From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 17:40:04 +0800
To: "Pit Bull" <perry@piermont.com>
Subject: Re: Why I dislike Java. (was Re: "Scruffies" vs. "Neats")
In-Reply-To: <199605032042.QAA24915@jekyll.piermont.com>
Message-ID: <199605040620.XAA15527@netcom9.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>> but again, the Java designers never claimed that
>> "Perry Metzger will be able to use Java in his mission critical
>> funds transfer application".
>
>I keep saying that I don't care about not being able
>to use it there -- the problem is even having a copy of Netscape with
>Java enabled on the same machine as a trading system. One instance of
>Netscape running Java can endanger an entire trading floor.

right. substitute "unapproved software" wherever you use the
term "Java" and you will see that at the heart of it
you don't really have a real case against Java in particular.

what is your point? that someone suitably paranoid would never
come close to running Java on their machine? I fully agree with
you there.

oh, I should think that a suitably paranoid sysadmin will be sure
to create an oppressive, straightjacket
environment in which "unapproved software" would be squelched or would 
never have a chance to run in the first place. it seems
to me if you have to worry about it happening, you've already
lost.

in fact the NSA thrives on solving these kinds of problems. I 
once worked with a guy that emanated out of that black hole, and
I found him highly capable of squelching any possible 
incongruous or creative thought that crossed his path, in the
same way that state-of-the-art software is routinely denied
employees of companies out of security paranoia.

if you want to live in the world, you will always face some kind
of insecurity. freedom and restriction are mutually exclusive.
if you are against freedom in software choice by end users in 
an environment you control, well, what does Java have to do with that? 
its just another insignificant program on the long list of software
you don't allow. although, I suppose, a
particularly scary one at that--one that denies
the whole paradigm of control by a central authority over software
to obtain security, offering a contrary solution that may be
workable in the long run, and might even flourish.