Slashdot Mirror
Firefox - The Platform
Strudelkugel writes "Business 2.0 reports Firefox is becoming a problem for Microsoft. But FF is not just a problem as a browser; its potential as a platform is significant. From the article: 'It all adds up to a business opportunity for startups, established software companies, and Web giants alike. Though Ross and the nonprofit Mozilla Foundation don't stand to make money, Firefox's open platform gives it enormous potential to hatch a new class of applications that live on the desktop but do business on the Web.'"
The potential for development within firefox is fairly impressive...microsoft had better be concerned.
Maybe Firefox is like the third-party candidate of browsers. Sure, it may not ever hold a dominant market share, but it will guide those who DO towards the right issues...
'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
Though Ross and the nonprofit Mozilla Foundation don't stand to make money, Firefox's open platform gives it enormous potential to hatch a new class of applications that live on the desktop but do business on the Web.
Can you say google?
Online applications clearly have many benefits, especially with the recent surge in broadband, but adoption and support has been slow in coming. Why is this?
Well, I think many companies are hesitant to move to online platforms, though, because they feel that it's a security risk. Putting sensitive data on a closed intranet seems safer in many ways, especially to those unfamiliar with encrpytion and other modern security measures.
It's about time the Mozilla foundation is getting the recognition they deserve. As a Windows user (yes, flame me), Internet Exploder has been nothing but a giant general protection fault.
Just goes to show, when you take out competition, you get stale, passionless software. Thank you Mozilla.
IGB: More fun than eating oatmeal!
as soon a browser reach a bit of popularity, everybody seem to try to have it substitute his OS. why can't it just be a browser???
I love Firefox. It's fairly fast (not startup, but in use), it has a decent UI and the extensions are amazing. However, I'm becoming increasingly dismayed by the sheer amount of security holes being found. I mean - shockingly - if you look at sites like Secunia, there have been _MORE_ vulnerabilities in Firefox than IE in the last six months!
That isn't good. Sure, the FF crew may fix them faster, but ATEOTD it's getting hard to advocate FF over IE when effectively it's no more secure at present. I've already suffered this; a couple of people to whom I recommended FF have come back at me pointing out the recently discovered holes.
Being a 0.x release doesn't really count, as the Moz Foundation is pushing this to the masses - even looking for a NYT ad. It'd just be interesting to hear some thoughts on this. I'll be using it for years no doubt, but how do others promote it considering it has had more vulns than IE?
Blake Ross's minimal website reveals that November 9 is the day we "take back the web" i.e. the launch date for Firefox 1.0.
People need to be vewy, vewy quiet, we awe hunting microsoft...
Is it possible that we could see a distributed OS where Firefox on one computer acts as an interface to multiple computers which act in concert to "simulate" a much more powerful machine?
No this would not be a beowulf cluster.
The maximum amount of processing power available to any one process would be limited to the fastest machine in the group, but it could be useful for anyone who can give thier computer difficult tasks faster than the computer can complete those tasks.
Every new task would be automatically given to whichever node has the lightest load.
Stop the world; I need to get off.
Wasn't this tried once? XUL + Javascript + CSS + XML + XHTML = the greatest programming platform?
Must everything become an operating system? How about quitting trying to become a brand and just make a simple quality browser?
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
However XP Service Pack 2 has taken a big bite out of many security, spyware, etc types of issues that formerly plagued Microsoft's IE browser. That said, users on other versions of Windows do not benefit from these new features.
Going forward, I would say that Firefox has more of a fight on its hands, now that Microsoft is starting to listen to the browser crowds.
I went strictly Firefox about seven months ago, and for the last few months have not even had the IE icon available on my desktop or in my menus. However since XP SP2, I've started moving back to using IE sometimes, because it blocks pop-ups, ActiveX controls, etc. Of course Firefox still has many extensions available which I (not the average user, but a developer user) have fallen in love with. However from the average Windows XP user's point of view, why would they switch to Firefox when Microsoft just made IE more secure for them and blocked annoying popups for them? It's definitely going to be harder to market those Mozilla features now that they doen't represent the edge over IE (XP SP2) anymore.
enormous potential to hatch a new class of applications that live on the desktop but do business on the Web.
.com era speak to me.
