--- Philip S Tellis philip.tellis@gmx.net wrote:

On 9 Mar 2004, Venkatesh (Venky) Hariharan wrote:

...

  * Getting Internet Explorer working (natively?) on Linux (This
    will be of particular help in increasing the penetration of
    Linux in banks since many banking applications, though browser
    based, are optimized to work on Linux)

I think you really don't want this to happen. IE really messes up the standards. By making IE work on all machines, you'll just encourage people to make IE only sites. We should really be looking at porting these applications to work on standards compliant browsers.

Philip

What ever IE do achievable in Mozilla. See pojects at http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/mozilla.htm

1. Mozilla ActiveX Control Embed the Mozilla browser engine (Gecko) into any ActiveX application. This control implements the same APIs as the Internet Explorer control making porting of existing applications reasonably straightforward.

2. ActiveX Control For Plug-ins Embed plug-ins in any ActiveX application. This control can host most Netscape Plug-in API (LiveConnect) plug-ins, allowing them to use them in your existing ActiveX applications, including Internet Explorer.

3. Plug-in For ActiveX controls Embed ActiveX controls in any NP API application. This plug-in hosts ActiveX controls allowing them to be used in browser such as Netscape 4.x/6.x, Mozilla and Opera.

___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

--- Philip S Tellis philip.tellis@gmx.net wrote:

I don't think so. Things that IE can do that Mozilla cannot:

• run viruses
• allow remote users to gain access to your system (some

versions)

• crash windows

In any case, the problem really is that some sites have code like this:

if(navigator.appName != MSIE) alert("your browser won't work with this site");

(well, not exactly, but you get the picture)

We need to convert these sites to remove this code.

Actually..any website development project starts off with a brief about which browsers they want to support. As of now, to save costs and time and to hide ignorance about standards and other browsers, most project leaders take the easy way out and "standardise' on IE. This way the developers dont need to work much, since only IE compatibility has to be tested, the client gets his site up faster, and everyone's happy..

regds, Kishor

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com

Sometime on Mar 13, Venkatesh (Venky) Hariharan assembled some asciibets to say:

line also? That way, those browsing the archives would get to find info they are looking for faster. A more appropriate subject line

I've found that on this list, no one really cares about people who would browse the archives. It is far easier to unsubscribe than it is to make such suggestions on a repeated basis.

...

3. Plug-in For ActiveX controls Embed ActiveX controls in any NP API application.

This plug-in

...

hosts ActiveX controls allowing them to be used in browser such as Netscape 4.x/6.x, Mozilla and Opera.

In which case, I will just uninstall those browsers. How about requiring that not everything run via the web? How about running applications via actual executables? Its not a hard thing to do.

But what will happen to our brilliant Java programmers? :)

--- Devdas Bhagat devdas@dvb.homelinux.org wrote:

On 11/03/04 21:09 +0000, Biju G C wrote:

<snip> > 1. Mozilla ActiveX Control > Embed the Mozilla browser engine (Gecko) into any > ActiveX application. This control implements the same > APIs as the Internet Explorer control making porting of > existing applications reasonably straightforward. Uh oh. So instead of getting a sane manual page, we will get Mozilla popping up, or worse, a current page being hijacked by another application. And Mozilla is not the only browser around.

you miss understood pl. read http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/control.htm

No monster will popup

[quote] Standalone Mozilla ActiveX Control installers. Note these contain just the control and the parts of Mozilla Gecko it needs to function. It does not contain the full Mozilla browser. [/quote]

(sorry, this is going off-topic for the list) right now in MS-Win world if an application programmer want to show an Image on his screen it is possible. what if he wants to add window/box with content as image and text together like a web page in his application earlier Mozilla/Netscape only allowed to open it as an external program. But IE provided it as a control.

So companies like AOL started to provide their on browser with reentering component as this IE control (with also came all the bad behaviors of IE) And Netscape lost the battle in that sector.

[quote]

Why?

Previous versions of Netscape Communicator/Navigator were arguably superior to IE as day to day browsers but they suffered through their immediate usability and modularity. Although the Netscape browser was great as a standalone application, it wasn't possible to utilize that functionality in third party applications. On the other hand, Internet Explorer shipped with an ActiveX control which allowed exactly that ability.

Take a look at some of the applications that already use the IE control:

* AOL - For displaying a web pages in the AOL client * Encyclopaedia Britannica (CD) * Microsoft Encarta Encyclopaedia & World Atlas (Globe) * Microsoft Outlook - For HTML mail * Microsoft Studio - For online help * Qualcomm Eudora - For HTML mail * Neoplanet - Another skin, this time commercial * Custom Browser - Made to measure browsers * Active Worlds -VR conferencing that allows browsing in a pane * Intuit Quicken - For reports and statements * TopStyle A spiffy style sheet editor * Allaire Coldfusion - Web site authoring and server side scripting package.

