Sat, 24 Apr 2010 13:53:10 -0600, Rainer Deyke wrote: > On 4/24/2010 09:27, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: >> If I had my way, I'd just be rid of the virtual machine altogether. >> Simply run native programs as a restricted user. (Indeed, I'd run the >> browser itself with that restricted user, then let it create whatever >> processes it wants, possibly stripping the child processes of more >> privileges.) The operating system keeps it from doing anything evil. > > Congratulations, you just invented ActiveX. I hope you like your > platform lockdown and your security vulnerabilities. > >> X-Accept-Code: linux64; linux; win32 > > 99% of web pages will offer just the win32 version.
Indeed, it's hard to believe that a "web 3.0" application vendor would suddenly support several platforms after 25+ years of Microsoft dominance. The second platform might increase the development costs 10..50% and bring 4% more money. It doesn't make sense to support other platforms unless enforced by the law. This problem won't go away in the long run, on the contrary, as new (mobile/htpc/whatnot) platforms emerge. A middleware is about building the infrastructure. Later (ideally) there are no platform specific costs involved. A history lesson might help Adam. Both Apple and Microsoft are afraid of middleware solutions. That's why Microsoft corrupted Java & Javascript and Apple recently banned all non-Apple middleware tools on iPhone. The web 2.0 apps were built because people got tired of Microsoft monoculture. Web 2.0 is a crappy technology, but we haven't got anything better.