This sounds a lot like late 90's,
I am using firefox to type up this comment, and yes it is a great browser, but it's not going to change the way the world does business.
Nearly every business application that has been developed for the last 10 years does business on the web.
I hereby petition for a change to this article text so that it reads 'do business in a tab'. Now that's innovation!
Yet here was Andreessen publicly proclaiming in the summer of 1995 that Netscape's plan was to reduce Windows to "a poorly debugged set of device drivers." "They didn't save it up," Myhrvold said. "They fucking pulled up alongside us and said, 'Hey, sorry, that guy's already history.'"
"The tactic drove Redmond into a rage. The day after Andreessen's quote appeared in the press, John Doerr, the prominent venture capitalist and Netscape board member, received a chilling email from Jon Lazarus, one of Gates' key advisers. In its entirety, it read: "Boy waves large red flag in front of herd of charging bulls and is then surprised to wake up gored."
from Wired
Sure, Firefox is great, I love it, I use it all the time, but before adding any more features could the Firefox team fix up the major memory leaks? PLEASE?
Before taking back the web, I think Firefox team should start by making their website W3C valid.
I noticed that today: Firefox page and "spread firefox" page are both invalid html code. Is it just be or they are supposed to be the ones caring about standards?
perception is reality
Firefox is a great browser, and there are a number of useful plug-ins available for it. It's also supported on many platforms.
But I have my doubts whether it's a good applications development platform as it is. Out of the box, you get, what, XUL and JavaScript? I'm sorry, but that doesn't strike me as a good platform for application development. In particular, JavaScript is just far too flaky to develop anything significant or complicated in it, and a lot of libraries just don't exist for JavaScript at all. And, like it or not, even if you put part of the application on the server, things still get complicated if you want a high quality GUI.
Maybe if Firefox shipped with a small, efficient JVM or CLR runtime and JIT that tie into the DOM, XUL, HTML, SVG, and event handlers (but without most of the bloated class libraries that Sun or Microsoft want to force on you), it could become a full platform. It would be even better if it included a small IDE out of the box.
As it is, I think it will remain limited to simple web apps created by rather dedicated Firefox hackers (and thank you for it, it is a great browser).
Firefox is a 4.5MB download. That may be bloated compared to sol.exe, but it's tiny compared to IE, and not much bigger than Opera (3.5MB).
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Anyone using Mozilla code as a basis for a product will pay out to people with a commit history.
I'm not quite sure where you get that "hundreds of megs" thing. As a gentoo user, I have source tarballs available and they're all about 30 meg:
In addition, the source tarballs contain lots of non-code stuff. The actual executable on my system is less than 80 kB. There are quite a few supporting libraries, of course. Oh, and the binary download is 8.1 megs (for linux/x86).
Firefox is just a browser. That's all it does. The point of this article is that we can use a browser as a platform for other stuff. This doesn't involve bloating the browser; it involves writing applications that run on top of it.
Don't you hate meta-sigs?
After seeing this demo of exactly what Firefox and XUL can do in the way of fast, rich applications, I think its only going to take a few significant applications in XUL to get people moving to Firefox just to get it.
... then tell me that that wouldn't be an absolutely killer app for Firefox.
Does anyone know if someone is writing a webmail client in XUL? If not, someone really needs to (I've even started looking at trying to do it myself, and I'm no coder). Compared to current webmail interfaces a XUL interface would be almost indistinguishable from a local mail client. All you need to do is have browser detection send users to the old style webmail client if they aren't using a browser that supports XUL.
Now, imagine if GMail started doing that... IE users of GMail get the standard webmail interface, but Firefox users get a full fast XUL interface. Have a look at that demo site again, and do some clicking around
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Your bank? Check. Your brokerage? Check? Your government? Check. Your doctor? No, but thats because your doctor is still using Win95 and Office 97. Once someone consolidates the IT operations of law offices and medical practices, this will happen too...the cost of handling paper records is killing these industries.
