From: shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)
To: perry@piermont.com
Message Hash: 1c7a8c9c55b255823ba5268d82fc3b8936f47edf1fad731348bb82b5950e0179
Message ID: <v02120d09adb0070b090c@[192.0.2.1]>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-05-04 05:25:47 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 13:25:47 +0800
From: shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)
Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 13:25:47 +0800
To: perry@piermont.com
Subject: Re: Why I dislike Java. (was Re: "Scruffies" vs. "Neats")
Message-ID: <v02120d09adb0070b090c@[192.0.2.1]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
At 23:37 5/2/96, Jeff Weinstein wrote:
>Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>> Netscape with Java cannot be so tested because important components
>> come down off the net. So no, I'm not holding Netscape with Java to a
>> higher standard. I'm very much holding it to the same standard.
>
> The Netscape Administration Kit will allow a site security admin
>to create a configuration that disables Java, and does not allow the
>user to enable it. If your customers require netscape, perhaps this
>is an option that will make you more comfortable.
Does it prevent the user from downloading an unrestricted copy from
Netscape's ftp site or installing one brought from home?
Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, not those of my employer.
-- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com>
PGP encrypted mail preferred.
Return to May 1996
Return to “shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)”