New Alliance Hopes To Standardize Web Plug-Ins

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."

Comments

Where's MS

[breadiu]

Why are they scared of working towards a standardized future?

Re:Where's MS

[MikeDX]

Maybe they think a world dominated standard will be open to abuse and be more prone to attack from worms, backdoors, trojans, etc..

Re:Where's MS

[Daengbo]

A consortium like this normally doesn't happen with the big guy on the block. It's an attempt by the Davids to join together to fight Goliath. That's what these things are and what there're for.

Re:Where's MS

[PhrostyMcByte]

The more MS accepts new standards, they less they have the industry by the balls.

Re:Where's MS

[Daengbo]

Anyway, I thought that Netscape's methods had been used for so long that they were like a standard, anyway? Moz and Konq both use them. Why change?

Re:Where's MS

[xyvimur]

They are to big to care about the standards - the IE is the major, dominant browser - which is quite unfortunate, but true.
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

[WindBourne]

While I am not a MS coder (well not in 13 years), I would suspect that these folks could easily develop a plugin adaptor for MSIE. It would not be difficult and would probably prompt MS to do something. Now the question is, what will MS do?

Re:Where's MS

[Nurseman]

" They are to big to care about the standards - the IE is the major, dominant browser - which is quite unfortunate, but true."

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

[Paulrothrock]

Without Microsoft on board this won't make it. Well, it will make it, and a few people (like me) will use it. But major companies won't, because of all the lusers who use IE. Microsoft will copy it and make it less secure and less stable, and everyone will use Microsoft's new system.

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.

Re:Where's MS

[xyvimur]

By not being compliant to standards - speaking about IE and page rendering - MS forces the webmasters to create the webpages that are displaying correctly only under the `one and true' :) browser.
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

[ray_nicov]

I thought Java WAS a standard, but many pages with a Java plugin for log-on will just not work

Get a Sun JVM. If it will not work too then I believe the problem is not related to MS at all but to the bad quality of coding.

Re:Where's MS

[swordboy]

Why are they scared of working towards a standardized future?

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 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.

Re:Where's MS

[koody]

Well, they've actually used that argument already, but I think it's more of a case of not invented here syndrome. Oh, and they wouldn't want to bind themsleves to abiding to a standard since that would make lock-in more difficult.

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. The article was released today to accompany the press release, and clarify how this all fits in to mozilla's existing structure.

Re:Where's MS

[Anonymous Writer]

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 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". 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 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

[Nurseman]

Get a Sun JVM. If it will not work too then I believe the problem is not related to MS at all but to the bad quality of coding.

I actually did install the SUN JVM, and I still have problems with two sites. Which goes to my point, if the site works with 90+% of the market share, but not with a small percentage of "other" browsers, which is it that is broken, the browser or the code ? I KNOW the code is broken, but that dosen't help me when I want to check my email from a web interface with Mozilla/FF.

Re:Where's MS

[Anonymous Writer]

I forgot to mention Flash has cross platform audio and video conferencing capabilities built-in as well.

Re:Where's MS

[sydtsai]

Sun Java is always a standard, but not M$ Java, which uses its own API to get thing only works on windows.

Re:Where's MS

[MoebiusStreet]

Umm, maybe because that's standard marketing practice. The guy in front doesn't acknowledge the existence of any competitors. Remember back to the Burger King "We're #2 so we try harder" campaign, which was met with silence from McDonald's.

Move along, there's no conspiracy to see here.

Re:Where's MS

[RaisinBread]

I would suspect that these folks could *easily* develop a plugin adaptor for MSIE.

Geez, everyone else seems to be able to! ..Can't be that hard... ;o)

--J

Re:Where's MS

[adamh]

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.

If flash were made by microsoft and not macromedia I'm sure that you wouldn't be suggesting this.

Re:Where's MS

[Anonymous Coward]

we have to STOP PROMPTING JOE USERS with ActiveX security warnings because THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THIS MEANS.

Please no. It's difficult enough for end-users to install stuff as it is. When I offer an SVG widget on a website, I don't want the majority of people going without just because they can't figure out what settings to change.

Instead, the prompt needs to be worded clearly, without jargon, and the default button on the yes/no dialogue box needs to be "no" or "never from this site". That way minimises unintentional "click to get rid of the box" installation but remains easy enough for most people to cope with when they do actually want to install something.

Re:Where's MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps this is just excessively obvious statement, but perhaps MS wasn't invited to join this cabal?

Re:Where's MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, we have not heard that joke anywhere in this story. You need to read more and get new material.

Re:Where's MS

[NutscrapeSucks]

Sounds like he's just describing reality -- many people have already moved to Flash, largely because DHTML has been such a trainwreck.

I have a feeling that Flash is going to be the VB of the 21st century. Which means it will be enormously popular for simple applications, even while getting bashed from all corners.

Re:Where's MS

[mingot]

I believe that was Avis you are thinking about.

We Try Harder

Re:Where's MS

[los furtive]

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:

1. that this new standard could be used for more than just web plugins further down the road (a la activeX)
2. Macromedia has a vested interest in this since MS is about to come out with a competing product and and any ease of use issues with installing a plugin could affect Macromedia's ability to compete.
3. Flash has caught on and done what applets were supposed to do in the first place and if you tie this with point 1 then maybe you'll see it outside of the browser, and in a cross platform manner.

Although your concerns are valid, I don't think they had any bearing on points the original comment made.

Re:Where's MS

[FictionPimp]

I write all my pages the same way. I use css to control all aspects of the design and layout.I use tables for the very rare cases I can't get the css to work just as I need it (very very rare, but I've had that happen once or twice) And then I use javascript to detect the browser and send a tweaked css for IE. I've found that if I make it look good in firefox, it looks great in IE 97% of the time. That other 3 percent, I just make a second tweaked css and then detect the browser and send the correct css file. Opera never gives me any trouble and I dont get any complaints from safari users either.

Re:Where's MS

[schuster]

hmm, I wonder if they could put in some kind of IE "compatibility layer" for those sites that just have to have IE.

Re:Where's MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Short answer is that your sites are likely using obsolete code targetted towards the JVM 1.1 standard used by Microsoft and Netscape. You can't even download the MS-JVM anymore, so the sites probably DO NOT WORK with new computers.

Long answer is that Sun JVM is not 100% back-compatible with 1.1 JVMs, and that's Sun's fault as much as Microsoft's. But both companies chose to have a legal pissy fight rather than deliver working applets to users.

Re:Where's MS

[scovetta]

Very good point, I thought so too, except that things are always changing. Would you rather spend your time writing to Microsoft and then have to update it when Microsoft either (a) changes functionality, or (b) starts to crack under the pressure and conform to actual standards? I write business web apps in a 99% IE workplace, but I still don't write IE-only things (no active-x, no quirky behaviors, no filters, etc). Just the area that IE and Opera/Moz/Firefox all support. Just my $0.02 though.

Re:Where's MS

[quasimodal]

If I was designing a buisness site, and had to choose between a "standard" or compatability with IE, it would be a no brainer.


Spoken like a true, lazy Microsoftie. And if I were your boss, which I could well be, I'd fire your ass.
There are many ways to code pages that work well for all browsers, and purposely excluding some customers from using your site because you're lazy is a lousy way to do business.

Besides, IE becomes more and more obsolete every day it stagnates. And the only reason it's used so much is that people are too lazy and/or stupid to dump it.

Re:Where's MS

[sangdrax]

Yes, because that might make the underlaying applications (IE, Windows) obsolete.

That is a big potential loss on one hand, and there is no gain for MS on the other. IE is old but still dominating the desktop.. why risk changing that? Every plugin supplier will support IE anyway.

Re:Where's MS

[NanoGator]

"Why are they scared of working towards a standardized future?"

Eolas?

Re:Where's MS

[Viceice]

Why the trouble with the HDDs? All you need is to do is get your hands on :

1. Windows Preinstallation Kit (1 comes with every box of WindowsXP OEM Licences)

2. A spare Network card

3. A Crossover cable

Then all you need to do after you have setup the Preinstallation Kit on a machine, is to conenct your PC to your clients, insert the CD, a floppy (which will be created when you setup the kit and you're rady to go.

The system will be blanked out and a clean install will be done and the client will be asked for his CD key when he takes it hoem and boots for the 1st time..

Re:Where's MS

[Nurseman]

There are many ways to code pages that work well for all browsers, and purposely excluding some customers from using your site because you're lazy is a lousy way to do business.

First off I don't write code, but I think you missed my point. If you had to write a website, and to choose a "standard", or code that will work in 95% of the browsers, which would you choose ? I understand the code is broken on these sites, but that dosen't help me when I want to log in to check email.
And About IE becoming obsolete, it will never happen. How many non geeks Windows users do you know who will download and install a broswer, update favorites, re install plugins, and learn a new program because it's "better"? You and I know how far superior Mozilla/FF are, but to the average usrr it does not matter. Until other browsers come preinstalled on the desktop, that big "E" will always mean the internet to the vast majority of users.

Re:Where's MS

[Mr Z]

Having a separate drive makes it easier to not nuke the customer's data files. See the bit where he mentions "backup folder."

Re:Where's MS

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not it, you dumb.

The point of this is replacing the stupid ActiveX, and users are sick tired of it.

Finally! A *SECURE* plugin standard. (Die, ActiveX!)

Whew.

Sincerely,
Dr. Hess.

Re:Where's MS

[StraightTalkExpress]

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. There is a W3C standard for a Flash-alike: SVG. So far there's no full Free implementation yet.

Re:Where's MS

[gad_zuki!]

>What I have been doing is simply swapping hard drives

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.

Re:Where's MS

[4of12]

By not being compliant to standards - speaking about IE and page rendering - MS forces the webmasters to create the webpages that are displaying correctly only under the `one and true' :) browser.

So I have to ask the question.

With so many corporate IT departments shelling out big bucks for MS products, haven't any of them complained to MS about CSS and other glitches in IE non-compliance with W3C standards?

Do they just ignore their customers, provide a stonewall answer (it'll be in Longhorn) or what?

Or don't all the corporate webmasters care about this weirdness in IE?

Re:Where's MS

[swordboy]

Certainly...

Most PCs only have a 1-year warranty and if someone is going to pay for an extended warranty, then they generally would rather sit for hours on the phone with Dell than bring the PC my way. But I do disclose that I'm replacing the hard drive and give the user the option to keep their stocker for an extra $15.

What I've found is that, for the most part, the users that come to me are fed up with non English-speaking tech support monkeys who can't fix their PC. They couldn't care less about the warranty.

Re:Where's MS

[swordboy]

It also makes it easier to deal with unhappy customers. Just reinstall the old drive. I keep 'em for a week because there's the occasional unhappy camper (usually some idiot who copied their buddy's MS Office or TurboTax and doesn't have the install anymore).

Re:Where's MS

[DaddyDonMynack]

If you swap it out with a new hard drive, doesn't that cut down severely on your profit margin? Those drives you linked to cost $32 - if you only charge $50, it looks like you are only making $18 a machine, to me. Did you get them in bulk or something?

Re:Where's MS

[Mr Z]

Can't you just wipe them, verify them, and install them in someone else's machine eventually? (After the approx 1wk period, that is?)

Re:Where's MS

[Logicdisorder]

That is easy, it would mean that any site could be viewed by any broswer. MS has done what it has done to IE for the purpose of getting people to write site/app that will only run right on IE. A good example is .Net. .Net classes pretty much all other broswers as down level apart for IE 5.5 and above. So you will never get a .Net app running %100 on Mozilla.

This is also the same for other standards they have changed. I think it is a very good idea to leave MS out in the cold. They have done nothing but cause problems becasue of IE.

IE is a virus.

Re:Where's MS

[NuclearDog]

Any tips, tricks, things to watch out for, stories of unruly customers and possible solutions, etc. you care to share? Want to see if I need to buy myself a crowbar for pretection before getting into this...

ND

Re:Where's MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft has thus far not needed it. The NPAPI standard is aweful compared to their solution. Just use Spy++ that comes with Visual C++ 6.0 to prove this to yourself. Sniff the window structure. You will find that an entire page in IE renders in a single flat window. This includes plugins. This means that web designers can develop HTML/CSS/Ecma code which floats menus over plugins (such as Flash). The plugins in IE really become part of the program, not just some overlapping window which is limited in layering capability.

The members of this committee being spoken of have had difficulties addressing this issue. It's obvious that unless you flatten the entire window structure of the page, it is likely not possible to get the proper z-ordering required in plug-ins. The committee is not sure how to progress on this point, but it is in fact the key limiting factor of the plugin architecture today. The plugins themselves are in fact quite easy to implement at the moment. NDA blocks me from saying why I know this, but they are VERY EASY to implement.

Scriptibility is a great feature that needs to be incorporated. LiveConnect was a total flop. Worst standard ever. It made things impossible for the developer. Plugin developers were required to make use of an interface called JRI to communicate with the Java engine. This was not a huge problem, but when Java progressed, JRI didn't and when JNI was introduced, browser had to somehow fake the JRI interface through advanced thunking calls. Java makes a nice plugin, but LiveConnect is an utterly useless feature if scripting is supported.

