[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Netscape Code, Air Force pushes back
>
>
> This whole thing reminds me of John Perry Barlow's prediction that
> copyright will be replaced by free information, with large institutions
> paying for development costs.
>
> But maybe its that, and maybe it's a different (even if it is much more
> interesting) version of the ECCO story. Question is, will NS continue
> to fund R&D on the code? Jamie
Dear Jamie:
If they want to integrate their browsers into on demand server
solutions, if they want to harness the 5+million linux users, if they
want to comply with the Air Force's ban on 'push,' then publishing the
code is the best thing since Mosaic was released. Publishing the code
gives Netscape a leg up on compliance with Orange Book and Red Book
security specs. Government contracts may not be far behind.... If the
Air Force doesn't like the bandwidth waste of 'push' then they must be
horrified at McSoft Exchange Servers ability to support hundreds,
instead of thousands (Oracle8) of clients. The week that IE 4.0 gave
away millions of free browsers, Netscape sold two to three million
licenses for browsers to the Federal Government. This should have been
trumpeted by their PR, but this fact got lost in the IE hype.
Novell manages bandwidth much better than any offerings by McSoft. The
rush to NT may slow, as true networks begin to wake up to the longterm
consequences of proprietary OS code.
CAB
> http://www.news.com/News/Item/Textonly/0,25,18398,00.html?pfv
>
> Air Force wary of push software
> By Janet Kornblum
> NEWS.COM
> January 23, 1998, 4 a.m. PT
> URL: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,18398,00.html
>
> The United States Air Force may be able to defend the country against airborne attacks, but when it comes to perceived enemies lurking
> on the Internet, it would rather be safe than sorry.
>
> While Netizens happily download all sorts of programs that allow data to be pushed and pulled onto and off their computers, the Air
> Force quietly has instructed personnel to hold off from installing these programs until officials can thoroughly check them out and make
> sure they are safe. It is another example of the hesitancy of some to adopt the much-touted technology.....
>
> "Effective immediately, all commercially available auto push-pull data gathering applications...are to be disabled from all networks,"
> states a memo originally sent to Air Force personnel in October. "Currently, these technologies introduce security risks and impact data
> throughput on our networks that cannot be tolerated." ....
>
> The Air Force's greatest concern with that company's product was not security, but bandwidth: the Air Force wanted to make sure
> PointCast and the other applications don't take up too much server space....
>
>
>
> Norm wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 14:26:38 -0500 (EST), Matthew Benjamin wrote:
> >
> > >As a programmer, I can say that one of the most important questions
> > >about Netscape's promise to distribute Communicator source code, is
> > >whether it includes the CORBA/IIOP object protocol capability included
> > >in Communicator 4.
> > >
> >
> > I can't tell for sure but I would think so. I didn't hear them
> > say they'd only be releasing parts of the source, so unless I hear
> > otherwise I'd assume the CORBA code would be included
> >
> > >If so, CORBA should be a major focus of energy by advocates of open
> > >computer systems, and a competitive software industry.
> > >
> > >CORBA is an OPEN object-oriented communication protocol, sort of like
> > >Microsoft's COM/OLE/ActiveX-but it is in the public domain, supervised
> > >by the Object Management Group, a consortium of 700+ industry companies.
> > >Anyone can download the CORBA specifications, and efficient, free
> > >implementations of CORBA exist (eg,
> > >http://siesta.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/TAO.html ). Free availability of a
> > >commercial CORBA client implementation would give CORBA a major boost in
> > >the marketplace.
> > >
> > >Widespread support for CORBA protocols would be a major blow for
> > >Microsoft, which is trying to lock the customers into its own,
> > >proprietary protocols, which are essentially supported only on
> > >Microsoft's Operating Systems. It would be a significant win for open
> > >competition in the software industry.
> >
> > It would not only be good for CORBA, it would also be a victory
> > for consumers in general. IMNSHO there's no place for closed
> > proprietary protocols in an open internet. The internet should be a
> > place where everyone can communicate with each other regardless of what
> > platform they're using. M$'s failure to support open standards is
> > nothing but a scheme to lock users into running a M$ OS. IMO not only
> > would CORBA objects make it easier for everyone to adhere to a common
> > standard but it's also superior technology to the pseudo-object
> > orientated COM/DCOM junk that M$ keeps trying to ram down everyone's
> > throat. Lets face it, if COM/DCOM was such great technology they would
> > need to force everyone to use it, but the fact is that with CORBA
> > objects we get superior technology that has the added value of also
> > being 'open'.
> >
> > ...Cheers,
> >
> > ...Norm
> >
> > ***********************************************
> > * Brought to you by OS/2 Warp v4.0 and PMMail *
> > * For a copy of my PGP key send me a message *
> > * with "send pub_key" in the subject *
> > ***********************************************
>
> --
> James Love
> Consumer Project on Technology
> P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
> love@cptech.org | http://www.cptech.org
> 202.387.8030, fax 202.234.5176
>
--
_____________________________________________
Charles Behney charlesaugust@theriver.com |
http://bisbee.net webmaster@bisbee.net |
_____________________________________________|