4 expanded posts ยท every known parent and child
> It my personal feeling that Netscape doesn't have the right > talent mix to develop secure software. It's my personal feeling that Netscape doesn't have the right talent mix to develop *any* Internet software, secure or not. Although, I have to say, I've never seen a startup that pissed off so much of the Internet industry and user community in so short a time. Even Apple & Microsoft agree that Netscape is brain dead... Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 1994 00:51:46 -0500
From: Amanda Walker <amanda@intercon.com>
It's my personal feeling that Netscape doesn't have the right talent mix to
develop *any* Internet software, secure or not.
Well, I can't and won't attempt to speak to the overall mix of talent,
however I think that such a strong statement really needs to be
accompanied by some sort of an explanation.
For what it's worth, I have worked closely with one of the members of
Netscape's team and have continued to stay in touch with him over the
years since we worked together. I'm quite confident of his stylistic
and technical abilities and I believe that he deserves better than the
unsubstantiated slam that you've delivered.
Even Apple & Microsoft agree that Netscape is brain dead...
I'm assuming that you see agreement with Apple and/or Microsoft as a
positive. That position is not universally held.
Rick> > Date: Sun, 11 Dec 1994 00:51:46 -0500 > From: Amanda Walker <amanda@intercon.com> > > It's my personal feeling that Netscape doesn't have the right talent mix to > develop *any* Internet software, secure or not. > > Well, I can't and won't attempt to speak to the overall mix of talent, > however I think that such a strong statement really needs to be > accompanied by some sort of an explanation. I'll throw in that from the perspective of someone running a server, their approach of requesting all graphics simultaneously over different sockets in the name of client performance is disastrous. This causes most servers to fork N times more per page, where N is the avg. # of graphics. Not that this shouldn't eventually be dealt with by some way to request the whole ball of wax in a single package, but some have speculated that this was done deliberately in order sabotage server software other than their own. (Their original business model, as I understand it, was to give clients away for free and sell server software.) Also, their flip-flops on what they plan to charge for, and what will be free... for instance, they initially lead folks to believe that the client would be free, encouraging many to adopt it, only to find out that later versions would only be free for a narrowly drawn group of individuals. I have nothing against shareware/demoware, when it is clearly labelled as such... this is just mildly slimy. I will say though, that their Windows version crashes substantially less than the NCSA one, which is increasingly my metric for stuff I inflict on my users. Fortunately, there are a _lot_ of other commercial options coming out that I can chose from on the basis of price, performance, not crashing, trust in the developers' integrity, etc. Doug
In article <9412111647.AA23311@tadpole.tadpole.com>, db@Tadpole.COM (Doug Barnes) wrote: > I'll throw in that from the perspective of someone running a server, > their approach of requesting all graphics simultaneously over > different sockets in the name of client performance is disastrous. > This causes most servers to fork N times more per page, where N is > the avg. # of graphics. That's just plain not true. Servers don't fork any more often with Netscape than they do with other clients -- EVER. > but some have speculated that this was done deliberately in order > sabotage server software other than their own. That's also just plain not true, and completely unsubstantiated. Marc -- Marc Andreessen Netscape Communications Corp. Mountain View, CA marca@mcom.com