Window handling is what may be considered the worst aspect of plugin implementation. Toolkits like Qt from TrollTech are fabulous since it takes care of the Windowing issue involved. Unfortunately, there's not proper cross platform solution for Plugin development which is freely available. If you want to develop a plugin for Windows, Linux X, Linux Qt Embedded, Mac OS 9, Mac OS X, Symbian OS, QNX, Palm, BeOS, etc.. the visual handling needs to be implemented completely different on each platform. Qt handles 4 of the listed platforms, but not the rest. There is just no solution for this problem. All the different browsers have their own methods of painting to the screen, so there's no logical method of exposing a standard API for this. A frame buffer isn't enough. So there is no method of making the graphics side of a plugin standard. If nothing else, it would be useful to clearly document and expose the NPWindow structure for each platform. Some platforms completely ignore this structure and simply use a window hack in the NPP_SetWindow() call.

I need to get back to work, so I'll summerize. Plugins aren't able to be made 100% cross platform. Microsoft has a system which works SUBSTANTIALLY better than the NPAPI interface and therefore the getting involved in the NPAPI development is a waste of time for them. After all, someone in the Moz project will just release a wrapper which will embed an NPAPI plugin in IE anyway. It's not the MS is against standards, it's just that there are A LOT of standards and since they have the market share they already have, the don't need to rush to fix their bugs or conform to new standards. After all, they still don't support PNG and that would be a few hours work for them.

Re:Where's MS

[leomekenkamp]

'Managers' do not care about what is under the hood, they simply want a shiny application. Technicians do care about the lack of css etc. support, but without it you can still get the same looking website, although the html code is shitty. The manager wants the application working _now_ and cannot afford to wait for Microsoft, especially when there is a perfectly (in his eyes) working workaround.

And do you really think that with 90+% of the market under their control, Microsoft will actually listen to their customer base? They will listen all right, but anything that does not suit the goals of Microsoft will _not_ be implemented. Just like in communism, there is no need for a monopolist to make their products better. The only need there is is to hold on to the monopoly.

US government has laws to prevent these sort of things, but we all know what happened.

Re:Where's MS

[Anonymous Coward]

"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?"

Nice troll. The problem with your rant however, is that Mozilla isn't released under the GPL. Please stop parrotting the Microsoft sponsered "GPL is viral" crap. It only confuses any newcomers to /.

Re:Where's MS

[Anonymous Writer]

So you're suggesting we dump html and move to flash?

No.

If flash were made by microsoft and not macromedia I'm sure that you wouldn't be suggesting this.

I didn't suggest that.

Re:Where's MS

[koody]

You really should be able to conclude from the context that the "GPL is viral" is sarcasm. If you are unable to deduce even that little fact from what I wrote, you will probably be incapable of handling the amount of information that is in the Mozilla relicensing FAQ. But just a little quote from it:

The new standard licensing scheme is an MPL/GPL/LGPL triple license; it should be used for all new Mozilla source files distributed through mozilla.org, and existing files will be changed to it after obtaining the necessary permissions.

Re:Where's MS

[Dr Damage I]

They're not. They're simply waiting until the standard is formalised before releasing plugins.net, which varies from the original standard in several technically minor but functionally crucial ways.

Re:Where's MS

[quasimodal]

First off I don't write code, but I think you missed my point. If you had to write a website, and to choose a "standard", or code that will work in 95% of the browsers, which would you choose ? I understand the code is broken on these sites, but that dosen't help me when I want to log in to check email.

Well, you also missed my point. There is NO reason why you can't write code that works in both IE and non-IE browsers. Besides, since you nothing about the topic, why the hell are you commenting on the topic?

Besides the 95% usage of IE is just not true. Sure it's on 95% of desktop machines, but I can guarantee that it's not the browser used on all those machines, and the percentage keeps dropping (you've stated that you use Mozilla).

And IE IS obsolete. It's just too bad you don't realize it. It's characterized by shoddy programming, bug infestations, it's a virus transmitter (along with the moron behind the keyboard) because of it's almost complete lack of security, and it's completely lacking new substantial features since 5.0 (or before).

Hey, just because MS sells tons of copies of Windows doesn't mean its good. And besides, considering that the median IQ is 100, I don't think that I want to be associated with the dregs that use Windows (and yes, I question the intelligence of ANYONE who uses Windows voluntarily).

Re:Where's MS

[Anonymous Coward]

"If I was designing a buisness site, and had to choose between a "standard" or compatability with IE, it would be a no brainer."

There's a distinct move toward "Rich Internet Applications" - to borrow the Macromedia term for it (see Macromedia's Flex stuff) - and the DOM API (a standard rapidly in adoption by browser vendors) lends a developer the power to create these rich user interfaces to improve everybody's experience of the web especially for online trading (eg. shopping cart systems that don't do page refreshes etc.) - DOM and other emerging standards are trying to turn the web from a flat publishing medium into a distributed applications medium. MS were even involved in drafting the DOM2Events API - only to then implement a proprietary - non-standard version.

If you've ever done any fairly serious JavaScript hacking to leverege this power, you'd soon be cursing IE's buggy implementation - for instance, dynamically creating a <style type="text/css"> tag and setting it's content without getting an "UNKNOWN RUNTIME ERROR" - or had <SELECT> elements poking through your DIVs - or any of the plethora of weird, undocumented behaviour you get when trying to do something with IE that's any more complex that rendering HTML - from a coder's perspective... IE is an extremely frustrating beast to code for (whereas Mozilla just works).

IE's dominance keeps us in the dark ages of multiple forms and server round-trips (even if they do have HTAs and CSS Behaviors - nobody uses them). In my view, that is particulary bad for business as you're not converting as many page hits to sales as you could be, were your customers not obligated to use out-dated web-based user interfaces.

Complacency in this matter is NOT going to allow us to move forward to high usability web-sites

Re:Where's MS

[swordboy]

A child post indicated what I am doing - as long as they are good, you can wipe 'em and reuse them later on. You just need an initial batch to start the business.

Re:Where's MS

[aztracker1]

XHTML1, and HTML4.01 with proper doctype tags renders pretty much the same in opera, mozilla/firefox, and ie... some quirks in all three, but moz is actually more dependable than ie at this point...

Where IE shines is with ActiveX, and scriptability, from IE4 on in creating intranet/extranet apps, unfortunately this has blead through into some general use sites, which sucks... I've created, and supported IE only sites, but generally avoid IE only solutions where it isn't so much an application as it is general use... I try to remain xhtml1 compliant as much as possible for IE.. and sometimes though, I wish mozilla dealt with certain things a little better.. like & instead of & in an href, etc..

generally though, I like developing browser content a *LOT* better now than 6-8 years ago.. Also, re-discovered something cool that I'd forgotten about.. (remote scripting, which works in moz + java, and newer java versions, ms, and the java versions both)...

Re:Where's MS

[aztracker1]

Since most of these systems are probably > 1-3 years old, are well out of warranty anyhow.

Re:Where's MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Please stop posting the "GPL is viral" lie. It only confuses the newcomers to /.

Shockwave?

[Daengbo]

Maybe now there will finally be some of the missing plugins like Shockwave.
Not that I really want it, but my kids do.

Re:Shockwave?

[cronot]

Unless your kids are using Linux, the Shockwave plugin can be found here (Access this link with a Mozilla-compatible browser).

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?

[CastrTroy]

Sorry for my ignorance, but can someone please explain the difference between shockwave and flash to me.

Re:Shockwave?

[Ford Prefect]

I remember Konqueror getting support for Shockwave through Wine with 'reaktivate' - does anyone know what happened to that project? I can't find anything more recent than late 2001...

Re:Shockwave?

[machineghost]

Its been awhile since I looked in to this myself, but I believe they both used to be fairly similiar. Nowadays though I believe Flash is far more robust and widespread. In fact, many people use Flash for computer animations that aren't even on the web, though it dominates the web as well. Shockwave in contrast seems to be less widely used, and only for smaller animations, like bits of a web pages UI.

But I could be way of base here, and I didn't go research a bit of what I just said because I am lazy. So <insert fancy latin phrase for buyer beware that I can't remember because I just woke up>.

Re:Shockwave?

[TheTimoo]

Here go: what's the difference between flash and shockwave

Re:Shockwave?

[Pantheraleo2k3]

I don't know about regular Wine, but CodeWeavers used to sell a product that has Wine-based Linux browser plugins for popular Linux browsers. Now it's integrated into CrossOver Office, as you see at:

http://www.codeweavers.com/site/products/cxoffic e/

Re:Shockwave?

[maxume]

macromedia's page about it

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?

[singleantler]

Shockwave was created to let people view Director content easily. Flash was for animations, especially vector based stuff.

Flash has got a lot better / quicker over recent years so you can do a lot more in it than you used to, but Shockwave is still used for a lot of heavily graphical games as it suits the content more.

Re:Shockwave?

[scrow]

I am assuming that ou are using linux as the shockwave and flash are readily available for M$ products. Interestingly enough macromedia also releases these plugins for netscape/mozilla/mozilla firefox for linux as well. I find these plugins to work just as well as there windows counterparts. I need the plugin to look at the motorcycle manufacturer sites and when I get writers block I go and play flash games at ebaums world. my point is that the plugin is available and it is easy to install. It may not be open source but the software is distributed freely and is activley developed for linux. WHen my nieces want to use my computer they can't tell the difference between thier dad's XP machine and My Slack Box for web purposes... just my experience!

Re:Shockwave?

[andymadigan]

I installed shockwave on mozilla. After 1 hour I had already installed a blocker for it so I don't see all the flash ads.

Re:Shockwave?

[Daengbo]

Since when have you been able to get Shockwave for Linux? Flash is released, but I have never found Shock.

Re:Shockwave?

[Daengbo]

Are you confusing the Flash plugin and the Shockwave plugin? They're not the same.

Re:Shockwave?

[FLEB]

Close, but the last part's backwards. Shockwave (the "player" plugin for Macromedia Director) is used primarily for larger, CDROM-style interactive displays. Flash, OTOH, was started as a vector-based animation tool, but the small size and robust toolset of Flash files brought it to the web market in a big way.

Personally, I think they need to fork off Flash (creator, not player). Make two apps or disctinct modes of one app, that both produce Flash files. One would be more toward Flash's original goal, a vector-animation tool, while the other would be a more shapes-and-lines based interface design tool.

After using Flash (MX) a bit, it seems to be mired in its history, with many tools catering to the animator, but a lot of difficulty for people trying to make more geometric interfaces.

aargh...

[chachob]

they are just trying to get rid of the fanboys since exploits will affect ALL browsers then... ;)

Re:aargh...

[endx7]

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 interface, then I'll be worried. But that'd be awfully difficult because, as I understand it, activex is depenedant on large chunks of the windows api.

Re:aargh...

[Mattintosh]

You make a good argument, yet you missed a detail.

The name "Safari".

Apple makes everything automagical, sometimes at the expense of security. Their recent exploits were nothing more than a few protocol handlers that could've run amok. Protocol handlers. For standard protocols (except the help one). They made protocol handlers dangerous by making them do things without user intervention.

Now, of course, this doesn't mean that all platforms will have to install these plugins automatically. But knowing Apple, most of the functionality will be wrapped up in the plugin itself, possibly torpedoing any attempt to keep the clueless type of users informed of what's on their machine (there will probably be a preference pane in the app that shows a list of installed plugins and gives you an easy way to remove them, but you'll have to know it's there).

ActiveX isn't your only worry. This plugin architecture is a form of homogeny that will span platforms and ensure that malware is a write-once-run-anywhere thing if it's not handled correctly.

(-1, Tinfoil Hat)

Re:aargh...

[x0n]

Now if someone decided to port activex over to this new plugin interface, then I'll be worried. But that'd be awfully difficult because, as I understand it, activex is depenedant on large chunks of the windows api.

Hehe, unless that person is a complete masochist with about 15 years to spare, this is not happening anytime soon. ActiveX is a layer on COM/DCOM, so in effect, it's not dependent on the Windows API. But Windows is the only platform that fully supports COM/DCOM.

In both the EJB (Java) and COM frameworks, distributed transactions are managed by an implementation of the Distributed Transaction Processing (DTP) model defined by the X/Open standards group in 1991. I also believe COM itself is entirely licensed to the Open Standards group, so this whole point is kind of ironic: ActiveX is already an open standard...

-Oisin

Re:aargh...

[lenhap]

It appears to me that you have never used a mac. For that matter have you used firefox? The new plugin architecture is said to be based off the mozilla plugin architecture. What apple would do, actually already done by mozilla rather well, is allow the user to install a plugin by clicking a link, rather than having to download a plugin/installer and manually put it in the correct folder or have to search the net for the correct plugin to work for their particular architecture and system.

Apple never does anything without the user agreeing to it. What apple does is make it easy for the user to do what they want to do. Rather than on windows and linux where you have to hunt for every option you want. (not saying these systems have less functionality, in fact for the more complex and less used functions/power user functions, they can be easier to do on these systems.) You seem to be under the impression that apple thinks its users are idiots who shouldn't be told what is happening. Rather apple just provides an interface that in my opinion is better designed and therefore simpler to use.

I would argue that this is not making malware a write-once-run-anywhere thing. It would still come down to the idiot user installing the plugin (whether by clicking a simple link that works for all browsers or downloading and manually installing a plugin). My guess also is that in order to prevent malware, the plugins would have some restrictions on what they can do to the system. In other words I doubt malware plugins (because we will always have the idiot user who installs a plugin just because a web page tells him to, usually a porn page or something) that get installed will be destructive to the system, perhaps annoying, but not destructive.

This will be far superior to IE where if i just visit a site, i can get infected by malware. Rather there would have to be user interaction to install a plugin. Also unlike IE where if i shutdown the browser the malware is still running, if i shutdown the browsers with this standard plugin architecture the plugins will no longer run.

