[4742] in WWW Security List Archive
RE: Latest Java hole is Netscape/Sun only
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Thomas Reardon)
Sun Mar 9 23:27:38 1997
From: Thomas Reardon <thomasre@microsoft.com>
To: "'schemers@stanford.edu'" <schemers@stanford.edu>,
Tazman
<taz@kensico.com>
Cc: "'Bob Denny'" <rdenny@dc3.com>,
"'WWW Security List'"
<WWW-SECURITY@ns2.rutgers.edu>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 18:39:06 -0800
Errors-To: owner-www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
I guess I disagree. We publish EVERYTHING needed to create ActiveX if
you so choose. We also moved all of COM and DCOM and a bunch of other
ActiveX technologies into the Open Group.
This thread doesn't need to continue here...
-Thomas
> -----Original Message-----
> From: schemers@stanford.edu [SMTP:schemers@stanford.edu]
> Sent: Sunday, March 09, 1997 3:53 PM
> To: Tazman
> Cc: Thomas Reardon; schemers@stanford.edu; 'Bob Denny'; 'WWW
> Security List'
> Subject: RE: Latest Java hole is Netscape/Sun only
>
> taz@kensico.com writes:
> >
> > All the specifications for the Java Virtual Machine and Java
> Language is
> > documented and free. You can easily find 20 vendors implementing the
> JVM
> > and browsers. How "open" do you want it to be?
>
> And of course there are plans on moving the Java specifications to a
> standards body. C++ certainly wouldn't have benefited from being
> sent to a standards body early on (of course some would say it didn't
> benefit after being sent to a standards body ;-)
>
> It all depends on your definition of Open. I think Java in its current
> state (and direction) is more "Open" then ActiveX, even after
> Microsoft
> turned it over to the OpenGroup. Not to mention the fact that you'll
> never see Microsoft turn over control of something like the WIN32
> apis...
>
> roland, speaking for *myself*, working for the JavaSoft Security
> group...
>
