Re: Netscape the Big Win

["Patrick J. LoPresti" <patl@skyclad.lcs.mit.edu>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "tcmay" == Timothy C May <tcmay@sensemedia.net> writes:

 tcmay> Integration of crypto into Netscape is thus the Big Win.

 tcmay> I felt this was the case as far back as last fall, but my
 tcmay> recent experiences tell me this is more important than
 tcmay> ever. Integration of PGP and other crypto routines into Tin,
 tcmay> Pine, Elm, Joe, Emacs, etc., is just not as important.

Careful here.  Deliberately or not, you are marginalizing the hard
work of dozens of people, including me.  You are suggesting our work
should have been done for Netscape instead, a program that a) is not
free software (FSF sense); b) has no mail reader; and c) has no
extension language.  Oh, and d) is horrendous as a news reader.

The packages that you implicitly denigrate provide far and away the
best interfaces to PGP available today.  They are written with the
tools available, whether it's a Windows shell, a hacked version of
Elm, or an Emacs Lisp package.

Maybe Netscape will include a mail reader someday.  Maybe Netscape
will include Java as an extension language someday.  But until that
day, the only people who can put crypto into Netscape are the folks at
Netscape Communications.

 tcmay> IBM just paid nearly $3 billion for Lotus, largely for the
 tcmay> "common platform" of Lotus Notes. I believe Netscape is an
 tcmay> even more important common platform, and will displace Notes.

Netscape is not a platform.  It is a browser.  It is only useful for
viewing content that others have created, with a user interface that
any idiot can use.  Consequently, yes, it is very popular with the
masses and will become more so.

 tcmay> The relevance for Cypherpunks interested in writing code is
 tcmay> that, in my carefully considered opinion, writing for Netscape
 tcmay> and other Web browsers is the Big Win. Even over Windows
 tcmay> (except Windows browsers, of course).

Can you name a platform for which it is possible to write a PGP front
end, but for which none has been written?  If it is ever feasible to
do what you suggest, someone will do it; your musings will have no
effect on that.  If you want to make a difference, try writing some
code yourself...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.3beta, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBMA6Rg3r7ES8bepftAQG4egQA2QFjXo5wgVOCtz2qGkgBbw80F4U80C1p
d1noVQN95tFYc1vjgk0ftp8n5stURtuD6MEoHNoKDOQgCIzbPlEC9rIETAzW1kfd
GTG8DzRqkcY1YqrTEnLoNiUswIfkVaquf9JrWNSuPKzLZ+IsUto1SxxNjk0fR7pf
ou4k3Fo+3yQ=
=BpNr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----