Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Mozilla The Internet

Mozilla 1.4 Alpha To Have ActiveX Support 66

Posted by timothy from the march-hijinx-before-april-fools dept.
quakeslut writes "According to the newly posted Mozilla Staff Minutes, Moz is set to have initial ActiveX support for the next alpha. ActiveX... be afraid... be very afraid."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mozilla 1.4 Alpha To Have ActiveX Support More

Mozilla 1.4 Alpha To Have ActiveX Support

Comments Filter:

  • Ugh (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fredrikj ( 629833 ) on Wednesday March 26, 2003 @07:00PM (#5601034) Homepage
    I wonder, why couldn't they make this an optional plugin? I definitely don't need ActiveX for anything.

    Let's hope it'll be left out from Phoenix...
  • I don't see any clarification on the matter at the post, so I'm wondering if this feature is to be included on every platform that Mozilla supports, and if so, just how difficult it is to have ActiveX on non-Windows systems. Also, what kind of security issues are involved?
    • what kind of security issues are involved?
      If you're running ActiveX, your system has no security. [webdeveloper.com]
      • I thought this was funny:

        Microsoft's product manager for Internet security John Browne said he recommends that users not download any ActiveX controls that are not digitally signed, though he acknowledged that this practice is not yet widely observed.

        "When PCs started out, people were putting floppy disks on their refrigerators with a magnet, stapling disks together, and not backing up files," Browne said. "Gradually, people caught on. They adopted [other] practices, and the same thing will happen on the

        • A considerable amount of people still don't know that magnets and floppies don't go well together, and most people I know are too lazy to backup, then complain when their disk dies. (Actually, that's also a function of messy Win32 programs, but that's another issue.) Nice one, Mr Browne.

        • More funny than this is that Microsoft recommends [slashdot.org] to not trust ActiveX controls signed by them. So now you can't trust unsigned and signed ActiveX controls.
      • No, if you're an idiot, your system has no security.

        Intelligent people can make intelligent decisions about what they download and run; idiots will find ways to be idiots with or without ActiveX components; and uninformed dooM$sayers will post ridiculous generalisations backed up by links to ancient articles.
    • I think ActiveX can rely largely on an x86 CPU and the Win32 API. I'm not positive, but I believe this is the case. I'm sure this will change with .NET- relying on the .NET bytecode rather than an actual CPU-arch. That said, there has to be some ActiveX components that must use VB6 bytecode or something- I know IE5 for Mac OS supports ActiveX, even though I don't think anywhere near as extensively as on IE on a PC.
      • .NET bytecode? What kind of bytecode does .NET have? Perhaps what you meant was CLI bytecode?

        Anyway, why bother with this if you have Java, working fairly well? Yes, I hate Java/ActiveX/JavaScript/all the latest technology being used and abused in situations where simple CGI will do just fine, but sometimes its use is reasonable.
        • .NET bytecode? What kind of bytecode does .NET have? Perhaps what you meant was CLI bytecode?

          Jesus man, no need to freak out. The bytecode that the .NET uses is that which the CLI VM interprets, yes. Was it that hard to understand what I meant?

          Anyway, why bother with this if you have Java, working fairly well?

          For the same reasons some people are interested in .NET as a means of development for one or multiple platforms. Many languages, interoping together, a decent API, cross-platform. You could u
    • So how come that these people who worried about activex security are downloading and installing unsigned mozilla extensions? It's not like there is any security for mozilla extensions. The only reason this kind of issue is not yet surfacing on mozilla is because it doesn't have enough users yet.
      • Well, I had an insightful comment, but the Slashdot useful-content filter stripped it, and replaced it with:

        "It's been -60 seconds since you last successfully posted a comment"
        • What browser are you using? Going back in most browsers these days will take you back to the form with whatever you had filled out restored (you don't lose your comment even if it wasn't accepted). It saves my ass all the time. I believe certain ActiveX-supporting browsers (no, not Mozilla 1.4) still don't support such simple things.
  • .NET?
    • .net is a server side technology, and theoretically you should be able to view a .net page on any browser. Of course, there are tons of stories about .net pages not rendering right in non-MS browsers....
      • This is true, in theory. However, .NET WebForms use IE-only javascript (among other things) meaning that webpages created that way will not run on Mozilla or other browsers. It's a known problem with a number of Knowledge Base article about it. If you roll your own forms/pages/javascript in combination with .NET for server-side CGI only, you will have as much cross-browser compatibility you code in yourself.
  • Looks like this has been around for a little while . . . Google! [google.com]
    • Actually most of the link in that search refer to using mozilla as an activex control (which you have been able to do for some time), not having mozilla run activex controls which is what this new development is.
  • Oh wait, 6 days too early!
  • And why do I need it?

