why flash MX 2004 doesn't work for the enterprise, yet (was Re: [Sigia-l] The future of WWW...)

[Dave]

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 16:22:38 -0400, Listera <listera at rcn.com> wrote:
> > This is why Flash and XUL are not real solutions for me. B/c they themselves
> > are just alternative solutions.
> 
> Alternative to what? Flash is supposed to have better penetration than any
> single version of Windows.
> 
> > They don't interroperate and they cause yet another layer of choice like Real
> > vs. WMP vs. Quicktime.
> 
> Flash MX interoperates with: Mac, Linux, Win, HTTP, HTML, XML, SOAP, J2EE
> and soon .NET, among others.

But Flash doesn't interrop w/ XUL, CURL or other RIA technologies.
While Flash is x-platform (thank g-d), it is does not interrop w/
other distributed GUI technologies and thus it is its own sandbox, no?
I totally get the x-platform thing though and concede the total value
there. Like I said, I am totally a fan of flash for many reasons.

> > Back to Flash ... I'm a huge advocate for flash, but b/c it is built
> > on the plug-in architecture it is not viable for many compliant and
> > secure industries (maybe that is on purpose from MS).
> 
> What do you mean? New Flash MX has a deployment strategy that explicitly
> restricts it to approved domains that some developers find "too secure."

Ah! but there is a huge cultural thing here. 
Flash is secure yes.
However, flash runs (for most users) in the ActiveX control area. This
in many enterprises is just plain turned off. Not at the firewall
level, but in the IE deployment level. Signed or not, activeX is just
turned off. How can we get around this at the corporate enterprise
level? This will be a slow train to get out of the platform, no?

-- dave