News and commentary from the cross-platform scripting community.
|
||
|
Mail Starting 10/4/97 | |
Hi Dave, this piece really captured the dichotomy of Apple for me.
From: caruso@technomedia.com (Denise Caruso);
Sent at 10/5/97; 12:30:06 AM;
Re:I Liked The AdI am not particularly religious, I just happen to like the design and utility of the Macintosh OS a whole lot better -- and despite the state the company is in, I just bit the bullet and bought a PowerBook 3400.
I like it a lot already, what a great screen, but everyone I know who owns one rolls their eyes and groans when I tell them what I've done. The quality control on the PowerBooks in general, and most recently, the 3400 in particular, has been almost criminally negligent; the horror stories are truly horrible. Everything breaks. Often more than once. Yikes!
So I guess being different is a good thing as an image, but I'd also like to know that Apple is saying to itself internally, "Think Better."
Also, as an experiment, I have made a commitment not to put any Microsoft software on the new computer. I want to find out for myself whether the "no software on Mac" argument is true or whether it's just become one of those empty, buzzphrase mantras that people say when they don't actually feel like doing the research.
There may not be a sufficient Mac market to whet the appetite of leagues of software developers, but I feel fairly confident that ordinary users can still get plenty of good, non-MS Macintosh software that does what they need it to. I know it's easier not to think about it and just buy MS Office et al., but the last time I did that, the software was so buggy--I actually couldn't get it to install--that I simply can't justify the expenditure again. I'm not an MIS department.
So wish me luck! And I'm definitely on the lookout for the best Mac word processor out there that can read MSWord5 files. And happy new year!
I have been looking for a good local search engine ever since ON Technologies stopped development of ON Location, which was a great program that supported a vast array of file types.
From: jvandyk@iastate.edu (John VanDyk);
Sent at 10/4/97; 9:09:49 PM;
Local search enginesIt looks like some developers are starting to use the Apple Information Access Toolkit (V-Twin) for web search engines - Digital Comet's CometPage and Social Engineering's Search Server are two examples I know of, in addition to Apple eg, the original V-Twin web search engine (still in beta). Interestingly but not surprisingly, V-Twin is not listed on Apple's technology page.
I am still using Apple eg on my site because of its speed. I have also heard positive responses from users. I don't understand why Apple has not marketed eg. There is currently one person working part-time on development, recently relocated from the Advanced Technology Group.
Still looking for a great search engine for my site. Phantom did not run on two of three machines, and is slow because it goes over HTTP (it's supposed to be able to index locally but I've never gotten it to work). Search Server looks very promising but crashed the server consistently. I have ordered CometPage and hope it is more stable than the others.
One thing to note is that the speed at which Search Server (using AIAT) builds indices is truly incredible. I look forward to seeing this technology built into an upcoming MacOS.
Site sponsor PowerTools has lent me an X-Factor 2 machine for review and evaluation, even before the major Mac publications receive one. I'm very excited about this box, because since the untimely demise of the promising StarMax Pro 6000 and PowerTower Pro G3, it's the first complete shipping Mac incorporating third-generation PowerPC technology. I've decided to run a comprehensive feature on the machine, for inclusion in my "Special Reports" section, entitled Getting to know the X-Factor.
From: ben@starmax.net (Ben Kimball);
Sent at 10/4/97; 7:08:06 PM;
X-Factor review on starmax.netI'm just opening the box now, and intend to spend the evening testing and making notes for the review. If you or your readers have any specific questions you'd like to see answered (about the machine or the company), please let me know. I'd like to publish by Monday morning. Thanks!
starmax.net: http://www.starmax.net/
I am writing you this message to ask for action.
From: davids@aportis.com (David Schargel);
Sent at 10/4/97; 6:28:07 PM;
IMPORTANT/URGENT: Don't let Microsoft corrupt JavaA few short days ago, Microsoft released the final Win95/NT version of the Internet Explorer 4.0 web browser. This browser, as expected, does not contain an implementation of Java that is fully-compliant with the Java core platform. It may have a compatible JVM, but it does not contain the full class libraries of the JDK 1.1 implementations of Java. The omissions seem to be intentional.
Let's be clear, IMHO Microsoft is deliberately trying to destroy the chance for Java to fulfill its "write once, run anywhere" promise. Java portability is the single most attractive and critical of its features, and
Microsoft will do everything it can to nip it in the bud. Microsoft wants to prevent Java from successfully reaching maturity because Microsoft cannot control Java.
Many, many times, Microsoft marketing people have said that Java is important to Microsoft. Even Cornelius Willis, director of platform marketing at Microsoft, has publicly stated "We want developers to know that we are going to give them a choice with safety. We will enable everything for both Java and Visual Basic, JavaScript and VBScript. Everything will run in Netscape, we will be browser independent." And now, months later, IE 4.0 does not include full support for the Java 1.1 core platform.
All of us should not be waylaid by efforts of highly paid marketing "media hacks" and professional spin-doctors. These people may preach as though they understand the issues, but we know that most of them have never even written "hello, world" in Java. They are not our peers, they are not developers, they are mouthpieces. They are paid to disinform, and to try to
cast doubt on the viability of the emergent platform that a number companies (including 2 of my own) have collectively decided to support.
I will not refer to what Microsoft has delivered as Java. They may call it "best of breed" if they wish, but the species to which they refer is clearly not Java.
I will take every chance I get to tell everyone I know that I believe Java represents our best hope for freedom of choice in the future of technology,
and that I feel Microsoft is trying to kill it. If you don't opposition to this Microsoft attack on Java portability, and that our unity will inspire others to join us. There are a number of actions that you can take right now to help.
