[1053] in RedHat Linux List
Re: your mail
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Lark)
Sat Oct 26 00:56:47 1996
From: Daniel Lark <dan@netsteps.com>
To: redhat-list@redhat.com
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 22:53:59 -0600 (MDT)
In-Reply-To: <199610260321.XAA03313@redhat.com> from "Donnie Barnes" at Oct 25, 96 11:21:54 pm
Resent-From: redhat-list@redhat.com
Reply-To: redhat-list@redhat.com
> >> Netscape was doing broken things in their code. It's straightforward to
> >> write apps that work with all 5.x libc's and we tested commercial software
> >> that's supported under Linux to make sure it worked with Red Hat 4.0.
> >> Netscape is not supported under Linux -- it's not ever legal to use it
> >> commercially unless you buy it from Caldera.
Oh yes you can. I know people who have bought it.
> Well, none of us has seen the Netscape code, so we don't know the
> specifics, but it does appear that it has a *bug* that was simply
> not tickled on other platforms.
It has benn tickled under others as well. SunOS 4.x. comes to mind. Try
the PerfectOffice for Java on it and see how long it takes for Netscape
to dump core.
> I don't think they'd enforce it, ever. That doesn't make it "legal".
Yes they do. Very, very much so. They seem to be targeting ISPs who
distribute it to their customers, without having purchased it. (Trumpet
Software is doing likewise, as well.) BTW, there is a plan afoot to
start "time-bombing" the non-betas (the betas are time-bombed).
One "good" point of Microsoft is that they let me redistribute a mailer, a
we browser, an TCP/IP stack/dialer for nothing. So the choice is
economically obvious to me. As much as I dislike Microsoft, I can argue with
the price. Netscape should see this, they really should. They are biting the
hand that feeds them. While Microsoft forms alliances with ISPs, Netscape
punishes them. But I digress...
> It was not a "mark against Linux" as I read it. His whole tone was
> not really against Linux, in fact. I think he really thought we didn't
> have Netscape or Java and was trying to *help* by saying it was coming
> soon.
Well the whole tone as I saw it was that there is no "control" over what
happens in Linux. Witness his long diatribe about the FSF and the Copyleft.
He just didn't get it. BTW, I even got a personal response from him and he
stands by everything except the Netscape/Java thing. Dvorak had nicer things
to say about Linux in the past, as I gathered he actually ran it. I still
say that Machrone just browsed a few web sites and read a few postings in
USENET. ZD has a stake in making sure that commercial software and OSs
succeed. So for them to understand, much less endorse a free OS is like
asking a heroin addict to stop simply because "it's the right thing do"
(TM).
> The simple fact is, Netscape's code isn't kosher and a libc change caused
> Java support to break. There are fixes posted for it. I told Bill about
> this. Also, as far as I'm concerned, Netscape works perfectly fine under
> 4.0 with *no* libc fixes. It's never crashed on me. I, unlike many
> folks, have *security* enabled, ie Java turned *off*. I never knew there
> was a "problem" until I heard about it via news.
Hmmm.... So the truth really comes out. If I don't use a feature that's
broken then the package isn't really broken either. Some of us use Java at
work. My customers expect it now. I *need* a browser that does it. As soon
as the ActiveX stuff is ported (which I understand might be in early '97), I
probably be forced to support that too.
Donnie there is an even bigger security hole out there. It's name is
Microsoft's Front Page Extensions. Would you want your customers to be able
to place arbitrary CGI's on *your* system? I think not. Thank God there's no
Linux port, yet! Again I digress...
Bottom line, Java is not a security hole, per se. Bad programming is a
security hole.
> Also, we can *not* be sure that just because Netscape happens to work
> with one config that it won't break other binaries.
There's a lot of things broken in 4.0. I understand that not everything can
be foreseen in advance, but it stills shows as been very buggy any way you
look at it. As much as people on the caldera list bitch and complain about
Caldera's apparent lack of keeping up with the times, CND 1.0 was remarkably
bug-free. Descretion is often the better part of valor.
Bottom line for me is that I need a system that never needs to be rebooted,
or at least hardly ever. ISPs are funny that way, we need maximum uptime on
systems that need to be secure, user-friendly, and stable. For this reason
alone, I am not considering 4.0 yet. Maybe in the future, but not now.
> _Things You'd NEVER Expect A Southerner To Say_ by Vic Henley:
> ** I hate the long version of ``Free Bird''.
I like this...
Regards,
Dan Lark
CTO / Sysadmin Type
SuperNet of Las Cruces
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, HOWTO and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
________________________________________________________________________
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-HOWTO
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-Tips http://www.redhat.com/mailing-lists
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe: mail -s unsubscribe redhat-list-request@redhat.com < /dev/null
