bitsifter
friday, april 25 
[sift this] Half A Mountain finally convinced me to convert over to Netscape Communicator Preview Release #3 just two days ago. I normally travel close to the fringe on Beta software, but climbing the corporate ladder translates to a heavy reliance on email -- the first hour of my day entails sifting through the 100+ tidbits of electronic information filling my Inbox, the next hour is spent responding.

The early word in the hallway was Communicator's email support was unreliable and slow. I pictured the 5000+ email messages I store in my inbox and trash vanishing into an Unexpected Application Error (note to myself: When are application errors expected?).

Half a Mountain was giddy on the email signing and encryption abilities of Communicator. In order to use it, the person you're sending mail to must have a digital ID. I was up for it. I'd been jealous of the folks sporting the tres geeky PGP signatures for years. So, I installed Communicator, visited VeriSign and got my free digital ID. Suddenly, I sending signed and encrypted mail via the Internet. It was easy. Even better, I didn't have this intimidating string of gibberish at the end of my mail to indicate my signature, a la PGP. The message header simply displayed one or two icons, signed and/or encrypted.

Signed email gives the recipient a high level of assurance that the mail they receive is from whom it says it's from. This is comforting, but in my twelve years of using email, I can't think of a situation where I really needed it. Generally, email is a relaxed form of communication that replaces low priority phone calls or high priority snail mail. Even with the added benefit of encryption, I don't tend to send sensitive information via e-mail. Not because I don't trust the Internet, but rather because email has yet to gain unofficial status as a preferred medium for this type of data.

Strangely enough, it may be the security that digital signatures and encryption provide that moves email from a second class medium to a first class mode of communication.



[rant] Who cares about Push? Anyone who uses Pointcast. A recent survey by Optimal Networks indicated that almost a fifth of corporate network traffic stems from Push technologies. Impressive until you consider that the study goes on to indicate that only 12 percent of corporate network users use push technology.

So, 12 percent of you corporate surfers are hogging 20 percent of the bandwidth when you're not even sitting at your desk (PointCast, for instance, polls for new data when system become inactive). Seems rather silly, doesn't it? Then again, we are talking about an industry where Berkeley Systems created an entire application genre around a simple tool that was intended to extend the life of monitors by essentially turning them off. (Note: The most recent version of After Dark included a full blown arcade game - this is a screen saver, people).

The most recent buzz in Push has been Netscape Netcaster technology (formerly known as Constellation - a sexy and innovative name they should have stuck with). Using a term made semi-famous by Marimba, Netcaster provides "channels" to its users. A channel is essentially a collection of related content bundled together with some Java or JavaScript. Sounds like a web page, right? Wrong. Channels can be customized by individuals to include only topics they care about. Also, users don't have to worry about getting the latest and greatest information because this is push technology. When new information is available, Netcaster retrieves it for you.

With the addition of layers in Communicator, developers can finally get serious about structured content. Already, the demonstrations of layers on Netscape's sites are enough to show that, very soon, content will be very much alive. Netcaster channels are sure to take full advantage of these all of these new features. Content providers must be chomping at the bit to corral consumers and potential advertisers with a technology that allows them to not only dominate the desktop, but also tailor cotent to individual tastes.

Of course, Microsoft stands poised with a different standard known as the Channel Definition Format (CDF). With Internet Explorer 4.0 barely out of the gate, it is difficult to fathom the impact of a standard sans working example. Regardless, the CDF does explain the structure of what a channel is while Netscape's site offers nary a clue what might be involved in creating a channel.

With competing standards, consumers are guaranteed a digital battle royale as Netscape and Microsoft woo content providers to support their standards. Both claim an extensive list of premiere content providers, but the question remains "Is Push that big of a deal?"