Clarification of my remarks about Netscape

[Kipp E.B. Hickman]

On Dec 12,  5:51pm, Doug Barnes wrote:
> Subject: Re: Clarification of my remarks about Netscape
>
> "Kipp E.B. Hickman" says:
> > If you would like we can send you some brouchures for our
> > products in that area.
> >
>
> Ah, it doesn't work with existing proxies, so we have to pay
> you. Whether it is your true motivation true or not, this
> apparent attempt to create a market for proprietary goods by
> disrupting standards is at the core of the bad odor that your
> company is giving off these days.

You are right. It doesn't work with existing proxy's. But existing proxy's
can't do secure data transfers, so what's your point?

> Not to mention the arrogance:
>
> > Secondly, SSL is not an end, but a beginning. Instead of waiting 10 more
years
> > before the standards process gets around to inventing some old technology
and
> > codifying it, we have put something out. We have made the protocol public
> > instead of propreitary and we have asked for critical review. Not griping.
> >
>
> I'm the first one to agree that even the IETF _can be_ slow and
> cumbersome. But it is a far cry from typical standards bodies
> (e.g. ITU, which I've had to deal with recently) in that it is
> very easy to participate, the standards are freely available,
> and the process moves fairly rapidly, especially by comparison.
>
> If you want to try to answer "what is the Internet?", more than
> anything else it is a set of _standards_ for doing things in
> a network of networks. When you declare standards changes by
> fiat _without even an attempt_ to work with others (formally
> or informally) you are going to irritate not just your competitors
> but your potential customer base (which I'm a part of.)
>
> As a corporate culture, you folks from Netscape seem to project
> a sense of arrogance and disregard for the net culture that is
> extremely irritating. And this is from someone who basically
> _likes_ your product, and has happy users using it, although I've
> bumped up the priority of checking out the other commercial
> offerings in this area because of your arrogance and total
> disregard for even pro-forma cooperation with the standards process.
>
> I'd also like to point out that, more often than not, attempts
> to create proprietary "standards" by fiat don't work. To wit,
> look at Microsoft's various attempts at networking.
> This company has billions, and it ends up announcing, as a great
> "innovation" that it is (finally) going to support TCP/IP in a
> meaningful way, despite numerous abortive attempts at other
> "standards".
>
> You point to some other technical areas where frustrated
> manufacturers split off and extended standards, but I think
> you'll find in almost every case that it was _after_ they
> had hit meaningful roadblocks with their proposed standard,
> and that they worked dilligently to ensure compatability
> amongst themselves and others offering the new level of
> technology.  Given the history of your company, and the
> attitudes displayed here, I question whether this will
> happen with your hacks^H^H^H^H^Hextensions.

Seems like your mailer was having some difficulty :-)

In any case, my personal opinion is that NCOM is being attacked with a
catch-22. If we had kept the protocol proprietary, then we would have been
shot. We went public with it and are getting shot. If we had waited the 2.5
years to develop it, as a few here would seem to be advocating, then the market
would shoot us.

Nice place to live.


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Kipp E.B. Hickman          Netscape Communications Corp.
kipp at mcom.com              http://www.mcom.com/people/kipp/index.html