MS Gives 60-Day Deadline to Web Devs 375
capt turnpike writes "Since losing the patent case filed by Eolas, Microsoft has to change radically the way IE works with a lot of content, especially video and other ActiveX controls. eWEEK is reporting that Microsoft has gotten a one-time, 60-day extension in which developers and companies can try to re-engineer their Web pages and ads to work with the new regime. If devs don't make that deadline, users could face pages asking them to activate much of the content, plus ads."
Good Riddance (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good Riddance (Score:5, Funny)
They're going to fucking bury that technology. They have done it before, and they will do it again. They're going to fucking kill ActiveX.
And someone, somewhere, will get an ActiveChair flung at them.
Re:Good Riddance (Score:5, Funny)
Now that I've stopped laughing at this line, I can reply with who that will be:
Developers, developers, developers, developers.
Re:Good Riddance (Score:5, Funny)
Mushroom, mushroom!
Re:Good Riddance (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm a
As this is an inter
Re:Good Riddance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good Riddance (Score:5, Insightful)
At least that is how it works in civilised countries.
Management? Civilized? (Score:3, Interesting)
Where I can I find one of those?
Seriously, while I agree strongly with everything you say, I've also found that the world is full of managers who don't want to face reality, and blame their employees instead. "Find a better job" sounds nice, but I find PHBs everywhere I go. Much like gravity, one cannot escape it, only increase one's distance from it.
Re:Good Riddance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good Riddance (Score:4, Funny)
It's good and bad (Score:5, Insightful)
The old saying fits, "sleep with the dogs, wake up with fleas"
it doesn't matter (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good Riddance (Score:3, Informative)
Rule #5 on slashdot: .Net or Java developer
Never say you are a
I've see
Re:Good Riddance (Score:5, Interesting)
Here Microsoft daily flings FUD at the likes of Linux.
- "Linux|Open Source. You just don't know where it's been."
- "Sure, we'll indemnify OUR users."
- Ballmer: "Linux is stealing our IP. We might sue."
And yet, when push comes to shove who is getting screwed this time? Developers using MICROSOFT's products.
Fool me once... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft routinely and regularly pulls the rug out from under developers and end-users alike. What amazes me is that people continue to choose Microsoft, no matter how many times they get burned.
Say the parent undertakes a massive switch to the
ActiveX (Score:3, Funny)
Not so active now. Are ya' sunshine?
*KABLAM!*
A good reason to dump ActiveX (Score:5, Insightful)
There are other technologies that can plug the hole. For some applications, an Ajax page could provide the same level of interactivity as ActiveX. For stuff like Flash, they can have a plugin architecture more line Firefox's.
Bottom line is Microsoft will use this to "encourage" websites to move away from ActiveX and toward their next annoying proprietary technology.
Re:A good reason to dump ActiveX (Score:5, Insightful)
Wishful thinking; but nothing more I'm afraid.
Re:A good reason to dump ActiveX (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A good reason to dump ActiveX (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A good reason to dump ActiveX (Score:5, Informative)
Might be time to test those internal apps with the Firefox ActiveX plugin [www.iol.ie], if that's the only thing holding you back...
Re:A good reason to dump ActiveX (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A good reason to dump ActiveX (Score:4, Informative)
if my Ajax code is broken, i'm going to be pissed, 'cause I can't just say "use firefox", much as I would love to.
Re:A good reason to dump ActiveX (Score:4, Insightful)
Ignorance, as they say, is bliss.
Nobody here seems to acknowledge the true nature of this problem, because it has nothing to do with ActiveX being thrown away. This is simply a warm welcome to the exciting new world of software patents.
This ActiveX fiasco is a great example. The company holding the patent in dispute, Eolas [eolas.com], is an utter joke. They don't actually make or produce anything except patents. All they do is sit around all day thinking up stuff to patent. That's it. One of these great "products" is a patent dealing with the way embedded interactive multimedia interacts with the user. Part of the patent talks about how the media starts working and interacting. According to the patent, they own the idea behind having it start automatically or in response to page loads.
The truth is that this patent impacts open source software as well, and even though Microsoft presents a much juicier target than the Mozilla Foundation, they have equally "violated" this patent and OSS will feel the impact soon enough.
And THAT is what this is about.
Read this [microsoft.com] and tell me this whole thing doesn't stink like the deepest abyss of Hell. With more and more companies filing patents like nuts, this is the future of software development. Company X is going to spend as much as they did to develop the software just to make sure they don't get sued and have to pull it off the shelves 6 months after shipping. Then there's all the frivolous licensing fees to do stuff like make a Flash animation start when the page loads. How exciting!
