Great Circle Associates Firewalls
(June 1996)

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: Re[4]: Java & ActiveX
From: Mario Bai <mbai @ straticom . com>
Organization: Straticom International, Inc.
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 11:31:22 -0400
To: Peter da Silva <peter @ baileynm . com>
Cc: Firewalls @ GreatCircle . COM
References: <9606271346 . AA24596 @ sonic . nmti . com . nmti . com>
Reply-to: Mario Bai <mbai @ straticom . com>

Peter da Silva wrote:
> > This is fine as far as it goes. *but* it rather misses the whole point of
> > either of the two approaches. The point is that both are intended to be a
> > new, cheaper, more manageable and cross-platform way of implementing client
> > server applications over an Intranet.
> Are they? Honestly? It seems strange that Microsoft would be ceding the
> internal client-server battle to TCP/IP so easily, when they already have
> a more secure and higher performance tool in the form of Windows NT.

Why would Microsoft be ceding the battle to TCP/IP and not Java? As I 
understand, ActiveX can run over TCP/IP, as well as Java. And how is the 
operating system (NT) a "more secure and higher performance tool?" What 
are you comparing NT to in this instance? Surely not a protocol, such as 
Mario G. Bai              Straticom International, Inc.
mbai @
 straticom .
 com        8350 Blvd. East Suite 1D 
                          N. Bergen, NJ 07047-6048

Indexed By Date Previous: re: Virus scanners an European PGP with key-escrow
From: harley @ icrf . icnet . uk
Next: tcpshow
From: Michael Ryan <mike @ networx . ie>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Re[4]: Java & ActiveX
From: peter @ baileynm . com (Peter da Silva)
Next: RE: Re[2]: Java & ActiveX
From: Dana Nowell <DanaNowell @ corsof . com>

Search Internet Search