AO on MS response to Java:
As a web developer, I have some problems with this scheme. Giving Microsoft access to virtually every OLE control on the Web does not make me more secure. Sounds like a way to rip off ideas from the rest of the development world. If someone has a control that might compete with a Microsoft product, it could be shelved and/or delayed for "further security testing".
Java has a decentralized mechanism for security. No one group controls what is a "certified" control and what is not. You write the code and compile it and that is that. Furthermore, you are not stuck with Microsoft approved platforms. (I wonder if there will ever be a version of Explorer for the Mac.)
I expect the Microsoft plan to garner a bit of resistance from the Web development community over this one...
I think this is a very good example of why nobody should bemoan Java. when it was first introduced I heard a lot of grouching and sniping at this really outstanding software (that was admittedly overhyped). but look what we could have gotten as the first potential standard: the above system. MS was apparently caught completely off guard with Java. they had not a clue about what it was about, why it was important, and scrambled to deal with it. they have apparently only reluctantly licensed it as a temporary ploy. the above motions suggest they ultimately want to control this standard. all the MS responses to Java outside of licensing it appear to me to be pathetically missing the point. they don't seem to understand why Java is so important, namely its decentralized security model you refer to. you cannot create this by adding a few function calls on top of an already insecure language like Visual Basic. it has to be done incredibly carefully from the ground up as it was done with Java. I don't think people realize how carefully this language was constructed, it was developed extremely delicately in a way unlike many other languages. this is a real breakthrough in software that theoretically creates a "secure" programming environment, something that has been sought for decades and is now being delivered to the desktop due to some very hard work and visionary effort. I noticed that Denning, in her Leahy protest letter, referred to glowingly of this MS "endorsement" scheme. I have a very bad suspicion that MS is like a dog that rolls over whenever the NSA comes to visit them and tell them how to write their software (apparently this happens routinely). anyway, I totally agree with you that their centralized scheme is really horrible, and its inferiority and headaches are likely to be spotted and yowled about by many developers as you write. there is no probably no need to fear MS's schemes at the moment. as long as they have an inferior standard its not going to gain much attention or use and Java already has a very intense momentum going. just because MS does something in some area is not necessarily reason to take them seriously. they have had situations where they come out with stuff that never turns into anything and silently evaporates like all companies have. (far less than others, but nonetheless) one thing I just don't really understand about MS is their seeming drive to conquer every market. it seems that whenever a new software market emerges they feel they have to invade it and dominate it like pirates. this has a lot to do with the psychology of Bill Gates. the idea that "gosh, somebody else has already done that really well, and it would be awfully tought to beat them, let's not bother with that" seems to be lost in that environment completely. instead, it is, "oh no!! they are beating us!! we have to make a better widget or we'll all die!!" -- a good example of competition taken to extremely unhealthy extremes imho. I suspect like others that MS' glory days are receding and in fact all extremely large companies may undergo major shifts once our economy fully shifts into the information age.