New Alliance Hopes To Standardize Web Plug-Ins 365
mksolutions writes "As reported on heise online and mozilla.org 'Apple, Macromedia, Opera and Sun Microsystems join in push to modernize plugins and create a richer web experience.' They are to develop a common, cross-platform plug-in interface which will be used in Mozilla products as well as Opera and Safari and will be released under an open source license."
Where's MS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where's MS (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Where's MS (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, also remember that GPL is viral and since some of the code already exists in Mozilla, I guess they see the whole thing as infected?
Read all about scripting plugins with mozilla [mozilla.org]. The article was released today to accompany the press release, and clarify how this all fits in t
Re:Where's MS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where's MS (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe they're trying to get publicity for it, and will apply it later down the line to more than just web browsers. Active X works for other things too like databases, which is really useful. If Linux and Mac OS had a similar standard, it could be applied in other programs on both platforms. That kind of functionality is missing on both platforms at the moment, I think. Apple, IBM, and Lotus tried to establish OpenDoc [webopedia.com] ages ago but it didn't catch.
Macromedia must also be getting into this because Microsoft sees Flash as a threat to their control of the interface and plans to push their own standard, "Sparkle" [microsoft-watch.com]. Flash seems to have accomplished what Java applets were supposed to do on the web, providing a cross-platform programming language that actually works without interference from Microsoft, and can be used for more than just animation. Macromedia Central [macromedia.com] was supposed to allow Flash to be used for making applications that can work independently of a web browser, seamlessly across different platforms, but I don't know why that hasn't caught on either.
Re:Where's MS (Score:5, Interesting)
So you're suggesting we dump html and move to flash? Ignore the open standard and move to something proprietary? I really don't think that's a good idea.
The parent comment never said that, nor do I think they implied it. He made only three points:
Re:Where's MS (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yes! (Score:3, Informative)
Flash content also can't be searched using search engines either. I have found that to be really detrimental. Google can handle html, pdf, and doc file formats for searches, but not swf.
If you post your entire website using flash, you won't be getting people who come across it through search engines. That's really important when you forget the domain name of a certain site with information that you want to revisit. I've never thought of flash as a good way for designing a website because of that reason sp
Re:Where's MS (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Where's MS (Score:2, Interesting)
They don't have to join any consortium, as de facto they are the standard (I don't speak about the quality, etc.)
Re:Where's MS (Score:5, Insightful)
This has always been a minor annoyance for me. I use Mozilla and FireFox. BUT I keep a older version of IE for pages that will just not render in Mozilla/Firefox. I thought Java WAS a standard, but many pages with a Java plugin for log-on will just not work. I have been told over and over that "MS breaks the standards" but what good are standards if the browser with 90% market share doesn't use them ?. If I was designing a buisness site, and had to choose between a "standard" or compatability with IE, it would be a no brainer.
Re:Where's MS (Score:5, Insightful)
I had a situation that I had to adapt some HTML - that was rendered perfectly under Mozilla and Opera to be displayed correctly under IE.
There is chance that more users will start using `alternative' browsers, due to various malicious `add-ons' to IE.
Re:Where's MS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Where's MS (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Where's MS (Score:2)
There's agreed-upon standards and de facto standards. The Davids make agreed-upon standards, but they're always trumped by the de facto standards that Microsoft creates.
MS has already standardized a web plugin (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Where's MS (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft would rather have Windows-only spyware.
MS don't like anything "cross-platform". Witness the whole java fiasco that took 10 years to sort out.
But back to the spyware thing.
What is needed is a "standard working set" of open, cross-platform plug-ins for all browsers. Now, they don't have to be mandatory of default but we have to STOP PROMPTING JOE USERS with ActiveX security warnings because THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THIS MEANS.
But, in the mean time, I would suggest to everyone in need of a few bucks to start their own "Windows Reinstall" business. Simply put up a few flyers at grocery stores (sometimes, even word of mouth is enough to get you more than enough business). You'll be bombarded with boxen that need a simple Windows reinstall. What I have been doing is simply swapping hard drives, throwing down a standard Windows image (you'll have to accumulate them as you get different hardware along the way) and then bring everything back over into a backup folder and let the user sort it out (or charge more to make it nice).
