOL at all I bought 5 on the spot. :)"

The official remedy (after a "contest" between all the call centers to devise a fix that would cut call time (not necessarily solve the problem), was usually new drivers. They suggested for some time that we change to software compression rather than hardware, but even the knowledgeable techs didn't know if this was working. Some techs swore by this, but I honestly don't think it did anything but get the members off the phone and the techs on to the next call.

The real fix was to reduce load or cut V90 out entirely. Some worked. Some worked for a while and then quit (probably corresponding to updated code in AOL's modem banks). Some never worked at all.

"Do you know anything about the MAPI transport AOL had in the works some time ago? More specifically...why they abandoned it..."

Again, only what I learned after leaving. My perception about their abandonment would be that it was a business decision. The reasoning being that if people were not so reliant on AOL's GUI, what reason would they ultimately have for staying.

"Couldn't figure out how to serve up ads over the connection without being accused of spamming?"

In theory, they would have to balance the loss of membership due to not having MAPI against the loss of membership (and revenue/ad dollars) by people leaving because they realized they could use another cheaper service and still use the same program for mail and such.

"So basically AOL intentionally spoonfeeds its users using their GUI to keep them in a 'babywalker' so to speak?"

Yes. It's hard to say whether or not that's what they have in mind (i.e., that they intended it to be that way), but it is certainly a side effect of whatever strategy they are employing.

"Did AOL encourage you as a tech to keep the user in the GUI...like forbidding you to tell them that they can bypass the internal browser?"

No, we weren't ever told explicitly that we couldn't suggest the outside browser. However, it didn't make sense. Usually, if the internal browser wasn't working, the external would not work either. With the rare exception of a corrupted Wsock32.dll file, the external never worked if the internal didn't work as well.

"Yeah...usually being the keyword...unless it just wasn't connecting to the proxy or the proxy was down. AFAIK they are finally ditching the proxy...IIRC 5.0 doesn't use it at all"

Keywords were almost always internal, served up over the intranet rather than the internet. That's why KW: finance always worked even if you couldn't get to your stockbroker's site to actually trade. 5.0 is point-to-point protocol so it shouldn't be necessary (though I'm under the impression that they still proxy everything).

"Did you ever get any calls asking about Netscape or anything similar to that?"

Yes, many people wanted to use Netscape, and when the deal was announced of Netscape's acquisition by AOL, many called wondering when we were dropping IE.

"Actually on our site we are getting a lot of AOL IPs that don't go through the proxy...and more importantly the log as MSIE 5 instead of AOL 5."

Impressive. Do any log as AOL 5?

"Nope."

Very interesting indeed.

"It could be that our counter code hasn't been updated to reflect that AOL 5 is out now. You know what...I take that back...it seems that it does still connect to the proxy, but it still just registers as MSIE 5."

That might have something to do with the registry modifications. Just a guess, but since AOL modifies the entries for MSIE and MSOE, perhaps it does some other things as well.

"Who knows...on the Netscape topic though...How many calls did you get asking for POP server addresses and such?"

It was unending and unbearable. Granted, I didn't get calls like that every day, but often enough and on days when I did get them, it seemed that I would get upwards of 5 in a day (a huge number when you consider the size of member services). People usually went irate over it, and now I can't say that I blame them though at the time, I tried to convince them that they didn't need it: everything they needed was in AOL itself.

"I don't think I need to say it...Do you see AOL dropping MSIE as their internal browser anytime in the near future?"

It's a tricky question. My answer as things stand now is that AOL will maintain its alliance with Microsoft and continue to use MSIE. AOL is obligated to continue using it (per contract) till January 1, 2001. After that, I imagine the contract will be renewed. AOL did not buy Netscape for its browser. They bought Netscape for its server technologies.

"I was under the impression that they bought it for the portal site, but the question is, will MS renew the contract as well?"

The browser was already in poor shape when they got it, and though they put more effort into bug fixing, the effort would have been more appropriately placed in rewriting it from the ground up. Microsoft will renew as well. A huge percentage of their own user base for IE comes from the AOL market. Microsoft can't afford to lose 21 million users at the snap of someone's fingers.

"hrmm...well that is debatable...the browser itself generates zero income for MS...and if you want to point out that MS defaults to MSN when first installed I would point out that AOL changes that default to their homepage."

I'm a bit rusty as it's been some months since I read the Microsoft Finding of Facts, but they never wanted to make a dime of their browser. It was all about market share. In that sense they still can't afford to give up 21 million users.

"hrmmm, I'll grant that...but as near as I can tell IE 5 has a huge margin over Netscape...from our logs it shows that MS has like 80%."

heh. Netscape users must not like your site. ;) Last reports I saw (granted about 6 months old) still show Netscape with a rapidly decreasing majority.

"Really?? That I would find surprising...not the rapidly decreasing part."

It was estimated 50/50 at the end of 1998, and estimated to end up as 65/35 in favor of IE by the beginning of 2001. So it's fair to say that we're on the side of MSIE comprising the majority now. Interesting quote here: Four days before Case was due to arrive at Microsoft's campus, Gates sent an e-mail outlining Microsoft's goals in negotiating a deal with AOL to the responsible Microsoft executives. He wrote: What we want from AOL is that for a period of time - say 2 years - the browser that they give out to their customers and the one they mention and put on their pages and the one they exploit is ours and not Netscape's. We need for them to make our browser available as the browser to existing and new customers. We have to be sure that we don't allow them to promote Netscape as well. We want all the hits that come off of AOL to register on servers as our browser so people can start seeing us as having measurable browser share.

"Wow...but AOL does provide the Netscape browser...they have for quite some time. At any rate, its a tough call to make...and my crystal ball is in dire need of Windex."

Actually, AOL used to provide Netscape on its servers. That changed a short time before I left.

"You mean they stopped?"

Originally, KW: Netscape took you to an AOL proprietary download area. AOL later changed it so that KW: Netscape no longer pointed to an internal area, but rather forwarded you on to Netscape's download web site.

"No kidding."

So you can understand: if your Internet Explorer was not working, and the techs could not fix it, Netscape was not a realistic option anymore.

"Ahhhhh...I think I am getting it...basically if IE broke people would just download Netscape...and since AOL was providing it, it could be construed that AOL was breaching the contract with MS."

I venture to say that had to have crossed their minds...