Mozilla 1.4 Alpha To Have ActiveX Support 66
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."
In the sciences, we are now uniquely priviledged to sit side by side with the giants on whose shoulders we stand. -- Gerald Holton
Ugh (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's hope it'll be left out from Phoenix...
For Non-Windows Systems Too? (Score:2)
Re:For Non-Windows Systems Too? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:For Non-Windows Systems Too? (Score:3, Interesting)
I allow neither Java nor ActiveX and I'm able to surf the Web just fin
Re:For Non-Windows Systems Too? (Score:2)
Only if you have messed up settings. If you keep the defaults, your are warned and given the choice to run/not run signed ActiveX controls. Non-signed code is not run and you aren't prompted.
The problem is that too many people don't read the warning and just click "yes".
Re:For Non-Windows Systems Too? (Score:4, Informative)
And how about the buffer overrun in programs signed by Microsoft? See http://slashdot.org/articles/02/11/21/1317229.shtm l?tid=172
[slashdot.org]
Signing doesn't solve the problem because there are buggy programs that are signed. So anybody can distribute them and you will happily run it. And revocation doesn't work because nobody really does it.
The only reasonable solution is to have an on-line repository of known checksums. And any time you'd need to run something unknown, you'd check the MD5 sum of the program against the database.
It could be used instead of rpm -Va as well. You wouldn't need to trust the (potential modified) rpm database on your disk, you'd check against central database.
Anybody upto building such a thing?
Re:For Non-Windows Systems Too? (Score:2)
Running an ActiveX control is just like running a regular program. The problem is that most people don't realize that.
The obvious benefit of ActiveX is, of course, that it has low-level access to the system - and it can be optimized C/assembly code if need be. Look at Flash for an example of a control done right - it's fast and smal
Re:For Non-Windows Systems Too? (Score:2)
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
Re:For Non-Windows Systems Too? (Score:1)
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.
Re:For Non-Windows Systems Too? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:For Non-Windows Systems Too? (Score:1)
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.
Re:For Non-Windows Systems Too? (Score:2)
Re:For Non-Windows Systems Too? (Score:1)
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.
Re:For Non-Windows Systems Too? (Score:2)
Jesus man, no need to freak out. The bytecode that the
Anyway, why bother with this if you have Java, working fairly well?
For the same reasons some people are interested in
Re:For Non-Windows Systems Too? (Score:2)
Re:For Non-Windows Systems Too? (Score:2)
"It's been -60 seconds since you last successfully posted a comment"
Re:For Non-Windows Systems Too? (Score:1)
What Next? (Score:1)
Re:What Next? (Score:2)
Re:What Next? (Score:2)
Interesting (Score:2)
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
Re:Great! (Score:1)
Oh wait, I forgot. You are the center of the universe, aren't you?
Re:Great! (Score:2, Insightful)
Want ActiveX?
Run friggin Explorer!
["We" in the following is whoever you want "us" to be
We most definitely know that we are not the center of the Universe
I won't care if ActiveX is in Mozilla -too- much as long as it can be disabled from loading and bloatin
Re:Great! (Score:1)
Though I can care less for my own purposes (doing all my browsing in Linux), I like the idea of Mozilla being a complete alternative to IE (meaning it can do everything IE can). I expect Mozilla to have an option to disable loading of the ActiveX support, and also provide a version of it compiled without ActiveX support.
Re:Great! (Score:1)
April fools! (Score:1)
What is activeX (Score:1)
Re:What is activeX (Score:1)
What ActiveX is (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Oh Well (Score:2)
I guess I'll pine away hoping for solid SVG support until, what, Moz 1.5?
Re:Oh Well (Score:1)
When? Oh When?
Man I wish that'd come together soon.
Re:Oh Well (Score:2)
Is it crappy?
You mean as in "Does a bear in the woods?"
Not to diminish the valiant efforts of the sparsely populated team of Moz SVG [oreillynet.com] developers, but the Moz SVG [croczilla.com] viewer tends to crash more and lag in level of standards implement when compared to Adobe's SVG viewer.
Keep looking here [google.com] to find out.
Re:Oh Well (Score:3, Insightful)
It's sad, because SVG is probably one of the best an most important technologies of the early 21st century, but barring huge changes in the wor
Non-Win32 support? (Score:2)
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!
Re:Non-Win32 support? (Score:2)
Re:Non-Win32 support? (Score:1)
Assuming nothing is changed, the activex control support is a plugin and is thus, optional. For now....
Browser bloat (Score:1)
every other feature in mozilla can be turned off, I don't worry too much about that
Re:Browser bloat (Score:2)
80% of America still behind dial-up (Score:1)
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.
Re:80% of America still behind dial-up (Score:2)
As far as DSL is concerned
Microsoft Compliance (Score:1)
Re:Microsoft Compliance (Score:1)
It depends (Score:2)
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
Re:It depends (Score:2)
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)
Plugin vs native ActiveX (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Nooo.... (Score:1)
i use mozilla ... (Score:1)
Mozilla 1.4a does not support ActiveX (Score:4, Informative)
--Asa
Please ignore submitter (Score:4, Informative)
Not that big a deal (Score:1)
Wrong. (Score:2, Interesting)
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]
Re:Wrong. (Score:1)
can we have NTLM firts, please? (Score:1)
I'm sticking with konquror.
Ahh, checkboxes... (Score:2)
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.
ActiveX good? (Score:1)
Haveing an implementation that's crap in IE doesn't mean it has to be in Mozilla.
Bye Bye (Score:1)
Hello INNNSecurity
I think i am gonna cryhhahhyy
Bye bye baby-tux bahhabayyyy...