    • What ActiveX is (Score:4, Informative)

      by Latent Heat ( 558884 ) on Thursday March 27, 2003 @01:28PM (#5608280)
      ActiveX is this brand name from Microsoft for whole bunch of things, but what most of us mean by ActiveX is those GUI widgets you can use in a Visual Basic program. Turns out you can use such a GUI widget (an ActiveX control) in almost any of the major programming languages for Windows and you can use it in a Web browser provided that browser is IE.

      An ActiveX control (widget) is nothing more than a software module that implements a raft of crufty interfaces (the interfaces are ugly on account of the legacy aspects, and few programmer know what they even are because they use the wizards in whatever development tools they are using to automatically barf out code) based on the COM specification, and an ActiveX container (such as a Visual Basic app or an IE page) is nothing more than a program that supports that raft of interfaces.

      An ActiveX control is a Good Thing because it is the closest thing to a "software IC" in the Windows GUI world -- it is amazingly cross-language in the Windows world. The new .NET languages consume and produce ActiveX controls with ease. It is not such a good thing because an ActiveX control kinda assumes it has access to the entire Windows API, so it is really locked in to Windows.

      Also, an ActiveX control on a Web page is typically a client-side thing, think Java applet only without the sandboxing, so besides MS-lockin, you completely blow security, and the MS answer to security is this lame signing business (Scouts honor, this control is secure!). But since it lacks sandboxing, it is really quite capable and powerful -- it is like running little Windows apps inside your browser.

      Part of Miguel de Icaza's deal with his Mono initiative is that he would like to see the Open Source world have something as software IC-like as the ActiveX control, and he things that his clone of .NET is the way to do it with some degree of sandboxing by using .NET widgets as the standard instead of ActiveX.

  • I guess I'll pine away hoping for solid SVG support until, what, Moz 1.5?

    • I'll second that whine.

      When? Oh When?

      Man I wish that'd come together soon.

  • Sorry if this is a silly question, but can ActiveX actually work on anything other than Win32 systems?

    Also, there had better be a way to turn this "feature" off!

    • As I answered someone else, I know IE 5 for Mac OS supports ActiveX in some limited fashion. As to why, I'm not positive- perhaps IE5 for Mac OS can run those made with VB6, compiled to VB6 bytecode, while not being able to run components written in C++ which use the Win32 API.
    • ActiveX support is only for windows, this has been in development for some time, as seen here [mozilla.org].

      Assuming nothing is changed, the activex control support is a plugin and is thus, optional. For now....
  • I don't see any other problem with this, besides the fact that Mozilla is already a 12 meg download that is 49 megs in memory+47 megs in swap (on my machine, one browser window with 4 tabs, one mail window, running on w2k), and needs to slimmed down rather than bloated even more
    every other feature in mozilla can be turned off, I don't worry too much about that
    • I have 1 GB of low cost memory in my machine and 12 MB downloads in no time at all using my cheap dsl connection. If it was 24 MB I wouldn't even notice the difference. Mozilla is a browser project looking forward, not backwards. Removing/leaving out features to keep a handful of poorly equiped users happy is not really an option.

      • I have 1 GB of low cost memory in my machine

        Even though pricewatch.com shows $120 for a pair of 512 MB DDR SDRAM sticks, there are still issues left. Not only is Joe Sixpack afraid to open his machine's case and add RAM, but not all older machines' motherboards support 1 GB of RAM, and not all motherboards (especially in laptops) can be replaced.

        and 12 MB downloads in no time at all using my cheap dsl connection.

        A setup fee including $200,000 to relocate the family to a serviced area is not cheap.

        • As I said mozilla is a forward looking project. If you're stuck on old hardware that in principle is your problem and not the Mozilla project's problem. Considering it is 2003, its requirements are quite reasonable. Even on my fathers old laptop with a 28k8 modem I would probably manage to download mozilla in three hours or so, which if he had 128MB or more would actually already have happened. Since he has only 16mb, he's stuck with opera 5.x (my father's pc is now 7 years old).

          As far as DSL is concerned
  • Will they need to include the security holes to make it fully Microsoft compliant?
  • It depends on what they mean by "ActiveX" support. "ActiveX" is a Microsoft buzzword, so it is tough to figure that out. I assume they mean support for the tag that IE uses to embed COM ActiveX control in a web page by specifying the class ID.

