Netscape: responding to market needs? What's the beef?
c...@urbino.mcc.com
BL>A question was asked of the group. "Now that Netscape exists and appears to
BL>be a magnititude faster than NCSA Mosaic, yet apparently supports a
BL>proprietary security technique, how will this affect the commercial internet
BL>security issues?" The answer not only surprised me but its reactionary tone
BL>and apparent hostility towards MCOM was even more surprising. Essentially,
BL>the reposnse was, "they didn't tell us what the did [different than S-HTTP]
BL>so we won't support it."
It seems reasonable to me to not support something if the authors of
that something won't tell you what it is. If you're quote is
accurate, then I don't know what you consider hostile. Maybe they
should have said "we can't support it" rather than "we won't support
it".
And, MCC is not the real MCC, the real MCC is a
BL>consortium in Austin (hence MCom).
.. who happen to own EINet (Enterprise Integration Net) who makes web
browsers as well, and EINet also is not EIT. It seems that my
employer is having trouble protecting our TLAs. [Note: I don't work
for EINet; they're down the hall. Nothing I'm saying represents EINet
in any way, and it doesn't even represent MCC.]
And, it's not the point that it is faster
BL>and adds more value than NCSA Mosaic, they did not follow the correct process
BL>and deviated from the fold. A hint was made of a rumored lawsuit against MCOM
BL>by NCSA for usingthe word Mosaic, but not supporting the standard.
I've heard similar rumors as well, although the version I heard was
that the suit wasn't over the word "Mosaic", but it was over the former
NCSA employees taking knowledge and skills developed while at NCSA and
leaving in order to compete with NCSA. If NSCA had their employees
sign all the standard legal trade secret paperwork, there's probably a
case. If not . . . well, that won't always stop a lawyer, especially
of NCSA's pockets are deeper than MCom's.
Chris
----
Chris Garrigues
At work: (MIME capable) c...@mcc.com
Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation +1 512 338 3328
3500 West Balcones Center Fax +1 512 338 3838
Austin, TX 78759-5398 USA
At home: (also MIME capable) c...@DeepEddy.Com
609 Deep Eddy Avenue +1 512 499 0483
Austin, TX 78703-4513 USA
<a href="http://DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/">My homepage</a>
Please use this address for non-MCC related messages.
Marc Andreessen
> I recently attended a conference on Electronic Messaging in which one session
> was on "Electronic Commerce and the Internet."
>
> The panelists were represenatatives from EIT, CommerceNet, Silicon Graphics,
> and Bank One.
>
> A question was asked of the group. "Now that Netscape exists and appears to
> be a magnititude faster than NCSA Mosaic, yet apparently supports a
> proprietary security technique, how will this affect the commercial internet
> security issues?" The answer not only surprised me but its reactionary tone
> and apparent hostility towards MCOM was even more surprising. Essentially,
> the reposnse was, "they didn't tell us what the did [different than S-HTTP]
> so we won't support it." And, MCC is not the real MCC, the real MCC is a
> consortium in Austin (hence MCom). And, it's not the point that it is faster
> and adds more value than NCSA Mosaic, they did not follow the correct process
> and deviated from the fold. A hint was made of a rumored lawsuit against MCOM
> by NCSA for usingthe word Mosaic, but not supporting the standard.
>
> This apparent hostile response puzzled me quite a bit --- until I went back
> and looked at the S-HTTP RFC again. Author: EIT Staff. Who wrote the Mosaic
> Browser? former NCSA staff who apparently left to work for MCOM.
>
> Perhaps the issue is not the standards settings process as much as it is the
> thinking that ones "owns" the standard just because one wrote the RFC. Or are
> we simply seeing these standards being personalized and ownership appropriated
> based on authorship? Not that there is anything wrong with claiming to own
> what one wrote, but why the holtility at someone else who did the same? Is it
> because the latter admitted it?