Reminds me of a teacher at college. Well, not exactly a teacher, mind you. Teachers teach stuff, this guy just stood in front of the class and told us all to go learn ASP.NET from w3schools.com. If the guy was even at college to start with. But I digress. I recently argued with him as to why the hell we were learning ASP.NET while the course read "advanced programming". The moron gave me the following reasons why ASP.NET was to be the "entlösung" to all problems, including war, famine and dropbears*:
That's pretty much when I stopped listening and just started to stare in sheer amazement. The guy seems to be a bit right after all though, considering the possibilities that are now available for XUL regarding web-based applications. But hey, let's be fair; .NET isn't all that bad but riding the .NET car with ASP.NET is like driving a Ferrari with wooden wheels. C# would have been nice enough, instead. But this whole "everything will be web-based" idea was utterly shit and I KNEW there was a better solution than ASP.NET to web-based solutions. Then I saw a site with XUL elements plastered all over it and I was impressed. No more silly tricks with HTML forms and parsing it all through CGI scripts. It seemed like a clean enough solution for lots of things. Think of a small company; Items need to be tracked, clients need to be contacted and managed, rosters needs to be kept up to date and plenty more. Now all that can be done by HTTP with a standard webserver and a Mozilla platform.
The compant where I worked as intern could have used that. Instead they adopted a win2k3 server with office 2k-something premium, using it as a terminal server to log in to single Access database using remote desktop, which would function as a POS system with the aid of heavy VBA scripting. Not exactly an elegant solution, though it sure is a creative way to make an Access database centralized. Now imagine the same trick with a cheapo webserver running Apache 1.3.something, serving XUL documents that read/write data from an MySQL database... ( It WAS a rather small shop, after all... )
Hate me!
" Wasn't this tried once? XUL + Javascript + CSS + XML + XHTML = the greatest programming platform?"
What do you mean "tried once"? It's still there, and has been used. Just because every new use doesn't come with a press release, doesn't mean people aren't using it.
As far as why? Rich-clients are the future, even if all the luddites rally against them.
"Must everything become an operating system? How about quitting trying to become a brand and just make a simple quality browser?"
Must every bit of FOSS have a scripting capability? I'm browsing with Mozilla now. I'd say it reached "quality" when the majority of the "were's my browser?" posts dropped severely about two years ago. And YES brand is important. Quick! What is LINUX? Quick! What is Apache? Much better than "a browser" or "an operating system".
That already exists! Ok, it doesn't let people buy book yet, but you can search. I wonder if the author of the article knew that. Check it out here and here. I've actually tried it out and it works really well.
Get the firefox extension here.
Now let me guess you will tell me you keep it all under your mattress and don't deal with banks at all.
FireFox is already extremely bloated (on Windows) compared to other Windows applications and the source code is hundreds of meg in size, the reason - it has an entire platform.
Maybe the Mozilla suite, but not Firefox. In my downloads folder at work:
FirefoxSetup-0.8.exe: 6348KB
FirefoxSetup-0.9.exe: 4845KB
Firefox Setup 1.0PR.exe: 4630KB
These are the setup executables for Windows. And if memory serves me correctly, the Thunderbird client has been getting smaller with each new version even more dramatically...
- sm
What an apt metaphor: an intelligent, young, adventurous member of the species "homo sapiens" (Netscape) gets gored by a bunch of dumb, overweight beasts with sharp horns (Microsoft).
A lot more applications should have moved to the web over the last decade. Microsoft prevented that because they were not ready for it yet, even though the industry was. Instead, we got nearly another decade of poorly written VB, Office, and Access applications.
Netscape was supposed to be a new platform ... ... ... ...
Java was supposed to be a new platform
Even Flash was supposed to be a new platform
Now Firefox is supposed to be a new platform
Did they kill MS? Nope.
XUL is cool, but so far I haven't seen MANY great applications done with it.
Mozilla (seamonkey)? Its been around a lot longer than firefox, and it is just as much of a platform as firefox can be. I guess people just like the cool name...
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
Yes, http://xulwebmail.mozdev.org/
Go Gusties
Why hasnt IE been updated in so long?
Because IE7 was the biggest threat to microsoft. They nearly built open standards which would have let their users to everything as webapps. The only problem is they didnt have any lock-in.
Thats why IE7 team was stomped into the ground and we havent seen or heard a major release since Win2000.
Someone dig up some of those random facts i once had on this subject please? IE7 was a strong active dev team doing neat stuff. Then they were axed.
