> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jul 11
>13:35:23 2001
> .
> .
> .
> The lesson to be drawn is consistent with Dan sayings: it is an excellent way to
>spread a product as a browser or better as a
> plug-in but the security model must be thought ab initio. Sun and Gosling have
>learnt that, among many other things,
> with their unsuccessful and long-defunct Network extensible Windows system: NeWS.
> Absence of security model is alsso probably the reason why perl did not trhive
> in this biotop (the browsers themselves , not the servers who feeded the browsers).
> The module Safe is nice though but that is an afterthought . As a result it could
>not be made totally secure.
> .
> .
> .
Maybe.
In '94-95, Perl was painful to embed; moreover, it lacked
a popular way to construct "dancing bears", which seemed
to be at the heart of the first hundred thousand client-
side Java demonstrations.
At this point, I'm unconvinced that anything that happened
during the Era of Browser Wars had to do with a sophisti-
cated appreciation of security, by anyone, in any direction.