>
> As one who has been involved in commercial electronic commerce and on-line
> services for over 15 years, including sitting in on X.400 & X.12 standards
> setting sessions, it's apparent that what we have here is the exaltation of
> one's own special interest and asubsequent failure to communicate.
>
> To those emerging from Internet adademia, I say, welcome to commercial
> reality. I just wish you'd have left those high-horses tied up at the gate.
>
> Bill Louden
A few comments from MCom:
First, please see separately posted announcement of MCom's status as founding
member of W3O, the MIT-backed consortium for W3 standards evolution,
headed by Tim Berners-Lee.
Second, in parallel with submitting our security proposal (which is
substantially different than SHTTP, for a number of technical reasons)
to the W3O working group on security, we will be making our security
spec wholly available to the net and will be putting it through
the informational RFC process. The only reason we haven't done so is
because it hasn't yet been ready -- in fact, it's still undergoing
a security review by RSADSI. We will be moving on this in the
very near future.
Third, trying to do a "proprietary" security approach would do us no
good whatsoever, and in fact would cripple us in the marketplace.
Therefore we have no intention of doing so, and our actions will
demonstrate that.
Fourth, in case there's any confusion on this point -- we are not
deviating from any security standards because there are as of yet no
standards in this area. We look forward to, in conjunction with EIT and
others under the auspices of W3O and IETF, establishing and supporting a
consistent, flexible, and powerful security standard that can be applied
across many products from many sources, so we all gain the obvious
benefits of interoperability.
Fifth, just for clarification, the NCSA/UIUC alumni who comprise
much of the core technical staff of MCom, and the
projects on which they worked, include myself (co-founder
of the company, NCSA Mosaic for X), Eric Bina (NCSA Mosaic for X),
Rob McCool (NCSA httpd), Mike McCool (NCSA Mosaic for Mac), Jon
Mittelhauser (NCSA Mosaic for Windows), Aleks Totic (NCSA Mosaic
for Mac), and Chris Houck (NCSA HDF, and NCSA HDF browsing support
in NCSA Mosaic for X). (Other MCom developers include Ari Luotonen
of CERN httpd fame, Lou Montulli of Lynx fame, and Garrett Blythe
of DOSLynx notoriety.) Collectively we have a long and substantial
history of involvement in and dedication to both the standards processes
on the net and the creation of products based on those standards, and
that is continuing in the context of our new company.
Cheers,
Marc
--
Marc Andreessen
Mosaic Communications Corp.
Mountain View, CA
ma...@mcom.com
Marc Andreessen
> I've heard similar rumors as well, although the version I heard was
> that the suit wasn't over the word "Mosaic", but it was over the former
> NCSA employees taking knowledge and skills developed while at NCSA and
> leaving in order to compete with NCSA. If NSCA had their employees
> sign all the standard legal trade secret paperwork, there's probably a
> case. If not . . . well, that won't always stop a lawyer, especially
> of NCSA's pockets are deeper than MCom's.
This is a remarkably odd stream of conjecture.
Are you aware that NCSA is a not-for-profit research center and
an arm of the University of Illinois, a not-for-profit state educational
institution? Are you aware that many of the NCSA Mosaic developers now at
MCom were students of the University of Illinois and worked at NCSA
in undergraduate and graduate student roles? Are you aware that the role of
an educational institution is to educate and train its students, so they
*can* go out into the real world and earn a living? Are you aware that
many companies (including Sun, Silicon Graphics, and MIPS) were created as
the result of students and researchers at universities like Stanford leaving
the university environment to create new companies? Are you aware that
this tradition has been a long-term positive aspect, and indeed a driving
force, of the American economy?
Bill Louden
Jacqui Caren
>and Garrett Blythe
>of DOSLynx notoriety.)
So that's why I could not get through to him about lynx! :-)
Jacqui
--
Jacqui Caren, Paul Ingram Group Ltd. J.C...@ig.co.uk
My opinions are corect... ( and my spelling ? :-)