At 10:47 PM 4/24/96 -0700, Rich Graves wrote:
I agree that the major innovation, and cypherpunk opportunity, of Java is in its cross-platform nature, not its vaunted ability to run untrusted code safely. I'm sorry, I'm just not interested in running untrusted code. Give me digitally signed code that I can trust, or for which the author can at least be held accountable, and I'll be happy.
I, for one, am interested in running untrusted code. If I can run untrusted code, I can greatly reduce my exposure to Trojan horses and bugs. It bothers me that if I run Microsoft Word, it can trash my MacWrite files. Even if I get these programs from reputable dealers, in original shrink-wrap boxes, so I have good reason to believe I know who the author is, I am still exposed to these problems. I should note that Java's one-straitjacket-fits-all approach to running untrusted programs is not adequate to satisfy my desires. However, it is a start, and it does run in todays complex Input Output Control Systems that have been misnamed "Operating Systems". (If it can't enforce a security policy, it isn't an Operating System.) I would rather use technological means to prevent damage than legal means. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz@netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA