Mac: "Name something that's any good that came out of open source..." Linux: "Mac OS X?" Mac: "Oh yeh..." Linux: "Windows Networking?" PC: "Oh yeh..." Linux: "Porn..." Mac/PC: (!) Linux: "Oh yeh..."
"Intranet" use of ActiveX has been frequently mentioned as justification for not killing it, so no. It is not possible to design this technology so it's safe. The closest is Firefox XPI installers, and they're more annoying to sit through than downloading a package and installing it would be. It's not acceptable, whether it's ActiveX, Webstart, Internet-enabled disk images, "Open Safe Files After Downloading", or XPI.
Webstart lets us package everything as an appliance which can be placed behind a customer's firewall and gives their people access to the local piece of the software without requiring installs.
Not precisely. What it does is let you hide the install behind a "security dialog".
I spent almost a decade cleaning up after people who clicked the wrong thing in these kinds of dialogs.
This isn't a "nice little point about security", this is the biggest security problem I had to face as a system/network admin from 1997 (when Microsoft introduced this as 'Active Desktop') until I quit that job. This whole approach is inherently insecure and unfixable. Everyone who uses and promotes it is part of the problem.
I'm against the use of any facility that downloads and runs unsandboxed content directly from a web page, with or without "do you really want to infect your computer" dialogs. If it's going to run outside a sandbox, then the user should explicitly download and explicitly install it.
Having the ability to launch unsandboxed code directly from the web is inherently insecure. If I am going to run unsandboxed code I'm going to download and install it, explicitly, as a local application. Anything else makes it too easy for "this application is going to install a virus on your computer, OK/CANCEL" type attacks.
I have no illusions that I'm playing against a human. I understand that an AI makes a different kind of mistake than a human. I understand that the AI has to be computationally handicapped to make my wins possible. My accomplishment from beating the AI is not from the illusion that I won, it's from seeing how little I can handicap the AI and still beat it. I'm playing against an algorithm, yes, but I can learn how that algorithm works. Even if you're not consciously doing that, the human brain has a great pattern matching engine, and will learn how to beat the handicapped algorithm, and you will KNOW that you're really pushing the handicap down. And the "win" is not "beating the computer 40% of the time", it's "learning how to push the handicap down".
I've played games where the AI deliberately threw the game, and it was jarring. After a few races you realize that all the opposing cars drop back just as you approach the finish line, and it didn't really matter all that much whether you played well or badly, you didn't get ahead by driving AGAINST the AI, you got ahead simply by avoiding crashing while driving as fast as you could... the opposing cars had a range of times they crossed the finish line and you might as well have been driving against a clock. The human brain has a great pattern matching algorithm, and will recognize when the opponent is throwing the game.
Besides, one needs JRE or JDK 6 anyway to run the lg3d-wonderland application.
I have no idea what it's like in Sun's virtual world environment, I looked at it in Second Life.
Java is a sweet technology; the java app run through webstart (rather than applet within a browser sandbox [though you can still use the JApplet class:)]) is a great way to write code which can access the local filesystem, open sockets, do all the things a real programmer would want to do.
No thanks, I don't care whether they call it "Java Webstart" or "ActiveX", that whole class of technologies is a non-starter for me. No web content outside a sandbox, thanks.
Oh good. Instead of a small simple web page with a set of pulldowns, a command line and history, which could be implemented without even involving javascript and would be simple enough to run in a secure browser, they do something that needs JAVA?
Who came up with that idea? Bergholt Stuttley Johnson?
If the Macbook Air ran Windows, it wouldn't sell enough to pay for the design work... let alone the actual hardware.
It's the software, Stupid. Dell: you want some of Apple's margins? Get your fecal matter conglomerated and put OS X on your hardware. If you can't beg, buy, or borrow, then hire some people with clue and WRITE the equivalent. Use GNUstep, and maybe you'll even be able to finagle software compatibility with OS X as well. But you can't fold, spindle, or mutilate hardware and produce a Mac, because it's not the hardware that makes it a Mac. ESPECIALLY not the hardware.:(
OK, so who's going to be the first to create a sleeve that brings back the old shuffle controls firmly attached to the shuffle instead of on a dongle where they're prone to getting trashed, with a regular headphone jack?
It works, surprisingly well, but it really needs a richer scripting environment than Second Life provides to really produce good feedback. Also, it would benefit from having the ability to manage and maintain the parameters of the display outside the 3d world, because editing and retyping a database query in "chat" is not pretty.