Problem with this 'We can do more' attitude is that you could end up with serious bloat for simple software.. like your web-browser being a 20mb download and supporting everything under the sun.
Firefox is not a 20 meg download, it is a 6 meg download, which is lean enough for my tastes. And for all intents and purposes, it already is the platform they want it to be, with the browser merely yet another app running on top of the platform, written in javascript, xul and css. So it is not going to bloat. In fact, it has been steadily shrinking/speeding up, and will continue to do so.
On a wider level though, the paradigm shift is inevitable. Historically the market has always demanded richer web apps in waves, and the browser maker which responded best won out marketsharewise. Now we see again the market complaining browsers are too dumb, asking for the ability to deliver desktop-quality apps to the browser. To not become a broader platform at this point is suicide marketsharewise. Even microsoft, who has tried desperately to avoid having the browser become a generic app design platform because it would make the OS less relevant, recognizes this and is launching their XAML initiative partly to focus attention away from the platforms that already exist, and partly to have something in the fray they can push at those wanting richer web apps.
It's a great browser. We can get into the security, but alot of what makes a killer app killer is the GUI. I don't know the legal specs, but I'm blown away no one else got famous using "tabbed browsing". Til now it's been the webdevelopers who've brought that to the average consumer through frames(sic) - who owns the rights to the concept? I sure hope M$ doesn't. The recent cross-tab vulnerability notwithstanding.
Anyway, Firefox is more user-friendly than MSIE, without becoming a lecturing tedious drone(clippy). It's installation size (1.7.3) is roughly 9MB, compared to my MSIE at 14MB. It blocks most popups and allows me to configure/repeal this and other user-level-tweaks with intuitive ease.
The open source aspect DOES have a positive impact on it's development as well. As another poster accurately stated - the more eyes on the code, the more better. Microsoft can't compete in that way. I think they should continue extending the platform - do they do firewalls as and end-product? (ok, I'll go find out later)
We're discussing a free product that most of us feel is superior to the market leader. That itself is reason to celebrate. Way to go F^2!
Stuff that matters.
XUL is cool. Javascript is nicht so cool. I can't really imagine having to build or debug a complicated GUI application with Javascript as your primarily language for doing everything.
I realize that part of the problem with Javascript has been different browsers with slightly different interpretations of DHTML and DOM stuff, and that has given Javascript a worse rap than it deserves.
But that rap isn't completely undeserved. And trying to convince programmers that they should be building the key functional blocks of their applications in Javascript just isn't going to fly any time soon. At least call it something else. Like "XULscript", fix the marketing problem that Javascript has.
Yes, that's a great demo and it shows that there is a lot of functionality in Firefox. But look at what it took to write that code: a dozen JavaScript files and a lot of XML. JavaScript and XML just aren't very nice to use for engineering large, complex interactive software systems.
Sure. I don't think web applications are ever going to take over as many people claim. I don't expect to see web based word processors of any note, nor web versions of any terribly complicated program - but XUL for webmail, for apps like the demo, for online tax calculation apps, for simple bespoke database frontend apps at companies etc. there is plenty of room (and value) in a fully cross platform web application. The utility of having the whole thing be cross platform and remote can be sufficient to justify any extra coding complexity if we're talking about relatively simple applications here.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
This is shamelessly ripped from http://xulplanet.com/tutorials/whyxul.html
I think it presents a concise overview of firefox as a development platform.
XUL and Gecko make an excellent choice for building sophisticated Web applications. It provides a rich user interface toolkit, an HTML and CSS renderer with excellent standards-compliance and support for web services, all completely cross platform.
Work is ongoing with the Gecko Runtime Environment (GRE), which aims to make Gecko a snap to drop into a standalone application, complete with your own executable, if you desire. The idea is to allow the right version of the GRE to be installed automatically with the application if necessary. If the GRE is already installed, there is no need to install it again, or even download it. For those that are interested, the GRE is about 5 to 10 MB, depending on your platform, which is quite small compared to other application platforms. It's also possible to have Gecko run directly from a network drive or CD.
Since XUL may be used on Web sites, it can be used with server-side architectures such as PHP and JSP to build dynamic content. This allows Gecko to be both a two-tier or a three-tier application model depending on your needs. There are projects in development now which aim to integrate Java, Python and other languages into Gecko directly.