I do it for $50 a pop which might seem low but once you get a system down, it takes no time whatsoever. Just buy a bunch of cheap, refub drives [pricewatch.com] of various sizes to keep handy. Provided the user's hard drive doesn't have any bad sectors (extra money here as well), there's really nothing to it. Oh - and make sure that the PC has a valid Win2K or XP license sticker on it before accepting it.
I do about 20/month which works out to about an extra grand in spending cash for approximately 2 hours per night that I'm usually just watching TV anyway. This is strictly drop-off and pick up service. Everything else extra.
Good point (Score:4, Interesting)
Any cracks on this would allow for some damage on other systems. This would allow MS to state that Linux, BSD, and Mac have no security.
And yes, if the install is done at user level, the *nix OS would still be operating, but the users data would quite possible be wiped, or their passwords stolen, or their Credit card numbers stolen, etc. Users do not really care if an OS survives or not. They are finally starting to care about all the money being stolen. This is only because the news media is finally pointing out that these problems are soley from MS systems.
Re:Where's MS (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope you are telling people that you are taking their drives, other than the fact this is fraud and theft you are destroying their warranties. Dell or whomever is not going to replace a third-party drive.
The Truth about MS not being here... (Score:3, Interesting)
Shockwave? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not that I really want it, but my kids do.
Re:Shockwave? (Score:2, Informative)
Anyway, there's no indication that this "consortium" would set a standard for plugins in that they would be cross-platform. That would be the ideal situation, otherwise it would not bring many benefits to this effort.
Re:Shockwave? (Score:2)
Re:Shockwave? (Score:3, Informative)
macromedia's page about it [macromedia.com]
Mostly, flash started out closer to an image format than a 'rich client' and shockwave was supposed to be the rich client, but then flash got way popular and gained features, taking a big chunk of shockwave's market. Also, Flash-->flash, Director-->shockwave. Sort of anyway.
Re:Shockwave? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Shockwave? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.codeweavers.com/site/products/cxoffi
aargh... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:aargh... (Score:3, Insightful)
they are just trying to get rid of the fanboys since exploits will affect ALL browsers then... ;)
You seem to assume that plugins would autoinstall themselves. I certaintly hope this would not be the case.
Also, you might get that if all browsers on all platforms came with the same default plugins. However, there are already a set of default plugins (mostly java and flash is what I see), but there hasn't been that many problems with them.
Now if someone decided to port activex over to this new plugin i
Re:aargh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple never d
What about IE? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What about IE? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh the irony (Score:3, Funny)
Pay attention! (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/en/
http://www.mozilla.org/press/mozilla-
"Apple, Macromedia, Opera and Sun Microsystems"
Spot the odd one out! I misread Macromedia as Mozilla for a second.
Notable by its absence I see. Macromedia obviously want to be in the mix, as they want everyone everywhere to use their lovely Flash and Director.
Sun is a puzzle in this, what do they have to gain? aaah the Java plugin. Well all sorted here, Opera want to pull in a little more weight, feeling the heat from FireFox I guess.
FireFox! Oh I do so kill myself.
Re:Pay attention! (esp. me!) (Score:4, Interesting)
The best part is that writing a plugin should now be easier. SVG plugin anyone?
Good work. Perhaps they will start sharing more code, after all, I only really want one good browser, not 5 alright ones!
If this is true (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If this is true (Score:2)
One word: symlink.
What if he uses an inferior OS that doesn't have symlinks?
Re:If this is true (Score:5, Funny)
I prefer the term, 'differently advantaged' when talking about Windows, it is so less offensive
Re:If this is true (Score:2)
Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
And with CERT saying ditch IE, there's no better time than today to have this type of action. Unfortunately, it doesn't exist yet....
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Anyway - wouldn't this just create a homogenus network for browsers? We keep arguing that one OS in a network is bad for security sake - isn't this doing the same thing?
Re:Wow (Score:2)
I might be way off base here, but I see nothing but buggy plugins and new exploits. Keep your dirty IE plugins away from my shiny FireFox.