There are hundreds of others apps, some commercial and probably many more running in intranets all over the world.

So what would it take for developers to use the Mozilla control as opposed to the IE control?

* An API close as possible to Internet Explorer's for ease of porting * Freely available source code to allow for bug fixing, customization, etc. * A very small distributable - 3-4Mb (for a download containing just the Gecko embedding engine and not the full Mozilla) compared to the 10Mb+ required for IE * State of the art rendering - exploit the speed and standards compliance of the Gecko rendering engine * No more nasty IE license - have you read it?

[/quote]

Another use of this control is to run a XUL-application inside IE or any other Win32-Application.

If you have a MS-windows PC you can try this Install http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/MozillaControl16.exe and open http://quicktools.mozdev.org/test/test1.html

This will encourage developers to make xul application even for the use of IE users. This in turn helps GNU/Linux users because they already can view XUL apps in Mozilla Hence this is the part I am more interested !!!

...

2. ActiveX Control For Plug-ins Embed plug-ins in any ActiveX application. This

control can host most Netscape Plug-in API (LiveConnect) plug-ins, allowing them to use them in your existing ActiveX applications, including Internet Explorer.

Why exactly should I want to use ActiveX, given that this is essentially allowing an untrusted third party access to files on my filesystem?

What is bad if a MS App developer use Mozilla plugin. Again this is not for GNU/Linux

...

3. Plug-in For ActiveX controls Embed ActiveX controls in any NP API application. This plug-in

hosts ActiveX controls allowing them to be used in browser such as Netscape 4.x/6.x, Mozilla and Opera.

In which case, I will just uninstall those browsers. How about requiring that not everything run via the web? How about running applications via actual executables? Its not a hard thing to do.

This I dont like. But majority of world want it, if they should to switch back to mozilla

And people switching back to Mozilla is good for GNU/Linux

___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

Eh? So what stops people from installing Mozilla to view XUL pages?

Ignorance

What is wrong with the idea of cross browser applications, *if* they MUST be web based?

HTML is not a lanaguage for applications it is for documents

java is fine. But XUL is open source.

<rant> I use lynx, links and Mozilla about equally Do I care about graphics? Not necessarily. Do I care about usability? Yes. Do I care about standards compliance? Yes Do I care about IE or Konqueror or Dillo or ....? No. Are my pages usable in those browsers? Yes. </rant>

I completely agree with you

Because those Windows boxes on the network affect the usability of *my* network. Because all those viruses which spread through bugs in ActiveX affect *my* mail server, through sheer volume. They affect my network by filling it with useless traffic. All those viruses which offer SMTP services to spammers run on Windows systems. Quite a few of them walk in via ActiveX bugs.

I accept with your reason, but want you to take action. Pl. sue who gave chance for Spam

Alternative is we need a migration path.

Because there is big river we need to cross Some youngsters are strong enough to swim and cross it But I have family with old and young members Some are even ill.

___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

Why don't you put it up on Sourceforge? That way others can also contribute to the development of Vani.

Venky

On Sun, 2004-03-14 at 05:07, Harsh Jain wrote:

Hello Everybody,

We are a team of undergraduates from CSE Department IIT Bombay,working on an Indian Language Text to Speech Synthesizer. Our project homepage is at

http://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/vani/

It runs only on Linux now :).Might be of interest and help to some. Its in development stage rightnow.

Thanks, harsh

Will be doing that very soon. It will be very soon on sourceforge.net. And I assure nothing will be deleted till then :)

Regards, Harsh

On 14 Mar 2004, Venkatesh (Venky) Hariharan wrote:

=>Why don't you put it up on Sourceforge? That way others can also =>contribute to the development of Vani. => =>Venky => => => =>On Sun, 2004-03-14 at 05:07, Harsh Jain wrote: =>> Hello Everybody, =>> =>> We are a team of undergraduates from CSE Department IIT Bombay,working on =>> an Indian Language Text to Speech Synthesizer. Our project homepage is at =>> =>> http://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/vani/ =>> =>> It runs only on Linux now :).Might be of interest and help to some. Its in =>> development stage rightnow. =>> =>> Thanks, =>> harsh =>> => => =>

Harsh, I would strongly urge you to persuade your professors that the Vani project should be hosted on a community web site under GPL at the earliest possible instance.

I am sure IIT-B has excellent mirror and backup solutions to do away with the disk-failure excuse.

Also, are you willing to give the students grades for code that has been contributed by people other than the group that was assigned the task by their evaluator? AFAIK, most student projects are just that - during the period of assignment and execution, they are hacked on by the students themselves. They might choose to release it under xGPL and put it up on sf.net after that.

Don't make the task of student evaluation any more complex!! Its fairly complicated as it is.

-- cheers