Topic: Developers should port add-ons to IE because . . . its harder?  (Read 4713 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 12581
Developers should port add-ons to IE because . . . its harder?
« on: December 12, 2008, 06:24:46 am »
Link to full article

Quote
Is there a good reason to build a browser add-on for Internet Explorer as well as Firefox? Yes, according to Microsoft IE evangelist Joshua Allen. Building an add-on for IE is so difficult, he said, your browser app competitors won't even bother.

"It's harder to write apps for IE - so it's a harder market for competitors to get into," Allen told developers this morning at Add-on-Con, a Mountain View, California, mini-conference dedicated to, yes, building browser add-ons.


Quote
Allen acknowledged that add-on makers are more likely to launch their tools on Firefox, a platform that offers real developer tools. He even said that launching on Firefox is the way to go because Michael "TechCrunch" Arrington is more likely to review your product. Arrington - blogging's king maker to start ups - is a Mac man, and Macs don't run IE.

But Allen is happy to say IE 8 will solve the developer tools problem. And he insisted that although porting add-ons to IE is annoying, it can be done. "With Firefox, you've got this more enthusiast audience, more of a controlled test bed. It's a good place to try out ideas before porting them to Internet Explorer," he said.


:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

I suppose he must be addressing those who make add ons for use on specific websites or internally within a company.  Most of the popular addons to Firefox are non commercial.
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."

Offline toasty0

  • Application.Quit();
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 8045
  • Gender: Male
Re: Developers should port add-ons to IE because . . . its harder?
« Reply #1 on: December 13, 2008, 12:22:15 pm »
Link to full article

Quote
Is there a good reason to build a browser add-on for Internet Explorer as well as Firefox? Yes, according to Microsoft IE evangelist Joshua Allen. Building an add-on for IE is so difficult, he said, your browser app competitors won't even bother.

"It's harder to write apps for IE - so it's a harder market for competitors to get into," Allen told developers this morning at Add-on-Con, a Mountain View, California, mini-conference dedicated to, yes, building browser add-ons.


Quote
Allen acknowledged that add-on makers are more likely to launch their tools on Firefox, a platform that offers real developer tools. He even said that launching on Firefox is the way to go because Michael "TechCrunch" Arrington is more likely to review your product. Arrington - blogging's king maker to start ups - is a Mac man, and Macs don't run IE.

But Allen is happy to say IE 8 will solve the developer tools problem. And he insisted that although porting add-ons to IE is annoying, it can be done. "With Firefox, you've got this more enthusiast audience, more of a controlled test bed. It's a good place to try out ideas before porting them to Internet Explorer," he said.


:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

I suppose he must be addressing those who make add ons for use on specific websites or internally within a company.  Most of the popular addons to Firefox are non commercial.


Can't charge for something no one will pay for...
MCTS: SQL Server 2005 | MCP: Windows Server 2003 | MCTS: Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist | MCT: Microsoft Certified Trainer | MOS: Microsoft Office Specialist 2003 | VSP: VMware Sales Professional | MCTS: Vista

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 12581
Re: Developers should port add-ons to IE because . . . its harder?
« Reply #2 on: December 13, 2008, 01:35:46 pm »
Can't charge for something no one will pay for...

Have you tried any of them? 

Many of them give you elements of control that you may want.  Noscript and Noflash for example let you control whether things like javascript or flash videos run on a case by case basis.  Then there is download helper that lets you download flash so you can play it offline (great for those of us on dialup).  Those are examples of ones that people might very well pay for.  There are many more.

The truth is that like much OSS most of them are written by people to "scratch their own itch" and then shared freely with anyone who wants them.  Shared not because they couldn't be sold but because the creators choose to share them.
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."

Offline toasty0

  • Application.Quit();
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 8045
  • Gender: Male
Re: Developers should port add-ons to IE because . . . its harder?
« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2008, 08:19:56 pm »
Can't charge for something no one will pay for...

Have you tried any of them? 

