[4264] in WWW Security List Archive
Re: Netscape and ActiveX (was Re: Sceptic ...) (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steff Watkins)
Thu Feb 6 14:12:26 1997
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 17:05:02 +0000 (GMT)
From: Steff Watkins <Steff.Watkins@Bristol.ac.uk>
To: WWW-SECURITY@ns2.rutgers.edu
Errors-To: owner-www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Bob Denny wrote:
> On Feb 6, jwp@checfs1.ucsd.edu wrote:
> > That should really be "... Netscape can't YET execute..." since Netscape
> > have said they will support it in the future.
>
> I'll go on record with this: If Netscape really embraces ActiveX, for real,
> it'll be the end of life for them as they know it. It may take 1-2 years, but
> they'll collapse. Why? Because they will have admitted that Java can't
> cut it, and their entire architecture is built on Java underpinnings.
Hello,
I do not necessarily believe that this is so.
The fundamental attraction about the Web is that anyone, anywhere can put
up webpages so that anyone else, anywhere else who has Web connectivity
can connect to those webpages and view them.
The problem that I perceived with the Java/ActiveX/Shockwave/et al. 'sub'
language scenario was that someone could spend a lot of time writing a
whizzy,no-feature-unused webpage only to find out that only X% of the
potential viewer market could read it because the extra features were
written in one of those languages, and the reader's browser was not
capable of understanding that language.
It could backfire on ActiveX browser manufacturers, as Netscape will now
read Java AND ActiveX, making it more usable on the Web.
If you were to assume that 1/2 of the human webbers out there were Java
compliant, and the other half ActiveX compliant, then, as a webpage author,
you would have a huge problem. Do you write Java into your page and loose
one half of the potential market, or write ActiveX and loose the other
half? Alternatively, you could spend time writing BOTH into a webpage,
and risk loosing readers who just can't wait while the redundantly
over-size webpage comes slurping down their tiny 9600 lines...
I think anything that 'unifies' the web experience, that makes it easier
for end-users to see what was expected to be seen, has got to be a good
thing.
The acceptance of ActiveX by Netscape is not, fundamentally, an admission
of 'defeat'. It could be seen that they are 'being big' and letting those
'poor ActiveX guys have a chance!'. Or, it could be seen as a move to
make browsing webpages easier for NetScape users (a good move!)
I, personally, think that it is a smart business move, by which Netscape
are aiming to corner a market.
I mean, if somene offered you two sandwichs, one with JUST ONE of your
favourite foods in, and the other with TWO of your favourite foods in,
which would you pick???
Just two pennies,
Steff
: Steff Watkins, General Computer-type being
: University of Bristol, Clifton, Bristol, BS8 1TH, UK
:
: RFC-822 : Steff.Watkins@bris.ac.uk
: X-400 : /G=Steff/S=Watkins/O=Bristol/PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/
: Phone: +44 177 9287869 (external) 3046 / 7869 (internal)