There's nothing inherently wrong with ActiveX. It's based on the COM [wikipedia.org] and is actually pretty nice for developing on Windows. ActiveX is just am implementation of an open standard and provides a way to more closely work with the host system. Firefox extensions are really no better, they can completely bork a system just as easily as ActiveX. In the end, when a user clicks "Install" they may have just signed their own death certificate and it doesn't matter what color the pen was.
In any case the whole thing boils down to an example of why software patents, in practice, are a terrible thing.
Re:A good reason to dump ActiveX (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds REALLY SECURE.
(Especially since users ALWAYS click "OK" whenever any kind of dialog box pops up.)
Re:A good reason to dump ActiveX (Score:2)
Now estimate the difficulty of making a not-so-nice ActiveX control, and think about what it could do with the same level of access to your signing key, especially in jurisdictions where digital signatures are legally binding.
Tell me about what /really/ matters for me... (Score:2)
Re:Tell me about what /really/ matters for me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tell me about what /really/ matters for me... (Score:3, Interesting)
Mozilla could be hit at any point Eolas feels like it.
Eolas expected Microsoft to finally roll over and eat it and take out an official license. Microsoft called the bluff, only Eolas is still holding the higher hand right now.
Re:Tell me about what /really/ matters for me... (Score:2)
I have to confess that I find patent-ese virtually unreadable, but from reading the patent document [uspto.gov], I get the impression that every embedded Web-based technology is subject to it. The possib
Eolas and Mozilla: still open, can still close (Score:5, Informative)
Wikipedia currently is still saying "Other browsers such as Opera, Mozilla Firefox and Apple's Safari might have to implement a similar change to avoid infringement, or to license Eolas' patent".
Re:Tell me about what /really/ matters for me... (Score:2)
It probably does, but assuming the shysters at Eolas start threatening Firefox, I'm sure they'll just implement something similar to IE. Oh, and they'll also ship or prominently link to an extension which just happens to automatically detect and activate any EMBED / OBJECT tag content on the page.
Re:Tell me about what /really/ matters for me... (Score:2)
I was under the impression that it was Microsoft that stole the idea and pitced it to the standards board as their own for everyone to use which is why Eolas came after them.
Re:Tell me about what /really/ matters for me... (Score:5, Insightful)
this highlights a real problem with our IP laws and patents. while patents are good for things, for ideas they are horrible.
One-Click Activation (Score:5, Insightful)
Each page a user visits will require them to click a button to activate the underlying ActiveX control. Wow. BFD. And that is just for those websites that haven't updated their content by June. Chaotic? Far from it.
Re:One-Click Activation (Score:2)
This could be a good thing, too, in terms of security. Imagine, having to click on a button before a website runs a script. You know, this might prevent malicious websites from spreading malware through a vulnerability in ActiveX, huh?
Re:One-Click Activation (Score:2)
"Despite what Microsoft says about minimal impact, it makes it much harder to use an application that has a lot of ActiveX or Applets. Each time you load a page with a control, you have to activate it. So if the user goes to PageA with a control and activates it, then goes to PageB with a control and activates that one, if they then go back to PageA again then have to activate it again," said the source, who requested anonymity.
Re:One-Click Activation (Score:2)
Chaotic yes. (Score:3, Interesting)
Impact on JavaScript (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Impact on JavaScript (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Impact on JavaScript (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think we're "Y2K"ing this. This will be a huge headache.
Re:Impact on JavaScript (Score:3, Interesting)
Click here to activate Advertising (Score:5, Funny)
This will be a disaster! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This will be a disaster! (Score:2)
Functionality removed as part of security update (Score:3, Interesting)
Even then, they will have to be very careful. With some coverage in the general media, a lot of users could decide that it is better to diable windows update than to find their applications being crippled because of pointless quarrels in court.
Not just ActiveX... (Score:5, Informative)
So that means every page with any usage of plugins will be broken.
Re:Not just ActiveX... (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess for this \.user, I mean not only "ActiveX good riddance", but also "Internet Explorer good riddance". If their browser can't display standards-compliant code, most likely due to their shady business practices, then who cares?
They are saying, change the roads because we found ou
Re:Not just ActiveX... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not just ActiveX... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, we can get rid of ActiveX, Flash and quicktime all in one shot?
So, umm, what's the downside again?