Many of them give you elements of control that you may want.  Noscript and Noflash for example let you control whether things like javascript or flash videos run on a case by case basis.  Then there is download helper that lets you download flash so you can play it offline (great for those of us on dialup).  Those are examples of ones that people might very well pay for.  There are many more.

The truth is that like much OSS most of them are written by people to "scratch their own itch" and then shared freely with anyone who wants them.  Shared not because they couldn't be sold but because the creators choose to share them.

LOL...you should take my cookies away for being a bad boy. I knew you'd have to 'explain' open source.   :multi:
MCTS: SQL Server 2005 | MCP: Windows Server 2003 | MCTS: Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist | MCT: Microsoft Certified Trainer | MOS: Microsoft Office Specialist 2003 | VSP: VMware Sales Professional | MCTS: Vista

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 12581
Re: Developers should port add-ons to IE because . . . its harder?
« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2008, 08:26:15 pm »
Can't charge for something no one will pay for...

Have you tried any of them? 

Many of them give you elements of control that you may want.  Noscript and Noflash for example let you control whether things like javascript or flash videos run on a case by case basis.  Then there is download helper that lets you download flash so you can play it offline (great for those of us on dialup).  Those are examples of ones that people might very well pay for.  There are many more.

The truth is that like much OSS most of them are written by people to "scratch their own itch" and then shared freely with anyone who wants them.  Shared not because they couldn't be sold but because the creators choose to share them.

LOL...you should take my cookies away for being a bad boy. I knew you'd have to 'explain' open source.   :multi:

You didn't answer if you have tried them. 
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."

Offline toasty0

  • Application.Quit();
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 8045
  • Gender: Male
Re: Developers should port add-ons to IE because . . . its harder?
« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2008, 01:21:44 pm »
Can't charge for something no one will pay for...

Have you tried any of them? 

Many of them give you elements of control that you may want.  Noscript and Noflash for example let you control whether things like javascript or flash videos run on a case by case basis.  Then there is download helper that lets you download flash so you can play it offline (great for those of us on dialup).  Those are examples of ones that people might very well pay for.  There are many more.

The truth is that like much OSS most of them are written by people to "scratch their own itch" and then shared freely with anyone who wants them.  Shared not because they couldn't be sold but because the creators choose to share them.

LOL...you should take my cookies away for being a bad boy. I knew you'd have to 'explain' open source.   :multi:

You didn't answer if you have tried them. 

Why is that important? You going to strip me of my geek badges is I haven't?
MCTS: SQL Server 2005 | MCP: Windows Server 2003 | MCTS: Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist | MCT: Microsoft Certified Trainer | MOS: Microsoft Office Specialist 2003 | VSP: VMware Sales Professional | MCTS: Vista

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 12581
Re: Developers should port add-ons to IE because . . . its harder?
« Reply #6 on: December 14, 2008, 04:15:00 pm »
Why is that important? You going to strip me of my geek badges is I haven't?

I'd just like to know if your attack on them was based on actual experience or just bias.

The original article for example was based on a Microsoft employees recommendations.  Presumably since he is talking about his are of expertise and experience he knows what he is talking about.  If he has any bias it should be pro IE.
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."

Offline toasty0

  • Application.Quit();
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 8045
  • Gender: Male
Re: Developers should port add-ons to IE because . . . its harder?
« Reply #7 on: December 14, 2008, 04:28:13 pm »
Why is that important? You going to strip me of my geek badges is I haven't?

I'd just like to know if your attack on them was based on actual experience or just bias.

The original article for example was based on a Microsoft employees recommendations.  Presumably since he is talking about his are of expertise and experience he knows what he is talking about.  If he has any bias it should be pro IE.

