cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1994-12-13 - Re: Clarification of my remarks about Netscape

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@imsi.com>
To: “Kipp E.B. Hickman” <kipp@warp.mcom.com>
Message Hash: 2d13527430e2698a87cf1f388f66279ffb225220c61f7ad9b86b576eda6884f9
Message ID: <9412130208.AA11526@snark.imsi.com>
Reply To: <9412121638.ZM17746@warp.mcom.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-12-13 02:09:08 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 12 Dec 94 18:09:08 PST

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 94 18:09:08 PST
To: "Kipp E.B. Hickman" <kipp@warp.mcom.com>
Subject: Re: Clarification of my remarks about Netscape
In-Reply-To: <9412121638.ZM17746@warp.mcom.com>
Message-ID: <9412130208.AA11526@snark.imsi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



"Kipp E.B. Hickman" says:
> In any case, my personal opinion is that NCOM is being attacked with
> a catch-22. If we had kept the protocol proprietary, then we would
> have been shot. We went public with it and are getting shot. If we
> had waited the 2.5 years to develop it, as a few here would seem to
> be advocating, then the market would shoot us.

This is a false dichotomy -- there are far more possibilities than
that. I pillory you not for being non-public but for being
non-intelligent. You could have bothered to read the literature and
designed something useful given an understanding of what came before
(your naive notion that somehow IPSP might require router
modifications would have been dispelled had you bothered to spend the
half hour needed to read and understand the proposals) or you could
have gone to the IETF and gotten everything done very fast if you'd
bothered to use the system right. As it stands you come off looking
like ignorant blunderers.

.pm

Thread