... that's the thing that I can't believe they haven't implemented. That was one of the coolest things about the old Palm OS, a common database format that was easily discoverable to let developers integrate with each other almost promiscuously...
Cut and paste, yes, but that's only the beginning.
If I recall correctly, both Intel and AMD have licensed Alpha technology from DEC-I-mean-Compaq-I-mean-HP. Maybe they could get together with a 64-bit architecture that actually works well.
There's no reason for this excessive complexity. The shuffle and the control dongle on the earphone wire are bulkier than the previous model, and more complex to control. I ordered one of the discounted previous model as soon as I saw it, and I hope that it doesn't break until after they come to their senses.
I'm pretty much sick to death of the awesomeness of the present location bar, what with Slashdot being listed as "Server 500: Internal Error" in the dropdown because about 4 months ago I got a 500 error message?
F*** yes.
And having "sl" pull up "slashdot.org", followed by half a dozen unrelated sites that happen to have "sl" in their name, followed by the site that I was looking for that actually starts with "sl" but is "below the fold" because it's not awesome enough... really ticks me off. If I want to "search", I'll enter the name in the "search box". If I want to go to a website, I'll enter the site name in the location bar. I don't mind you searching titles as well, but list them below the URLs, OK?
They refused to get rid of it at the risk of having the company broken up. What makes you think they'll get rid of it merely because it's fundamentally insecure and inherently unfixable?
GNUstep started off down the path towards NeXTstep (which became Mac OS X) but seems to have died out. Which is a pity, because the application bundle scheme that NeXT came up with is really cool. You just stick your application anywhere, and the system looks at some property list files in the directory tree and registers the application and the file types it knows about... and you're done.
Many OS X applications don't even bother with an "installer", it's not needed. Installing a program is done by dragging it to "/Applications" (or, in my case, "/Local/Applications"), and you're done.
Slashdot Mirror
They'd be funnier if they were true.
Mac: "Name something that's any good that came out of open source..."
Linux: "Mac OS X?"
Mac: "Oh yeh..."
Linux: "Windows Networking?"
PC: "Oh yeh..."
Linux: "Porn..."
Mac/PC: (!)
Linux: "Oh yeh..."
"Intranet" use of ActiveX has been frequently mentioned as justification for not killing it, so no. It is not possible to design this technology so it's safe. The closest is Firefox XPI installers, and they're more annoying to sit through than downloading a package and installing it would be. It's not acceptable, whether it's ActiveX, Webstart, Internet-enabled disk images, "Open Safe Files After Downloading", or XPI.
Webstart lets us package everything as an appliance which can be placed behind a customer's firewall and gives their people access to the local piece of the software without requiring installs.
Not precisely. What it does is let you hide the install behind a "security dialog".
I spent almost a decade cleaning up after people who clicked the wrong thing in these kinds of dialogs.
This isn't a "nice little point about security", this is the biggest security problem I had to face as a system/network admin from 1997 (when Microsoft introduced this as 'Active Desktop') until I quit that job. This whole approach is inherently insecure and unfixable. Everyone who uses and promotes it is part of the problem.
I'm against the use of any facility that downloads and runs unsandboxed content directly from a web page, with or without "do you really want to infect your computer" dialogs. If it's going to run outside a sandbox, then the user should explicitly download and explicitly install it.
Jay Maynard, the TRON guy
Two years ago?
The ability is there, and I'm using it.
It's people using things like this that turn them from security holes into security tarpits.
The web is just a way to launch it.
Having the ability to launch unsandboxed code directly from the web is inherently insecure. If I am going to run unsandboxed code I'm going to download and install it, explicitly, as a local application. Anything else makes it too easy for "this application is going to install a virus on your computer, OK/CANCEL" type attacks.
I have no illusions that I'm playing against a human. I understand that an AI makes a different kind of mistake than a human. I understand that the AI has to be computationally handicapped to make my wins possible. My accomplishment from beating the AI is not from the illusion that I won, it's from seeing how little I can handicap the AI and still beat it. I'm playing against an algorithm, yes, but I can learn how that algorithm works. Even if you're not consciously doing that, the human brain has a great pattern matching engine, and will learn how to beat the handicapped algorithm, and you will KNOW that you're really pushing the handicap down. And the "win" is not "beating the computer 40% of the time", it's "learning how to push the handicap down".
I've played games where the AI deliberately threw the game, and it was jarring. After a few races you realize that all the opposing cars drop back just as you approach the finish line, and it didn't really matter all that much whether you played well or badly, you didn't get ahead by driving AGAINST the AI, you got ahead simply by avoiding crashing while driving as fast as you could... the opposing cars had a range of times they crossed the finish line and you might as well have been driving against a clock. The human brain has a great pattern matching algorithm, and will recognize when the opponent is throwing the game.