Yup, you're pretty well off base here. RTFA and note the complete absence of the word 'Microsoft' in it. Of course the Redmond Boys won't participate in this; why would they? Their share in the browser market is so overwhelming that they could require plugin writers to write their code using an abacus, and they would still be writing away, because if they want their plu
Re:Wow (Score:3, Interesting)
Why would Microsoft (and Opera and Mozilla) waste any time working on a standard if they can't legally use the technology?
Also, there's no technical reason a Windows-based browser couldn't support all ActiveX (IE) plugins, the same way all Windows-based word processors support COM enbedd
Re:Wow (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, its good to see people on
OK, now for the meat here. Joe Sixpack, odds are he will buy a Dell computer with Windows [0-9A-Z]{2,4} that has an internet icon on the desktop that loads Internet Explorer which at worst will have a slightly older version of the flash plugin installed, where the hip web developer can detect the version and say "Click here to get the latest version", and since its too easy to install software on Windows, a click away, and he's off and running.
Let me say this about plugins. I HATE THEM. Some of it is because I've been through too much with them, that even if they work now, I'm still scared.
Back in the day, there was the plugin craze. This was probably the first instance of spyware for some of the plugins. Then you could not go to a website that did not require a laundry list of exotic plugins so that you could look at the text and pictures on their site. Being a Linux user, these plugins were few and far between, and the ones that did exist were very sucessful in crashing Netscape (something it didn't need much help with as it was). Recently, I had a conflict with flash on linux and it was blocking my soundcard and would just hang. In my web experience, plugins have not been a feature, but a problem. I've never found them useful, eyecandy at most.
My personal opinion is that plugins should not exist for the web. They are unnecessary. If you want me to download something and run it with a helper app, thats fine, but I do not need this junk inlined with the html. I don't like the old versions of the embeded acrobat reader that didn't allow you to save the document, and did 202 requests or whatever to get partial content, so the 1st page loaded fast, and every other may be slow. Same with movies, let me download and double click on them, I don't need them in my browser window. Currently, I have 10 windows open, plus 4 webpages in tabs. I can manage an 11th window to get some "featurerich" content. Odds are, you are using a mutitasking OS as well. Also, its really annoying when I'm navigating a website via the keyboard and my mouse pointer goes overtop of an obnoxious flash advertisement and it siezes the keyboard input. Thanks.
Now that I think about it, standardizing plugins could be the revamping of the plugin craze (read spyware). Maybe I'm too simleminded, but I still cannot think of a need to have 3rd party code running inline with my webbrowser.
Oh great! (Score:5, Funny)
I've already tried resetting the defaults on IE...
Can anyone help?
--
I uhm... write stuff [livejournal.com], but not well, and not often
Re:Oh great! (Score:2)
w3c? (Score:5, Interesting)
Richer? (Score:4, Funny)
Har!
You know what this means, don't you? (Score:5, Insightful)
u must be hating the lizard.. (Score:3, Interesting)
now on topic.. isn't sun standing in for MS there ?
And on a more serious note
Oh no! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh no! (Score:2)
So Firefox is gonna change the plugin API again? (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, I expect that plugins will get even better once they have an audience beyond the standard Mozilla browsers. And I'm happy they're leaving out Microsoft. Let's finally put to rest that tired Internet Explorer!
This will really help the developer community (Score:5, Interesting)
Plugin != extension. (Score:3, Informative)
Shockwave. (Score:4, Interesting)
A little like what we've had in the audio... (Score:5, Interesting)
There are competing plugin formats such as Direct X, but VST's seem to have the market pretty sewn up - there's even bindings for java
One the mac side of things Apple introduced AudioUnits which seem to be gaining popularity.
The great thing is, since developers no longer have to target a certain platform (i.e. only one sequencer family) you see a huge wealth of plugins available to be used on anything - hopefully we'll see that same kind of developer community flourish around rich-content plugins for the web.
Re:A little like what we've had in the audio... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm glad that you put "open" in quotes. VST is free-as-in-beer, but not free-as-in-speech. Namely, you're not allowed to redistribute the VST SDK sourcecode. This makes it very, very difficult to include VST support in open-source programs, which is very annoying.
Re:A little like what we've had in the audio... (Score:4, Interesting)
But for your own comparison take a look at Kvr-VST [kvr-vst.com] which is a vst plugin news/listing site.
