Linked by Kroc Camen on Sat 17th Oct 2009 05:27 UTC
Microsoft Whilst it's not okay in Microsoft's eyes for Google to install a plugin into Internet Explorer, increasing the potential surface area of attack, when Microsoft do it to Firefox, it's a different matter. Now a security hole has been found in a plugin that Microsoft have been silently installing into Firefox.
Thread beginning with comment 389820
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: beware the .net
by Hiev on Sat 17th Oct 2009 16:56 UTC in reply to "RE: beware the .net"
Member since:

Honestly what a stupid answer, HTML/CSS/JS are not the total answer for web or desktop or anything, I've used .NET and HTML/CSS/JS, and damn the last combination makes your life misserable, who ever invented the CSS layout system should be judged for crimes againts the humanity, the browser may be optimized to run JS "at the speed of light" but is still interpretated code inside a browser, that makes it slow and CPU hungry (just try using Google Wave and you'll see, I don't know how google plans to make that thing reliable w/o a pluggin).

In other words, get a clue.

Edited 2009-10-17 17:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: beware the .net
by Erunno on Sat 17th Oct 2009 17:14 in reply to "RE[2]: beware the .net"
Erunno Member since:

but is still interpretated code inside a browser

Welcome to 2009 where at least 3 different JIT-compiling JavaScript engines exist. ;-)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: beware the .net
by robojerk on Sat 17th Oct 2009 18:01 in reply to "RE[2]: beware the .net"
robojerk Member since:

I'm still waiting for my invite to Google Wave.

Google claims their rationale to Chrome Frame for IE8 is to get their JavaScript engine in IE so Wave will run better. Is Wave slow for you because of IE javascript engine or just slow in general?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: beware the .net
by Hiev on Sat 17th Oct 2009 18:06 in reply to "RE[3]: beware the .net"
Hiev Member since:

IE8 doesn't support wave well, and wave in chrome is slow and CPU hungry.

oh and please, stop the fallacity that a faster JS makes a lot of difference when loading a webpage, JS loading only represents 15% to 20% of the loading time of a webpage.

Edited 2009-10-17 18:14 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: beware the .net
by Ventajou on Sat 17th Oct 2009 19:18 in reply to "RE[2]: beware the .net"
Ventajou Member since:

I completely agree. HTML + CSS + JavaScript were not built for full desktop like apps. The fact that some clever developers started using them for that is what triggered the browsers to get better at it. But in the end, it's like using a rock with a nail: it will work but it will be a pain.

Even Google recognized that, that's why they came up with GWT so they can abstract JS a bit.

With .Net and Visual Studio, MS has simply provided the best development environment for their Windows platform. I've developed in ASM and C/C++ for years before moving to c# and I must say it's just a pleasure to code.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: beware the .net
by Kroc on Sat 17th Oct 2009 19:49 in reply to "RE[3]: beware the .net"
Kroc Member since:

I’m not saying that JS is better than proper compiled code as a development method, I’m saying that _in the browser_, I want HTML/CSS/JS, and not a broken plugin-icon and drive-by viruses, kthnx.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: beware the .net
by gustl on Sun 18th Oct 2009 15:21 in reply to "RE[3]: beware the .net"
gustl Member since:

I would speak not a single syllable against .NET, C# and other technically sound Microsoft software, if they would just stop trying to balkanize the web with it.

There are exactly 2 ways to do that:

1. Don't force use of this technology into web protocols.

2. OR make it a free standard, for everybody's free implementation and use. The patent license grants would need to be unlimited in time, relicenseability and platform (simplified: GPLv3-compatible).

Blazing speed does not help me, if the technology locks me into one program or platform.

Reply Parent Score: 4