Lynne L. Harrison wrote:
This reminded me to ask if anyone knows if, per their statement, Netscape intends to u/l a patch for the 3.x versions. When I checked yesterday, I didn't see any reference to it.
Why would you expect Netscape to make reference to the fact that use of their browser leaves you open to violation of your privacy and security? Corporations are not expected to show concern about keeping their customers well-informed in regard to problems that arise with their product--they are expected to pretend, as much as possible, that problems don't exist (even if it may result in disastrous consequences for the customers who foolishly trust the company to act with integrity and professionalism). Netscape software is my browser of choice. I like the product, I like the company, and I like what I know of the people involved in the company. Despite these facts, however, I recognize that reality is merely a shallow reflection of classic Hollywood movies, and "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" is currently playing at the Netscape cinema complex. You may have already seen this movie, at your own corporate cinema, so you know how the plot goes... You wake up one morning and realize that behind the glazed eyes of your formerly human co-workers, lurks the alien energy of a communal corporate soul. The company spokesperson (who has two cute kids and a dog that are always a hit at the company picnic) has turned into an alien life-form which is telling the press and public that the chemical spill near the high-school has nothing to do with the hands that are now growing out of the students' foreheads. The company president (who risked his job to support a decent employee health-plan against the investor's wishes) begins to speak about a "ten year study" to determine why 20% of the company employees develop a rare form of cancer every year. Your best friend at the company changes the subject when you mention the growing number of the company's customers who seem to have an extra ear growing on their forearm. You can tell that your best friend is looking into your eyes and trying to discern if you are one of "them." A twenty-dollar street hooker will sometimes have time to join you for coffee and a burger at the conclusion of a business transaction, but a high-priced call-girl invariably recognizes the danger of true personal contact adversely affecting future cash flow. For the same reason, the corporate legal team would rather discuss the responsibility for your failing health in a sterile boardroom, than during dinner at your house with the whole family present. It is probably in Netscape's best short-term financial interest to downplay the full implications of the "bug" in their software, as well as avoiding revealing the true reasons for this "bug" existing in the first place. However, I would much rather visit their website and see a big, red "Warning!!!" sign flashing at the top, with a pointer to full information about the nature and effect of the "bug," as well as disclosure of facts that would allow me to judge what level of trust I should use in the future in regard to the company and their products. After all, in terms of security, we can consider ourself to be "sleeping" with those whose software we use. If it appears that they are avoiding being fully honest about whether or not they are practicing "safe software" in the best interests of both themself and their "Johns," then perhaps we should think about changing our "sleeping" habits. The bottom line is that it does not reflect well on Netscape to have their customers and/or software users checking with the members of mailing lists (and the checkout clerk at the local QuickMart) to find out if there is any chance that they may be able to use Netscape's product safely in the future. I did a quick review of the Netscape documentation and found it gives no indication that users should inquire at the local QuickMart for information about problems and bug fixes for their products. TruthMonger ~.~.~.~.~.~ DISCLAIMER: I am not your hooker; you are not my John. Accordingly, the above is *NOT* illegal advice.