> > That still made it a security nightmare :), apart from it being a >>> completely proprietary, platform-specific implementation completely unsuited >>> for the web. It's really sad how much it is still used :(. >> >> Platform specific, yes. IE loses here. There were times when IE was running on Mac OS X. But if you take the corporate world where MS sells a lot of licenses worldwide., IE is the preferred browsers and there are a lot of intranet apps which run only on IE and have lot of Activex on backend. It simply works best in windows world.
>> Which provide, I think, superior capabilities in terms of access to native > code, etc. and have a much cleaner security model in that the user has to > explicitly install a piece of software and the browser warns them that they > should trust the site, etc, apart from the additional layer of trust > addons.mozilla.org provides. > IE does that now. Each activex has to be digitally signed and warranted. > Hopefully soon most of what you need would be cleanly defined in HTML 5 > (and related specs), and implemented across browsers - Local Storage, device > control, read access to the file-system and we wont need any of these things > :) > IE9 will support HTML5. But will still support ActiveX with their finegrained security model. -- Shyam
-- ubuntu-in mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-in
