3 ms·
Just IMO, but perhaps it doesn't "stick" because none of the other folks spent years trying to use their effective OS monopoly to extinguish everything that was
by al2o3cr 13y ago
Just IMO, but perhaps it doesn't "stick" because none of the other folks spent years trying to use their effective OS monopoly to extinguish everything that wasn't their proprietary browser.
Also, ActiveX. ;)
- _wmd 13y agoIf you substitute "ActiveX" for "Native Client", this almost describes one of the new kids
- pyre 13y agoMaybe I'm misunderstanding, but isn't NaCl meant to be cross-platform? ActiveX was basically "hook directly into Windows (and only Windows) from the browser." It gave many free-license to create "Windows-only" webpages, in addition to producing many security holes during its run. This is where much of the resentment comes from. How many security bugs does NaCl have compared to ActiveX? How do Microsoft's attempts to sandbox ActiveX compare to the efforts made to sandbox NaCl? IIRC, you could format the C: drive in ActiveX with a couple of lines of code (by design). NaCl (so far as I know) isn't supposed to allow that. As far as I'm concerned, NaCl and ActiveX aren't even in the same ballpark.