[MLUG - DISCUSSION] ActiveX (was "unsupported web browser?!")

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, Mike Miller wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, Vern Green wrote:
>
>> Well of course they could have used Java. Why should they? They own 
>> this, why would they not use their own product.
>
> Again, why do you see Microsoft as benign?  Are they choosing to use 
> their own product instead of an existing product, or are they developing 
> a product and applying it as part of their usual greedy, monopolistic 
> self-promoting strategy?  Interestingly, in a bit of business-as-usual 
> intellectual property theft, it looks like Microsoft stole a chunk of 
> their ActiveX code from another company, which is now failing:
>
> http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3445631
>
> And check this out:
>
> http://www.bigblueball.com/news2/article.asp?id=747
>
> It's about ActiveX.  The title is "Microsoft Delivers Blow to Mac 
> Users," not "Microsoft makes more cool stuff."
>
> All this is happening because Microsoft is a corrupt, greedy, deceitful 
> and monopolistic organization that seeks extreme power and control with 
> no concern whatsoever for the public good.  There have been thousands of 
> articles published about this in the past decade.


Rob Pegararo at the Washington Post reviewed Firefox on November 14 and 
made the following comment about ActiveX:

   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47146-2004Nov13.html

   One in particular should delight many long-suffering Web users: Firefox
   blocks pop-up ads automatically.

   But Firefox's security goes deeper than that. It doesn't support
   Microsoft's dangerous ActiveX software, which gives a Web site the run
   of your computer. It omits IE's extensive hooks into the rest of
   Windows, which can turn a mishap into a systemwide meltdown.

Mike
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion