111–120 of 136 posts
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.
now, where do they stand on WebRTC?
They waited until WebRTC was about to be ratified and then released their own incompatible spec.
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 ...").
Ultimately though, that is the difference between a drive by infection and user interaction required. In the same way people on the whole now are too savy to download the super-awesome-screensaver or whatever, plenty are smart enough to not say yes to some prompt.
The security model of Silverlight dare is say, is superior to that of WebGL. The guys blog post doesn't actually help the issue of "Is WebGL a worrying attack vector?" instead it starts a seperate concern about Silverlight.
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.
> Credit to Microsoft for reversing their previous stance on WebGL. One cant believe anything MS says. And it's another proof of that. Remember when WebGL wasnt "secure"? Strange , now it is. I say bull* , like their bull Venture Capital sh*t. But I guess they have enough spare change to do community management on HN ( ie propaganda ), looking at all the MS spin here.
I wouldn't tar the entire organisation with the same brush.
There is hope yet!
Microsoft expects every printer manufacturer to write some kind of custom shim for every printer, just for Internet Explorer. Totally defeating decades of software evolution, in which the OS handles tasks like printing and file management, so those don't have to be rewritten by every developer thousands of times.
with each major release IE promises being better. which is true for an extent but they also introduce new bugs so our css / html has different hacks for each version
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.
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 ...").
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.
That would indeed be a bad idea. This is not how WebGL works. There's a translation layer that gets the WebGL calls and relays them to the graphics drivers after determining the calls are safe.
This layer can have bugs of course, like other sandboxes (javascript, flash, etc).