[6206] in www-talk@info.cern.ch
Re: Netscape v NCSA, Progress?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel W. Connolly)
Tue Oct 18 13:19:46 1994
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 18:17:47 +0100
Errors-To: postmaster@www0.cern.ch
Errors-To: postmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: connolly@hal.com
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
In message <ACF73734816DB8D1@klaven.tci.com>, dkearns{TCNET/HR/dkearns}@klaven.
tci.com writes:
>
>>From: CONNOLLY @ SMTP (Daniel W. Connolly) {connolly@hal.com}
>>Date: Tuesday, October 18, 1994 4:03AM
>>
>>In message <9410180615.AA00655@ua.MIT.EDU>, solman@MIT.EDU writes:
>>>You know, mcom has just released a kicking browser to the web community
>for
>>>FREE.
>>
>>Not so fast... this is not FREE in the typical internet sense of the
>>word "free" -- the vast majority of the intellectual property
>>developed at Mcom is still inside Mcom. What we got was a few
>>megabytes of binaries to play with.
>>
>>Nobody else can patch, enhance, maintain, etc. that code. They didn't
>>give away much, in the large scheme of things.
>>
>
>You really don't understand commercial enterprises, then, do you? Which is
>surprising, considering your email address. Is HAL going to start handing
>out free source code for OLIAS?
I've only been in the industry for 4 years, but I think I understand
a few things. I didn't say I expected them to release source. It wouldn't
make good business sense. I just don't think anyone should get the
impression that Mcom committed some great act of altruism by sticking
some binaries on an ftp server.
Consider the alternative: Spyglass has committed to sibmitting its
libwww patches back to the maintainers, for all to use.
>What, not even "a few megabytes of binaries to play with"?
Check out ftp.halsoft.com: you won't find olias binaries, because we
don't think they'd be useful to folks without some other tools. But
you will find binaries for ishmail, a supported product of HaL
Software Systems. We're taking advantage of a cheap distribution
mechanism just like they are.
It makes a lot of sense: if Joe User can ftp the software, then he's
already got a clue and a working TCP/IP stack, or he got the software
from somebody who does. That eliminates 60% of the support hassles right
there.
>Citing RFC822 as a "good specification" is laughable. Its still there
>because is ubiquitous
Hmmm... this seems like somthing of a condradiction to me.
>Creating standards with no real world use beforehand gives us nonsense like
>ADA.............
Agreed.
Dan
