[1056] in RedHat Linux List
Re: your mail
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Donnie Barnes)
Sat Oct 26 01:47:40 1996
To: redhat-list@redhat.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 25 Oct 1996 22:53:59 MDT."
<199610260453.WAA01126@netsteps.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 01:45:32 -0400
From: Donnie Barnes <djb@redhat.com>
Resent-From: redhat-list@redhat.com
Reply-To: redhat-list@redhat.com
Your message on: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 22:53:59 MDT
>> >> 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.
I don't know anyone who has bought it *specifically* for Linux unless
it came from Caldera. I know people who have bought licenses for what
they *thought* was a Linux version only to try and get support later
and find that Netscape turned a deaf ear.
>> 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).
Okay, fine...doesn't matter either way to *me*.
>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...
MS stuff isn't multiplatform, and my bet is that Netscape is still
banking on that to pull them through. You can't get IE for the Mac,
can you?
>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).
That's not the way I read it, and again, it doesn't *matter* in the
grand scheme. Bad press is better than none at all (to a certain
extent...). People will at least know there is an alternative. When
they are fed up with NT, they will likely try it (if we as a distributor
do any kind of decent job marketing). All I ask is for that to happen.
>> 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.
I said "as far as I'm concerned". I do understand the problem, but I
also contend that it's not *our* fault. You have a choice of very
amicable workarounds. It's also alot easier to beat us up than it
is Netscape.
>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...
You won't get an argument from me.
>Bottom line, Java is not a security hole, per se. Bad programming is a
>security hole.
Well, as a product of some bad programming, Java *is* still 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.
Well, you're right. Nothing wrong. Completely right. But note that
Caldera was based on 2.1 plus updates. That was the timeframe they
hit...had it been 2.0 available when they shipped, it would have had
problems.
We give software version numbers for a reason. We jumped to 4.0
because of alot of things...new install, new libc, PAM, etc. You
can't expect it to be perfect. It has updates...at least we're
here, morning, noon, and night, fixing them. And 4.1 will be
better.
(Anyone remember Windows 3.0? You thought 3.1 crashed alot. We want
to do better than that, and we're trying.)
>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.
4.0 is very stable. We've had a few problems that weren't install
related, but none that couldn't be fixed with a simple update. No,
that may not be enough for some folks...those running 3.0.3 should
be fine for now. 4.1 will be better, that's all I can promise...
--Donnie
--
Donnie Barnes http://www.redhat.com/~djb "Bah."
djb@redhat.com http://www.turner.com/lazarusman/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
_Things You'd NEVER Expect A Southerner To Say_ by Vic Henley:
** I hate the long version of ``Free Bird''.
--
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
