4 ms·

>> You're so myopically focused on the ideology of tomorrow over providing a great user experience today. > Through ActiveX Technologies, today's static Web pa

>> You're so myopically focused on the ideology of tomorrow over providing a great user experience today. > Through ActiveX Technologies, today's static Web pages come alive with a new generation of active content, including animation, 3-D virtual reality, video and other multimedia content. ActiveX Technologies embrace Internet standards and will be delivered on multiple platforms, giving users a rich, open framework for innovation while taking full advantage of their investments in applications, tools and source code. "ActiveX brings together the best of the Internet and the best of the PC," said Paul Maritz, group vice president of the platforms group at Microsoft. "Users want the richest, most compelling content delivered through the ubiquitous Internet." — Microsoft press release, March 1996. We've seen this all before, and it was as much of a land grab using similar "user experience" excuses then as it is now. And despite it all, everything from this press release is possible with open technologies today already. Now we come to address the performance issue, and platform proponents (let's drop the pretence – platform shills) continue to fiercely reject it, because providing a good user experience was never the original agenda. I'm deeply reminded of the leaked internal DART e-mail ( https://gist.github.com/paulmillr/1208618 https://gist.github.com/paulmillr/1208618 ) where as much ink was expended on marketshare as it was on technical issues.

pifflesnort 14y ago
This is a false comparison. ActiveX was technologically flawed: it was specific to Microsoft Windows, and it was insecure. NaCL is secure and portable, without sacrificing the user experience today. Indirectly referring to me as a platform shill is unwarranted. The reason that I argue so strenuously for maximizing performance is simply that performance improves user experience. > I'm deeply reminded of the leaked internal DART e-mail ( https://gist.github.com/paulmillr/1208618 https://gist.github.com/paulmillr/1208618 ) where as much ink was expended on marketshare as it was on technical issues. I've read the whole memo, and I don't understand what your complaint is at all. Google seems to be focused on actually improving the web as an application development target, and making it competitive with modern platforms.
- hosay123 14y ago
  By your own words Native Client is technically flawed: it's specific to x86 and ARM (and whatever other vaporware platforms they promise "next week" – PNaCl has been due for years already), and removing the VM, it's also insecure. So basically Native Client is ActiveX inside a VM.
  - pifflesnort 14y ago
    How exactly is that by my own words? You also seem to be confusing quite a few technical topics. First, you're equating ARM and x86 with Microsoft Windows. Those are all "platforms", but they exist at very different levels of the technology stack, and the impact of relying on them is quite different. Samsung and Apple can both ship compatible ARM devices. Only Microsoft could ship an ActiveX runtime. Second, you're throwing out "security" as a red herring without actually explaining what is insecure. Exactly what are you talking about? Lastly, if PNaCL is not viable, then NaCL is not viable. Thus, Google is holding off on NaCL until PNaCL is viable. In the meantime, I'm targeting mobile and desktop applications -- today -- which is entirely consistent with my earlier stated position.
    - MatthewPhillips 14y ago
      "ActiveX is definitely going cross-platform," Willis says. "To be a viable technology for the Internet, we need to be able to support more platforms than Microsoft Windows. You cannot predict what kind of platforms will be on the other end." http://books.google.com/books?id=97W638tj_NsC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=activex+cross+platform&source=bl&ots=GVlXHopU0c&sig=WS-xItRCnMv2zsDOwaFBr1kaW-o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FWtTUfj7GufA0QH4nIGYDQ&ved=0CF4Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=cross%20platform&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=97W638tj_NsC&pg=PA38&#3...
      - pifflesnort 14y ago
        ActiveX was, at its very core, not portable. Are you making an objective technical argument, or a solipsistic one?

pifflesnort 14y ago

This is a false comparison. ActiveX was technologically flawed: it was specific to Microsoft Windows, and it was insecure. NaCL is secure and portable, without sacrificing the user experience today. Indirectly referring to me as a platform shill is unwarranted. The reason that I argue so strenuously for maximizing performance is simply that performance improves user experience. > I'm deeply reminded of the leaked internal DART e-mail ( https://gist.github.com/paulmillr/1208618 https://gist.github.com/paulmillr/1208618 ) where as much ink was expended on marketshare as it was on technical issues. I've read the whole memo, and I don't understand what your complaint is at all. Google seems to be focused on actually improving the web as an application development target, and making it competitive with modern platforms.

hosay123 14y ago
By your own words Native Client is technically flawed: it's specific to x86 and ARM (and whatever other vaporware platforms they promise "next week" – PNaCl has been due for years already), and removing the VM, it's also insecure. So basically Native Client is ActiveX inside a VM.
- pifflesnort 14y ago
  How exactly is that by my own words? You also seem to be confusing quite a few technical topics. First, you're equating ARM and x86 with Microsoft Windows. Those are all "platforms", but they exist at very different levels of the technology stack, and the impact of relying on them is quite different. Samsung and Apple can both ship compatible ARM devices. Only Microsoft could ship an ActiveX runtime. Second, you're throwing out "security" as a red herring without actually explaining what is insecure. Exactly what are you talking about? Lastly, if PNaCL is not viable, then NaCL is not viable. Thus, Google is holding off on NaCL until PNaCL is viable. In the meantime, I'm targeting mobile and desktop applications -- today -- which is entirely consistent with my earlier stated position.
  - MatthewPhillips 14y ago
    "ActiveX is definitely going cross-platform," Willis says. "To be a viable technology for the Internet, we need to be able to support more platforms than Microsoft Windows. You cannot predict what kind of platforms will be on the other end." http://books.google.com/books?id=97W638tj_NsC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=activex+cross+platform&source=bl&ots=GVlXHopU0c&sig=WS-xItRCnMv2zsDOwaFBr1kaW-o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FWtTUfj7GufA0QH4nIGYDQ&ved=0CF4Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=cross%20platform&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=97W638tj_NsC&pg=PA38&#3...
    - pifflesnort 14y ago
      ActiveX was, at its very core, not portable. Are you making an objective technical argument, or a solipsistic one?