So before you go spouting off 'Facts' perhaps check them for yourself. It doesn't do any of us any good to just propogate rumors.

My $.02 -Peace

What about IE?

[grandmofftarkin]

Or is this only for browsers that are actually useful?

Re:What about IE?

[nizo]

Actually IE already has plenty of plugins. They even install themselves! The downside is they sometimes trash your hard drive or turn your machine into a spam zombie.

Re:What about IE?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck IE and fuck IE users! =)
It should be called Intranet Explorer, it has no business in insecure networks like internet. More IE viruses I say, more and more until it gets through thickest skulls that IE is POS.

If courts can't prevent IE from plaguing the net then we users must make an effort to stop it. Looking good so far.

Oh the irony

[krray]

The boys in Redmond must have smacked their head and said, "IE"

Pay attention!

[tod_miller]

English Articles:
http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/en/2 004/06/30/
http://www.mozilla.org/press/mozilla-2 004-06-30.ht ml

"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!

[Threni]

> Opera want to pull in a little more weight, feeling the heat from FireFox I
> guess.

What IS Opera's area of expertise? I had a look at the free demo a long time ago, but it just annoyed me. I think it was nag screens or something, or perhaps the demo timed out? I dunno. I know it was quite fiddly and difficult to use having only used IE up until then. It just seemed that by instead using Firefox I gained the source code, loads of extensions, and lost nothing. Firefox also is much more welcoming to people coming from IE. Initially you can use it in the same way, and then play around with the tabbed browsing, AdBlocking, mouse gestures etc at your own pace.

Re:Pay attention!

[orangeguru]

I had a look at the free demo a long time ago - I always love it when our local experts provide us with hands own experience.
Opera is a very good, consistent, stable and fast product. Cross platform and available for Cell phones. IMHO Opera still handles tabbed browsing and many other interface issues better then anything MOZ.

Re:Pay attention!

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera's goal used to be speed and absolute standards compliance, but that lead to lots of broken sites, so now they seem to take a more pragmatic approach. It's still fast, but it handles bad code much better. It's also the only browser that supports many of the advanced css properties. More importantly: before Mozilla, it was the only cross-platform browser (as far as I know).

Opera hasn't had timed demos in years. They put a banner ad in the main bar and it never expires. Actually, since Opera 7, there's an option to replace the banner ad with Google text ads, which is somewhat less annoying.

Oh, and tabbed/paged browsing, mouse gestures, and pop-up blocking were in Opera before Mozilla even existed. Just because it's not open source, doesn't make it a bad browser.

Re:Pay attention!

[Threni]

> Opera is a very good, consistent, stable and fast product. Cross platform and
> available for Cell phones. IMHO Opera still handles tabbed browsing and many
> other interface issues better then anything MOZ.

All the above is true, apart perhaps from the cellphone thing. (I'm happy with the WAP browser that's built into my T610). Not sure how Opera handles tabs better than Firefox. I mean, it just works in Firefox, and the AllInOne extension lets you access the tabs via right-mouse and scroll wheel. Doesn't sound like I'm missing anything. Cheers for the info.

Re:Pay attention!

[Threni]

Thanks for the reply. Personally i'm not too concerned with which browser had what first. The CSS thing isn't an issue for me either, as I have Firefox override the sites own settings for fonts and colours because..well, whenever I go with the site's own settings I get some ghastly courier 3 font in red on black or something. Perhaps I'm colourblind..or perhaps everyone else is? Or maybe I have a different opinion on what is readable. Call me boring, but I like each site to have the same font (and font size) and colours and everything so where I'm getting the info from is sort of transparent.

Re:Pay attention!

[kristaps.kaupe]

More importantly: before Mozilla, it was the only cross-platform browser (as far as I know).

How about Lynx? :)

Just because it's not open source, doesn't make it a bad browser.

Agree. I'm using Opera for about two years (before that I was Netscape 4.x user) and I'm not going to switch to Firefox or other open source browser.

Re:Pay attention!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sun's StarOffice will also benefit. StarOffice (and OpenOffice.org obviously) uses Netscape plugins to show videos and the like. If the plugins are capable of greater interactivity, then Impress will be able to do more than just "play on display".

If this is true

[dmomo]

I Hope that all browsers involved would allow me to point to my own plugin directory, so I don't have to have a different copy of the same file for each browser I use.

Re:If this is true

[Atrophis]

Thats a great idea. But then it would require each browser developers to actually follow the standards.

Re:If this is true

[Nutria]

so I don't have to have a different copy of the same file for each browser I use.

One word: symlink.

Re:If this is true

[sage2k6]

I know what you mean. It'd be really nice if each computer has just one directory for all of the plugins. The stupid network at school trys to install a whole bunch of plugins (mostly useless too,) to my profile every single time I start Netscape at a terminal that I've never used before...... It's really damn annoying.

Tho this standardized web plugin would be really sweet...... maybe quicktime movies will start to play properly on my computer now.

Re:If this is true

[dmomo]

Yes. This is true. For *nix. For those people like my mother running Windows (hey, I got them as far as using Firefox and Open Office), this isn't as easy. In fact, I don't even think there is a utility in Windows that lets you create a Symbolic Link.

Re:If this is true

[Hellkitten]

One word: symlink.

What if he uses an inferior OS that doesn't have symlinks?

Re:If this is true

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, it's called a shortcut in Windows.

Re:If this is true

[sage2k6]

Uh...... From the way that Windows handles links...... It looks symbolic to me. Just not the same way that *nix consider symbolic. Hard links are what Windows don't have. (and probably don't need, as it would probably make a lot of users cry)

Re:If this is true

[tod_miller]

"What if he uses an inferior OS"

I prefer the term, 'differently advantaged' when talking about Windows, it is so less offensive :-) ;-)

Re:If this is true

[afidel]

What OS would that be? All current versions of windows support syml^h^h^h reparse points. Of course they aren't a natural part of the OS but they HAVE been there since win2k was released almost 5 years ago.

Re:If this is true

[O]

NTFS has hard links, actually.

Re:If this is true

[moongha]

Actually NTFS supports symlinks (or something very similar).

reference

Re:If this is true

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, NTFS has real symbolic and hard links, but that functionality isn't very accessible... See Google Answers.

Re:If this is true

[jaavaaguru]

NTFS does support symbolic linking. I know NT/2000/XP don't come with a tool for creating symlinks, but since the filesystem supports it, I'd be surprised if someone hasn't written a tool that can do it. It's probably too difficult for the average user to use though.

Re:If this is true

[minus_273]

you mean you want a Mac where every browser uses /Library/Internet Plugins and use the same plugins

Re:If this is true

[Anonymous Coward]

Mac OS X already has a shared browser plugin directory
</fanboy>

Re:If this is true

[John Allsup]

Take a look at this article at support.microsoft.com.

Re:If this is true

[Anonymous Coward]

A shortcut is absolutly nothing like a symbolic link. Even Microsoft will tell you that.

Apparently NTFS supports both symbolic and hard links, it's just that Windows doesn't expose the functionality. Go figure.

Re:If this is true

[Henriok]

Mac OS X (and even OS9, but no one cared) have this scheme. All browsers look for Plugins in folders provided by Apple. /Library/Internet Plug-Ins (system wide)
~/Library/internet Plug-Ins (user)

Re:If this is true

[Pantheraleo2k3]

A Windows .lnk file is managed by the shell to open a file or open a folder in the shell. However, a big difference between a Unix style symlink is that Unix style symlinks assume the type of their target and form part of the directory tree so you can cd to a symlink. However, as they are managed by the shell, you cannot cd to a symlink.

Re:If this is true

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft wants to support running on FAT therefore no exotic NTFS stuff gets used.

Even though Shortcuts aren't the same as links, they would probably a better choice for Windows, because users are already used to using them with Start Menu and Favorites, etc.

Re:If this is true

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sitting in front of a W2K box now. How do I create a symlink?

Re:If this is true

[kawika]

I'd be surprised if someone hasn't written a tool that can do it.
Yep. Here's the tool (and source code).

Re:If this is true

[Enrico Pulatzo]

If you're on Windows with an NTFS partition, look for the utility linkd.exe. I've found it to be most useful.

Re:If this is true

[afidel]

I forgot that 2k does not have a native tool for it though NTFS does support it. You can use the freeware tool Junction from sysinternals available here to do it. It's per directory not per file so MUCH more limited then true symlinks but it would allow you to mount a common plugin directory.

Re:If this is true

[Anonymous Coward]

1. find info on the symlink type api
2. write a program to do it
3. ...
4. Profit!

Re:If this is true

[CdBee]

If this system does allow a single "Browser Plugins" location for every browser it would also enable emulation-based* products like Crossover Plugin from Codeweavers to be used to bring Windows plugins to *nix browsers, I imagine W/R/T Quicktime it'll probably still ask you to pay a lot of money to buy the pro version every time its needed, when all you want it for is watching a video file, though... :-p *Yes I know WINE is not an emulator, and *you* know that it still provides emulation services in this context.....

Re:If this is true

[lvdrproject]

NTFS's 'link' features are entirely useless, last i checked. They fall quite short of UNIX's. :(

Re:If this is true

[Hellkitten]

All current versions of windows support syml^h^h^h reparse points.

Well you can chalk that up to me not knowing windows as well as I know *nix

I knew I could mount a drive as part of another filesystem but had no idea it was possible to do the equivalent of symlinking. It certainly isn't a well advertised feature, I would have expected it to appear in a menu if windows supported it. Tanks for the info (all of you) it might come in handy

Wow

[Gr8Apes]

If this could be completed quickly, this would be a huge boon to consumers everywhere, making life much simpler for Joe Sixpack. It would be another step in commoditizing the underlying OS, and the web browser in a sense as well, as you don't have to worry about plug in support as long as it was a compliant browser.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

And unfortunately 95% of the world will probably never get the benefit of this.

Re:Wow

[BitchAss]

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.

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

[Epistax]

Joe Sixpack has a computer? Oh wait, you mean a six pack in the fridge, not a six pack on the abdomen

Re:Wow

[spellraiser]

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 plugins to be widely used, they must be written for IE.

Microsoft is of course quite happy with this state of affairs; changing their browser to conform some outside standard would not benefit them in any way. In fact, it could even be harmful, since standards tend to make switching to a different program less difficult, which is certainly not what they want people to do.

Re:Wow

[NutscrapeSucks]

It's easy to turn this into a bash fest, but keep in mind that browser plugins are patented technology, and Microsoft is on the edge of losing a very large lawsuit for using them. It's a bogus patent, but it might hold up.

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 enbeddding. And they could do a better job on the policy side than Microsoft. (And before someone responds with "ActiveX is insecure", tell yourself that all Internet Plugins are insecure.) Mozilla even has a ActiveX thingy, but it's not included with the Windows binaries, mostly for political reasons I guess.

Re:Wow

[hackstraw]

If this could be completed quickly, this would be a huge boon to consumers everywhere, making life much simpler for Joe Sixpack.

First off, its good to see people on /. still care about Joe Sixpack. Noone has really mentioned him lately, and I thought noone cared :)

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.

Re:Wow

[Gr8Apes]

But the point isn't whether you care to, but that the 95% folks do care to. They like that flashy stuff. They want that flashy stuff. And they'll run whatever gives them that flashy stuff.

So, having the ability to as easily use the flashy stuff in the browser of your choice as it is in IE, makes the argument to switch from IE almost moot. At least as far as flashy plug ins go. Also, having it be platform independent removes the issues of OSes, freeing vendors just that little bit more.

I don't disagree about your point about plugins. I think I have flash installed on 1 or 2, but that would be the only plugin. I don't have any installed on my *nix boxes.

Re:Wow

[keytoe]

Oh wait, you mean a six pack in the fridge, not a six pack on the abdomen

Or both. The one in the fridge is backup - the one on the abdomen is so you don't have to get off the floor as often.

Re:Wow

[quies.net]

Plugins and scripting languages are temporarely sollutions for the shortcommings of the Markup Languages and their current implementations. However they also give a realworld insight of the needs and the futures like SVG.

/Now that I think about it, standardizing plugins could be the revamping of the plugin craze (read spyware)./

Becouse the plugin standardization, we can have more controll over the computer resources acces. Spyware needs complete differend resources than visual add-ons.

Oh great!

[revery]

I think the internet's broken. That first link, heise online, it's in a whole other language.

I've already tried resetting the defaults on IE...

Can anyone help?

--

I uhm... write stuff, but not well, and not often

Re:Oh great!

[strictnein]

The intraweb designers created a tool to fix this problem. Go here

Re:Oh great!

[MrNemesis]

You need to delete your cache ;^)

(What the hell is the problem with IE's cache? Is there even a problem with it? Why does eevryone always say "delete your temporary internet files" whenever *anything* goes wrong in IE? Not a troll, just curious)

Back OT, a standardised plugin API can only be good news to everyone. Less maintenance and cross-coding for the browsers and the plugin makers.

Re:Oh great!

[Bombcar]

Because a common problem with a site not displaying correctly is that old content has been cached. One of the settings that you can set the cache to be checked is "Once per session," and a session can be many days log.

It's an easy thing to do that "caches" some common errors.

Re:Oh great!

[vrt3]

In that case, isn't it sufficient to press F5 to refresh the page?

Re:Oh great!

[FictionPimp]

Its because of people like me. When I worked support for a large ISP, most people just needed a good reboot. We would clear their cache to make them think we did something, then tell them to reboot :-)

Re:Oh great!

[Anonymous Coward]

What, those durn furriners agin? Why can't they just learn english?