Re:Not just ActiveX... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not just ActiveX... (Score:2)
No. The pages are not broken. They are properly coded. The browser is broken, and I will not be changing my properly-coded pages to accomodate for Microsoft yet again setting up their software to behave differently than every other browser out there. If anyone complains, my answer will be "use a non-broken browser; they're free and multiplatform. My site properly conforms to standards. If you don't want to download a new browser, just click t
Re:Not just ActiveX... (Score:5, Informative)
the patent isn't on the specifics of Active-X, but the absolute general vague as hell concept of the browser plug-in. According to Cringley (years ago), Eolas showed a version in the opensource Mosaic codebase to Sun and Netscape *before* java was included in Netscape 2.0. Java is vulnerable.
The Future of the Internet Experience (Score:4, Insightful)
He's right you know, and it is really too bad...so sad.
What if they tried to have a lawsuit... (Score:3, Interesting)
Hey, this isn't a "pro-Microsoft" rant, but wouldn't it be just dandy if the courts declared "Heal yourselves!" to the myriad silly and frivolous lawsuitery that is drowning the domestic business environment?
Of course, you'd have LOTS of poor widdle lawyers out of business.
But hey, is that REALLY such a bad thing?
Re:What if they tried to have a lawsuit... (Score:2)
Microsoft Umbrella? (Score:5, Insightful)
wtf happened?
Re:Microsoft Umbrella? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Microsoft Umbrella? (Score:2)
If Microsoft wanted to do the world a favor.. (Score:4, Insightful)
It would include, as part of this re-engineering effort, a dialog that would appear, explaining to the user, why this is happening- pointing out the destructive nature of software patents. The effect is, that since someone else "owns" the ability to do things a certain way, you are required to do it differently, or fork out some cash. If enough people are made aware of just how sofware patents really do have an effect on what they can and cannot do, perhaps this could be the beginning of some grassroots support for much-needed change.
Re:If Microsoft wanted to do the world a favor.. (Score:2)
Y'know, on the off chance that that would work, I'm going to write Bill Gates and explain to him the evil of money. At the end, I'll offer to take all that nasty money off his hands and dispose of it.
Hey, it could work...
Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Missing the point (Score:2)
b) Also a risk when you use non-standard tools
c) The contractor will get more money changing the web site.
If you wrote a piece of software for Windows 98, and then the user complains because it won't run in XP, do you change it for free?
Re:Missing the point (Score:2)
Re:Missing the point (Score:2)
How to update your pages (Score:5, Informative)
Apple has a helpful page [apple.com] detailing what to do in order to get your pages to continue working as usual with IE.
Patents spur creativity - kind of (Score:4, Insightful)
More details? (Score:3, Insightful)
Some people are saying it's going to change everything (flash, movies, some JS, etc) while others say that no one will notice the difference.
What's the difference, and what do developers have to do for there to be no difference?
Re:More details? (Score:3, Informative)
The basic fix is that you don't use an object directly in the HTML. You either add it through document.write() or through the DOM. In other words, the fix is rather trivial, and in the long run makes the page more maintainable.
Re:More details? (Score:5, Interesting)
Widespread example that patents are good for soc.. (Score:2)
It. Is. Just. Bloody. Nonsense. Period.
The day is April 11th. (Score:4, Informative)
The eWeek article doesn't do a very good job of highlighting that.
Won't disable "non-interactive" ActiveX (Score:5, Informative)
News Flash (Score:2)
This patch TO ie... (Score:2)
Maybe I don't get it (Score:2)
Microsoft isn't going to magically intercept every HTTP transaction and see if it's somebody requesting an ActiveX control, though. Won't this only affect people who apply the "security" update (actually a "keep MS from getting sued" update) that they're going to roll out? What percent of users apply security updates anyways?
You can already test this with Windows Update (Score:5, Informative)
I figure they'll move it from optional to required when the deadline is reached.
I've already installed the update so I can get my sites ready.
ActiveX controls cause a little dialog box to appear that makes you hit either "Ok" or "Yes" in order to use an ActiveX control. Honestly this is fairly rare occurance when browsing most sites.
The big thing that is going to trip people up are flash movies. All flash movies now have a border around them when you mouse over them with a tooltip that says "click to activate and use this control".
The good news is that non-interactive flash movies work regardless of whether or not you activate the controls. Not sure why that is, but that has been my expeience. The bad news is that flash menus (unfortunately some clients want that junk) no longer work until you click on the flash movie to activate the control. This also goes for interactive flash movies that track mouse movement and whatnot.
