Netscape closes up 1 3/8 today!

In article <DF84AJ.41K@sgi.sgi.com>, carolann@censored.org (Censored Girls Anonymous) writes:

> Lookit that! 416 trades and 11 times there was more
> buying pressure than selling pressure..

> The rumors of bug fix are outweighing the facts of the crack!

> I am totally amazed! But think company insiders are probably
> supporting the stock.  Holding up better than ascii armor, it is. 

I think it probably has more to do with the fact that the name
"Netscape" has been on the front page of every major newspaper in the
US.  I guess bad press is better than no press at all.  And the press
hasn't even been that bad.

-- 
Sure we spend a lot of money, but that doesn't mean    |  Tom Weinstein
we *do* anything.  --  Washington DC motto             |  tomw@engr.sgi.com

I've been lurking for a week or two, but I wanted to say
something about this:

> I think it probably has more to do with the fact that the name
> "Netscape" has been on the front page of every major newspaper in the
> US.  I guess bad press is better than no press at all.  And the press
> hasn't even been that bad.

	And you have to take into account that a good chunk of the
population has no clue about how either encryption (well, basic math
for a good chunk :/ )  or software works.  Just heard something on the
radio (Niel Bortz, if you're curious) about how California public 
schools have started giving credit for wrong answers on MATH tests.
So the students don't _feel bad_ about being wrong.  I want to trust 
my life to an airplane designed by someone who got the right answers,
not to someone who has artificially induced high self-esteem. 

	The casual Joe Sixpack at most may now that if Microsloth 
Doesn'tWorks has a problem he goes out 9 months later and shells out 
more $$$ for the next buggy release. Start mentioning 128-bit IDEA, 
entropy, or pseudo-anything and their eyes may just glaze over.  With
the state of public education, it'll be amazing if Joe Sixpack can 
figure out that he has to plug in his computer first; nevermind 
understand why trusting his financial secrets to a secret "proprietary"
encryption scheme that the gubument has the back door to is a bad idea.

	Sorry, I'll end my ranting now.

---
Fletch                                                     __`'/|
fletch@ain.bls.com  "Lisa, in this house we obey the       \ o.O'    ______
404 713-0414(w)	     Laws of Thermodynamics!" H. Simpson   =(___)= -| Ack. |
404 315-7264(h) PGP Print: 8D8736A8FC59B2E6 8E675B341E378E43  U      ------

The only bad publicity is no publicity.


> 
> In article <DF84AJ.41K@sgi.sgi.com>, carolann@censored.org (Censored Girls Anonymous) writes:
> 
> > Lookit that! 416 trades and 11 times there was more
> > buying pressure than selling pressure..
> 
> > The rumors of bug fix are outweighing the facts of the crack!
> 
> > I am totally amazed! But think company insiders are probably
> > supporting the stock.  Holding up better than ascii armor, it is. 
> 
> I think it probably has more to do with the fact that the name
> "Netscape" has been on the front page of every major newspaper in the
> US.  I guess bad press is better than no press at all.  And the press
> hasn't even been that bad.
> 
> -- 
> Sure we spend a lot of money, but that doesn't mean    |  Tom Weinstein
> we *do* anything.  --  Washington DC motto             |  tomw@engr.sgi.com
> 


-- 
sameer						Voice:   510-601-9777
Community ConneXion				FAX:	 510-601-9734
An Internet Privacy Provider			Dialin:  510-658-6376
http://www.c2.org (or login as "guest")			sameer@c2.org

> > > I am totally amazed! But think company insiders are probably
> > > supporting the stock.  Holding up better than ascii armor, it is. 
> > 
> > I think it probably has more to do with the fact that the name
> > "Netscape" has been on the front page of every major newspaper in the
> > US.  I guess bad press is better than no press at all.  And the press
> > hasn't even been that bad.

Yeah. Thats the way it works sometimes. I remember back when that
housewife from minnasota launched her media campaign to have "Married
With Children" taken off the air. All it did was make the show a
hundred times more popular and extend its life for years after it
probably would have been canceled on its own.

And the sad part is that now that they have announced that they are
dropping their unofficial Linux support, I really want to hurt
Netscape badly.

Sigh.

Christopher

Jeff Simmons writes:
 > > And the sad part is that now that they have announced that they are
 > > dropping their unofficial Linux support, I really want to hurt
 > > Netscape badly.
 > > Sigh.
 > Anyone got a pointer to this announcement?
 > Damn!  Just when I was starting to like them ...

