----- Original Message -----
From: "Cameron Laird" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: dLoo releases peer-to-peer programming language
> > From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jul
>11 13:35:23 2001
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > The lesson to be drawn is consistent with Dan sayings: it is an excellent way to
>spread a product as a browser or better as a
> > plug-in but the security model must be thought ab initio. Sun and Gosling have
>learnt that, among many other things,
> > with their unsuccessful and long-defunct Network extensible Windows system: NeWS.
> > Absence of security model is alsso probably the reason why perl did not trhive
> > in this biotop (the browsers themselves , not the servers who feeded the browsers).
> > The module Safe is nice though but that is an afterthought . As a result it could
>not be made totally secure.
> > .
> > .
> > .
> Maybe.
>
> In '94-95, Perl was painful to embed; moreover, it lacked
> a popular way to construct "dancing bears", which seemed
> to be at the heart of the first hundred thousand client-
> side Java demonstrations.
>
> At this point, I'm unconvinced that anything that happened
> during the Era of Browser Wars had to do with a sophisti-
> cated appreciation of security, by anyone, in any direction.
I agree that "dancing bears" was what made java a success in a
then dull browser world but its long-lasting success well beyond the
browser biotop is due in great part to its security model.
Pursuing my biologic metaphor spreading is necessary, but it is not enough.
A security model for a software entity in the promiscuous Internet world is akin to
an healthy immune system for a biological
organism.
--
stef