Re:Oh great!

[gmhowell]

You need to reinstall windows. Sorry.

Re:Oh great!

[fname]

Oh man, I just went through this. Basically, Explorer died on me. I almost never use it, but need it to fill out my time card. I tried re-installing, deleting & reinstalling (twice), manually deleting & reinstalling. Zip, zilch, zero. Finally, I decided to call my help desk (who would help be re-imaging my drive-- how easy for them!).

But I decided to try one more thing. I went to internet options and started setting everything to the default values. When I clicked on the button to clear the cache, it froze. I tried manually deleting these, and the folder froze. Finally, after 4-5 tries, I managed to delete all those files. Explorer works perfectly now.

I shudder to think how many people have reinstalled Windows, wiped their hard drives or threw away their computers because of this silly, fairly common problem?

w3c?

[ols22]

Does anyone know how the w3c fits into this?

Re:w3c?

[GlassUser]

Yes. They've already specified standards that do what these companies want to do. But the standards aren't held exclusively by these companies and tailored to their income needs. So all of this has already been designed and specified and is ready to be implemented now.

Re:w3c?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's utter bullshit. The W3C has not published any sort of specification that details how plugins are supposed to interact with browsers. You are talking out of your arse.

If you think otherwise, please provide a link to the relevent specification. They are all available at w3.org.

Richer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Great! I, for one, welcome our new Punch The Monkey and Win 10,000 Banana Points overlords.

Har!

er...

[Anonymous Coward]

how exactly is this supposed to work differntly than the current model. Konqueror and thus I assume safari can already use mozilla/netscape plugins. How exactly are they planning on using the exact same plugin for different OS's using different machine archetectures? This looks a lot like java.

Re:Pay attention! (esp. me!)

[tod_miller]

RTFA a bit more - Mozilla is pushing it, ah well this is all well and cushy!

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!

You know what this means, don't you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, regardless of browser, everyone can have 10,372 smileys and valuable advertisements from Hotbar.

Re:You know what this means, don't you?

[blobglob]

This will probably be a problem in the future. I think we can expect several spyware-type plugins if the alternative browsers to IE continue to grow in popularity.

While I believe this standardisation is a good thing on the whole, abuse becomes more likely as the spyware companies are given an easier way to get to a larger audience. Of course, given the relatively small amount of users (and a low percentage of clueless users!) using these browsers as opposed to IE, we're safe for the moment.

No need for MS

[TreyBastian]

MS really has no need for this plugin unless the companys stop developing the plugins for IE. I'm guessing that won't happen.

Re:No need for MS

[Mz6]

Right.. I'm guessing this is just going to make it easier for the the plug-in companies to make plug-ins for the smaller browsers. Instead of making a plug-in for Mozilla, Firefox, Opera, etc.. They only need to make one two now. One for all of those and another for IE. As you said, they arent going to stop making one for IE... i mean.. 70%+ dominance is a pretty big number :)

Re:No need for MS

[tiger99]

You got it right. No need for MS, ever! Their junk is a complete irrelevance to the progress of computing, their one "innovation" was simply a new way to operate an illegal monopoly.

I sincerely hope that this project hastens the adoption of decent, secure (well, nearly, nothing is perfect), standards-compliant browsers.

u must be hating the lizard..

[roror]

seriously .. slashdotting it everyday?
now on topic.. isn't sun standing in for MS there ?
And on a more serious note .. for what are these multimedia and java plugins good for anyways ? But, these kinda aliances good, 'cause they will help move the lazy MS ass to do some serious work atleast.

Oh no!

[callipygian-showsyst]

Don't reinvent Active-X with all its problems. Maybe browsers *don't* need standard, easy-to-install extensions (think BHO and ActiveX)

Re:Oh no!

[TheRealMindChild]

More then likely this will be hooked into Java somehow. Before you say "We already have Applets", Applets were visual components, but plugins dont necessarily need to be.

Re:Oh no!

[Anonymous Coward]

Already happened. BHO == XUL, ActiveX == XPI.

Re:Oh no!

[callipygian-showsyst]

That's what I thought!

I'm running firefox now, and I was playing around with installing "engines". These don't seem to be any safer inherently than IE plugins...just that Firefox isn't a "target" now for malware authors.

The Mozilla folks shouldn't get too cocky! Leave well enough alone, and forget browser plugins!

Re:Oh no!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't reinvent Active-X with all its problems. Maybe browsers *don't* need standard, easy-to-install extensions (think BHO and ActiveX)

There's a difference between "easy to install" and "easy to install accidentally." Or at least there should be.

Re:Oh no!

[jsebrech]

The difference is that mozilla, unlike IE, does not have an infrastructure for installing stuff without user intervention that can be exploited when a hole in it is found.

Re:Oh no!

[callipygian-showsyst]

I decided to switch anyway. You can see my "review" of Firefox and Thunderbird here

Re:Oh no!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Mozilla folks seem to be implementing whitelists for XPIs. That should help. :)

Popups...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is all so they can come up with non-blockable Java-Shockwave popups that work in all the non-IE browsers...

Re:Popups...

[fiftyvolts]

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?

Re:Popups...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not stupid if they only allow pop-ups from companies of their choice. Everybody has pop-up blockers now anyway. Yet I still get the occasional pop-up (in Mozilla even).

Re:Popups...

[BensonLeung]

I think all of the web browsers that are a part of this alliance have some sort of pop up protection. Mozilla and Firefox, anyone?

Re:Title Correction

[Red Alastor]

There is a difference between standardize and monopolize. You need to be alone to monopolize. Standards *are* good. As long as they are open and everybody can use them.

So Firefox is gonna change the plugin API again?

[Dr. Spork]

Grr! The transition from Firefox 0.8 to 0.9 was a big pain, as you had to wait for all the extensions to get repackaged before you could upgrade. It was a pretty big headache, because it wasn't clearly marked what works with 0.9 and what doesn't.

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!

Translation

[vchoy]

German to English Translation for the above link:
here

Shockwave.

[Raven42rac]

I use Firefox on both Windows and Mac, and have not had the need for shockwave yet, java and flash shoul d be standard too. At least this just wraps them all up in 1 package.

A little like what we've had in the audio...

[Phil John]

...world for some time. There is a widely adopted "open" standard (VST-Virtual Studio Technology). They are not cross platform as they are native software, however I can load up one of a number of sequencers on Windows and use the same plugins.

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 :o)

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...

[Short Circuit]

Never heard of VST...is it anything like LADSPA, but for Windows?

Re:A little like what we've had in the audio...

[Phil John]

Never took a look at LADSPA as I'm stuck on windows until we see a version of Cubase for linux, or a linux solution that provides all of the functionality of cubase.

But for your own comparison take a look at Kvr-VST 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.

Re:A little like what we've had in the audio...

[Threni]

Isn't VST Cubase only? They certainly didn't work on the version of Cakewalk I used to use. Perhaps my PC is now fast enough to support simply 1 track hi-hats without speeding up and slowing down. I never had a problem with this on the ST about 15 years ago, but my 300mhz AMD K6-2 certainly wasn't up to it. Perhaps I should give Cubase another go.

Re:A little like what we've had in the audio...

[usrusr]

too bad it's specified so loosely, developers have to care a lot about different presumably compatible hosts that it can easily be simpler to make the plugin work with different hosts on the same OS than with the same host on different OS. host development is said to be even more a pita, you have to basically decide between emulating the bugs of old cubase implementatins and those of logic, or both, switching between emulations depending on what plugin is loaded.

Re:A little like what we've had in the audio...

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

There is a widely adopted "open" standard (VST-Virtual Studio Technology).

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.

If only they'd go a bit further...

[Ma�djeurtam]

...and release the plug-ins themselves (hear Flash) under an open source license.

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 .swf more or less an open standard?), at least, could they release their plug-in for other archs?

Re:If only they'd go a bit further...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Linux Distros should agree on an ABI that doesn't change every 6 months first. Otherwise standardizing browser plugins is pointless futility. (And, no, 'open source' is not an excuse for breaking binaries.)

Re:If only they'd go a bit further...

[lmfr]

Linux is more than Red Hat.

And some people that Red Hat is more than x86. :)

Re:If only they'd go a bit further...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

http://macromedia.rediris.es/site_ri.html

Fedora Core 2 flash-plugin (apt, yum rpm)
Fedora Core 1 flash-plugin (apt, yum rpm)
Red Hat 9 flash-plugin (apt, yum rpm)
Red Hat 8.0 flash-plugin (apt, yum rpm)
Red Hat 7.x flash-plugin (apt, yum rpm)
RHEL 3.0 flash-plugin (apt, yum rpm)
Mandrake 10.0 flash-plugin (urpmi rpm)
Mandrake 9.2 flash-plugin (urpmi rpm)
Mandrake 9.1 flash-plugin (urpmi rpm)
Mandrake 9.0 flash-plugin (urpmi rpm)
Mandrake 8.2 flash-plugin (urpmi rpm)
SuSE 8.x flash-plugin (apt, yum rpm)
Conectiva 10 flash-plugin (apt, yum rpm)
Conectiva 9 flash-plugin (apt, yum rpm)
Conectiva 8.0 flash-plugin (apt, yum rpm)
Debian flashplugin-nonfree (contrib unstable)
Gentoo emerge netscape-flash
Generic .tar.gz flash-plugin flash-gflashplayer

Re:If only they'd go a bit further...

[Anonymous Coward]

mol doesn't work for you? pitty.

there's a flash player for beos, it isn't from macromedia....

Re:If only they'd go a bit further...

[bheerssen]

(are there any? Isn't .swf more or less an open standard?)

It's just a published format, not a standard of any sort. It is ubiquitouse though, which leaves the impression of being a standard.

Re:If only they'd go a bit further...

[hypermegachi]

last time i checked, the flash installer they have for linux doesn't need to be 'installed'...you just need to copy those .so files into your mozilla plugin directory, and it'll work.

Re:If only they'd go a bit further...

[IGnatius T Foobar]

...and release the plug-ins themselves (hear Flash) under an open source license.

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 faster if you could download "the Linux version" of a program and be guaranteed that it would work. And that goes double for device drivers.

Konquerer?

[mccalli]

I see Apple listed there, presumably for the KHTML-based Safari. Anyone know if their work might filter into Konquerer too?

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Konquerer?

[Arru]

Apple has contributed back to Konqueror before, so it is not out of the question. Otherwise this is supposed to be an open standard (as real standards usually are...) so Konqueror could add itself later i presume.

Re:Konquerer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite possibly. A hell of a lot of Safari work has already gone back into Konqueror, and don't forget that Konqueror can already load Netscape-style plugins.

How about a sandbox that works

[xyote]

or will lynx be the only secure browser?

Remember, your browser is only secure as the least secure plug-in.

Re: How about a sandbox that works

[Sloppy]

I agree. IMHO, this is the most important issue facing browser makers.

Plugins may have been a bad idea, but they became unambiguously a bad idea, when browsers started using UIs that make it so easy for clueless users to install them. If we're going to keep having them -- and have users automatically downloading and executing programs from arbitrary websites -- then it is necessary that they run in a restricted environment.

Low Tech Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Just bring back tags.

What they really need.

[kabocox]

What each of these groups needs is an IE ActiveX helper object that automatically downloads and installs their web browser on a visitors computer and then it should make their browser the default while removing "IE" icons from the desktop and start menu.

Re:What they really need.

[Pantheraleo2k3]

http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/components/acti vex/packaging.asp

Microsoft page on packaging ActiveX controls. Just take the .zip version of Firefox, put it into a CAB, add a .bat file to work with the shortcuts, and put in the necessary ActiveX magic and you could have just that.

I for one welcome our new Self-Installing IE Firefox Overlords

Re:What they really need.

[Anonymous Writer]

Macromedia Central is an application that can be installed through a web browser without having to download a package, restart the OS or the browser even, or get any OS authentication from the user. It even installs itself on OS X without asking for the administrator password the way everything else normally installs on OS X. I'm sure it can be used to install another browser, because it is pretty much a Flash browser independent of a web browser. I'm actually not to keen on the way it installs. It seems like a really big security hole just waiting to be exploited.

Re:What they really need.

[filerba]

OS X apps that can install without admin permissions are a good thing. You don't have to trust them as much.

Re:What they really need.

[Anonymous Writer]

Do apps that install without administrator passwords have limited access to the filesystem so they can't cause damage? I thought OS X forced all installations to require password authorisation, and I'm not familiar with installations that bypass that process.

I found it really disconcerting to see an application launch in the dock just from clicking on a Flash dialogue box in a browser, because I presumed it could do whatever it wanted to my system. I'm just not comfortable with binaries being installed and launching so easily as a regular application in that manner.

Re:What they really need.

[filerba]

I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere. All I really know is that my daughter's Mac is still usable and doesn't send the constant stream of packets to spyware domains that her Windows box did. And this in spite of her complete disregard of security and habit of clicking OK without reading any dialog box she wasn't expecting.

I agree the autolaunch is creepy though.

KDE?

[WindBourne]

I have not read it yet, but I would guess that konqi will fall in line as well.

Re:KDE?

[zeptic]

I have not read it yet [...]

You are a regular, right?

Re:KDE?

[Anonymous Coward]

long enough here to remember the first time that that joke was used, many years and posts ago.

Safari -- KHTML ?