Hmm, I was also thinking good about responsiveness on the security
issue (though the way they behave regarding html extensions is still
not fair imo, but that's another debate), and I have modified my
netscape security page accordingly, but, dropping Linux as the list of
UNIX supported host is certainly not a good thing at all, I
urge/pray/suggest... that listening Netscape folks here try to put
it back, PLEASE (It is not that difficult to compile under linux is it ?)

(source :
http://www.netscape.com/comprod/products/navigator/version_2.0/datasheet.html
[...]
SUPPORTED PLATFORMS 
[...]
UNIX: 
            Digital Equipment Corp. Alpha (OSF/1 2.0) 
            Hewlett-Packard 700-series (HP-UX 9.03) 
            IBM RS/6000 AIX 3.2 
            Silicon Graphics (IRIX 5.2) 
            Sun SPARC (Solaris 2.4, SunOS 4.1.3) 
            386/486/Pentium (BSDI) 
)
Or maybe it is just a missing item in the list ? [i hope!]

dl
--
Laurent Demailly * http://hplyot.obspm.fr/~dl/ * Linux|PGP|Gnu|Tcl|...  Freedom
Prime#1: cent cinq mille cent cinq milliards cent cinq mille cent soixante sept

Saddam Hussein Qaddafi [Hello to all my fans in domestic surveillance]
genetic Cocaine radar Ortega

> 
> And the sad part is that now that they have announced that they are
> dropping their unofficial Linux support, I really want to hurt
> Netscape badly.
> 
> Sigh.
> 
Anyone got a pointer to this announcement?

Damn!  Just when I was starting to like them ...

-- 
Jeff Simmons                           jsimmons@goblin.punk.net

In article <199509212125.RAA00188@hoopsnake.cjs.net>, cjs@netcom.com (Christopher J. Shaulis) writes:
> And the sad part is that now that they have announced that they are
> dropping their unofficial Linux support, I really want to hurt
> Netscape badly.

  This is news to me.  We have engineers spending valuable time keeping
our linux port running.  If you tell me where you saw this, I will look
into it.

	--Jeff

-- 
Jeff Weinstein - Electronic Munitions Specialist
Netscape Communication Corporation
jsw@netscape.com - http://home.netscape.com/people/jsw
Any opinions expressed above are mine.

> 
> In article <199509212125.RAA00188@hoopsnake.cjs.net>, cjs@netcom.com (Christopher J. Shaulis) writes:
> > And the sad part is that now that they have announced that they are
> > dropping their unofficial Linux support, I really want to hurt
> > Netscape badly.
> 
>   This is news to me.  We have engineers spending valuable time keeping
> our linux port running.  If you tell me where you saw this, I will look
> into it.
> 
> 	--Jeff
> 
I, and many other Linux users that I know, have repeatedly contacted
Netscape offering to pay for a Linux version of Navigator - we have usually
been either 'brushed off' or completely ignored.  And now there is no
mention of a Linux port of v2.0 - not surprising that this 'rumor' is
running around.  I think a statement by you or someone else at Netscape
supporting a Linux version would go a long way in reassuring the Linux
community, even if it's something that is going to take a while.

And you might want to drop by the usenet comp.os.linux.* hierarchy - 
they're already working on ways to use your html extensions to design
web pages  that can't be read by Navigator ... 

-- 
Jeff Simmons                           jsimmons@goblin.punk.net

> And the sad part is that now that they have announced that they are
> dropping their unofficial Linux support, 

I have no current plans to alter our treatment of Linux.  It is not now,
nor has it ever been, a supported platform.  We do build for it,
and some people are happy about that.

I have not constructed a business case which would cause Netscape
to begin support for Linux versions of the Navigator.  Right now, I'm 
not sure that making a point of this would do what you want.

Either of the two above paragraphs could be changed with time.

--
Tom Paquin                 +1(415)528-2607      fax +1(415)528-4122
Netscape Communications    501 E Middlefield    Mt View, CA 94043 USA



PS. I think that you are all doing a really great job!

> > And the sad part is that now that they have announced that they are
> > dropping their unofficial Linux support, 
> 
> I have no current plans to alter our treatment of Linux.  It is not now,
> nor has it ever been, a supported platform.  We do build for it,
> and some people are happy about that.
>
> I have not constructed a business case which would cause Netscape
> to begin support for Linux versions of the Navigator.  Right now, I'm 
> not sure that making a point of this would do what you want.

I'll say some people are happy about it. 

You just recently turned down an order for 230 copies of the netscape
navigator for Linux, and as you folks aren't making any money, you can
only wonder why.

You have also turned numerous other attempts by varionus people to buy
both quantities of navigaors and server software for Linux.

