Adding activeX support to Mozilla is wrong.

Discussion of features in Seamonkey

Should Mozilla include ActiveX support in the Windows version of Mozilla?

Poll ended at December 4th, 2002, 12:09 pm

Yes. I can not function without activeX support.
3
5%
Yes. Windows users will not use Mozilla unless it supports ActiveX.
13
22%
No. Mozilla should not support technologies which work with only one OS.
8
14%
No. ActiveX involves too high a security risk to support this technology.
10
17%
No. Reason: Works only in one OS and is a secrity risk.
24
41%
 
Total votes: 58

Paul
Posts: 247
Joined: November 5th, 2002, 7:00 pm

Adding activeX support to Mozilla is wrong.

Post by Paul »

See bug 133818 [ http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=133818 ] Embedding ActiveX Wrapper.

I believe this issue needs further friendly debate and rethinking on the issue of including ActiveX support in the Windows version of Mozilla. Here is the comment I attached to bug 133818:

<b>This is totally WRONG!!! Is Mozilla to support propritary technologies now? I was under the impression that one of the stated goals was that Mozilla was to be totally cross platform. Now Mozilla is building in a technology which works with only one platform. This is worng.

I thought one of the aims of the Mozilla project was to help support and ensure
the ideal that the internet remain platform/browser independent--that it didn't
matter which operating system, which browser, or which hardware the user used to access the internet. If the feature is added to the Windows version of
Mozilla is Mozilla saying the ideals of equal access to the internet for all
browsers, for all OSs and for all hardware no longer matters? This is wrong!!!</b>

I am not considering the security issues involved with ActiveX in this debate (when considering the inclusion of ActiveX) and hopefully in this thread we can advoid this issue, important as it might be. What I hope to discuss are the cross platform goals of Mozilla; what are they and how does Mozilla encourage their use as much as possible.

We encourage webmasters to use open standards, so open standards should be considered when deciding which new technologies are implemented in Mozilla. For example if Mozilla felt the need to include 3d graphics rendering should DirectX or OpenGL be the choosen technology? If the goal is to encourage open standards then the only chice is OpenGL. I would even go as far as to argue that even if there is no cross platform equvilent (for a given technology), then Mozilla should not include this technology in only one platform.

The more Mozilla includes technologies which work only on one platform, the harder the task is to convince webmasters (and others) the importance of coding the internet to open standards and for all OSs. I believe preserving open standards on the internet is very important. Without standards the internet is lost. Do we want owners of propritary technology to decide the future of the internet or do we want the internet to be an open place, were all its users help shape its future?

My personal belief is that by adding ActiveX functionality to the Windows version of Mozilla, opens the door to platform specific technologies and Mozilla may be helping to foster a climate where it is easier to develope internet sites which require Windows to function. I have always thought that the Mozilla Organization was against including technologies in its code that required the use of a specific OS. This goes against the crossplatform ideal originally set out for Mozilla were Mozilla had the same features and functionality regardless of which OS it was written for.

What do other people think?

Paul Bergsagel.
User avatar
xah
Posts: 306
Joined: November 8th, 2002, 6:17 pm

how do you vote in that poll?

Post by xah »

Well, I'm in favor of adding ActiveX support, but I can't figure out how to vote in the poll.

The reason Mozilla should support ActiveX is that co-opting Microsoft is strategically paramount. We need to support Microsoft features as much as possible.

Standards are very important, too, but so long as ActiveX can be disabled with an easily accessible pref, there should be no problem.
User avatar
johann_p
Posts: 8479
Joined: November 5th, 2002, 3:05 am
Location: Sheffield, UK

Oh please

Post by johann_p »

If somebody implements an ActiveX wrapper, Mozilla would certainly benefit. I think the attitude of some people who think they can use a browser with a maximum of 5% market share to force the wonderful world of standards, linux and cross-platform complicance on people is not only rediculous but crazy.

I agree that if paid developers have to set priorities, ActiveX would be pretty low on my list. But if somebody who would not contribute something more important anyway implements the wrapper it is just plain stupid to try to stop them. Mozilla is not in the position to force anybody to do anything the "right" way. For most people, this is not even a decision of deleting a browser that does not do what they want, it is a matter of not even downloading it in the first place.

Dont get me wrong - there is hardly anything I detest more than the masochistic happyness with which people endure the monopoly and domination of Microsoft world wide, but especially in the US. I am using Mozilla on Linux for years now, bounce back every mail that has a word attachment and actively try to promote the use of alternatives to MS products, especially in the public administration. But keeping ActiveX out of Mozilla is not the right way to fight the MS monopoly. If you are out of ideas I can give you a few better ones.

PS: by the same arguments you could oppose support for, say, the Flash plugin. Again, I hate Flash but it would just be silly not to support it.
herman
Posts: 1034
Joined: November 7th, 2002, 3:45 pm

Mozilla should not support ActiveX

Post by herman »

.. at least, disabled by default, enabled only by two prefs:
1st pref: [x] Yes, I want to update to latest worms and virii
2nd pref: [x] Yes, I know the risk, I want to enable ActiveX

You made some good points against proprietary technology,
but I´m using a bad proprietary technology, so called industry standard X86, aka PC.
I´m not a mozilla developer, but I´m reading bugzilla, to learn about mozilla´s inner workings.
I´ve got the impression, that mozilla has to pay small tributes to the different OS, may be a high price in programmer´s hours.
Running Windows, I used Netscape up to 4.8, but as from 0.9.9 Mozilla is my default browser.

