Re: Firefox advantages
The date and time was 5/6/2008 6:53 PM, and on a whim, Phillip M. Jones,
C.E.T pounded out on the keyboard:
> Terry R. wrote:
>> The date and time was 5/5/2008 4:52 PM, and on a whim, Phillip M. Jones,
>> C.E.T pounded out on the keyboard:
>>
>>> Terry R. wrote:
>>>> The date and time was 5/4/2008 7:38 AM, and on a whim, Phillip M.
>>>> Jones, C.E.T pounded out on the keyboard:
>>>>
>>>>> Melchert Fruitema wrote:
>>>>>> On 04-05-2008 02:13 CET, Tarkus composed this enchanting statement:
>>>>>>> Don Nickell wrote:
>>>>>>>> Why hasn't anyone talked about the danger of ActiveX and the lack
>>>>>>>> of personal security from using IE? To me that's the biggest
>>>>>>>> threat since Goliath!
>>>>>>> Perhaps because it can easily be turned off?
>>>>>> Would you consider to tell how that is done, please?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Follow-up on 'mozilla.general'.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Melchert,
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless your using one of the new Intel Mac's and allow you to use
>>>>> windows by way of Bootcamp or Parallels; you don't have to worry
>>>>> about IE or active-X.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mac OS simply won't run it. Even before OSX day Apple found out that
>>>>> active-x the way its written by MS is impossible to Make safe, and
>>>>> can never, ever, be made safe. The security of Active-X is so
>>>>> unsecure that a nerdy grade school child could study it for a while
>>>>> and design a way to deliver all kinds of bad code. Even down to the
>>>>> ability to send a signal to wipe out your hard drive without your
>>>>> knowledge. So Apple made a conscious decision not never let it work
>>>>> on a Mac. They came to this conclusion back when netscape came out
>>>>> with an Active-X Plugin for the first version of Communicator.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even Microsoft has come around, and has (according to ZDnet, and
>>>>> cNET news) shipped all modern versions of IE with Active-X turned off.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is my understanding though in order to receive automatic update
>>>>> of the windows OS sp's Active-X must be turned on.
>>>>>
>>>> Would you mind citing evidence that Apple "made a conscious decision"
>>>> to not let Active-X work on a Mac. Now that security has taken
>>>> precedence over ease of use causing A-X to not be as popular, I think
>>>> it may have been more of MS's muscle in making sure another one of
>>>> their features couldn't be used by the competition. Even the A-X
>>>> "plugins" were of limited capabilities.
>>>>
>>> I've found one reference that appear to say Active-X doesn't work On
>>> Macintosh
>>>
>>> http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=106874
>>>
>>> I'm not sure how to word the query.
>>>
>>> other variations shows documents related to quicktime on windows but
>>> none on Mac.
>>>
>> You didn't really answer the question. I wasn't asking you to prove
>> Active-X didn't work on Apple's, I asked you to substantiate your
>> comment that Apple "made a conscious decision" to not let Active-X work
>> on a Mac.
>>
> If I could have remembered how to word the question about that. I would
> have given you that as well because at one time it was in the apple
> support documents.
>
I believe you are mistaken about Apple's stance. It was MS dictating
the implementation of it.
--
Terry R.
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general