but again, the Java designers never claimed that "Perry Metzger will be able to use Java in his mission critical funds transfer application".
I keep saying that I don't care about not being able to use it there -- the problem is even having a copy of Netscape with Java enabled on the same machine as a trading system. One instance of Netscape running Java can endanger an entire trading floor.
right. substitute "unapproved software" wherever you use the term "Java" and you will see that at the heart of it you don't really have a real case against Java in particular. what is your point? that someone suitably paranoid would never come close to running Java on their machine? I fully agree with you there. oh, I should think that a suitably paranoid sysadmin will be sure to create an oppressive, straightjacket environment in which "unapproved software" would be squelched or would never have a chance to run in the first place. it seems to me if you have to worry about it happening, you've already lost. in fact the NSA thrives on solving these kinds of problems. I once worked with a guy that emanated out of that black hole, and I found him highly capable of squelching any possible incongruous or creative thought that crossed his path, in the same way that state-of-the-art software is routinely denied employees of companies out of security paranoia. if you want to live in the world, you will always face some kind of insecurity. freedom and restriction are mutually exclusive. if you are against freedom in software choice by end users in an environment you control, well, what does Java have to do with that? its just another insignificant program on the long list of software you don't allow. although, I suppose, a particularly scary one at that--one that denies the whole paradigm of control by a central authority over software to obtain security, offering a contrary solution that may be workable in the long run, and might even flourish.