There are basically two types of plugin, a simple VST which is for things like effects units and then there are VSTi's which are virtual instruments. Native Instruments do a whole load that emulate synths of bygone days almost perfectly. Korg has also just released three classic synth's as VSTi's which sound so much like the real thing it's scary.
If only they'd go a bit further... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not playing the open source fanatic here, but I'd really like them (*cough* macromedia *cough*) to realize that Linux is more than Red Hat.
Being a Gentoo PPC user, I still have no way to play flash on my iBook (well, I can boot it on OS X).
If really they want to protect their trade secrets (are there any? Isn't
Re:If only they'd go a bit further... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not as easy as it sounds, even if they wanted to do it. Flash player contains stuff they licensed from third parties (audio and video codecs are the best example).
Someone else replied to the above comment and suggested that a bigger problem was that the Linux ABI changes too often. That poster got modded down as a troll, and I'm not sure why, because it's a very good point. Linux could be adopted by the mainstream much fa
Konquerer? (Score:3, Interesting)
Cheers,
Ian
How about a sandbox that works (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember, your browser is only secure as the least secure plug-in.
What they really need. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What they really need. (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft page on packaging ActiveX controls. Just take the
I for one welcome our new Self-Installing IE Firefox Overlords
KDE? (Score:2)
Safari -- KHTML ? (Score:2)
Sunny Dubey
Think about scumware NOW (Score:5, Insightful)
Now if a critical mass of Internet users migrate to FF/Moz/Saf etc., scumware authors WILL target this shared extension architecture.
Now, it is all very well saying that the Mozilla platform may not allow drive-by installation (to the best of our knowledge); but remember that scumware is often installed through social engineering of the user. "This website requires Hyperviewing 3D Spatial Extension" (bundled with scumware for your convenience); and the user may click "Yes" to install without second thought.
How you go about allowing extension installation whilst maintaining a level of sanity needs carefull thought at this stage.
Re:Think about scumware NOW (Score:5, Informative)
Got news for you - scumware authors have already tried to target Firefox and Mozilla. The developers' reaction? Implement a "whitelist" system that only allows extensions to come from a small, fixed set of official servers.
Re:Think about scumware NOW (Score:4, Insightful)
This leads one to conclude that the actual number of installations of Intenet Explorer does not matter to malware authors so long as there is a critical mass of them and enough of those remain vulnerable. So, malware authors will continue to target IE until one of those conditions is no longer met.
Yes but (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
cross platform compatability? (Score:2)
Makes sense that Opera and Netscape/Mozilla would tie together to set a standard - it really is in their mutual interest, and very good for us.
It would be nice to have MS on board with this, but the likelyhood is slim - they have no need to do that. It does mean that for plug-in creators, they will only need to create 2 plug-ins in order to cover the majority of the browsers.
Looking good from the end
this shouldn't be a security issue at all (Score:2)
What's the point? (Score:5, Interesting)
Plugins are just excuses for Adobe Acrobat in the browser window bullshit. For all those fools that put up Word and PDF all over the place, get a clue already.
Re:What's the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
Purists would say the web was never meant for all these new-fangled plugins and fancy schmancy flash sites. While there are thousands of examples of how the internet should and shouldnt be used it always boils down to one thing. Information, and the ease at which it can be accessed. I personally dont know of a better more crossplatform solution in widespread use than PDF for "download-and-print", that retain the look and feel of the original document. There are some upgoming formats in the sideline SVG & XML et al; But i have more respect for a webmaster who takes the time to publish pdf's than one that sticks the word file on the web and hopes for the best, But that is not to say when the standards compliant formats come to fruition that we should not push and encourage their use.
Word documents could have been the web standard (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Word documents could have been the web standard (Score:3, Insightful)
Choice of language implementation (Score:2, Interesting)
I also wonder how badly the plugin API is limited by going with a non-OO implementation language like C. Sure, you can create some complex data types in C, but you've got to kiss your own
Plugger avoids plug-in hell! (Score:4, Informative)
The Netscape plug-in, IE ActiveX and IE BHO APIs all allow the plug-in to crash the browser! Even worse, these APIs make it trival for Spyware to collect information including online banking username/passwords [slashdot.org].