[phoxix]

I wonder how Apple's work on this for their Safari will effect KDE's KHTML

Sunny Dubey

Think about scumware NOW

[Boss, Pointy Haired]

Whilst it's all very well for us "FireFox on Linux" users to gloat about our immunity from scumware; we must be aware that the developers of scumware only target IE _because_ it is the most prolific browser. The security weaknesses of IE are more likely the second reason.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind that Mozilla, Opera, and Safari already have a "shared extension architecture" called "Netscape Plugins". So this is just more of the same.

Re:Think about scumware NOW

[RickHunter]

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

[MrNemesis]

"Whilst it's all very well for us "FireFox on Linux" users to gloat about our immunity from scumware; we must be aware that the developers of scumware only target IE _because_ it is the most prolific browser. The security weaknesses of IE are more likely the second reason."

Hmm. Wake me up when MS decides to Mozilla the shell for Longhorn. Last time I looked there was *no way* to automatically install plugins and the like without the users knowledge into the shell. Even loading them into the browser is bad enough.

Re:Think about scumware NOW

[bheerssen]

Actually, malware is more prevalent in IE because it is easier to compromise, not because it is ubiquitous. Look at the case of IIS. Even though it has a minority market share in web servers, it is still the one most frequently attacked. This is because of two factors: it is easily exploited and there are sufficient numbers of them.

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.

Re:Think about scumware NOW

[CaptKilljoy]

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.

Yeah, but that doesn't scale up :
1. More and more plug-ins means that the list maintainers spend more and more time policing the list.
2. This opens up the list maintainers as targets of lawsuits by people wishing to propagate scumware.

Re:Think about scumware NOW

[RickHunter]

1 is possible, yes. But complaints about scumware tend to spread rather fast, so I'd think any company abusing it's place on the list would get smacked down quite quickly.

2 is no more of a problem than it is now, and actually, a whitelist solution provides an excellent defense here. After all, if the scumware is something users would want to install, then there's no reason not to put it on the whitelist. And if it isn't... Why should the software author allow the user to be forced to install it?

I suppose they could be sued for refusing to include otherwise desirable software bundled with scumware, in the same way that maintainers of blackhole lists get sued. But it seems to me that they've got a good defense there, too - the whitelist isn't hard-coded, so the user can expand it if he wants. Of course, this also opens it to attacks by trojans and other scumware, but until the US gets a sane criminal code relating to this - something they'll never do if Microsoft and the *IAAs have their way, as it would kill Palladium and DRM dead in the water - there's nothing more a software author can do.

Re:So Firefox is gonna change the plugin API again

[Raunch]

that's why there isn't a 1 before the .
If you want to wait until there is, then it will be ready for automagic operations. If you want firefox now, well then, deal.

Re:So Firefox is gonna change the plugin API again

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Still waiting on the "Flash click to play" plugin. Supposedly the move to 0.9 was the last time FF will break plugin compatibility for the forseeable future.. I sure hope so.

Re:Title Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as long as you realize there is no selflessness in the motivation of the anti-MS companies banding together to try and break down MS's monopoly so that they can try and start their own. They're attempting the same thing, they're just not as successful at it, so they need to band together for the time being.

Has Apple opened up any of their music stuff to download stuff to other browsers, media players, and/or portables? Mmmm hmmmmm. Open and standard where you're getting your ass kicked, and secretive and proprietary when you're on top.

This will really help the developer community

[tentimestwenty]

Ya, they finally got smart. Even though they're all smaller companies than Microsoft, their mindshare and market sway is probably as great together at least in industry circles. Hopefully this just accelerates the whole browser development cycle by letting developers know there's a consortium and there will be standards.

Ooh, ooh...

[TheWormThatFlies]

I hope this means that I will eventually be able to use AdBlock with Galeon. Then my life will be complete. :)

Plugin != extension.

[Chris Burke]

Just in case you were confused, this is about things like the Macromedia Flash plugin that lets you view Flash docs, not the "Flash Click to Play" extension of Firefox. Granted, having one without the other seems insane, but this article is only about the one.

Re:One Problem

[bl8n8r]

On the contrary, IE is coming up short of ammo in the "browser war" and slowly becoming irrelevant. Microsoft even gave up on it once (last year?) and then picked it up again. Microscoft needs to decide if it's customers best interest is going to be their future policy, or if they need to put capital gain in the forefront as it has historically proven.

Yes but

[line.at.infinity]

would Apple push for standardization of synchronization between bookmarks (a feature they will be including in Safari for Mac OS 10.4)? Cross-browser synchronization of bookmarks would be very handy for people who want to try more than one browser.

Re:Yes but

[wine]

...who want to try more than one browser

Agreed. Sometimes it's even very convenient to use different browsers. I have different machines, which have different resources and I use them for different things. For web development I like mozilla on my main machine, but on my old notebook I like firefox or konqueror for leisure browsing, depending on my DE/WM for that day.

I think it's wise of Apple to implement something like that. Better yet, I suppose keychain already let's you share passwords between applications. Unfortunately I have not found something like that for Linux. Haven't been looking very hard though...

Re:Yes but

[Devil's Avocado]

Yeah! Ever since I switched from POP to IMAP I've been stoked by my ability to switch mail clients at whim without losing my filters (on the server via procmail) or folders. I would love to see a similar capability in web browsers. There's already an open standard for bookmarks (XBEL), now we're getting plug-ins, all that's left is integration of password databases. (Am I forgetting anything?)

Maybe Tiger will help. There's supposed to be an iSync API that developers can use to define their own "conduits".

Cheers,
-DA

cross platform compatability?

[Tomahawk]

I know that Opera works with /most/ netscape (4?) plugins - it was designed that was for obvious reasons.

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-user perspective.

I'm wondering, however, if the Linux and Windows plugins are going to be binary compatable? And the Mac plugins? Will the plugins be like JavaCode, or written specifically for the platform? From my reading, this is a standard plugin API, which would imply non-binary compatability (which would also make sense).

T.

Q:

[Anonymous Coward]

Will they consider non-rectangular plugins? Something integrated with the renderers, so one can implement things like SVG+XHTML as a plug-in?

Re:Q:

[polyp2000]

Will they consider non-rectangular plugins?

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!

Re:So Firefox is gonna change the plugin API again

[Phong]

You're confusing the extension API with the plugin API. Plugins are the things that web designers put into their pages to display extended content (such as a movie player or a flash object). This is completely separate from the extentions that you're talking about (which did change for 0.9): extensions are the things that end users add to their browser to extend its UI features.

this shouldn't be a security issue at all

[xutopia]

if your plugin system is well sandboxed it should be no problem at all. I am thankful for the effort. I'm sick and tired of plugins that work only half the time on half the systems.

Re:So Firefox is gonna change the plugin API again

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

s/plugin/extension/g

What's the point?

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

The only plugin that could be said to cater to an otherwise neglected niche is Flash. And hopefully with browsers natively supporting SVG, someday it's usefullness will wither, too.

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?

[polyp2000]

To a certain extent I would agree with you. However while I agree with your comment about word files; PDF is probably the best choice for publishing "download - and - print" documents on the web at this current time; It is a well documented and well supported file format that practically everyone can read and print. I dont particularly like embedding pdf's into the browser; having a pdf that I can download and print at my convenience is far more preferable to most other downloadable file formats.

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.

Re:What's the point?

[codergeek42]

OT, but I realy like that idea of MetaNET.

Re:What's the point?

[maximilln]

While there are thousands of examples of how the internet should and shouldnt be used it always boils down to one thing. Information

Doesn't it boil down to two things: information AND entertainment?

Those of using the internet for information find it relatively easy to stay safe, secure, and bug-free. Those using the internet for entertainment require all of the plugins which open a zillion security holes.

Re:What's the point?

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Thanks. Where are you from? I'm still offering invitations to people outside the USA.

Re:What's the point?

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

What plugins are needed? The whole idea of making a browser mime aware, is that it can pass a file to the appropriate handler. Movies, music... neither are particularly dangerous nor do they require plugins. Even games fall under the one (hopefully temporary) exception, Macromedia Flash. SVG threatens to take over in that respect, too.

Re:What's the point?

[Watts Martin]

Flash is not just graphics. 99% of Flash applications only *use* it for animation, but it can actually do a lot more. The best online hotel reservation system I've ever seen was a Flash application -- no dramatic bells and whistles it, but rather a very solid, fully-responsive UI. Most "web applications" are pretty much reincarnations of IBM mainframe programs, just with graphics instead of console text -- everything is all still processed on the server after you fill out the screen and press [ENTER]. Flash-based applications can actually behave like, well, applications, and for client-side work they're much more lightweight than Java (and as much as it will irritate Java advocates, for practical purposes Flash is nearly as portable).

Re:What's the point?

[codergeek42]

I'm from California, actually.

Re:What's the point?

[polyp2000]

That depends on your definition of entertainment. For example a movie , that is both entertainment and a way of gleaning information. When I use the term Information I use it in the broader "IT/Computer" term (information == data with a context) as oppose to the "finding out stuff" meaning.

Re:What's the point?

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

SVG isn't anywhere near that point yet, but I can see it getting that far someday. Maybe 5 years from now.

Re:What's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Flash is a hell of a lot more than just a vector display engine.

Re:One Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha only on /. could you read a comment like that. For reference: browsers accessing google

Re:One Problem

[aka-ed]

It has more potential to make a difference without MS involvement, IMO; if they can provide a secure, convenient, reliable plug-in architecture, it becomes a security alternative to Microsoft's, which (like most of what they do) is too deeply rooted into the system to ever be reasonably safe. I think this is a matter of the neighbor kids banding together to target a weak spot on the "neighborhood bully."

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.

Choice of language implementation

[ecklesweb]

One of the things that I wonder about is the choice of language for the API implementation. Looks like, according to the NPAPI docs, it's either C or the highway. What if I want to write my browser in Java yet allow plugins? I have to use JNI? Should we expect that every modern programming language has a bridge to C?

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 butt if you want to pass behaviors along with those data types.

Re:Choice of language implementation

[His name cannot be s]

I prefix this rant with the statement that I do indeed code a great deal of code with JNI.

Every Modern Language that you would want to write a browser in DOES support an interface to C.

It just so happens that Java's Retarded interface(JNI) to native code is completely braindead.

I'm still quite suprised that SUN has repeatedly failed to make interfacing to Native code simple and easy... Making JNI the only way to do that is encouraging developers to reinvent the wheel, because they can't easily leverage existing code.

At Least with .NET, p/invoke makes getting at existing libraries trivial.

Re:Choice of language implementation

[Anonymous Coward]

C is the standard when it comes to programming. Ever notice that almost all RFCs are demonstrated with C code? Every language can incorporate it, even those that aren't object-oriented. If they chose an OO model, portability would be lost.

Besides, I'm sure someone will create classes that implement the API in a Java-friendly manner.

Re:Choice of language implementation

[ecklesweb]

C is the standard when it comes to programming.

Pretty bold statement. Fact is it depends on what type of programming you're talking about. OS's, some network programming, and old green-screen apps like I'm working on, sure...C is pretty entrenched. But applications programming seems to be much more invested in object-oriented languages like C++ and Java, or RAD tools like VB, PowerBuilder, Delphi, what have you.

That's what makes me question the use of C. We're talking about application-level programming here. No [obvious] need to directly manipulate memory or hardware, make system calls, etc.

If they chose an OO model, portability would be lost.

When you say portability, I think of the ability to compile the source on multiple target platforms. There's no reason that an API implemented in an OO language (like C++) can't be compiled on multiple platforms any more than a C implementation can. I find your argument regarding portability completly lacking.

What you may be able to argue is that it's more difficult to specify a class than it is to specify a function. This become more true as the class you're specifying is buried deeper in a class hierarchy...if the class descends from 'A', impelements a particular interface 'B', and has a method taking arguments of classes 'X', 'Y', and 'Z', then that entire set of classes has to be specified with sufficient generality to be implementable in multiple languages but with sufficient specificity to get the job done. Still, I don't see that being an impossible task if you use proper OO A/D methods, stick to the basics (encapsulation, inheritence, polymorphism), and document your design in something standard like UML.

I've kind of gotten off the topic at hand, but I think it's important that we don't mistake programming language interoperability for portability.

I guess the bottom line is that people see C as the "least common denominator". I just can't help but think we can make faster progress if we went with something a bit higher level.

"richer web experience" == flash, ads, exploits

[swb]

I don't want a richer web experience, I want a lightweight (less animation, video, audio, system and network overhead), free from annoying ads that control my browser, and free from exploits -- I DO NOT want to be running code from web sites on my PC, sandbox or no sandbox.

Apple wants Quicktime, Sun wants Java, Macromedia wants Flash, and Mozilla wants to be invited to the party, and I don't want page loads to be made even slower by MORE FUCKING TV commercial ads bloated by Quicktime, Java, Flash and corrupting the one browser I can halfway trust.

If I want to watch TV, I'll watch TV.

Re:"richer web experience" == flash, ads, exploits

[Huyderman]

Then don't install the fucking plugins. I trust Mozilla and Opera to not allow auto-installing plugins. Why should they, one is open-source, the other prides itself by being a fast browser. I can see no reason why they should do this, and therefore if you don't want the crap, then don't install the crap.

Re:"richer web experience" == flash, ads, exploits

[oddman]

"I don't want a richer web experience, I want a lightweight (less animation, video, audio, system and network overhead), free from annoying ads that control my browser"

You realize that in any decent browser, like Firefox, you can just turn off animations and images right? I'm fairly certain that there is also an extension to prevent java and flash unless you want them to work in a particular website. Neither of which are you forced to download and install in any case.