It seems to me that you folks are going out of your way to deny the
fact that the Linux market exists. I think that its because you are
embarassed that all these people with a $20 operating system are
throwing money at you while all the folks with $10K operating systems
aren't talking to you at all. 

While you may WANT to have all your sales be for OSF/1 machines or
solaris, but refusing to support Linux and ignoring the demand for
your products by the Linux community just because you don't think it
would sound as impressive, is actually quite childish and doesn't make
any financial sense.

Christopher

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

While browsing my mail I noticed that Christopher J. Shaulis wrote:

[snipped]
> You have also turned numerous other attempts by varionus people to buy
> both quantities of navigaors and server software for Linux.
> 
> It seems to me that you folks are going out of your way to deny the
> fact that the Linux market exists. I think that its because you are
> embarassed that all these people with a $20 operating system are
> throwing money at you while all the folks with $10K operating systems
> aren't talking to you at all. 
> 
> While you may WANT to have all your sales be for OSF/1 machines or
> solaris, but refusing to support Linux and ignoring the demand for
> your products by the Linux community just because you don't think it
> would sound as impressive, is actually quite childish and doesn't make
> any financial sense.
> 
> Christopher

You tell'em Christopher! 

I have turned on quite a few of my friends to Linux. 
Some are Engineers and Programmers in businesses that would love to add
Netscape navigator and server. Hell, I would too.

Screw 'em. If they want to be the defacto standard for *some* OS's but
not all, someone else will come along and fill in the gap.
Besides, they already made the point that they don't want to make money
so why change the status quo. All the more reason to show the weaknesses
of the product before others get sucked in.
I'll stick to TkWWW and Lynx thank you.

- -- 
=====================PGP Encrypted Mail Preferred========================
       PGP Public Keys: 1024/BEB3ED71 & 2047/D9E1F2E9 on request. 
           As soon as any man says of the affairs of the state 
    " What does it matter to me? " the state may be given up for lost.
                    J.J.Rousseau - The Social Contract
GAT/E/O d++@>- H--- s: a29 C+++$ UL++++($) P+>+++ L++>++++ E W+++ N++ K- 
w---- O- M- V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+++ t 5+ X R* tv b++ DI++ D++ G++ e h+ r 
y++ [Geek Code v3.0] a.k.a [ root@magus.dgsys.com / vamagus@delphi.com]
==========================================================================

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAgUBMGXXKLbmxeO+s+1xAQF7BwP9GrZe0+DULZegVjPJB7iiLagq8dnY3QLs
J26v2pARiZyyLBZgpBgzenXv8I0nwAL4UnDREWnOOunC3RdM0o5+ROM34tSnhdfM
4T4xEUXHp2CSI98VAkhSqKgnWZEACSeDAcx2gT7jGneAhRPO/VCQkZfz3SquRiHO
4RumiNsnInA=
=TuK+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> > And the sad part is that now that they have announced that they are
> > dropping their unofficial Linux support, 
> 
> I have no current plans to alter our treatment of Linux.  It is not now,
> nor has it ever been, a supported platform.  We do build for it,
> and some people are happy about that.

Does this mean that a Linux version of Netscape will no longer be 
available, or that it *will* be available but unsupported?

> I have not constructed a business case which would cause Netscape
> to begin support for Linux versions of the Navigator.  Right now, I'm 
> not sure that making a point of this would do what you want.

That all depends on what you mean by "support".  If you mean "we will no 
longer make Netscape available for the Linux platform", that's not 
support.  If you mean "we will no longer respond to bug reports for 
Netscape on this platform" then that's discontinuing support.

Please be more specific in your postings?

As a project manager and developer, I have constructed many a business 
case for the development and/or support for products - such a case could 
easily be made for Linux support for Netscape, irrespective of what you 
mean by "support".
- --
Ed Carp, N7EKG    			Ed.Carp@linux.org, ecarp@netcom.com
					214/993-3935	voicemail/pager
Finger ecarp@netcom.com for PGP 2.5 public key		an88744@anon.penet.fi

Q.	What's the trouble with writing an MS-DOS program to emulate Clinton?
A.	Figuring out what to do with the other 639K of memory.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMGW6JSS9AwzY9LDxAQElggP9Gy4h5OYkfQqtE0yi4K8rng1C3G/vgr0S
EOfUdFaiw8pewcjgxe4ZqtDyxAeeRGgEYjmAQLA5739xjExCGL45O4OnYMopGDzd
Sfmi557I/qJib1utfE51wkUjqyxutTceb4UDUmUS0TOs/kMCf6DXTvNePRLxVtm4
rW1C9BfDClk=
=kj39
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In article <199509242006.PAA02258@khijol>, khijol!erc@uunet.uu.net (Ed Carp [khijol SysAdmin]) writes:
> > > And the sad part is that now that they have announced that they are
> > > dropping their unofficial Linux support, 
> > 
> > I have no current plans to alter our treatment of Linux.  It is not now,
> > nor has it ever been, a supported platform.  We do build for it,
> > and some people are happy about that.
> 
> Does this mean that a Linux version of Netscape will no longer be 
> available, or that it *will* be available but unsupported?