For the majority of plug-ins, all the plug-in functionality needed was a display system to provide their "window" in-line with the document. So, why then does plug-in APIs allow the program to run in-process with the browser?
Re:Plugger avoids plug-in hell! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Plugger avoids plug-in hell! (Score:4, Informative)
I'll also point out that plugger does a better job of being the Acrobat plugin than the Acrobat plugin. The downside is each PDF viewed causes acroread to be started again. It's stable though and lets me use gv or xpdf in Acrobat's place on my Powerbook.
Seizing An Opportunity (Score:3, Interesting)
This could easily be made cross-platform... (Score:3, Informative)
Has anyone actually done anything useful with TenDRA yet? It seems like such a great idea, and yet there's so little interest...
Yay, More Spyware!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Plugins not so cool anymore (Score:3, Insightful)
But now that we've great gpl'ed browser, plugin is just another word for "longwinded not-as-good-as-gpl click-thru licensing agreement".
no thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, the problem with plug-ins is not their availability, it's version hell: you need to have the right constellation of library versions, operating system versions, and application versions. A plug-in standard usually still uses APIs other than those provided through the plug-in standard, so a standard won't change that.
Altogether, I think it's a bad idea. Let's get rid of plug-ins altogether and instead work towards better, universally implemented, open web standards.
Nice, but to make this stuff work you need... (Score:3, Interesting)
1. True Integration of media objects into the browser. Right now, the browser still drops a little box on the screen and tells the plug-in where to paint it's output. Why can't everything be integrated as pure objects in the DOM such that layering one item on top of another can happen with no problems? If I want a QuickTime movie as my background, with the page content painted over the top...why do I need to build the whole thing in Director? The browser should be able to sort this out.
2. Consistency in access to standard IO functions regardless of plug-in type. If I want to trigger the start of a media stream out of Flash, Director, RealAudio or QuickTime (or the countless other media types) can't there be a consistent way to code play()? That would also allow for client-side code that detects which plug-in is installed and simply passes a standardized code chunk into the page...rather than forking off and having individual code chunks to handle each plug-in type.
3. A _FINAL_ decision regarding the OBJECT and EMBED tags. This is silly Microsoftism, and requires double-coding...a killer to all things HTML.
4. W3C support.
I'll keep my fingers crossed, but I've been disappointed for a long, long time.
super plugin? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ugh, save me from "rich" interfaces (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the time, I hate "rich, interactive" websites. I want the freakin' thing to sit still and give me the information I came for. Yeah, the web will be rich alright. Nice, rich manure.
Really, my complaint isn't with plugins, per se. It's with the lack of restraint that web designers have in using them. Some web sites, such as Homestar Runner, wouldn't exist without Flash. Most other places I see it used, it adds nothing to the site except a layer of complexity, or it pummels me with advertisements.
--JoeRe:Ugh, save me from "rich" interfaces (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No need for MS (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Title Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One Problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:One Problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, if successful, MS may want to "embrace and extend" here, but they should not be involved in the development, as the spec should not have to consider the special needs of IE as it's being developed.
Re:Popups... (Score:3, Interesting)
I would think that Apple and Opera would be unlikely to support something that would allow unblockable pop-up ads, being that both of their browsers have built-in pop-up blocking.
I mean how stupid would it be to for them to come up with plugins that defeated their own features?
THEN DON'T INSTALL THE PLUGINS!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Also... this isn't about what _YOU_ want. Browsers are for everybody who wants web access and that in itself presents a problem - one can't keep all the people happy all the time. If enough people have your attitude then you'll
Re:"richer web experience" == flash, ads, exploits (Score:3, Insightful)
I DO NOT want to be running code from web sites on my PC, sandbox or no sandbox.
I remeber a time when it was just common sense not to run code that way because it was a security risk. Even though they said it was secure, when Java first came out it had security holes and could steal information from you like your email address. The idea of allowing remote code to execute on your computer so easily just set off alarm bells for anyone with experience in programming, and should never have been adopted. All
Re:Q: (Score:3, Funny)
Boy, i've never heard of such a concept; quick patent the idea and dontate it to an open-source project before one of the big boys gets it!