In other words, if you want a non-standard web-experience, like your medie-lite preference, a good browser will let you have it with a small amount of work.

Re:"richer web experience" == flash, ads, exploits

[Anonymous Writer]

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 that should have come through web pages were file formats that the browser handled, just like file formats that applications handled (without things like embedded macros or code).

Re:"richer web experience" == flash, ads, exploits

[PeterPumpkin]

Using Firefox 0.9.1:

Tools -> Options -> Downloads -> Plugins
You can disable and enable plugins here at will.

So if a site requires flash for navagation, turn it on. For the rest of your browsing, turn it off. :D

Re:"richer web experience" == flash, ads, exploits

[PeterPumpkin]

I forgot to add the info on that Firefox Plugins page: "Disabling Plug-Ins for a file type will cause files of that type to be downloaded instead of viewed in the Plug-In."

Re:So Firefox is gonna change the plugin API again

[getling]

OK, IANAD so I don't know all the ins and outs of these things...but couldn't they design a spec to encompass what both plugins and extensions do for a browser, and standardise on that? Yeah it would be a large spec, but that way someone could even write something like the Google toolbar ONCE and everyone could install it...am I just being a naive, stupid luser here?

Plugger avoids plug-in hell!

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a Mozilla plug-in called Plugger which itself allows stand-alone programs to be used as plug-ins. This provides the desired feature of in-line viewing of formats not natively understood by Mozilla. But it also does another thing that other plug-in APIs misses, it seprates the stablity of the browser from the stablity of the Plugger'd viewer.

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.

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!

[dmaxwell]

Plugger is mainly for NS4 and hasn't been actively developed for a couple of years. Mozplugger is an actively maintained fork for gecko browswers.

Re:Plugger avoids plug-in hell!

[dmaxwell]

Actually, I just looked at the Plugger page and they've just had a release after a long hiatus. The mozplugger devs say their next release will be based on it. Since mozplugger is just an apt-get away, I'll probably be staying with it.

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.

MS has already standardized a web plugin

[Anonymous Coward]

I call it a "virus".

Good. That helps me.

[crovira]

Part of my system is implemented in plug-ins to pick forms from a server and merge in some info.

It would be nice if I could run this without having to use IE and ActiveX.

Multiple platforms, browsers and OSs sound just fine.

THEN DON'T INSTALL THE PLUGINS!!!

[burnttoy]

I deliberately haven't installed the flash/shockwave type plugins and I run Mozilla. I do so so I don't have to see adverts etc. There are some sites that won't work like that but what with SVG and Javascript I reckon the emphasis on 3rd party plugins for animation will slowly wane.

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 probably find a browser port that intentionally blocks the use of plugins.

That's called consumer choice and market pressure. A standard plugin architecture will also help a lot of corporations produce their own cross platform plugins that allow them to use a web browser as a GUI to, say, a corporate database, maintenance code or some such. That would be VERY useful IMHO.

Matthew.

Re:So Firefox is gonna change the plugin API again

[V. Mole]

Content plugins have fairly simple API requirements, basically just a way to say "take this stream of bytes, and display it here. Also, tell me how big a rectangle you need", plus probably few other things.

Browser extensions require knowledge and access to the internals of the specified browser, and doing things liking hooking into calls in internal subroutines. The spec would not only be large, but also put huge limits on the internal implementation of the browser. Ain't going to happen.

Do I see Sun Microsystems in the list?

[rmsousa]

Haha! This will be the return of the HotJava browser! Now Sun will show everyone what it is to be light and fast! HotJava with plugin support will rule the world!

Re:Do I see Sun Microsystems in the list?

[Anonymous Coward]

will rule the world!

of 90s in 2006

Seizing An Opportunity

[blueZhift]

A cross platform browser plugin spec is a good idea and the timing is pretty good. The publicity that IE's security issues are getting, is opening up a window of opportunity for the major competing browsers. MS knows that this is getting serious because they are reconstituting their IE development division. If MS is smart, they'll get on board with this asap. That would look good to the DOJ and EU too and realistically it really won't threaten their browser dominance. It'd be good PR and could IMHO jump start their development efforts.

This could easily be made cross-platform...

[david.given]

...by using a technology such as TenDRA: the plugins are distributed in a platform-neutral format, and then the final stage of compilation into fast, native machine code is done on installation. For the sandbox environment of a web browser, TenDRA's ability to define global interfaces would be a great help.

Has anyone actually done anything useful with TenDRA yet? It seems like such a great idea, and yet there's so little interest...

Re:This could easily be made cross-platform...

[tiger99]

I think Tendra is not used because not too many people have heard of it. You have partially rectified that!

Of course, it may be because of its origin in the UK defence industry, some people may have their prejudices, either because it does not originate in Redmond, or because they object to anything military.

However, I take the view that it was funded partly by UK taxpayers so we may as well get use from it. I was thinking about using it myself, when I get round to writing some code.

Re:Title Correction

[Procrastin8er]

I agree, both Sun and Apple are, I believe, just pushing OSS because of their market position. Both companies are cornerstones of propriety computing at their core, it is just a good tactical move at the moment for both to pay some lip service to OSS. Just my opinion

Re:Title Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

..the anti-MS companies banding together to try and break down MS's monopoly so that they can try and start their own.

How can a group of companies have a monopoly. Monopoly. Mono means "One". If there are more than one, it isn't a monopoly. Microsoft is a monopoly, because there is only one Microsoft. You can't have a group of companies have a monopoly.

Open and standard where you're getting your ass kicked, and secretive and proprietary when you're on top.

See now if you'd just said this in the first place I might have agreed with you...except that doesn't explain why both Macromedia and Adobe are taking part. Why would do you think they care, and what do they have to gain? They don't make browsers. I'll also point out that both Macromedia and Adobe publish open specifications for their technology, even though they're the dominant player in their respective markets. Why do you think they bother?

exploits

[Fuzzums]

Will this allow for easyer x-platform exploits and malware? This at least is my impression when it comes to MS-Products. The more interconnectivity, the more options to exploit weak spots.

Standard feature of OS X

[sjonke]

Speaking of superior OS's. In OS X there is a ~/Library/Internet Plug-Ins/ directory where plugins go for all browsers. There is also a /Library/Internet Plug-ins/ directory, so that you can have one plugin for all users if desired. No symlinks needed, thank you very much.

Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

More webpages can now demand some bullshit plug-in knowing that everyone can COMPLY.

Adblock is the only plug-in I need.

Re:So Firefox is gonna change the plugin API again

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be nice if even Mozilla themselves designed a spec and stuck to it. Forget cross-browser.

XUL/Skins was a nice idea, but not when everything breaks on every minor Mozilla release. There's a giant graveyard of broken Mozilla extentions out there.

Re:wait a min...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right! Where's Lynx, you insensitive clods?

Wonderful

[Elote]

Now when someone decides to write a nice "Enhanced Web Search Spyware Toolbar" plugin for IE it will work in Mozilla, Opera, Konqueror and Links too :-)
This will drive me back to text mode.

Mozilla Firefox

[defsdoor]

I am very impressed with Firefox - so much so that its been rolled out on all PCs here just this week. The plugin technology in use by Firefox seems quite good also - hopefully this standard will build on was appears to be a good platform.

Yay, More Spyware!!!

[dduardo]

I really hope they think this standard through and implement some type of certificate authentication or something. I don't want to my browser to automatically download stuff onto my computer. I already checked off all the automatic downloading in firefox. I would rather go through the hassle of manully typing in the address of the software developer's website and downloading the pluginh from there.

Re:Yay, More Spyware!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said anything will be installed automatically?

Re:richer web? urrgh...

[TractorBarry]

Hear Hear !

If I want a rich user experience I'll go down the pub.

Re:wait a min...

[Anonymous Coward]

your right! where is lynx!

They already are working towards it...

[Draconix]

...they just happen to be working towards a future in which their products are the standards.

links/lynx

[vijaya_chandra]

No one can get rid of us fanboys

Atleast so long as we to stick to our current version 2.8.3 of lynx

Good point

[WindBourne]

I am almost surprised that MS does not go along with all this.

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.

Plugins not so cool anymore

[ArmorFiend]

I know we all think we like plugins - for me at least it evokes the early days of netscape corporation, and VRML, and Flash, and Java, and the idea of "limitless possiblilities".

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".

It's possible in *nix and Mac OS X

[Draconix]

As mention before, there are symlinks, and Mac OS X already sticks all plugins for browsers in the esoterically-named "Internet Plug-ins" folder. I know Safari and Camino check that folder for plugins, and I'm pretty sure Opera, Firefox, Omniweb, etc. also do. (And probably even Mac IE does as well.)

ActiveX/COM

[orangeguru]

Let's face it: ActiveX ain't that bad and you can do nice stuff with it - but all those Standardmakers (Opera, Sun, etc) never tried to support it - which is a shame. All sides play this boring 'not invented here game' and bre their own stuff ...

Re:ActiveX/COM

[Anonymous Coward]

That is because it is nearly impossible to create a compatible implementation of ActiveX on other platforms, it is tied up in too many other Microsoft proprietary technologies (COM, Win32API, DirectX, etc.). Porting, actually writing from scratch, all of these technologies would just bring an IE piece of junk clone to everyone else. Not to mention the legal problems that could ensue. Not a real benefit to anyone, except to Microsoft of course...

BC

good and bad maybe?

[zogger]

while it's obvious to see the good aspects to this proposal, I certainly don't want a chance of windows vulnerabilites being accidently ported to linux via a standardized plug in architecture. If opera and mozilla have to use a "standard", and they write something that *has to be useable in windows*, won't that have an affect of introducing potential unknown vulnerabilites that at some time will make everyone using any of the standards compliant plugins/browsers susceptible to some new windows exploit that could have been avoided in the first place?

I'm not a developer, I do not know the ins and outs of writing cross platform browsers or plugins, etc, so perhaps this won't matter, I honestly do not know, but it seems like it's a *maybe*. I hope I am incorrect obviously, but I just don'tknow.

I DO know I would be MUCH more "comfortable" with a good browser such as moz is now which was written exclusively for linux only though. Perhaps it's just psychological, but I keep getting feelings of cooties from this trying to be compatable with microsoft *anything*.

Re:good and bad maybe?

[BumpyCarrot]

Just because Windows has security problems, doesn't mean that those problems will cross-pollinate over to Linux through a plug-in architecture, or even a full browser.

The plug-in architecture is designed for browsers, some of which (Mozilla and Opera) happen to be available for Windows. It still has to go through the browser to get to the OS. That route is a lot tighter in Mozilla and Opera that it is in IE.

The architecture could be really, really tight. Firefox runs on both Windows and Linux, and has architectures to expand its functionality, but that doesn't mean that we're suddenly installing Bonzi Buddy and Gator on Linux, does it?

mod up

[Blaskowicz]

yes, plugins written in Java would make sense, there would be no need for x86, x86-64, PPC, IA64, ARM etc. versions, and that could be more secure (execution in a sandbox?).
I guess IE7 will be more centered to .NET instead.

But maybe there will be a IE plugin to run these new standard plugins :)

no thanks

[dekeji]

I don't want a "richer" web experience. Things already blink too much. Worse, plug-ins kill a normal standardization process. If there hadn't been any plug-ins, people would have been forced to standardize something like SVG much earlier instead of relying on Flash and similar systems.

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.

Re:no thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you some kind of fucking idiot?

NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO INSTALL THE GOD DAMN PLUGINS!

Idiot.

How the fuck would you do streaming media without plugins?

Re:no thanks

[knorthern knight]

> How the fuck would you do streaming media without plugins?

Howsabout a URL that gets picked up by XMMS or Xine or Real or Quicktime or MediaPlayer or... well, you get the idea. If you want to run an app, get the user to run that app. Don't make the web-page auto-launch that app.

Re:no thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

How the fuck would you do streaming media without plugins?

We pick a single, standard video format for the web and everybody implements it. You know, like we picked one standard format for markup, a couple of standards for images in web pages, etc. Or like we picked one standard format for DVDs.

Are you some kind of fucking idiot?

No, but you evidently are.

They work in...

[Phil John]

Cubase, Login Audio, Sonar (what cakewalk is now), Reason, Ableton Live, SawStudio...pretty much most prosumer audio apps.

Re:They work in...

[Threni]

Cool. Things must have changed in the last year or so then. Cheers.

Re:Title Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

You cut off the quote at the part that answered your own question.

They're attempting the same thing, they're just not as successful at it, so they need to band together for the time being.

Macromedia and Adobe would like their plugins spread as widely as possible and with as little effort from them as possible. Any insurance they can buy to make themselves immune from OS/browser fluctuations is a good idea.

Last I checked, Sun doesn't make a browser either, and you didn't question their involvement. This is a mutli-faceted market, and everyone is trying to gain as much market share for content distribution, browsing, browsers, OSes..... not everyone has their finger in every pie simultaneously.

Browser War?

[orangeguru]

Wake up little one - the browser wars are over! And the winner is very obvious ... even if MS put IE6 on ice for one or two years there will be NO takeover from anyone ... no matter how many times mozilla/firbird/betawahtever changes it name and no matter how comfy and cool Opera gets ... (and I love both browsers).

What about a x.org X11R6 or NX server plugin

[NZheretic]

What would be useful plugin would be an x.org X11R6 X server based on Xnest, or NoMachine's NX client.

Sites wanting to deliver a richer interface could just use remote X applications.

Re:What about a x.org X11R6 or NX server plugin

[Dolda2000]

Yes, I agree that that would be very nice, but try to convince Microsoft about that...

