From: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 15:05:00 +0800
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <QQahyo07802.199603210634@relay3.UU.NET>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


AO on MS response to Java:

>As a web developer, I have some problems with this scheme.  Giving Microsoft
>access to virtually every OLE control on the Web does not make me more
>secure.  Sounds like a way to rip off ideas from the rest of the development
>world.  If someone has a control that might compete with a Microsoft
>product, it could be shelved and/or delayed for "further security testing".
>
>Java has a decentralized mechanism for security.  No one group controls what
>is a "certified" control and what is not.  You write the code and compile it
>and that is that. Furthermore, you are not stuck with Microsoft approved
>platforms.  (I wonder if there will ever be a version of Explorer for the Mac.)
>
>I expect the Microsoft plan to garner a bit of resistance from the Web
>development community over this one...

I think this is a very good example of why nobody should bemoan Java.
when it was first introduced I heard a lot of grouching and sniping
at this really outstanding software (that was admittedly overhyped).
but look what we could have gotten as the first potential standard:
the above system.

MS was apparently caught completely off guard with Java. they had not a clue 
about what it was about, why it was important, and scrambled to deal with it.
they have apparently only reluctantly licensed it as a temporary ploy.
the above motions suggest they ultimately want to control this standard.

all the MS responses to Java outside of licensing it appear to me to
be pathetically missing the point. they don't seem to understand why
Java is so important, namely its decentralized security model you 
refer to. you cannot create this by adding a few function calls on
top of an already insecure language like Visual Basic.
it has to be done incredibly carefully from the ground up as it was
done with Java. I don't think people realize how carefully this language
was constructed, it was developed extremely delicately in a way unlike
many other languages. this is a real breakthrough in software that 
theoretically creates a "secure" programming environment, something that 
has been sought for decades and is now being delivered to the desktop due
to some very hard work and visionary effort.

I noticed that Denning, in her Leahy protest letter, 
referred to glowingly of this MS "endorsement" scheme. I have
a very bad suspicion that MS is like a dog that rolls over whenever
the NSA comes to visit them and tell them how to write their software
(apparently this happens routinely).

anyway, I totally agree with you that their centralized scheme is
really horrible, and its inferiority and headaches are likely to
be spotted and yowled about by many developers as you write.

 there is no probably no need to fear MS's schemes at the moment. as long
as they have an inferior standard its not going to gain much attention
or use and Java already has a very intense momentum going. just because
MS does something in some area is not necessarily reason to take them
seriously. they have had situations where they come out with stuff
that never turns into anything and silently evaporates like all 
companies have. (far less than others, but nonetheless)

one thing I just don't really understand about MS is their seeming
drive to conquer every market. it seems that whenever a new software
market emerges they feel they have to invade it and dominate it
like pirates. this has a lot to do with the psychology of Bill Gates.
the idea that "gosh, somebody else has already done that really well,
and it would be awfully tought to beat them, let's not bother with
that" seems to be lost in that environment completely. instead, it
is, "oh no!! they are beating us!! we have to make a better widget
or we'll all die!!" -- a good example of competition taken to 
extremely unhealthy extremes imho. 

I suspect like others that MS'
glory days are receding and in fact all extremely large companies
may undergo major shifts once our economy fully shifts into the
information age.