Nem, please go back and re-read the thread. I was teasing you, but you bit harder then I thought you would to my taunt, and for that, I apologize.
MCTS: SQL Server 2005 | MCP: Windows Server 2003 | MCTS: Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist | MCT: Microsoft Certified Trainer | MOS: Microsoft Office Specialist 2003 | VSP: VMware Sales Professional | MCTS: Vista

Offline Pestalence_XC

  • "The Terminator"
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2636
  • Gender: Male
  • "The Terminator" Pestalence_XC, Xenocorp
Re: Developers should port add-ons to IE because . . . its harder?
« Reply #8 on: December 15, 2008, 12:04:18 am »
Noscript and Noflash for example let you control whether things like javascript or flash videos run on a case by case basis.

This is already built into IE 5 and newer.. it is the security settings.

Quote
Then there is download helper that lets you download flash so you can play it offline

If you are still using IE 7 or IE 8 Beta 1, then IE7Pro is the add-on you want.. it is an all in one plug-in component for IE that gives all the abilities of FireFox plug-ins and then some more.

I haven't seen and IE 8 Beta 2 compatible version of IE7Pro as of yet.. but I check their site once a month.. speaking of which, I need to check them this month.. its been more than 30 days since I last checked.
"You still don't get it, do you?......That's what he does. That's all he does! You can't stop him! It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead!"

Member :
Xenocorp / Dynaverse.net Moderator & Beta Test Team
SFC 4 Project QA Coordinator
Taldren Beta Test Team
14 Degrees East Beta Test Team
Activision Visioneers SFC 3 Beta Test Team

Offline Bonk

  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 13298
  • You don't have to live like a refugee.
Re: Developers should port add-ons to IE because . . . its harder?
« Reply #9 on: December 15, 2008, 05:42:26 am »
Noscript and Noflash for example let you control whether things like javascript or flash videos run on a case by case basis.

This is already built into IE 5 and newer.. it is the security settings.

Have you used Firefox with Noscript? There is no comparison in this functionality. Firefox can do the same without Noscript as well, but also in the settings dialogs, and not nearly as flexible.

I think what the original article was trying to say in over-simplified terms, is that Firefox has a lower barrier to add-ons (which include extensions and plugins), because many extensions can be written entirely in javascript or XUL. This is both its strength and its weakness. (I despise javascript) This approach may very well eventually be the downfall of Firefox, as much of the application itself is written in javascript.

Anyway, if you want to create a plugin to Internet Explorer (or Firefox), you're writing a dll in C, C++, C# or VB, and you'll actually have to compile it! The Horror!

Overall you will find better quality plugins for IE because of this, where you will find a lot more firefox extensions of lower quality. Though sometimes a quickie firefox javascript extension is all that is neeeded to do the job where a dll plugin would be overkill.

Definintions:

Addon = A plugin or an extension.
Extension = a firefox javascript/xul addon (which can call a dll if needed)
Plugin = an actual dll with platform native executable code addon.

The difference is not that obvious, and often confused.

Offline Pestalence_XC

  • "The Terminator"
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2636
  • Gender: Male
  • "The Terminator" Pestalence_XC, Xenocorp
Re: Developers should port add-ons to IE because . . . its harder?
« Reply #10 on: December 15, 2008, 02:54:49 pm »
A lot of IE plug-ins can be done in javascript and XML as well.. however IE won't operate sloppy code as well as firefox.

with IE, you actually have to know what you are doing to write a plug-in.. Firefox is great for beginners to create plug-ins.
"You still don't get it, do you?......That's what he does. That's all he does! You can't stop him! It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead!"

Member :
Xenocorp / Dynaverse.net Moderator & Beta Test Team
SFC 4 Project QA Coordinator
Taldren Beta Test Team
14 Degrees East Beta Test Team
Activision Visioneers SFC 3 Beta Test Team

Offline Bonk

  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 13298
  • You don't have to live like a refugee.
Re: Developers should port add-ons to IE because . . . its harder?
« Reply #11 on: December 15, 2008, 03:58:18 pm »
A lot of IE plug-ins can be done in javascript and XML as well..