NO!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just change the IE icon to point to the afore
plugged-in old dos version of Duke Nukem.

Why 2 plugins!?!

[vijaya_chandra]

they will only need to create 2 plug-ins in order to cover the majority of the browsers.

Why 2 plugins!?!
Because it's going to be open-source, we only need to wait for someone to create an ActiveX control that can load these plugins

So plug-in creators need to create only 1 plug-in to cover all the browsers (ok! excepting ones like lynx)

Finally subprocess plugins?

[Dolda2000]

I just hope they've finally decided to run the plug-ins in a seperate process.

It would be nice if, finally, the Flash plugin doesn't take my entire Mozilla session with it everytime it dies.

Re:Finally subprocess plugins?

[drdreff]

It would be nice if, finally, the Flash plugin doesn't take my entire Mozilla session with it everytime it dies

Oh boy would it ever... It really is ridiculous that Macromedia is so far behind the curve on this. They drank the ActiveX Kool-Aid and have never really gotten the foul taste from their mouth.

It also woulkd be nice if the could make the player less crash prone...

As for the real issue at hand, Macromedia hasn't added the extra features for their plugins to any browser that didn't use ActiveX. Somebody gonna just snap their fingers and get them on track?

Eat it, fuckos

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.opengroup.org/pubs/catalog/ax01.htm

Mozilla _is_ in there

[Mitchell Mebane]

Well, if you'd've read the article, you would've seen it is actually "The Mozilla Foundation, in partnership with Apple, Macromedia, Opera and Sun Microsystems". More messed up blurbs and lazy Slashdot editors.

Re:Mozilla _is_ in there

[Mitchell Mebane]

And maybe I should pay attention and read your reply. :P

great potential

[lcnxw]

cross platform technology based on a standard agreed on by most of the big names in web technology. this kind of thing gets me excited.

I don't think that they will re-create the Acive-X woes of IE, as most users of mozilla migrated from IE because of the hazards inherent in Acive-X. I highly doubt that they plan to alienate their own community.

I am excited about the great potential this has to transform the web. By making all browsers (and even though I hate IE, I would like to see Microsoft accept the standard for the sake of countless Windows users) equal, communication will improve.

Through this, we may see Word Processors run through web browsers, and have them be compatible on all platforms. The possibilities seem endless, and as broadband and connectivity spreads, this may prove to be an important juncture in the history of the web.

Too much work for too little people

[umthie10]

I just checked out this site for some browser stats. http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.a sp Obviously the mozilla following is growing, up to 11.4% according to that page. How long and hard do you think these companies are going to work for 11.4% of the market... Is there any point to it, if it actually goes anywhere MS is going to do the same embrase-extend-destroy technique it pioneered. just my defeatest theory.

Whats to stop a third party producing an IE plugin

[NZheretic]

There is nothing to prevent a third party producing a plugin/Active-X component for Microsoft Internet Explorer.

Nice, but to make this stuff work you need...

[oliverk]

...a few more pieces.

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.

Re:Nice, but to make this stuff work you need...

[Anonymous Coward]

3. A _FINAL_ decision regarding the OBJECT and EMBED tags. This is silly Microsoftism, and requires double-coding...a killer to all things HTML.

The final decision was made back in 1997, when HTML 4 was first published as a Recommendation. <object> is in the specifications, <embed> is a proprietary geegaw.

Microsoft just never got around to implementing HTML 4 correctly. Hey, give them a break, it's only been seven years, and it's not like they have lots of resources to throw around. Oh...

PS: You are talking about element types, not tags.

Re:Nice, but to make this stuff work you need...

[GlassHeart]

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.

If your browser allows a QuickTime movie to be used as a CSS background-image, or as a value to the BODY BACKGROUND attribute, then you get your wish. Firefox lets you use animated GIFs in such contexts.

As with any advanced browser feature, however, you're limited by the least capable browser you target. This is no different than some browsers not properly supporting PNG.

A _FINAL_ decision regarding the OBJECT and EMBED tags.

HTML 4.01 doesn't list EMBED. Final enough for you?

Re:Pay attention! (esp. me!)

[Anonymous Coward]

SVG plugin is just silly, SVG is XML, browsers should handle that. SVG uses CSS, browsers should handle that. SVG being XML has a DOM, browsers should handle that and so allow Javascript to manipulate it easily. So SVG should be in the browser.

The Plugin Mania

[orangeguru]

1. I always thought that Java and current plugins should/would solve the problem of extending your browsers functionality?

2. Why would I want another folder/plugin/whatever crap on my system with new bugs and security 'features' if the current standards hardly work properly?

3. Why should the average (windows) user care about a new standard anyway, since his system is already messed up with RealPlayer, QuickTime, Flash, Shockwave, Google bar, Yahoo bar or whatever bar/plugin?

4. Why even more plugins anyway - why not make better browser!

Not Black and White

[kingLatency]

If I was designing a buisness site, and had to choose between a "standard" or compatability with IE, it would be a no brainer.

This choice isn't as black and white as you make it out to be. Designing for standards vs. widespread compatibility is a complex issue. Often, with careful development, standards compliance and correct rendering can be achieved. It usually isn't easy, and it is never such a cut-and-dry decision.

That doesn't work

[vijaya_chandra]

You say, "THEN DON'T INSTALL THE PLUGINS!!!"

Well I am not going to install the shockwave plugin ( actually "can't" because I use a linux distro that doesn't yet have a shockwave plugin. Lindows or linspire has i suppose)

But what should I do with the "Default Plugin" dialog that pops-up saying
This page contains information of a type ( application/x-shockwave) that can only be viewed with the appropriate Plug-in.
Click OK to download Plugin.

everytime it finds some object tag for shockwave

Please try browsing through a site with some stupid shockwave animation in all the pages using firefox. You would switch over to something else saner like Opera in 5 minutes.
Firefox would be a much loved one if the developers remember to put in a "Pester Me Not" button along with OK and CANCEL.

I atleast need an option to tell the stupid browser that I don't need a rich web experience
( Or may be I am too retarded to find out some option hidden in some config file )

Re:That doesn't work

[admbws]

No, you're not retarded, it's crap and really needs a bug filing about it. Delete plugins/libnullplugin.so in the browser dir. All other plugins will be unaffected (you'll need to install manually from now on).

You mean everyone but Microsoft?

[Frobozz0]

So all the major players, with the exception of Microsoft, are working on an open standard plugin architecture? Wow, I'm shocked.

I saw we start taking bets that Microsoft will simply ignore this and continute to move forward with ActiveX controls.

Ugh.

Word documents could have been the web standard

[Anonymous Writer]

The funny thing is I recall word documents used to be the standard for distributing documents online ages ago, before the web, in the days of BBSes, Compuserve, and the pre-web AOL. Everyone had Word. I remember thinking that Word could display information better than Mosaic when it first came out, and I always thought that if Microsoft turned Word into a Web browser at that time, and used Word documents as the standard for web pages instead of HTML documents, they could have taken over the web at the very beginning rather than having to wrestle it away from Netscape. If they had any creativity and foresight, rather than blindly plagerising everything that is popular, that is what they should have done. It was such a no-brainer, I couldn't believe they missed it.

Re:Word documents could have been the web standard

[overunderunderdone]

I thought the same thing about Hypercard from Apple. If they had just added the ability to link using URL's they would have had a real competitor to HTML.

IE users are the flash lovers

[Psymunn]

I say it will because microsoft isn't the ones making the plugins. The vast majority of computer users i know have flash and quicktime installed. It's in microsofts best interest to support these plugins, not break them.
Granted they can (and will) try counter with their own nonstandard format but microsoft can only reinvent their own less stable (but far more proliphic) wheels...

better approach

[Anonymous Coward]

No, a better approach would be to release new plugins for standards-based browsers and let IE rot a version 1.0, with new media causing the old plugin to say exactly why IE sucks and why they can't run it :)

Does that mean more popups?

[Anonymous Coward]

"create a richer web experience"
Isnt thbis usually marketing speak for things that animate, play sounds, flash on and off and generally irritate the pants off people?
All i want from the web is information. you can keep your flash menus and your animated wozzits.
99% of plugins just irritate the pants out of users as it is.

The Truth about MS not being here...

[Osrin]

looking at the existing group - MS probably were not invited.

Re:Oh great! (what you need is....)

[gosand]

I think the internet's broken. That first link, heise online, it's in a whole other language. I've already tried resetting the defaults on IE... Can anyone help?

While this is amusing, with these standard plugins it would be plausible to have a translator plugin to translate that page for you on the fly.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Where's the innovation?

[gtada]

As much as I like Firefox and the other browsers, I haven't seen much innovation from any of them. They're mostly what IE *should* have been... Reimplementations of what we've already seen (like this new plug-in architecture).

Does anybody else remember Apple's Project X (aka Hot Sauce)? Does anybody else feel like the Web has gotten a little stale? Why is Web 3d so elusive?

A little off-topic, but has anybody wondered why MS stopped IE development? They are sneaky bastards, and I don't think they would let the other browsers truly overtake the marketshare they fought Netscape over without a fight. Is it possible they've been working on a new browser for Longhorn? I wouldn't put it past them. :|

Too lazy

[GunFodder]

Microsoft won't lift a finger to fix anything more than critical security flaws in IE. And why should they? They have >90% market share and they don't make a dime off of IE unless they bundle it with a new OS.

The real shame is that most folks aren't aware what a real browser can do. If everyone knew about the added security and features of Firefox then IE would rapidly lose share and MS would once again have a reason to get off their asses and fix IE's myriad flaws.

super plugin?

[dirvish]

Couldn't they get together and create one super-plugin? I am sure most of the slashdot crowd wouldn't be interested in using it because most of us prefer finer control but it would be great for the average user who doesn't want to worry about plugins and just wants to browse the web and have everything work.

Re:super plugin?

[Anonymous Coward]

That makes no sense. The whole point of plugins is so that third-parties can provide their own functionality that browser vendors haven't thought of ahead of time. If you try and lump everything together into one "super plugin", then what's the point of having plugins in the first place?

Ugh, save me from "rich" interfaces

[Mr Z]

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.

--Joe

Re:Ugh, save me from "rich" interfaces

[crashnbur]

I understand your reservations about plugin abuse, but I won't accuse sites like HomeStarRunner for assaulting my web experience. Flash finds its niche on sites like HomeStarRunner, where you either go there with Flash installed or you don't because the page doesn't load otherwise. The real assault is web pages with mixed content that force you to view some frivolous intro (or, worse, some pointlessly animated menus or something to that effect) before getting to the substance of the page.

Re:Ugh, save me from "rich" interfaces

[gnu-generation-one]

"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."

Flash based websites are great. As far as I can tell, they all consist of a single page saying "you've got to download this program to continue"

And that's that. Their website is just a single page. It doesn't even have their company location, or anything about their products, or anything about how to contact them, or anything about which exhibitions they'll be at...

I did try installing flash once, on a sacrificial computer at work. I'd forgotten how much I missed the entire screen blinking and swirling and flashing all around every website I went to... Much more productive than the tranquil calm of a mozilla browser with image-animation turned off.

I might even have it installed on this computer... I installed it for the "flash-user" user or something so that I can use flash when there's a particular site I wanted to view, and not have it there when I just wanted to browse. Surprisingly, I've never logged in as the "flash-user" since. (but the "click to play" flash blocker and privoxy are both great for stopping the "do you want to download (shockwave|flash|java)" messages that would otherwise keep popping up)

Re:Ugh, save me from "rich" interfaces

[Mr Z]

I hear ya. I need to re-install the click-to-play thingy, since I'm tired of dismissing those popups.

Re:Ugh, save me from "rich" interfaces

[Anonymous Coward]

"I hear ya. I need to re-install the click-to-play thingy, since I'm tired of dismissing those popups."

There were rumours that mozilla might be getting a "block content by mime/type" feature in the future...

Re:Ugh, save me from "rich" interfaces

[a24061]

The Viking Kittens are a good application of Flash: i.e. a discrete piece of entertainment only.

Web "designers" who make you use it to navigate a site or to get information, however, should be flogged.

plugins for 64bit amd64

[mieses]

we need plugins that can work with native 64bit browsers on amd64 (x86-64)

**lame troll alert** MOD PARENT TO OBLIVION

[Anonymous Coward]

The downside is they sometimes trash your hard drive

If the government does such a thing as part of some anti-pron drive you people laud it but when a good hearted plugin does that it becomes a downside!?!

"Where" is equality!?

What the fuck are you on? You need to take some trolling lessons, idiot. You should know by now that /.er's love pron and want the government to stay out of our computers. This was a really, really lame attempt to troll.

Adobe as well?

[arendjr]

I just reloaded the article on mozilla.org and now Adobe appears to be on the list as well... can anyone confirm this?

New Alliance Hopes To Standardize Web Plug-Ins

[turnin]

this is a highly expected move...(at *least* for me)
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=109 149&cid=9275117

No Real

[Anonymous Coward]

All the big non-MS plugin players are in, except for one.

Real.

Wonder why.

Re

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you spell embrace and extend?

How long will it take Microsoft to try to extend away the cross platformness of this move?

-9 years?

no, it doesn't but...