A web browser is not an operating system. I repeat a web browser is not an operating styem!
It is if you ask Microsoft!
Browsers, as a "platform", suck.
You really don't want browsers downloading and executing code. It's just too insecure. That way lies the hell of Active-X. The great thing about HTML is that it's basically descriptive, not executable. Downloading code in some interpretive language is only slightly less insecure, and much slower. (Or, when there's a page with a dumb ad on screen, CPU usage goes to 100%)
Asking the user for permission to run code doesn't work. Not only will users answer "yes" for hostile code, they'll implicitly agree to EULAs your business's lawyers would never agree to.
Most free "plugins" are in some sense hostile code. They phone home. They look around the host machine. They burn CPU time when not doing anything for the user. Even the "good ones", like Google's toolbar, overreach. Others are much worse.
What we really need are good extensions to HTML for forms. Better validation and help are all things that can be done descriptively, rather than by running executable code on the user's machine. HTML forms are lame; they can't even set up a field that must, say, have five numeric digits and must be filled in. You could do that on IBM green-screen terminals thirty years ago.
(see my sig)
SlashHack is a cool example of an app written on top of the Mozilla platform.
The article is correct Firefox (really Moz as others pointed out) is a fantastic development platform.
The technology is especially cool for me: I wrote a system in 2000 for a client that positions Java Swing widgets using XML, in order that the app could support pluggable skins. I view XUL as the ultimate application of that architecture. A fantastic decoupling of logic and presentation.
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
That's a great demo. But the first thing I thought when I saw it was, "Damn, when Microsoft inevitably steals this and puts out their own version in the form of XAML, we in the non-Microsoft world are going to have a really hard time keeping our platform software relevant and viable."
We've got to get this stuff out there and widely used before Microsoft does. The very future of computing is probably at stake.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
This was the Netscape threat of 5 years ago. That Java enabled apps running under Netscape would destroy Microsoft/Windows because any platform that that could support Netscape would run everything else as well.
Didn't happen then. Don't hold your breath yet now.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I work for a company that develops intranet-type applications for big mega corporations here in Canada. We've been developing and deploying apps written in XUL/JavaScript + PHP or Python for almost a year now... so far so good. Surprisingly (or maybe not surprisingly) no one has complained about the forced switch to Firefox. In fact we tend to get thank you emails gushing with compliments about Firefox :)
XUL is here, and it works. Having all of the advantages of web-based deployment, while being able to use proper user interface elements is a godsend.
Overall I can't see how doing stuff with XUL is a good idea until other systems support XUL also. The point of web based apps isa freedom to change at any time. If you write to XUL you have locked yourself in to one rendering engine essentially. If xul worked with khtml and opera then I would not have this problem.
I want to have the freedom that web based apps give me and my customers not remove that freedom. Tieing myself to one browser engine does remove that freedom. Right now if I do regular html, css etcthe stuff works pretty much everywhere under almost any kind of device. With XUL I would lose that freedom and it is important.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
The features it has now are just FINE. Stop adding them. We could probably even do with fewer. I am curious though. What makes you say it "isn't that great?" It's far and away better than IE (imho), and it doesn't feel as clunky as the Mozilla Suite. It does everything I want it to and for me it's been a pleasure to use. In fact I use it exclusively. What flaw am I overlooking? Is it something that only anal-retentive coders notice?
;)
But of course--security problems or not--almost anything is better than IE, eh? eh?
just thinking but wouldn't it really help to get the ball rolling if someone developed an ActiveX plug-in to support XUL in IE? That way even IE only shops can write XUL where there might have written it in AcitveX instead. This could prevent the construction of another barrier to switch over to Mozilla/Firefox at a latter date. This would be a great way for OSS to get a foot in the door at some major organisation.
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
It has the potential to be great, but we need to get past all this "add more features" and fix security programs.
Maybe Firefox is not yet as secure as it should be. But people are intensely at work tightening things up.
According to The Burning Edge no less then 10 security related bugs have been fixed in the last week.
The developers are obviously using the random HTML script, and the security bug hunting program seems to pay off.
I'm under the impression that Firefox developers are working very hard to provide a secure version 1.0 of Firefox.
