http://blogs.technet.com/b/srd/archive/2011/06/16/webgl-considered-harmful.aspx
They learned their lesson and I want a button for disabling HTML5 in my browser.
it called afraid,
microsoft haz a lot
why would the platform with more vulnerabilities talking about that
they want to keep with their html5 render engine, witch cost them a lot
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:00 AM, hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> http://blogs.technet.com/b/srd/archive/201
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 2:00 AM, hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> http://blogs.technet.com/b/srd/archive/2011/06/16/webgl-considered-harmful.aspx
>From the article:
"In its current form, WebGL is not a technology Microsoft can endorse
from a security perspective."
It doesn't sound any worse
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 6:00 AM, hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> http://blogs.technet.com/b/srd/archive/2011/06/16/webgl-considered-harmful.aspx
>
> They learned their lesson and I want a button for disabling HTML5 in my
> browser.
html5 and webgl are not the same thing
only one of them is
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:00:25PM +0200, hiro wrote:
> http://blogs.technet.com/b/srd/archive/2011/06/16/webgl-considered-harmful.aspx
>
> They learned their lesson and I want a button for disabling HTML5 in my
> browser.
>
They haven't learned anything.
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/
Honestly, I think they have a point. Sure, they don't have a leg to stand on in
this area, but look at Flash. All that allows is interaction with the mouse
and keyboard + video and sound playback, but not a week goes by without yet
another exploit being uncovered in it.
That could just be because t
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 04:40:21PM +0100, Rob wrote:
> It's a shame they didn't go into more detail, at the moment it could just be
> FUD spreading.
https://lwn.net/Articles/444672/?format=printable
The comments are also worth reading
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Rob wrote:
> Honestly, I think they have a point. Sure, they don't have a leg to stand on
> in
> this area, but look at Flash. All that allows is interaction with the mouse
> and keyboard + video and sound playback, but not a week goes by without yet
> another ex
On 06-17 16:40, Rob wrote:
Sure, they don't have a leg to stand on in this area
Not to defend Microsoft, but we're not in the Ninetees any more. Since
Vista, they have invested millions into security and flew in almost
every internationally known security researcher to break their stuff.
The
On 17.06.2011, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> html5 and webgl are not the same thing
>
> only one of them is *completely* stupid
html5 is everything bad we ever had in the web together in one
enormous steaming pile of shit.
If there is anything not at least 99% stupid in there it must be a
very lucky coin
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:46 PM, hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> html5 is everything bad we ever had in the web together in one
> enormous steaming pile of shit.
> If there is anything not at least 99% stupid in there it must be a
> very lucky coincidence, just some of thousand random bugs.
If I understand it correctly webgl just implements all these stupid
html5 features.
They never managed 2d in any timely, consistent manner and now they
complicate it further with 3d? I want html developers to leave me the
fuck alone and get a life.
> Not true! html5 frees us from xml bullshit, and most doctype idiocy.
Nope, all xml bullshit is included to be compatible.
Just like the fucking Microsoft bugfixes.
AS a web developer, I'll +1 Kurt on this one. The doctype bullshit is gone, and
we now FINALLY have a "one version to bind them". XHTML vs HTML is
stupid as hell. We finally get a modern, "all in one" solution that doesn't
require the XML bullshit that XHTML 1.0 needs. Granted - there's some shit
i
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 01:55:37PM -0400, Bryan Bennett wrote:
> Let's face it - the web is no longer focused on Gopher-like information
> presentation and gathering any longer. Live with it.
The Chrome browser source code is 155MB without libraries.
Its you and similar people who made the web to
The base problem is simple:
The Web is a hammer. It's a nice pretty hammer, but there's a lot of things
that aren't nails.
Somebody claiming to be Mate Nagy wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 01:55:37PM -0400, Bryan Bennett wrote:
> > Let's face it - the web is no longer focused on Gopher-like info
On the other hand with html5 we will finally have a good reason to ditch the web
altogether since it won't be good enough any more. I will look into
gopher again...
As I don't need in-browser video/audio (never understood the html5 webm craze) I
use a few scripts for direct playback on on tv and s
On 6/17/11, Mate Nagy wrote:
> The bastardization that began with HTTP 1.1, HTML 4.0 and CSS ruined the
> web, and the resulting mess will be unfixable until our civilization is
> wiped from the face of the earth. The only hope for a bright future in
> IT is swift death.
>
You're wrong; the bastar
HTML and JavaScript to be used for applications targeting Windows 8.Discuss.
If they only left the web alone I'd be ok with HTML+js applications.
The good thing about applications is you don't have to use them.
On 19.06.2011, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
> HTML and JavaScript to be used for applications targeting Windows 8.Discuss.
>
>
On 6/19/11, hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> The good thing about applications is you don't have to use them.
>
But some of us might have to write them. I do like the idea of Windows
applications adhering to an open standard, but I doubt that's what
they mean by "based on". On a second thought
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Bjartur Thorlacius
wrote:
> "WebApps" take all the power away from site
> administrators and give it to distributors.
Bingo.
--Andrew Hills
John Carmack: "I agree with Microsoft’s assessment that WebGL is a
severe security risk. The gfx driver culture is not the culture of
security."
http://twitter.com/#!/ID_AA_Carmack/status/81732190949486592
HTML5 is great, it is the final nail in the coffin of XML, and that
can only be a good thin
xml is of course even dumber, but not as harmful as html5. I think you
only see the bright sides.
I learned to live with xml, in the web it seldom bothered me.
Also your rhetoric sucks, I feel no joy hearing these stories about
nails and furniture.
And you think you can bury it alive?
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 13:40, Uriel wrote:
> HTML5 is great, it is the final nail in the coffin of XML, and that
> can only be a good thing, of course it will take decade
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:35 AM, hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Also your rhetoric sucks, I feel no joy hearing these stories about
> nails and furniture.
Maybe I'm being insensitive to your culture, but are you sure coffins
are furniture?
--Andrew Hills
Maybe he's dracula or something...
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:38, Andrew Hills wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:35 AM, hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Also your rhetoric sucks, I feel no joy hearing these stories about
>> nails and furniture.
>
> Maybe I'm being insensitive to your cult
I'm not dracula!
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 5:11 PM, hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I'm not dracula!
Count Orlok then. Way more badass.
Quoth Mate Nagy:
> Incidentally, the last version of the Web that was any good, and the
> purpose and function of web pages that are still usable to some degree
> in this day and age, is still the same - Gopher-like information
> presentation and gathering.
>
> The bastardization that began with H
Hey,
On 17 June 2011 19:02, Mate Nagy wrote:
> PS. gopher owns
On 22 June 2011 21:15, Nick wrote:
> P.S. I still have plans for a Gopher hole of my own some day.
Gopher is an extremely broken protocol, for very different reasons
than HTTP. I have plans for a new Gopher-like protocol of my own
31 matches
Mail list logo