[zogger]

.. I am just thinking longer term down the road. No one knows all the potential vulnerabilites yet, I don't think it's possible. We've had how many people at microsoft and in the outside developer community for years "looking at" explorer and microsoft, yet we still have the vulnerability du juor. It's constant, chronic, it's a broken system. It costs untold billions ayear in un needed costs, both to business and to individuals, and it has lead to a huge gaping hole in security, which these days can be national, physical security, something that shouldn't be ignored.. It causes untold millions to get serious frustrated. it costs lots of time and effort trying to fix a system that is unfixable. It appears to not be suitable for anything but a closed intranet. There, fine, if that's what people want to run. On the net where what THEY do *wrongly* affects everyone else in a variety of ways? Why? In government service, and in banks and economic institutions? That's nuts! The internet today is critical to run the worlds business. that's given. We need something better than, and to concentrate on the 'something better" and to ignore the 'soomething much worse". Doiong bodywork and a new paint job on an old clunker lemon will never make it a good car, as well meaning as those efforts might be. Why is that even a good long term idea to attempt that?

It is only in widespread use from the business decisions that the vendors took, which have now proved to have been a mistake, of allowing OS lock in on selling millions of PCs. It was a short term decision which has lead to vast internet insecurities,potential serious physical insecurities from the fact of the internet being tied to most everything now, the costs have been tremendous, and we are decades behind where we could have been with a safe, functional and secure internet because of it.

I think that reality should be addressed and admitted to.

We have what internet we have now DESPITE microsoft products. Which goes to show that developers in general are pretty good, just they have been handicapped, and are still being forced to work with a built in handicap. It's not needed. It's a bad idea to keep embracing that handicap, and paying billions for the purpose of always staying tied to the handicap is a bad idea.

Just because we don't have bonzi buddy and similar malware and exploits du juor and extreme monumental hidden cost "features" like you get with mcirosoft in general, yet, it doesn't mean it can't happen, and it could really only be a function that unixy systems have been so widely different. YET, now we have a push to standardize MS MORE into "unixy-ness" than in the past. Why dilute what's good with what is non-good? I think that is a serious *critical* mistake for the long term. I understand short and medium term, I am addresssing long term now. It needs to be done. "this quarter" thinking just *sucks*, IMO.We have the new web scripting languages and formats, etc., that might be the vector for making unixy and open source reality more vulnerable, because they are tied to letting MS into the sandbox.

I am just thinking that we could possibly see one day a serious morris worm effect that precisely because of cross platform standards could affect everyone, not just one architecture/browser/server system. Or many of them, or something not even named yet just as bad. it's a wildcard, and I think we should discard that wildcard as much as possible.

That's all. We use sandbox type design now, because it's a good idea, overall, generally speaking. What I see this effort is, as a way to just make the sandbox bigger, to encompass the internet in general, which is going to *defeat* the entire purpose of limited access, strict rules who gets to play in the sandbox, etc. I would be more happy if we went further to remove microsoft anything from the common internet sandbox, even to the point of just starting to build NOW an alternative internet overall model of servers, desktops, apps, websites, businesses,etc tha

Re:no, it doesn't but...

[BumpyCarrot]

Ugh, where to start?

This interface isn't being designed for MS products! Just stuff that runs on MS products!

Look, Opera and Mozilla just don't have the same kind of interface with the host system that IE does. That's what makes IE such a problem.

Secure the plug-in architecture, and limit the access that the browser has to the OS and you have a tight system.

You focus too much on the interface between the outside world and the browser, and not enough on that between the browser and the OS, which is where IE really falls down.

To be honest, this is a step-away from letting Microsoft control the net. It's making the alternative browsers a much more attractive option to not only users but developers.

Just because something is being designed to run on an MS system, doesn't mean that it's inherently "evil" or what have you. Alternative browsers running on Windows is a good thing. It raises the overall average security of the internet userbase.

Your rant is incoherent, and stinks of Linux zeal. I'm typing this reply on my favourite Debian box, before you label me an MS zealot.

PS: I don't understand your idea of "building a better internet", or what-have-you. There's really no need. yes, the internet is not perfect, but building a new system that excludes those running Windows is NOT the way to go about it.

Buck up your "smash the system" ideas!

Re:no, it doesn't but...

[zogger]

fine. Just wait for the first serious trojan or virus that mozilla or opera spreads to windows machines, because people are encouraged to stay on windows, just "change their browser and you'll be safe now". You said it, it's what happens between the browser and the OS. The insecure OS is still there. When that virus or trojan hits, it will set back mozilla or opera and the whole deal of alternatives, and people will say "see, it doesn't matter, it's the same as explorer was". The taint will spread, undeserved or not. They are playing with a potential they don't have to. I understand why they are doing a common plug architecture, I don't understand why they are still supporting a company that is the exact opposite of their entire philosophy and goal.

Anyway, that's my prediction, you *will* see some serious worm, trojan or virus nail people running windows but using an "alternative browser", and it will hurt all of open source when it happens,much more so than any normal windows vulnerability, because of all the hype. I don't believe hype, no matter which direction it's coming from.

Not my call, develop for it, use it, I don't care. I'm not a zealot, I am a realist, and a skeptic. My realist nature tells me it will happen, my skeptical nature, based on their track record, says that microsoft will milk that virus or trojan for all it's worth to beliitle open source, and most people and the media and PHBs will go back to believing them. And my skeptical nature is such that I think that just relying on an alternative browser just isn't enough, not when it has that insecure engine underneath it. there are going to be holes, peole will find them-after the fact of needing to do so. Just like what happens now, but the myth of "secure" will be broken then.

Anyway, we shall see what we shall see I guess.

Lets hope

[Stonent1]

Microsoft gets to play the poor cousin and is left out completely.

Income needs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla.org is a company?

Also, which standard do I use to stream media from a web page?

Re:Pay attention! (esp. me!)

[StraightTalkExpress]

SVG plugin is just silly, SVG is XML, browsers should handle that. SVG uses CSS, browsers should handle that. SVG being XML has a DOM, browsers should handle that and so allow Javascript to manipulate it easily. So SVG should be in the browser.

Absolutely. If XUL goes in the browser, SVG (which could kick its heiny in creating rich interfaces if properly implemented) should definitely go in too.

What is the name of this new alliance?

[maj_id10t]

MO' Sunapple

The logo is already designed and posted at http://www.suck.com/daily/96/01/26/sunapple.gif

Yes this is a rip off from 1996. Couldn't resist.

Re:Pay attention! (esp. me!)

[DJ Rubbie]

Mozilla 1.7 supports SVG on its own more or less nicely now, provided that you compile it with the option set. (Gentoo use flag - USE="mozsvg".)

Just what we need - more plugins

[onlyjoking]

For ***** sake. Can't we just get proper XHTML/CSS support nailed down first before we add to the morass of plugins and their incompatible versions? I also don't want to see the web turned into TV a la Flash. Soon the only people hired to design websites will be animators and Disney will rule the internet.

Standards EBCDIC vs. ASCII

[ReelOddeeo]

Let me tell you a story about standards. It begins with EBCDIC which a certian giant corporation adopted, against the will of everyone else....

heck with MS, where's DELL in this then?

[zogger]

Dell or whomever won't replace it NOW if their drive, meaning their computer, is borked because of the microsoft crap that DELL put on the drive in the first place, and sells as "easy to use, no probs mon, just get on the internet". I'm sure those people would think it fine and dandy if dell would fix the crap they sold to these people, but they won't, will they? See all them smiling people in the ads? Just a *wonderful* hassle free computing experience- la da de da. Rubbish. That's dell and microsoft basically selling a total lie. That's FRAUD for ya. REAL fraud, serious bigtime fraud, billions a year fraud. They should be ashamed of themselves, but the money is too good for them, so they ignore it. If DELL sells a blank hard drive, sure, it's their fault and they should replace it if the mechanism breaks. If they sell a LOADED hardrive, then it seems to me they should be responsible for it's TOTAL functionality as well. If I buy a car from the dealer and THEY put bad gasoline in it and forgot to put oil in it and i got down the block and it broke, well, it would be their fault and they would be liable to fix or replace. with computers, nope, it's tough crap buddy to you, even if you just dropped a grand or better on a new machine. that's fraud, and just plain wrong. If the software "breaks" the computer within a day or so of being on the net, that's a defective hardrive then, because they sold a package deal. If the bad gas or no oil breaks the car, that's a defect. Same deal. No difference. You can't buy a car new with a sticker that says "yes, here's your new car with some liquid we put in the tank that may or may not be suitable as gasoline. We don't claim it's gasoline,it looks like gas and smells like gas and we may even calli it gas, but then again, who knows? You are free to drive it away though." Wouldn't happen on the new car lot, but so called respectable businessmen do that everyday with computers, and especially the vendor/microsoft fraud congame axis of maximum profits with zero liability alliance. They want all the profit, and zero of the responsibility for the SIGNIFICANT part of what they are selling as a feature, a pre installed OS and apps which is definetly offered as "working" even though they use weasel worded sham licenses to dodge the issue..

They want to define working as "here it is, no guarantees", which to me is the serious fraud that's been going on for years and years now. No other industry gets away with that, zero.

I think this guy is doing a service. No one asks for their old starter back from the garage when a new one is put in. Yes, he should tell them, I agree, but that fails to address the real issue, which is the software is non functional after just a short time, for most people. It does not work as "implied".. And yes, DELL should replace and "fix" the computer if it fails to function with the default install they sell with the computer then, INCLUDING the crappy software they foist off on people. THEY should take it back as many times as it takes to make it work on the internet, or sell it with internet networking capabilities disabled, one or the other. There needs to be a test case there,a class action suit, and destroy the industry scam congame called the EULA get out of jail free card once and for all time, which is the main reason MS and companies like Dell can get away with what they have been profiting off of for years now.

Playing .pl files in Gecko-based browsers

[Anonymous Coward]

Not exactly related to a plugin, I think, but ... Try going to http://www.m-w.com and playing a pronunciation file with any Gecko browser. Firefox and Mozilla die on me playing it. Opera, on the other hand, performs like a charm. It plays the file when mouse is moved over the link in the pop-up window. Has anybody else seen this?

Yes!

[warrax_666]

and no reasonable way to bookmark "pages" (state). That is the killer of Flash as far as I'm concerned.

Re:Yes!

[Anonymous Writer]

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 specifically. You can forget how well your website ranks in search engine results because it won't show up at all.

Re:Yes!

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no equivalent to the bookmark metaphor in most common desktop apps. Think application, not content.

Can't we learn from Microsoft's mistakes, people?

[knorthern knight]

Any API "powerful enough" to let a "good webpage" do "creative multimedia" on your system is also "powerful enough" to let a rogue webpage infect/install/subvert your OS, regardless of whether it's Windows, linux, Mac, BSD, whatever. I have to wonder about the intelligence/computer-literacy of anyone who wants to follow in Microsoft's Active-Hacks footsteps.

No Thanks.

[Kris_J]

I don't want a standardised plug-in system, it's too easy to attack. I don't even have Flash installed at home. Anyway, apart from Flash and maybe Quicktime, plug-ins are never installed in a wide enough base to make it worth writing your web pages for them. And on that score, I just want proper PNG support with alpha channels in the leading browsers as standard.

WMA

[permanentE]

This is really good stuff. They've got the 6 most popular plugins covered:
- Adobe Reader
- Java Plugin
- Macromedia Flash Player
- Macromedia Shockwave Player
- QuickTime

Real is missing, but Windows Media Player is slowly overtaking Real. If Microsoft doesn't cooperate alternative brosers won't have a chance. The web still "won't work" on the alternative browsers unless WMA can be seamslesly incorporated.

Re:Pay attention! (esp. me!)

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem being that only about 10% of Mozilla's 2% market-share actually know or care about compiling their own, especially on non-*nix systems.

SVG-enabled binaries are available

[ynotds]

The Mozilla SVG project page says:

While SVG is not switched on by default in official Mozilla builds, the code is checked into the Mozilla CVS repository and you can either build it yourself or download a binary for the most popular platforms. (my emphasis)

and provides clickable downloads for Mac OS X, Linux and Windoze.

I tried playing with the Mac build a couple of months back, but it wasn't quite ready for prime time.

If I had access to serious funding for software development, the first thing I would do would be hire somebody to work on finishing Moz SVG, but there are better reasons than that why I'm never likely to have such funding.

Re:wait a min...

[NuclearDog]

Yeah, what about the zero wing browser? Never heard of it? Look in your web logs for it's user agent:

"AllYour/BaseAre (Bel; on; g; to-US; ma:k.e) your/time SomebodySetUsUp/TheBomb"

(I was bored one day and installed the user agent switcher... Based off the firefox agent: "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040614 Firefox/0.8")

PS: Yes, I know I am a nerd, but you know, this being Slashdot and all?

ND

Shrug.

[Rogerborg]

See also RSS feeds. Problem: half of the world uses RSS, half uses ATOM? Solution: come up with a third type, different from either of the other two, that nobody will use.

[OT] generic sandboxing

[ndecker]

Some posts talked about the browser beeing only as secure as the least secure plugin.

The unix security model protects the system from its users. But the user has no protection for his data from malicious programs. Chroot is only allowed as root and isnt easy to use.

It would be great, if i could create sub-users, that have limited privileges.

create-user myuser-browser --allow-readwrite ~/.phoenix --allow-createfile ~/downloads --allow-gui

runas myuser-browser mozilla-firefox

Mozilla should then have normal access to the system, like nobody, only limited access to my $HOME and the right to open an X11 window, but no way to send events to other applications, grab the screen or keyboard, ...

Re:So Firefox is gonna change the plugin API again

[leandrod]

> I'm happy they're leaving out Microsoft. Let's finally put to rest that tired Internet Explorer!

Actually everyone would benefit if MS was included, but it probably wouldn't participate anyway.