Re: Venting on .NET

My view is this: if it won't work with passive HTML, screw it. I don't do online
banking, and I only order from places that do not attack my machine. I do not deal with
sites that require Flash or any form of client side scripting. I refuse to deal with
Flash-based sites because they clearly think that the tiny ego of the Web designer is more
important than delivering information to me.

I regularly refer to the technologies as ActiveVirus, JavaVirus and VBVirus. There is no
way I will ever allow any unsecurable code that comes in over the Internet to execute on
my machine,.

I consider the fact that these technologies execute with the privileges of the logged-in
user, and therefore can modify the Registry, my file system, or any other part of my
machine state without my being able to exercise any control over them, is an act bordering
on, if not already into, the level of criminal irresponsibility.

What is apalling about a lot of .NET applications I've seen is that they say "must run
with all privileges or they will not work at all", which demonstrates both technical
incompetence on the part of the programmers and a degree of sociopathic behavior more
suited for terrorists. Sites that use client-side scripting should be thought of as being
created either by irresponsible children or cyberterrorists. Unless I can protect my
machine from all possible side effects of rogue scripts, they are not worth running.
joe

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 05:03:28 +1000, Ian Semmel <isemmelNOJUNK@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>I have noticed that over the past year, more and more web sites won't work with
>anything other than Internet Explorer. eg my bank's online site just doesn't
>show drop-down menus when using firefox. I assume that this is because
>programmers are using some simple pre-packaged .NET designs.
>
>David Ching wrote:
>> "Joseph M. Newcomer" <newcomer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:29hhr15mb356rtq51tv59pa1eemtsbrodo@xxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>>It is bizarre. FIrst, there is no good definition of what ".NET" means,
>>>and the term is
>>>thrown around in so many contexts that it is hard to figure out who is
>>>saying what about
>>>it. Perhaps the reference is to C#, which is often erroneously called
>>>".NET", but it is
>>>just a language that uses the Common Language Runtime.
>>>
>>>C# would have had a lot more acceptance if it had a doc/view architecture.
>>
>>
>> Well, the Doc/View support belongs in the .NET framework, not in C#, similar
>> to how it is in the MFC framework and not in C++.
>>
>>
>>
>>>But of course,
>>>the power of this paradigm was discarded when the C# libraries were
>>>created, because who
>>>in their right mind would want to do something with a document/view
>>>architecture?
>>
>>
>> I believe WinForms are meant to provide a richer, but similar, experience to
>> Web apps. It's really amazing the how simple web apps are to use.
>> Obviously we all order things online, access our accounts online, etc. and
>> there are no help files required! I think Microsoft is intent on making
>> their apps approach the simplicity of Web apps, which is how their MS Money
>> app is evolving. Also, no mainstream MS apps use Doc/View. I think their
>> philosophy is Doc/View is a niche market that doesn't scale well. And
>> indeed it doesn't. Some of the Doc/View apps I've seen open many windows
>> that are hard to manage and spread all manner of settings all over the
>> place. Doc/View is better for small-medium apps. I use it myself, but it
>> isn't a panacea.
>>
>> -- David
>> http://www.dcsoft.com
>>
>>
Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP]
email: newcomer@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: http://www.flounder.com
MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Venting on .NET
    ... I have noticed that over the past year, more and more web sites won't work with anything other than Internet Explorer. ... C# would have had a lot more acceptance if it had a doc/view architecture. ... I believe WinForms are meant to provide a richer, but similar, experience to Web apps. ... Obviously we all order things online, access our accounts online, etc. and there are no help files required! ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.mfc)
  • Re: Venting on .NET
    ... > C# would have had a lot more acceptance if it had a doc/view architecture. ... It's really amazing the how simple web apps are to use. ... Obviously we all order things online, access our accounts online, etc. and ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.mfc)
  • Re: Maybe Safari 4 actually is for Windows
    ... Normal desktop apps can have their individual views accessed from ... And using the term "cloud" for it is more precise. ... There is something web apps do that desktop apps don't, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Question regarding adoption (or not) of online office applicat
    ... soon to be) a viable replacement to desktop office applications. ... I am also hesitant about including "features" as a criteria since ... whether online applications are better than desktop applications. ... If it's vital that you be able to use your documents and apps from any internet ...
    (microsoft.public.office.misc)
  • Re: Delphi roadmap from the .NET perspective...
    ... intelligence, not necessarily as web-based apps, i.e. apps that are ... applications that have been made to work in browser, for, say ... I also view web apps ... XAML can be streamed such that, in newer versions of Virtual ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)