Ack! *runs around room screaming*  :multi:

Bloody Javascript... and that silliness known as XML... Ack!  (not to be confused with mozilla's XUL)

I think I should load up lynx again, it always soothes me.  ;D


Offline toasty0

  • Application.Quit();
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 8045
  • Gender: Male
Re: Developers should port add-ons to IE because . . . its harder?
« Reply #12 on: December 15, 2008, 08:35:50 pm »
A lot of IE plug-ins can be done in javascript and XML as well..

Ack! *runs around room screaming*  :multi:

Bloody Javascript... and that silliness known as XML... Ack!  (not to be confused with mozilla's XUL)

I think I should load up lynx again, it always soothes me.  ;D



Looking at Zuel I think you might enjoy xaml.
MCTS: SQL Server 2005 | MCP: Windows Server 2003 | MCTS: Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist | MCT: Microsoft Certified Trainer | MOS: Microsoft Office Specialist 2003 | VSP: VMware Sales Professional | MCTS: Vista

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 12581
Re: Developers should port add-ons to IE because . . . its harder?
« Reply #13 on: December 16, 2008, 09:40:13 am »
Nem, please go back and re-read the thread. I was teasing you, but you bit harder then I thought you would to my taunt, and for that, I apologize.

Read it again yourself.  There is nothing there to indicate one way or the other.  I have discussed with people elsewhere who said the same thing and meant it.  There is no way I can see to tell from just those words if they are in jest or not when others do the same seriously.
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 12581
Re: Developers should port add-ons to IE because . . . its harder?
« Reply #14 on: December 16, 2008, 09:49:52 am »
Noscript and Noflash for example let you control whether things like javascript or flash videos run on a case by case basis.

This is already built into IE 5 and newer.. it is the security settings.

Quote
Then there is download helper that lets you download flash so you can play it offline

If you are still using IE 7 or IE 8 Beta 1, then IE7Pro is the add-on you want.. it is an all in one plug-in component for IE that gives all the abilities of FireFox plug-ins and then some more.

I haven't seen and IE 8 Beta 2 compatible version of IE7Pro as of yet.. but I check their site once a month.. speaking of which, I need to check them this month.. its been more than 30 days since I last checked.

Firefox 3.x on Linux Mint 5.  I stopped using IE on version 5.x when an update to IE 5 on my machine blocked me from accessing the internet.  The connection was made but nothing would transfer through any program.  Fortunately I had backed up the day before and was able to roll back.  I do very little browsing from Windows machines and all that on Firefox (or occasionally Konquerer).

I don't recall IE 5 having those features on the fly for ALL web sites.  The noflash utility blocks the transfer of flash unless you click on the icon it substitutes for the flash image.  I don't use noscript myself but as I understand it asks you (like a cookie) whether to run the script or not. 

One of the things about it not being all in one is that you can add those components when you want them and if you don't can leave them off.  I'm on dial up and don't want a 20 meg flash downloading, even a 1 meg flash is annoying if I don't have a particular desire for it.
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."

Offline toasty0

  • Application.Quit();
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 8045
  • Gender: Male
Re: Developers should port add-ons to IE because . . . its harder?
« Reply #15 on: December 16, 2008, 08:32:41 pm »
Nem, please go back and re-read the thread. I was teasing you, but you bit harder then I thought you would to my taunt, and for that, I apologize.

Read it again yourself.  There is nothing there to indicate one way or the other.  I have discussed with people elsewhere who said the same thing and meant it.  There is no way I can see to tell from just those words if they are in jest or not when others do the same seriously.

I thought the history of our debates would've been enough to frame my post. Obviously I was misstaken and have apologized for that error in judgment. You don't want toaccept my apology and instead lecture me about my post...well, Nem, that's on you.