1) A newly formed Java Lobby (http://www.javalobby.org) is a place for peoples who common interest in Java software development and the advancement of Java standards and software. Join them and participate. 2) Tell the U.S. Department of Justice we are not happy. A sign-on letter is available at http://www.essential.org/antitrust/ms/browserletter.html 3) Participate in the JavaWorld Internet Poll (http://nigeria.wpi.com/cg i-bin/gwpoll/gwpoll) asking your opinion about Java's "write once, run anywhere" concept.
"Where do you want Microsoft to go today?"
PCs have had these tools for a long time. Magellan (DOS) remains the best utility I've ever used -- it did blindingly fast searches and much more. Magellan had a cult following. Lotus killed it, naturally.
From: dgillmor@sjmercury.com (Dan Gillmor);
Sent at 10/4/97; 11:39:55 AM;
Local searches...There's an AltaVista "personal" edition (Win32) that supposedly searches the local drive; last time I checked you could download it from their homepage. I say "supposedly" because I've never managed to make it work properly (on three different machines).
Key recovery and mandatory key escrow by the government are two different things. For cryptography to be usable in a corporate setting, then any keys used to encrypt official company correspondence should be held in escrow by someone who's trusted, in case an employee quits or is fired, and they've encrypted some of their key correspondence.
From: rafeco@well.com (Rafe Colburn);
Sent at 10/4/97; 2:34:41 PM;
Key recoveryThe fact that PGP is streamlining the key escrow stuff for corporate use doesn't mean that they're supporting mandatory government key escrow, or that they're against empowering individuals to use cryptography for personal privacy. PGP isn't doing well in the market because they don't have certificate management mechanisms like the "other guys".
As it is now, corporations can already force you not to use encrypted email, they have access to your corporate mail server, and can trap anything that goes through. I suppose if they didn't like the fact that you were sending encrypted mail, they could fire you. The issue of making key recovery available for encryption used for corporate purposes and the issue of banning non-corporate sanctioned encryption are not really linked, any journalist who writes such a story is making a false comparison.
Just a note about your idea about local searching of hard drives similar to searching of websites. For what its worth, some companies, like InfoSeek and Digital (through Alta Vista) sell versions of their search technology for local use. This is PC only as far as I can tell though.
From: jhiggins@dn.net (Justin Higgins);
Sent at 10/4/97; 3:27:14 PM;
Note about Local SearchingMore interesting is the V-Twin technology Apple developed a couple of years back, which was last seen in the 7.7 alpha, but removed in Mac OS 8. It allows context and natural language querying, some things similar to Excite (for instance, if you do a search for dogs, but the computer also sees that you have a lot of documents about pets, and the documents about dogs mention pets, it will also show you those documents and EXPLAIN why they are being shown [which is actually better than current web based search engines, which often don't explain to you why they chose the listings they did in the order they did).
Apple has used this in its own web server search software (Apple e.g.) and they have also created an SDK called AIAT, which allows any developer to create a search tool to harness this power.
Stacey:
From: dwiner@well.com (Dave Winer);
Sent at ;
Re:I Liked The AdTechnically speaking you are right of course, Netscape has the dominant market share in the browser world. But ironically (the hidden point in my story) they are still the underdog, the different choice.
It's an amazingly strong position to be in. All Netscape has to do, marketing-wise, is to learn how their loyal fans think, and sing the same song. They're in much better position than Apple, most of whose loyalists have already left the fold (my opinion).
However, I think interest in Apple is strong enough that if they come up with a sizzling new Mac, th at they can manufacture in great quantity at a reasonable price, they'll find a bunch of old Wintel converts buying new Mac hardware for home, or to connect to the TV set or stereo. The desktop isn't the only place for computers anymore.
Ramblin...
Dave
Great piece, but one comment. Last I checked (and, actually, I was there two days ago), Netscape still had about 70% market share. In fact, some enterprising Microsoftians dropped an enormous IE logo on Netscape's lawn. Netscape dropped a 12-foot tall Mozilla on top of that, with a poster saying: Netscape 72, Microsoft 28, or something close to it (it had fallen askew; I couldn't read the whole thing). Netscape has more than double the market share of their next closest competitor!
From: SKoprince@geopartners.com (Stacey Koprince);
Sent at 10/4/97; 2:24:14 PM;
Re:I Liked The AdAnyway, point is, it's a little early to say that, when choosing Netscape, you're choosing to be different than everyone else.
The new version of PGP you refer to, 5.5, is intended for corporate use. I have tested various versions of the corporate edition, and they have all contained key control and recovery. All messages are encrypted to the 'security officer,' in addition to the intended recipients. Also, no key generated with another version of PGP can be used; the security officer can revoke a key when that employee leaves, etc.
From: jerrya@jerrya.fastrans.net (Jerry Adlersfluegel);
Sent at 10/4/97; 11:09:58 AM;
newest pgpFrom a personal standpoint, these features seem pretty bad. But from a company's view, these are probably necessary. What happens after an employee leaves, and you need to get in his research notes? etc. Employees usually have to agree to not put personal software on their work computer, as well as not doing personal work on it either. Therefore it should not be a problem to be unable to send personal mail that is unprotected.
No version of pgp for personal privacy has ever had (or will ever have, hopefully!) key recovery. I have lost keys before, and was simply out of luck.
PGP for personal privacy is our friend. There are free versions available for windows and mac, and single-user unix versions are reasonably priced.
You can even buy the books containing the source code. That is how pgp can be exported legally:
Electronic copy -- equivalent to a hand grenade or a Patriot missile.
Printed copy -- equivalent to a Better Homes & Gardens magazine.
[Just a user of pgp.]
http://home.fastrans.net/~jerrya/