Besides, one needs JRE or JDK 6 anyway to run the lg3d-wonderland application.
I have no idea what it's like in Sun's virtual world environment, I looked at it in Second Life.
Java is a sweet technology; the java app run through webstart (rather than applet within a browser sandbox [though you can still use the JApplet class :)]) is a great way to write code which can access the local filesystem, open sockets, do all the things a real programmer would want to do.
No thanks, I don't care whether they call it "Java Webstart" or "ActiveX", that whole class of technologies is a non-starter for me. No web content outside a sandbox, thanks.
Oh good. Instead of a small simple web page with a set of pulldowns, a command line and history, which could be implemented without even involving javascript and would be simple enough to run in a secure browser, they do something that needs JAVA?
Who came up with that idea? Bergholt Stuttley Johnson?
If the Macbook Air ran Windows, it wouldn't sell enough to pay for the design work... let alone the actual hardware.
It's the software, Stupid. Dell: you want some of Apple's margins? Get your fecal matter conglomerated and put OS X on your hardware. If you can't beg, buy, or borrow, then hire some people with clue and WRITE the equivalent. Use GNUstep, and maybe you'll even be able to finagle software compatibility with OS X as well. But you can't fold, spindle, or mutilate hardware and produce a Mac, because it's not the hardware that makes it a Mac. ESPECIALLY not the hardware. :(
OK, so who's going to be the first to create a sleeve that brings back the old shuffle controls firmly attached to the shuffle instead of on a dongle where they're prone to getting trashed, with a regular headphone jack?
It works, surprisingly well, but it really needs a richer scripting environment than Second Life provides to really produce good feedback. Also, it would benefit from having the ability to manage and maintain the parameters of the display outside the 3d world, because editing and retyping a database query in "chat" is not pretty.
... that's the thing that I can't believe they haven't implemented. That was one of the coolest things about the old Palm OS, a common database format that was easily discoverable to let developers integrate with each other almost promiscuously...
Cut and paste, yes, but that's only the beginning.
If I recall correctly, both Intel and AMD have licensed Alpha technology from DEC-I-mean-Compaq-I-mean-HP. Maybe they could get together with a 64-bit architecture that actually works well.
There's no reason for this excessive complexity. The shuffle and the control dongle on the earphone wire are bulkier than the previous model, and more complex to control. I ordered one of the discounted previous model as soon as I saw it, and I hope that it doesn't break until after they come to their senses.
So the squeaky wheels DO get some grease occasionally.
What are you talking about? If you want to just type the address, the awesome bar won't get in your way.
I want to type part of the address and then select the rest of the URL from the pulldown. Like I used to be able to do before the Awesomebar.
I'm pretty much sick to death of the awesomeness of the present location bar, what with Slashdot being listed as "Server 500: Internal Error" in the dropdown because about 4 months ago I got a 500 error message?
F*** yes.
And having "sl" pull up "slashdot.org", followed by half a dozen unrelated sites that happen to have "sl" in their name, followed by the site that I was looking for that actually starts with "sl" but is "below the fold" because it's not awesome enough... really ticks me off. If I want to "search", I'll enter the name in the "search box". If I want to go to a website, I'll enter the site name in the location bar. I don't mind you searching titles as well, but list them below the URLs, OK?
OUTRAGE over the loss of naked skeletons in the game? Is this some new expansion of rule 34 beyond the grave?
Oh, well, that way around... it's just another plugin, and one that has already been written... google for "activex firefox".
ActiveX is not part of the Microsoft HTML control.
Contrariwise, as Tweedledee (or was it Dum) said, the Microsoft HTML control is an ActiveX control.
Microsoft has enormous experience in turning components into ActiveX controls.
Oh, please, don't tease me like that.
They refused to get rid of it at the risk of having the company broken up. What makes you think they'll get rid of it merely because it's fundamentally insecure and inherently unfixable?
GNUstep started off down the path towards NeXTstep (which became Mac OS X) but seems to have died out. Which is a pity, because the application bundle scheme that NeXT came up with is really cool. You just stick your application anywhere, and the system looks at some property list files in the directory tree and registers the application and the file types it knows about... and you're done.
Many OS X applications don't even bother with an "installer", it's not needed. Installing a program is done by dragging it to "/Applications" (or, in my case, "/Local/Applications"), and you're done.