SP2 vs. the plug-ins
is the by-product of the rested mind of Paul Festa, "Staff Writer" at CNET.
First of all, we learn that Microsoft decided to put a hold on the Internet Explorer plugin architecture called ActiveX. My point is that plugins are those things used by Netscape Navigator and they were supported until Internet Explorer 5.5. Therefore, plugins have died around 2000. ActiveX are not plugins for Internet Explorer, because ActiveX controls can be inserted in Office documents or Corel drawings. If Paul really wants, we may call them Windows plugins.
But the most funny thing we learn is that Microsoft is breaking the ActiveX mechanism with the declared will to break the security troubles, but with the undeclared and mean aim of pushing .NET framework, because the small ActiveX gadgets downloaded faster (and allowed an increased income for independent ISVs) that the "bulky" .NET framework. This pearl of wisdom was offered by Alex St. John, who worked at Microsoft during the ActiveX debut (1995).
May I add that ActiveX needs a runtime? That runtime was provided by files bundled with operating system. Installing that runtime was mandatory, and I bet they were close to the current .NET framework size (cca. 20 MB). Updates came (DCOM 1.3 for Windows 95 sounds familiar?) and ISVs did their best to distribute them. Microsoft bundled .NET in its latest Windows product (Windows 2003 Server) and it will be bundled with the upcoming Longhorn (even its Windows Explorer is written in .NET, I saw him running with snail speed and crashing with large and explicit message boxes). In the mean time, devs who jumped on .NET bandwagon are doing their best to spread the framework, exactly as they did with the update for DCOM. Indeed, that update was 10 times smaller and the basic ActiveX was already there, but it is basically the same thing.
Anyway, the bundling issue has become a little more sensitive now than 9 years ago, but Microsoft is still spreading their new technologies with their team of evangelists, each with their lured groupies.
St. John, for example, noted that by switching from common Web technologies to Microsoft’s .Net framework and the C# programming language, he would be able to bypass the new ActiveX security protocol.
Of course that’s happening, because sandboxed .NET gadgets won’t hurt a thing, while installed ActiveX can do a lot of damage. I find Microsoft’s decision to block the dummy dialog "Do you want to install this worm?" is a good one.
Searching news.com.com for "activex" and "threat" gives 400 results in Google. Now there’s another threat, probably the danger of missing an easy bash on Microsoft.