Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 24th Sep 2009 19:17 UTC
Internet Explorer Earlier this week, Google launched Chrome Frame, a plugin for Internet Explorer 6/7/8 which replaces the Trident rendering engine with Chrome's rendering and JavaScript engine for better performance and superior standards compliance. Microsoft has responded to this release, claiming it makes Internet Explorer less secure. Note: What database category do I put this in? Internet Explorer? Google? Choices, choices!
Thread beginning with comment 386113
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Microsoft is right
by lemur2 on Thu 24th Sep 2009 23:36 UTC in reply to "Microsoft is right"
Member since:

The same thing can be said about other plugins. Installing the Adobe Flash player plugin to IE or Firefox will make both less secure, since you are introducing additional code.

I won't mod you down (despite you attempted slurs) because I don't do that, but I will gleefully point out the huge omissions in your (and Microsoft's) logic.

Silverlight. ActiveX. Are these not plugins too? Given IE's intrinsic very lackluster performance with ECMAscript, are these not required in order to get any king of interactive content over the web (albiet constrained to Windows clients) in the absensce of a standards-complaint capability such as Chrome Frame?

The other point of note is that Chrome Frame is open source. When one adds it as a plugin, one can see exactly what it does. It is auditable. It can be verified that it introduces no functions that are not in the interests of the owner of the client machine. Any flaws can readily be fixed by anyone (even if Google are somehow reluctant to fix one). None of these latter points are true for ActiveX or Silverlight.

Edited 2009-09-24 23:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2