:(
MCTS: SQL Server 2005 | MCP: Windows Server 2003 | MCTS: Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist | MCT: Microsoft Certified Trainer | MOS: Microsoft Office Specialist 2003 | VSP: VMware Sales Professional | MCTS: Vista

Offline Pestalence_XC

  • "The Terminator"
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2636
  • Gender: Male
  • "The Terminator" Pestalence_XC, Xenocorp
Re: Developers should port add-ons to IE because . . . its harder?
« Reply #16 on: December 16, 2008, 11:42:15 pm »
Noscript and Noflash for example let you control whether things like javascript or flash videos run on a case by case basis.

This is already built into IE 5 and newer.. it is the security settings.

Quote
Then there is download helper that lets you download flash so you can play it offline

If you are still using IE 7 or IE 8 Beta 1, then IE7Pro is the add-on you want.. it is an all in one plug-in component for IE that gives all the abilities of FireFox plug-ins and then some more.

I haven't seen and IE 8 Beta 2 compatible version of IE7Pro as of yet.. but I check their site once a month.. speaking of which, I need to check them this month.. its been more than 30 days since I last checked.

Firefox 3.x on Linux Mint 5.  I stopped using IE on version 5.x when an update to IE 5 on my machine blocked me from accessing the internet.  The connection was made but nothing would transfer through any program.  Fortunately I had backed up the day before and was able to roll back.  I do very little browsing from Windows machines and all that on Firefox (or occasionally Konquerer).

I don't recall IE 5 having those features on the fly for ALL web sites.  The noflash utility blocks the transfer of flash unless you click on the icon it substitutes for the flash image.  I don't use noscript myself but as I understand it asks you (like a cookie) whether to run the script or not. 

One of the things about it not being all in one is that you can add those components when you want them and if you don't can leave them off.  I'm on dial up and don't want a 20 meg flash downloading, even a 1 meg flash is annoying if I don't have a particular desire for it.

In IE, the way it works is in the security settings (Tools>Internet Options : Security tab) lets say you have your basic connection.. the first Icon in the window will allow you to configure your basic web service.. which is Medium Security.. this still allows Flash to transfer through.. Safe sites and restricted sites are your firewalled controlled connections...

Under internet .. if you set Active X Controls to Prompt, then every Active X item will prompt to run.. this includes advertisements on a web page, Java, and Flash / Shockwave / Adobe AIR / Authorware .. plus Active X controls used by Media Player, Quicktime, Real Player, etc.. it will ask your permission for each item to be played / run.

Setting to Disable will completely turn them off on web sites you visit.

In IE 6, to re-enable or to get rid of the prompts, you have to go back into the Security settings.. in IE 7 and 8, it shows up as a yellow bar at the top of your window and you can choode to allow the Active X control to run or not.. plus you can have it run on specific sites and not others, or you can enable full access (Same settings as Safe Zone in the security tab)

Having the option in the display window.. no (IE 5 and 6).. it uses prompts asking for permission.. once you say no, if you do want to see the content, you will have to refresh / reload the page using the address bar.

A bit more secure than running a JavaScript Blocker in your browser.. IE's is integrated into the browser programming, and is checked each month for vunerabilities (which is why Adobe is on v10 now)... However once it is set, only a really good system infection can change the settings.. well that and the system Admin.

"You still don't get it, do you?......That's what he does. That's all he does! You can't stop him! It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead!"

Member :
Xenocorp / Dynaverse.net Moderator & Beta Test Team
SFC 4 Project QA Coordinator
Taldren Beta Test Team
14 Degrees East Beta Test Team
Activision Visioneers SFC 3 Beta Test Team

Offline Bonk

  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 13298
  • You don't have to live like a refugee.
Re: Developers should port add-ons to IE because . . . its harder?
« Reply #17 on: December 17, 2008, 05:51:33 am »
A bit more secure than running a JavaScript Blocker in your browser.. IE's is integrated into the browser programming, and is checked each month for vunerabilities (which is why Adobe is on v10 now)... However once it is set, only a really good system infection can change the settings.. well that and the system Admin.

Easy there, Firefox has basically the same capabilities built in as well. Noscript just makes it very convenient to access and control. Which is rather handy on bandwidth challenged connections like dial-up.