Re: Hot Java is here! And it *rocks*
Mon, 3 Apr 1995 05:20:02 +0500
> In message <199503280207.SAA05391@netcom14.netcom.com>you write:
> >If you take a close look at Java, you'll realize that it bears a close
> >similarity to Viola, since the "applets" must be coded from a predefined
> >language, downloaded and locally interpreted. Of course this is another
> >"monolithic" approach (notice that java takes up 10MB of RAM and about 12 of
> >disk) that assumes that one can create a single language that all
> >applications can be crafted from. API's, (such as the Eolas Weblet(TM)
> >technology, http://www.eolas.com) that allow "applets" to be created using
> >the most appropriate tools and then embedded in binary form within Web
> >pages, are much more flexible and powerful.
> I've skimmed your web page but didn't find much clarification, so let
> me apologize in advance if I've misinterpreted the last, but...
> Others have mentioned the safety issue, but let me put it a little more
> strongly. I will NEVER EVER run a browser that depends on (no, is
> willing to) executing binaries downloaded from a server, at least on
> any currently extant hardware architecture. Nor will I trust a machine
> where somebody has.
So you will NEVER download packages from the net, compile them and install
them? You rely on your native OS and its utilities completely. No-one
checks source code (e.g. Gnu <fill-in-here>, XV etc etc) for "rm -r *".
Just because you compile them doesn't make them safe. The same amount
of trust applies.
Sure, Safe Scheme/Tcl/Python are great for protecting yourself. But if
you're that paranoid, why risk ftping _any_ software other than that which
you buy and get a guarantee from. Even commercial packages contain disclaimers.