Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 16:35:56 -0500 From: Drew Baxter <netmonger@genesis.ispace.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: dcs@newsguy.com, freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Implementing ActiveX Message-ID: <4.1.19981108163216.00ac14e0@genesis.ispace.com> In-Reply-To: <199811082130.OAA16088@usr08.primenet.com> References: <4.1.19981104132327.00a802f0@genesis.ispace.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 09:30 PM 11/8/98 +0000, Terry Lambert wrote: >> How do you call this competitive? They don't give open paperwork for their >> "ActiveX" standard, otherwise I'd imagine someone (Maybe even Netscape) >> would portal it into Netscape products.. > >Actually, their ActiveX code is heavily specified; there's little >about ActiveX that isn't discussed in the serveral COM and DCOM >books out there, and what isn't discussed there *is* available for >download from their WWW site. > > >I have to say that I've considered implementing DCOM on FreeBSD >once or twice; it's rather trivial to do, since there is an >existing DCE RPC implementation. > >I also have to say that not doing byte swapping on the way in >and on the way out for RPC calls between x86 based boxes is a >very attractive idea, just from the perspective of what it would >do to the NFS performance of FreeBSD to FreeBSD mounts. > > >I actually believe it would be trivial to implement ActiveX into >Netscape; I really wouldn't want to become dependent on x86 based >code for control implementations, but on the other hand, it's >not like it's rocket science. > > >From hacking on both, I have to say that CORBA is conceptually >much more difficult in implementation. I think that allowing In-Line ActiveX would be appropriate.. but at the same time (if I recall) IE runs Netscape plugins as well. So I guess that is not a big issue. Pesonally I think having Netscape just do the web browser market would be a 'good monopoly'. But since we have extensions on either side of the HTML spec (Netscape has their own, IE has their own), I don't see that happening. Personally I find it inconveniencing to have to check with Netscape and then with IE to see if my pages work on both the same way. We now have HTML Validators, but still, it's a waste of time.. I like ActiveX as far as doing things like VB, where you can just drop the object in, that did help in C/S apps. I think that we'd be better off trying to secure the standards we have NOW instead of making new ones. That's difficult when we always have a new Draft spec coming out for each time a release is. I'm getting more curious about IPv6, I think I'm going to be doing some research on that this week. --- Drew "Droobie" Baxter Network Admin/Professional Computer Nerd(TM) OneEX: The OneNetwork Exchange 207-942-0275 http://www.droo.orland.me.us My Latest Kernel: FreeBSD 3.0-CURRENT (ONEEX) #14: Mon Oct 19 22:36:58 EDT 1998 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.1.19981108163216.00ac14e0>