5 ms·

Microsoft is refusing to support WebGL for security reasons. I can't make up my mind about whether to be annoyed or impressed.

• hosay123 14y ago
  As with many (but not all) things Microsoft do, when the thick layers of gelatinous hivemind diatribe are pealed away what's left are sound, conscientious engineering decisions made by an organization with a near pristine history of supporting end users and going to extraordinary lengths to preserve backwards compatibility. As for instances where they have not preserved support and compatibility, Silverlight comes to mind, and they dumped that largely in favour of frameworks targeting HTML+JS. (I'm not a Microsoft employee, just a user who appreciates the APIs I cut my teeth on 20 years ago remain applicable today)
  • pyre 14y ago
    | when the thick layers of gelatinous hivemind diatribe | are pealed away what's left are sound, conscientious | engineering decisions Like waiting years to take security seriously? :P
    • jrockway 14y ago
      That's covered by the "backwards compatability" item.
      • pyre 14y ago
        It took them a while to even take patching security vulnerabilities in a timely manner seriously. I can understand that secure design (e.g. not running everything as admin) could fall under "backwards compatibility."
• Uhhrrr 14y ago
  You can be both! But I am usually more annoyed by rich content than the lack thereof. It grabs your CPU and memory and screams out to anyone in your vicinity, "Look what x is browsing!"
• re_todd 14y ago
  Yeah, I read that a few weeks ago, I can't remember the source. It will be really funny in the next year or two if the security experts encourage everyone to use IE to ensure a safe browsing experience.
• raverbashing 14y ago
  If I remember there is some issues with passing untrusted shader code to the GPU So it may be a legitimate concern (only blown out of proportion)