The workaround is to write the flash movie using javascript.
you can do something simple like document.write() each line of the object tag or use something like UFO (http://osflash.org/ufo [osflash.org]) that is XHTML compliant.
Re:You can already test this with Windows Update (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like good news to me! Eh, if that forces stupid web developpers to abandon flash navigation ... it's ev
Ridiculous Solution to Ridiculous Patent (Score:3, Interesting)
If the reasoning was to exclude object creation from the source code, we still have an OBJECT statement, but it's inside of Javascript now. And court said that it makes the difference? WTF?!!
So, if I write a code that creates JPEG file, but saves it as a text file, with following renaming .TXT to .JPG, have I just avoided JPEG PATENT? [google.com]
Web Devs Give 60-Day Deadline to MS (Score:3, Funny)
In that case... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Maybe (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Maybe (Score:3, Insightful)
It means that users should find a better browser to use and developers should use a different technology for their web applications. Of course, the Microsoft solution would be to switch to IE7 and Visual Studio
Re:Maybe (Score:3, Interesting)
As to why my crap keeps getting modded up, check out my Slashdot F.A.Q. [creimer.ws]
Re:Maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the gist I got from it is any embeded auto playing content ( heres their example list: Adobe's Reader and Flash, Apple's QuickTime Player, Microsoft's Windows Media Player, RealNetworks' RealPlayer and Sun's JVM ) will require activation before playing.
So for example, if you go to a page that has a stock ticker applet in it, instead of it automatically scrolling the current stock market stats, you will have to click it to start. However, if this is true, it would pretty much make Flash useless, as flash based GUIs would become irritating, flash based start pages wouldnt work right, etc...
Lastly, what I dont understand beyond the above question is... why arent Firefox, Opera, Safari etc... also affected?
No matter what you think of Microsoft, in the end, this is bad for the end user and the web in general. Insert misc active X jokes in your replys all you want, you would be suprised how much of the daily web actually depends on this stuff.
Re:Maybe (Score:5, Interesting)
Because the guy who owns the patent has stated that he is only going to sue microsoft.
Re:Maybe (Score:5, Informative)
While I'm link-whoring, here's some more stuff if you want insight on the guy: Doyle's homepage [iomas.com], another eWeek interview "Browser Victory Shouldn't Alter HTML" [eweek.com], and an article from I, Cringely [pbs.org] that was one of the first media pieces on the whole issue. More can be found on Google and Wikipedia, of course.
Regardless of Doyle's intentions, I'm against the whole software and business-method patenting regimes. It's been said many times before, but patenting software or business-methods is as ludicrous as patenting story ideas in literature.
Re:Maybe (Score:2, Interesting)
How do you stop this? Disable Javascript?
Re:Maybe (Score:2)
Flash is already irritating, and flash based start pages don't always work right. If anything, having to click to activate flash content will make it less irritating. There's even a firefox plugin devoted to this very task.
Re:Maybe (Score:2)
How is this different, again?
Re:Why firefox and the others need not worry (Score:2)
Re:That doesn't hurt Microsoft! (Score:5, Insightful)
Tim Berners-Lee wrote the USPTO calling for this patent to be overturned due to prior art. A broad embedded content patent in 1998? Pu-lease. It's as bogus as a $3 bill.
Re:That doesn't hurt Microsoft! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That doesn't hurt Microsoft! (Score:2)
According to Cringley years ago (who was talking about this back in '99) the patent was filed (and a demonstration given to Sun and Netscape separately, based on the opensource Mosaic codebase) *before* Java was actually released as part of Netscape 2.0.
Meaning they really do seem to be first because they predated the first embedded app of Java in Netscape.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How about no? (Score:2)
Re:Well, where's the indemnification? (Score:2, Informative)
indemnify
v. to guarantee against any loss which another might suffer. Example: two parties settle a dispute over a contract, and one of them may agree to pay any claims which may arise from the contract, holding the other harmless.
You see, if you understood the word, you would realize that the end user is not suffering a loss. They are losing some convenience.
Microsoft is just the first case. All other browsers will be required to change their way of business as well. The precedent has been set. T
Re:Well, where's the indemnification? (Score:2)
You see, if you understood the word, you would realize that the end user is not suffering a loss. They are losing some convenience.
So losing convenience is not a loss? That is, there is no semantic relation between the words 'losing' and 'loss'?
Fucktard.
Re:Your case for IP idemnification (Score:3, Insightful)