A free software and open source web browser with an audience (increasing numbers of people getting the browser, the press talking about it, and lots of third-party add-ons)? I don't think Microsoft has ever faced that kind of web browser before.
Digital Citizen
The law has to realize that a (monopolist) operating system must not be allowed to bundle a file browser, a web browser, a multimedia player, a firewall, an instant messenger, and any other kind of software which someone else may want to sell. Otherwise that dominant position of that monopolist will be self-reinforcing.
We are spectators to the same phenomenon that happened on the earth, where a completely unregulated natural selection took place: humans have come to such a dominant position that other animals simply cannot compete with them anymore and have no way to invert the dominance. They are only free to adapt to niches that are of no interest to humans. (like MacOSX and Linux are doing)
There is a degree X of dominance that, when crossed by a species S, allows S to stay dominant, if no regulation happens. This has happened on the planet earth but must not happen in the market.
So we can only prevent monopolists to include products by default. Of course some users like to buy a product that does all those things out of the box, but 1. that desire is not necessarily to be fulfilled, because there may be more pressing matters, 2. the installation of products could be made embarassingly easy if you really want to. One click.
Modularity is the key.
I've been noticing more here than anywhere else that some are confusing Firefox with the Mozilla Suite(Someone even mentioned being a user of FireFox 1.7.3). Firefox is not bloated and will never be bloated. Extensions are optional and if you are like me, you would only be installing about 5 small features to the default installation. The option is there to bloat to your wishes though ;).
Now the potential as a platform isn't really going to be Firefox. It's starting with firefox, and will become popular because of firefox, but the platform is under development as the XUL Runtime Environment (XRE). This is where the magic starts.
One will be able to develop executable applications seperate from Firefox that automatically run on Windows/Linux/Mac. Right now, noone wants to tie their developments to a browser although a few like to tinker with it on their own. When the XRE is released, people will then actively develop XUL/Javascript applications with an optional backend of their choice. You will be able to create .exe applications. You can make those one-click installations someone mentioned somewhere here. No need for the browser although the browser can be used if you want to. Bad news is the XRE isn't being actively developed as Firefox is. So, who knows when they'll release it. But when they do, Firefox, Thunderbird, etc will be complete XUL/Javascript Applications that run using the XRE and GRE. I don't know much about GRE, but that's most likely going to stay browser-specific, although I'm probably wrong.
I'm one of the people who has starting learning XUL and such, and although I have big plans for it. I do not plan on coding for a browser ;) XRE all the way!
A native program running in a well designed OS is just as secure as Java.
That's why, for example, we used to let 20+ students at terminals at a mainframe or mini, in universities for example. They could run whatever programs they wanted on that machine, including their own code and including stuff they found on a hacker BBS. And in fact in all CS universities they're _supposed_ to program on those machines. Yet none of them came anywhere _near_ owning the machine.
The concept that a program once running on a machine automatically can retrieve or overwrite _all_ data, format the drive, or generally even blow an alien mothership up, is (A) Hollywood idiocy, and (B) never true except for the simplest single-user OS's like Win'95.
Or to put it otherwise: what do you tell Unix users? "Don't run as root except to install programs or other admin tasks. Especially don't go online as roo." Then they ask: why? "Because if someone takes control of the program via an exploit, they can't do as much harm if it doesn't run as root."
For all practical purposes, a modern OS is (or could be) just as virtualized as any Java sandbox. Programs no longer run directly on the bare metal, like in the days of DOS. (Which was barely a program loader.) They have to go through the OS to do _anything_. Including, but not limited to, reading or writing files, opening TCP/IP sockets, installing stuff.
Heck, even directly accessing RAM from other apps or directly poking machine ports can be blocked when running on a 386 or above (and _is_ blocked when you don't have kernel access).
Basically when running an app on a 32 bit CPU it can be as sandboxed as you want it to be.
E.g. don't want them accessing files? That's trivial. Just run them as a different user that can only access its temporary directory.
So ActiveX _could_ work, and it _could_ be extremely secure. Maybe not on Windows, and maybe not implemented by MS. I'll concede that point. But at least theoretically it can be at least as safe as Java, and without needing users to download 100 MB plugins that get wantonly changed by Sun.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.