  It will be available as it has been in the past, which means unsupported.
That means that if you have a bug, and you try to call us for help,
we will not provide it.

> > I have not constructed a business case which would cause Netscape
> > to begin support for Linux versions of the Navigator.  Right now, I'm 
> > not sure that making a point of this would do what you want.
> 
> That all depends on what you mean by "support".  If you mean "we will no 
> longer make Netscape available for the Linux platform", that's not 
> support.  If you mean "we will no longer respond to bug reports for 
> Netscape on this platform" then that's discontinuing support.

  We have never officially responded to bug reports on Linux.  We do not
take money for it for just this reason.  This does not mean that we will
not fix bugs that are reported via our feedback page.  It doesn't mean
we will fix them either...

	--Jeff

-- 
Jeff Weinstein - Electronic Munitions Specialist
Netscape Communication Corporation
jsw@netscape.com - http://home.netscape.com/people/jsw
Any opinions expressed above are mine.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> In article <199509242006.PAA02258@khijol>, khijol!erc@uunet.uu.net (Ed Carp [khijol SysAdmin]) writes:
> > > > And the sad part is that now that they have announced that they are
> > > > dropping their unofficial Linux support, 
> > > 
> > > I have no current plans to alter our treatment of Linux.  It is not now,
> > > nor has it ever been, a supported platform.  We do build for it,
> > > and some people are happy about that.
> > 
> > Does this mean that a Linux version of Netscape will no longer be 
> > available, or that it *will* be available but unsupported?
> 
>   It will be available as it has been in the past, which means unsupported.
> That means that if you have a bug, and you try to call us for help,
> we will not provide it.

As much as this might put me ad odds with certain parts of the CP
community, this seems quite reasonable to me.  After all, why should
someone provide support for a platform which is not generating revenue? 

> > > I have not constructed a business case which would cause Netscape
> > > to begin support for Linux versions of the Navigator.  Right now, I'm 
> > > not sure that making a point of this would do what you want.
> > 
> > That all depends on what you mean by "support".  If you mean "we will no 
> > longer make Netscape available for the Linux platform", that's not 
> > support.  If you mean "we will no longer respond to bug reports for 
> > Netscape on this platform" then that's discontinuing support.
> 
>   We have never officially responded to bug reports on Linux.  We do not
> take money for it for just this reason.  This does not mean that we will
> not fix bugs that are reported via our feedback page.  It doesn't mean
> we will fix them either...

Understood.  Thanks for the clarification :)
- --
Ed Carp, N7EKG    			Ed.Carp@linux.org, ecarp@netcom.com
					214/993-3935	voicemail/pager
Finger ecarp@netcom.com for PGP 2.5 public key		an88744@anon.penet.fi

Q.	What's the trouble with writing an MS-DOS program to emulate Clinton?
A.	Figuring out what to do with the other 639K of memory.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMGZWZCS9AwzY9LDxAQEacgQAmiibHw4Wn4JAudLHJ66dQDJhDoUMjzsR
Oh4cd7aYHL4PkSgb7INfS+mMQZ6/VYu7VTHVJchNAU5DxO0A7tljrbMnt+QWWjSx
5pEU0t5jRIScLhBdANSf24YfmBpc929gfUOkSldm0OopsAT9kurPY8qg1Yd/aVjs
XB7m9h/1BxE=
=wO2X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

khijol!erc@uunet.uu.net said:
> As much as this might put me ad odds with certain parts of the CP 
> community, this seems quite reasonable to me.  After all, why should 
> someone provide support for a platform which is not generating 
> revenue? 

I don't think any of us disagree with that. I think what we disagree about is 
getting Netscape to accept our revenue. :-) I've tried calling and emailing to 
buy a copy of Linux, and the answer was always, "It's not available for 
Linux." Despite what's on their FTP server.

I mostly want the stronger crypto in the US only version, but Netscape has 
said they are trying to make that available for FTP, so I can wait. I also 
want Java, but no one has that yet, and they 2.0 will probably be available 
for Linux, so I can wait for that too.