If anybody asked me, why I was still using Netscape 4.7, though it didn´t work at more and more sites, I told them about security reasons,
asked them, if they didn´t remember the last worm, featured in every newspaper, radiostation, TV.
You can´t convince people by offering them good products,
they are unable to see the differences in quality.
So tell them about convenient automatic installation of dialers, costing 900€ per dial-up, or 1.86€ per minute for next two months, until they get their phone bill and look what is installed in that computer.

So I can´t recommend Mozilla to people, when I can tell them:
the original works better on all websites optimized for IE,
and with OE and hotmail you will get more mail ;-)
and be always up to date regarding worms.

Maybe Phoenix should get ActiveX, a simple browser for people who don´t want to configure much, maybe they want ActiveX working for them.

Let MS do what they want to do, Mozilla should follow it´s path to security.
Those people who want ActiveX won´t switch to Mozilla,
they will trust in Microsoft Security, always getting better ;-)
User avatar
xah
Posts: 306
Joined: November 8th, 2002, 6:17 pm

thanks

Post by xah »

Thanks for fixing the poll.
jaw79
Posts: 4
Joined: November 14th, 2002, 1:37 am

absolutely not.

Post by jaw79 »

I'm glad there's one other person in this forum that thinks this is worthy of discussion.
User avatar
WillyWonka
Posts: 212
Joined: November 5th, 2002, 12:25 pm
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by WillyWonka »

I think it should be an extension on mozdev and not part of the build itself. It's useful for intranets with custom controls, but I don't want to see active x controls used on the web because then people will start designing 1 plugin for windows and leave the rest of the people out in the cold... a lot of companies already do that which is a real shame.

As for the security, I thought the ActiveX dll didn't implement all of ActiveX so they are less prone to evil controls.... but then again, I haven't really been following it closely.
herman
Posts: 1034
Joined: November 7th, 2002, 3:45 pm

Re: absolutely not.

Post by herman »

jaw79 wrote:I'm glad there's one other person in this forum that thinks this is worthy of discussion.


the original posting:

Paul wrote:Adding activeX support to Mozilla is wrong.


You wrote: <b>absolutely not</b>

Are you sure you want ActiveX?
Millions of people can´t configure it, so worms are spread.
I don´t think Mozilla can replace IE by providing ActiveX.
People with Windows will have IE with or without ActiveX on their new computers. If they have IE with ActiveX disabled, they will be glad to get mozilla, if they have ActiveX enabled, they don´t want to get a new browser, that, that belongs to the OS, is fine.

If you want ActiveX, why should you bother to install mozilla,
regularly download a big file to get rid of some annoying bugs,
only to discover bugs elsewhere?
People got used to MS bugs, they even ignore service packs,
but mozilla´s bugs are always changing ;-)
old jasonb
Moderator
Posts: 0
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 5:00 pm

Post by old jasonb »

If you read the comments in the bug, particularly comment 31 you'll see that there are no plans to ever include ActiveX support (even conditionally) in any of the Mozilla (or, I assume, Phoenix) builds. In order to "get it" you need to compile from the CVS source with a certain switch. Any such compilation is a derived product, not an officially recognized Mozilla build.
User avatar
SKApretto n.71
Posts: 35
Joined: November 14th, 2002, 6:33 am
Location: Italy

ActiveX is not _evil_

Post by SKApretto n.71 »

In my humble opinion adding ActiveX support to Mozilla can be a HUGE feature to support.

You don't like ActiveX stuff because can be prone to security issues? Don't mind, just disable it ;)

Just my 2 cents.
Raffaele "SKApretto n.71" Sgherri
* Get firefox and join us!
jaw79
Posts: 4
Joined: November 14th, 2002, 1:37 am

Re: absolutely not.

Post by jaw79 »

You wrote: <b>absolutely not</b>

Are you sure you want ActiveX?


I was responding to the poll question.

Should Mozilla include ActiveX support in the Windows version of Mozilla?

<b>absolutely not</b>
jaw79
Posts: 4
Joined: November 14th, 2002, 1:37 am

Re: ActiveX is not _evil_

Post by jaw79 »

SKApretto n.71 wrote:
You don't like ActiveX stuff because can be prone to security issues? Don't mind, just disable it ;)

Just my 2 cents.


Don't like IE? just download mozilla. . . we all know how well that's worked so far. the problem is if it's turned on by default, then 90% of the mozilla users won't know that it's on and won't know to turn it off.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind if a third party vendor wanted activeX, developed it, and then put it in their builds. but i don't think this belongs on the trunk.
steve
Posts: 84
Joined: November 7th, 2002, 6:58 am

Post by steve »

I voted for ActiveX 'cos I answered the question re windows users wanting it.

I think there are many sites that use activeX -e.g. msn chats - ms supplies an activeX wrapper that works with moz!

I think that anyone (including mozilla.org) can develop a wrapper it's up to the individual user to include it or disable it
glam
Posts: 2
Joined: November 5th, 2002, 5:42 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Please move this off-topic poll to Feature forum? (n/t)

Post by glam »

It has little to do with daily builds.
old jasonb
Moderator
Posts: 0
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 5:00 pm

Post by old jasonb »

If it is moved, don't leave a ghost. Otherwise there's no point...
Post Reply