3 ms·
Perhaps it was fast due to lack of tight security policies etc. These days, everything has to be containerized or be in a sandbox. That adds layers of overhead.
by sheepscreek 3y ago
Perhaps it was fast due to lack of tight security policies etc. These days, everything has to be containerized or be in a sandbox. That adds layers of overhead. Probably also why Google killed NaCl (Native Clients for Google Chrome). It was loosely in the same space as Flash and ActiveX - anyone remember that?
- hot_gril 3y agoI've thought about that too. Can only guess about it myself. Old software tends to be faster just because it has to be, and there isn't always a compromise other than time-to-implement. Not sure how ActiveX's sandboxing worked, but I'll bet it was even less than Flash, since it was running actual x86 code.
- londons_explore 3y agoActiveX required that the ActiveX code you wanted to run be already installed on your computer. The security mechanism was that users obviously wouldn't install insecure stuff... Turns out nearly every extension had gaping security holes.
- nvm0n2 3y agoNot quite. ActiveX would download and run unsandboxed native code direct from the web, even if it wasn't installed. The security mechanism was a popup dialog that contained the publisher name as verified by a code signing certificate.
- hot_gril 3y agoThis is how I remember it. I was dealing with early 2000s smart home software that used ActiveX. I'd visit a website in IE, press ok, and run their "web app" that had raw access to my serial and ethernet ports. It was bizarre even for back then.