    Does anyone really want this? Who uses Activex other than corporations that are too dumb to use Java?

    You can already get a plug-in for Mozilla that supports ActiveX. Specifically, it allows the tag so that Mozilla can run embedded ActiveX controls. I used this
    • "Does anyone really want this? Who uses Activex other than corporations that are too dumb to use Java?"

      All IE plugins are ActiveX controls. ActiveX is very rarely, if ever, competing against Java applets. In a web browser - in IE, that is - 99% of the time, ActiveX means "plugin". Not "corporation who is too dumb to use Java".

      But then again, being so quick to call people dumb, I'm sure you are intelligent enough yourself to figure that out.

  • wrong (Score:3)

    by falsification ( 644190 ) on Wednesday March 26, 2003 @08:37PM (#5601600) Journal
    That's a wrong characterization of what kind of "ActiveX support" we're going to have. What is going in will allow those who want ActiveX to run it with a plugin. You still have to install the plugin manually. Mozilla won't run ActiveX stuff unless you download additional software to let it do that. Some intranet users actually need this, so this support is a very nice addition to Mozilla.

  • Plugin vs native ActiveX (Score:3, Informative)

    by sohp ( 22984 ) <snewton@@@io...com> on Wednesday March 26, 2003 @09:13PM (#5601777) Homepage
    OK, this is severly karma-whoring, but let's ask the source: Mozilla ActiveX Project [www.iol.ie].

    There have been plug-ins for Mozilla to run ActiveX controls since before 1.0, so that's not new. I believe this just means that the code for making it possible for Mozilla to be used as an ActiveX control is getting into the trunk.

    Among the interesting tidbit: CodeWeavers CrossOver Plugin 1.2 so you can host ActiveX controls in Linux now.

    Nothing hugely earth-shattering, though.

  • I consider one of the best features of Mozilla to be its lack of support for ActiveX and other such unneccessary security risks.
  • to get away from things like Active X in the first place.

  • Mozilla 1.4a does not support ActiveX (Score:4, Informative)

    by asa ( 33102 ) <asa@mozilla.com> on Wednesday March 26, 2003 @10:13PM (#5602199) Homepage
    Mozilla has had various bits of ActiveX supporting code available to those that want it for some time. There have been plugin wrappers that make ActiveX controls sort of work in Mozilla and Netscape. There has been a Gecko wraper that alows Mozilla's rendering engine to be embedded as an ActiveX control like MSHTML. Various Mozilla contributors have been interested in and working on this stuff for a long time. Some of this support was even available in the Communicator days. None of this is built in the default Mozilla releases and so Mozilla releases do not support ActiveX.

    --Asa

  • Please ignore submitter (Score:4, Informative)

    by mu_wtfo ( 224511 ) on Wednesday March 26, 2003 @10:58PM (#5602552) Homepage
    This is merely another case of Slashdot editors not even looking at what they post - this is nonsense. For information on what ActiveX work *is* happening within the Mozilla project, visit Adam Lock's (the developer of mozilla ActiveX stuff) site. Try the FAQ. [www.iol.ie]
  • This is essentially no different then implementing Java applets. This could be a good step torwards allowing Mozilla to be a viable option for organizations who use internal applications that have Active X controls.

  • Wrong. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by pmsyyz ( 23514 )

    If you build Mozilla yourself you can enable Active X support. This has been around for quite a while. But Mozilla.org builds will never have it enabled by default.

    Plug-in For Hosting ActiveX Controls http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/plugin.htm [www.iol.ie]

    • From the ActiveX plugin author's website:
      You will notice from my contact details that I work for Netscape. Be advised that these ActiveX related projects are my own personal efforts and have absolutely nothing to do with my employer. I work on them when and if I have the time.
  • Why can't they sort out the top 10 'you product is useless if it doesn't support them' bugs instead of non-standard, virus prone, windows only [unless you wine] ActiveX?

    I'm sticking with konquror.

  • Just make sure it is very well documented how to turn it off. Either a checkbox in the UI or an entry in prefs.js would suit me just fine.

  • How come so many people are complaining about having their browser being able to render more pages correctly?

    Haveing an implementation that's crap in IE doesn't mean it has to be in Mozilla.
  • Bye Bye luv, Bye Bye SECURITY,
    Hello INNNSecurity
    I think i am gonna cryhhahhyy
    Bye bye baby-tux bahhabayyyy...

Slashdot Top Deals

Dynamically binding, you realize the magic. Statically binding, you see only the hierarchy.

Close