Re: Netscape v NCSA, Progress?

Daniel W. Connolly (
Tue, 18 Oct 1994 18:08:15 +0100

In message <>, dkearns{TCNET/HR/dkearns}@klaven. writes:
>>From: CONNOLLY @ SMTP (Daniel W. Connolly) {}
>>Date: Tuesday, October 18, 1994 4:03AM
>>In message <9410180615.AA00655@ua.MIT.EDU>, solman@MIT.EDU writes:
>>>You know, mcom has just released a kicking browser to the web community
>>Not so fast... this is not FREE in the typical internet sense of the
>>word "free" -- the vast majority of the intellectual property
>>developed at Mcom is still inside Mcom. What we got was a few
>>megabytes of binaries to play with.
>>Nobody else can patch, enhance, maintain, etc. that code. They didn't
>>give away much, in the large scheme of things.
>You really don't understand commercial enterprises, then, do you? Which is
>surprising, considering your email address. Is HAL going to start handing
>out free source code for OLIAS?

I've only been in the industry for 4 years, but I think I understand
a few things. I didn't say I expected them to release source. It wouldn't
make good business sense. I just don't think anyone should get the
impression that Mcom committed some great act of altruism by sticking
some binaries on an ftp server.

Consider the alternative: Spyglass has committed to sibmitting its
libwww patches back to the maintainers, for all to use.

>What, not even "a few megabytes of binaries to play with"?

Check out you won't find olias binaries, because we
don't think they'd be useful to folks without some other tools. But
you will find binaries for ishmail, a supported product of HaL
Software Systems. We're taking advantage of a cheap distribution
mechanism just like they are.

It makes a lot of sense: if Joe User can ftp the software, then he's
already got a clue and a working TCP/IP stack, or he got the software
from somebody who does. That eliminates 60% of the support hassles right

>Citing RFC822 as a "good specification" is laughable. Its still there
>because is ubiquitous

Hmmm... this seems like somthing of a condradiction to me.

>Creating standards with no real world use beforehand gives us nonsense like