IP: Three more Java related replies to my IP note

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

From: "Jonathan Shapiro" <jsshapiro () earthlink net> 
To: <farber () cis upenn edu> 
Subject: Re: Java Loses Netscape 
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 21:54:26 -0800 
MIME-Version: 1.0 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 
X-Priority: 3 
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal 
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 
Content-Type: text/plain; 
charset="iso-8859-1" 
X-UIDL: f60037b03b39202113167ec4a7e29267 


[for IP, if you desire]
Netscape's giving up Java is a big blow to a LOT of people, and the media 
seems to have underestimated the impact.
Our startup, for example, was planning on deploying our client software on 
java-enabled browsers. We must now do platform-specific app development. 
We were viewing Java as a way to avoid client-side platform dependence, and 
Netscape just shot that to hell.
An interesting question, for which I shall have to do some dollar analysis, 
is whether it is more cost effective for us to pick up java integration than 
it is to develop multiple clients; performance is not altogether critical on 
the client side for us, and there is much to be said for maintaining a 
minimal platform-independent standard. Alternatively, does it make sense 
for us to pay Netscape to continue doing this?
It's almost enough to make me think we should develop, maintain, and give 
away a browser.... :-)


Jonathan Shapiro 
Shibui Systems, Inc.


Date: 25 Jan 1998 06:15:22 -0000 
Message-ID: <19980125061522.29594.qmail () desk crynwr com> 
From: Russell Nelson <nelson () crynwr com> 
To: farber () cis upenn edu 
CC: dwiner () well com 
Subject: Re: IP: Java Loses Netscape 
In-Reply-To: <199801242006.PAA26550 () www dca net> 
References: <199801242006.PAA26550 () www dca net> 
Content-Type: text 
X-UIDL: 77c6994fc524f0305b5d94cca75f20d6 


[ this is for publication ]
From: dwiner () well com (DaveNet email)
> The most common analyst quote in response to the Netscape release of 
> source code says that an "army of unpaid developers" will now be 
> available to Navigator, an army that won't be available to 
> Microsoft.
This is true but misleading. Yes, an army of unpaid developers will 
start working on Navigator. But the important part is not that 
they're unpaid (they might actually BE paid by someone who wants a 
Navigator feature that Netscape never thought important enough). No, 
what is important is that they are freed to make the changes they want 
to make. Freed software is not about price, it's about freedom.
Microsoft software is profoundly anti-freedom. Microsoft strongly 
wishes to deny people the freedom to make their own changes to its 
applications and operating systems. If programmers had the freedom to 
do that, then some of them would supplant Microsoft's operating 
systems. Microsoft applications rely on Microsoft controlling the 
operating system. You see, people at Microsoft noticed that the 
dominant application changed whenever the operating system changed. 
First there was Visicalc, then Lotus, then Excel. So Microsoft now 
changes their operating systems regularly, and its programmers get 
first crack at writing the applications.
Microsoft wins by default every time. All they have to do is turn the 
crank. But this creates a problem. While it creates genuine economic 
benefits to users of Microsoft software, it also increases the cost of 
independent programming, because the operating system changes all the 
time. Microsoft's proposed solution is to have an entrant in every 
significant field, so that independent programs are not needed.
Those of us who value freedom for its own value disagree with this 
solution. Some of us are working on Linux
(<http://www.linux.org/>http://www.linux.org), a 
review of which appeared in Wired Magazine, who compared it favorably 
to Windows NT
(<http://www.wired.com/wired/5.08/linux.html>http://www.wired.com/wired/5.08
/linux.html). Linux has 
the potential to bring even greater economic benefits to its users. 
It is Unix, which is a stable operating system with no vendor with an 
interest in changing it. Unix is designed to be easy to program for, 
so its software development costs are cheaper. Unix has some 
usability problems, yes, but Linux developers are working on this 
(<http://www.kde.org and http://www.gnome.org>http://www.kde.org and
<http://www.kde.org and http://www.gnome.org>http://www.gnome.org).
Right now, people are worried that Microsoft will dominate the 
operating system market with NT, and that the competition will suffer. 
Since, in my view, the main competition is Linux, and Linux 
development occurs independent of sales, this worry is not 
well-placed. Better to worry about Microsoft, whose proprietary 
business model cannot compete with Linux's freed business model. As 
Netscape has learned, it's tough to compete with ``free''. Microsoft 
is about to learn the same difficult lesson.
Any bets on the month and day in 1998 when Bill Gates is quoted as 
uttering the word "Linux"?

-- 
-russ <nelson () crynwr com> http://web.crynwr.com/~nelson 
Crynwr Software supports freed software | PGPok | Freedom is the primary 
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | cause of Peace, Love, 
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | Truth and Justice.


Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 10:27:32 -0500 
From: dgumport () dannygumport com (Danny Gumport) 
Organization: dgDOTcom 


To: "Dave Farber (by way of Gordon Jacobson <gaj () portman com>)"
<farber () cis upenn edu> 
Subject: Re: IP: Re: Java Loses Netscape 




Gordon, 
please pass this on... 
By Netscape dropping 'support for JVM' they are leaving it to the 
vendors of the different platforms to supply optimal 
JVMs. Sun should be responsible for the SUN JVM, SGI for the SGI 
JVM, MS for the WIN/95/NT jvm (EEEEK!)... 
Not that JAVA is a failure... Java is a success and each 
hardware mftr is best suited to make the best jvm for their platform. 
-Danny G