Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IE11 to support WebGL

microsoft-news.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 136 posts

Re: IE11 to support WebGL

#101

Post by pests »

tmzt wrote: post #65
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually I groan when people complain about the Malware features in Chrome in relation to privacy but this is definitely one I'd not heard of. The hash of the whole file is bad enough, but even if it were unique, the full URL could easily contain sensitive information or information about the file contents.

why wouldn't it be a hash of the download URL only?

Perhaps they are worried about the same url being used to serve multiple files. Eg: example.php/download/invoice.pdf might be customer / order specific.

Re: IE11 to support WebGL

#102

Post by mtgx »

Will Microsoft support the full OpenGL on Windows, too, now? Or will they just run WebGL through Google's ANGLE project?

At least Google had the "excuse" to use it because they couldn't put OpenGL on Windows themselves, so they had to translate DirectX to OpenGL to make WebGL work.

What's Microsoft's excuse? They should support OpenGL and allow Google and Mozilla to use the OpenGL API's directly, too. Then we'll all get faster, and possibly richer WebGL.

Re: IE11 to support WebGL

#103

Post by hudo »

sampk wrote: post #70
idupree wrote: post #50

What engineering did they do to reduce the security risk? As much as I like WebGL as a dev, Microsoft's arguments against feeding arbitrary machine code to buggy graphics cards that have kernel-level memory access privileges... seemed a bit convincing.

Who cares. Typical way: Download game -> Confirm execution -> Play WebGL way: Confirm execution -> Play

or: WebGL way: wait for textures and other stuff to download -> play

Re: IE11 to support WebGL

#104

Post by pjmlp »

camus wrote: post #73
adrr wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They need to support these newer browsers on older operating systems. If the OS is still being actively patched, new browsers should be made backwards compatible to work on it otherwise we'll have exact same problem with IE8 on XP and IE9 on Vista. And soon to be IE10 on Windows 7.

Their business model is to sell os , MSFT never did anything for free.

Like all vendors that depend on direct software sales.

Re: IE11 to support WebGL

#105

Post by hatu »

judah wrote: post #4

Credit to Microsoft for reversing their previous stance on WebGL. Credit to Mozilla for pushing 3d on the web and forcing the issue. Any browser that doesn't implement WebGL will soon be considered crippled; Microsoft desperately wants to avoid that title again, so in a way, Mozilla forced their hand. Competition at work.

Now let's see when mobile browsers start to support it. Probably 3 years from now for any meaningful support.

Re: IE11 to support WebGL

#106

Post by nailer »

jimmaswell wrote: post #77
judah wrote: post #4

Credit to Microsoft for reversing their previous stance on WebGL. Credit to Mozilla for pushing 3d on the web and forcing the issue. Any browser that doesn't implement WebGL will soon be considered crippled; Microsoft desperately wants to avoid that title again, so in a way, Mozilla forced their hand. Competition at work.

"Any browser that doesn't implement WebGL will soon be considered crippled" Really? I don't think WebGL is that important. What's it really good for besides laggy browser games? What's with the hype on browser games anyway? They're always going to perform much slower than native code. I don't see WebGL becoming such a critical aspect of browsing that the average user would consider IE "crippled" for not supporting it…

ASM is only 2x slower than native (it was 10x prior to) and will be 1.5 soon. With a way better distribution model. Have you seen UE3 or UE4 demos?

Re: IE11 to support WebGL

#107

Post by CJefferson »

mtgx wrote: post #102

Will Microsoft support the full OpenGL on Windows, too, now? Or will they just run WebGL through Google's ANGLE project? At least Google had the "excuse" to use it because they couldn't put OpenGL on Windows themselves, so they had to translate DirectX to OpenGL to make WebGL work. What's Microsoft's excuse? They should support OpenGL and allow Google and Mozilla to use the OpenGL API's directly, too. Then we'll all…

OpenGL on Windows is a driver issue. Some hardware manufacturers make opengl drivers, of varying quality. I'm not clear what you want Microsoft to do?

Re: IE11 to support WebGL

#108

Post by snogglethorpe »

Paradigma11 wrote: post #92
cmccabe wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The security claims were bullshit. For details see: http://games.greggman.com/game/webgl-security-and-microsoft-... tl;dr: While it was talking up the security risk of WebGL, Microsoft was allowing Silverlight to permit untrusted code to access graphics APIs in exactly the same way. Chrome validates everything before calling the actual driver APIs, so the opportunities for fuzzing are limited.

But in SL you had to specifically and manually whitelist the website to allow access to the graphics api.

If it's a user-accessible WL, that doesn't actually add much security of course, because it's pretty simple to get users to add to the whitelist ("To play our awesome game online, open up the preferences dialogue and ...").

Re: IE11 to support WebGL

#109

Post by andybak »

pbsdp wrote: post #82
troymc wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to dream up an amazing and popular application of WebGL, now that a majority of web browsers will be supporting it. It might not be a game. Warning: imagination required.

It's hard to dream big about the browsers getting the modern iteration of something we've had in some form since 1992.

You are assuming that a delivery mechanism can't be transformative.

Re: IE11 to support WebGL

#110

Post by ajuc »

snogglethorpe wrote: post #108
Paradigma11 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But in SL you had to specifically and manually whitelist the website to allow access to the graphics api.

If it's a user-accessible WL, that doesn't actually add much security of course, because it's pretty simple to get users to add to the whitelist ("To play our awesome game online, open up the preferences dialogue and ...").

It would be still useful to ask users before enabling WebGL on a site the first time. I would certainly think twice before enabling webgl if a site doesn't seem to need it. It could work like flash content with flashblock extention.
Post reply on HN