[1304] in java-interest
hotjava vs. netscape
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jonathan Payne)
Tue Aug 29 16:07:10 1995
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 09:01:35 -0700
From: jpayne@starwave.com (Jonathan Payne)
To: java-interest@java.Eng.Sun.COM
Java is just a programming language. HotJava is just a browser
written in Java. Because the language is Java we have applets. When
netscape has Java, they will also have applets.
HotJava will only be better than netscape if the people writing it do
a better job than the people writing netscape did. I'm not worried.
From: weilerj@std.teradyne.com (Jason Weiler)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 17:21:08 -0700
Subject: Re: Java is not on its death-bed
From: jim frost <jimf@world.std.com>
> Remember that NetScape got their dominance through distribution
> channels they will no longer be using.
>
> Want to beat NetScape? Make something that performs at least as well
> and give it away.
>
> jim frost
> jimf@world.std.com
I just thought I'd share my views on this matter.
I think Netscape is THE web-browser to beat nowadays. WHY?
Because it does the most. This is both good and bad. The good
part is that it is expanding the capabilities oft he web. The bad
part is that they are single handedly defining the HTML standard.
Last I checked HTML 3.0 didn't exist outside of the minds of
Net(e)scapers.
What does this mean to us? I have the funny feeling that Netscape
will try to run with Java. The benefits are enormous as we already know.
I only hope Netscape doesn't try to redefine the language now that they
have purchased the technology.
Yes, yes, yes...I know there are "standards". But MY money says that
Netscape will shape the web in it's own image simply on clout. If
enough users use the Netscape-only features, they'll surely bitch until
these features are made into a standard. (see backgrounds)
I think...no...I KNOW HotJava II can beat the pants off of Netscape
if and only if we play their game. If that means cheating and supporting
some nifty Hotjava-only tags, then so be it. The pros for a HotJava II
that I can think of off the top of my head are:
1) it would be tiny in comparison (ie I'm SICK of 2-3 meg executibles)
2) it would better-support Java applets. I'll bet the Netscape folks
will only hack Java support. (no basis for this, just speculation
based on their current product)
3) it would much more environmentally conscious. It may still hog colors,
but has anyone tried to run xpaint while Netscape is runninng.
I still can't figure out why those two can't get along. Just a
hunch, but I bet Netscape is the trouble maker.
4) it would/(should) be free! :-)
5) available source code
Yeah, I know what I said before about making up nifty web-stuff is
considered cheating by many, but I'll use Mosaic as an example here.
I haven't bothered running mosaic in ages. I probably have at least one
netscape process running at all times. This is basically because I don't
care about stability and compliance to standards when it comes to the web.
Netscape is basically a superset of Mosaic from a functional standpoint.
Why should I opt for less when I can just a painlessly get more?
Simple answer.
Yes, I know Java is so much more than a "web-hacker's toy". But it's
nothing without some publicity. A good web browser would do just that.
I don't care if 99% of people only use it for the web. At least it'll
remain alive and supported. The stand alone possibilites will become
evident more slowly, but they eventually WILL if the language is around
that long.
Well, I've wasted enough of your time...
Later,
Jason
<weilerj@std.teradyne.com>
I'm actually pretty curious if other people are agreeing with me or
printing this up and thropwing darts at it.
-
Note to Sun employees: this is an EXTERNAL mailing list!
Info: send 'help' to java-interest-request@java.sun.com
