Buzzen Chats New Layout and Design.

As Yahoo knows I like the black theme more. Not too font of the emots..and I just realised why after reading Josh's post..I don't use object ones that much so I don't really like them lol.I also never liked the icons instead of the text for 'More rooms/Options' etc so the black theme suits me more.

I use Buzzen ( and still am in speaking terms with Gwen!!! ). I don't understand the whole terminology ( ocx vs ajax) but right now ( and I think it was expected) chatting there with FF is a MAJOR pain in the butt. I may enjoy it more after they fix that .

1 of the new themes more in the works!

And how much time to load this page with a 512 Kbps connection ?

Ajax is fine for asynchronous applications and not for synchronous uses as a live chat server

It's nice, that's true, but only nice and probably not has relevant as an activex/java applet/flash control implementation.

Last point, I seen your quote about 32/64 bits system. If you use a 32 bits OS with a 64 bits processor, then your system is ALWAYS slower than with a 64 bits OS, because in this case, processor emulates 32 bits, and emulation = slower

<mirc user i like my emots :-) ô¿ô

layout looks good yahoo, i like the emots though i could see how if used to excess some might get annoyed. i semi-promise i wouldn't steal the emots.

Today, ocx are no longer a security hole for users[emphasis mine]. But ajax used with a chat server, could create new security holes, currently not know on chats with ocx.

No offence, but that was hilarious . Ocx has full access to windows API, once a user accepts to run it. AJAX client is no more than javascript & xml/xhtml code running in a browser. Best answer was given by Director of Engineering of the Mozilla Foundation.

When asked why they don't support ActiveX, Chris replied: "Firefox doesn't provide support for proprietary technologies such as ActiveX and the Microsoft Security Zone model [because] these two features set up the possibility for the silent download, installation, and execution of remote code as a feature of the browser. It's a powerful feature that web developers can take advantage of, but has also proven to be a feature that is prone to security and privacy problems.

 

http://www.webreference.com/programming/firefox/index.html

here is another quote:

The lack of ActiveX support has been a major reason why the Opera, Safari and Mozilla browsers remain more secure than Internet Explorer, according to security experts.

 

http://www.techworld.com/applications/news...cfm?NewsID=1856

Another thing ajax is not really a new technology, it is a name given to the new style of use of old technologies. Javascript, xml, x/html, and http asynchronous calls didn't came into existence with ajax, people just combined them for better webapps and called it ajax.

Btw, W3C is officially standardizing AJAX style of programming in the form of XForms ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XForms ). But at the moment no browser natively supports XForm specification. Firefox has an extension, so perhaps firefox will be the first one to properly support it. Maybe XForms will replace Activex browser controls.

Maybe

I wish good luck for users using 56k on future buz'n serv (y) and good luck to buz'n ;o)

And we will see if your ajax work is so protected and so stable and so reliable than an ocx in few weeks, no ?

I already seen that the beta version of Buzn V2 had banned guests few hours after the buzn update, why ? because it's "so stable" ? lol.

ok gwen pick your side i'll take the other.. let's get it on!!!! lol

I want a good clean fight. No below the belt shots, no vulguraity. Anything else is alright.

LETS GET IT ON!

[/Mills Lane]

lol err0r, I pick the RIGHT side

lol iLia yup we've managed to remain talking INSPITE of buzzen

Well it will be interesting to see how buzzen makes out with their new chat when it is officially released. I hope it goes well for them. m just glad to see them working on de-cloning.

I already seen that the beta version of Buzn V2 had banned guests few hours after the buzn update, why ? because it's "so stable" ? lol.

First, that was a server side issue and not related to ajax.

Second, guests were banned because server had to take the load of 36,131 page views per hour and irc server had to take 1,900+ concurrent connections, so guest flooders were a nuisance at that time. Web server, database server, and irc server were running on the same machine so for beta load test the results were pretty good. Like you said we'll see the stability and reliability of the system as the development progresses and more load tests are done

might have taken you 2 years, but I'm still rather impressed by the amount of options I saw in that video. I'll be even more impressed if they all work and are easy to use. its nice to see buzzen de-cloning.

good job, I hope it works out well for you.

It doesnt matter what buzzen uses or what it looks like, its a matter of where the chatters wanna be.

Hello everyone,

In an attempt to correct some ideas (or somethings looking like mistakes) previously read on this topic, here are some facts about Ajax, ActiveX and Buzzen approach to webchat.

After making small tests, you can easily find out that:

- Current Buzzen v2 webchat does not work on IE 64bits due to a lack in ActiveX support,

- Current Buzzen V2 webchat does not work on IE 32bits *if you disabled ActiveX support or cross scripting between javascript and ActiveXs*.

And then you probably tell you "why is that, if they don't use ActiveX" ? Just because they appear to use Flash Player for client to server communication. In fact, Javascript, even thought XMLHttpRequest objects (the base object of Ajax) is not able to maintain a connection as it was designed to work with HTTP protocol requests, which are intended to be quick and small ones. In an attempt to solve this issue, they seem to have decided to work with a flash application working together with javascript so that it can send requests and keep connected to the IRC server. why not.

The issue with flash is that it has no IE 64bits plugin, and is implemented under IE 32bits as an ActiveX. On other browsers and/or other platforms, Flash player is implemented in a browser-specific plugin way as there is not yet (but hopefully one day) a commonly used plugin format supported by all browsers (like opera, firefox, safari...). Sure you can say that it might not be a big issue because flash player is quite wide spread, but it would be worth ignoring this dependency of the Buzzen v2 webchat.

Anyway, to say things in the right manner, ActiveX and AJAX approaches are completely different. ActiveX are written in native code and is a technology exploiting the Component Object Model (COM) integrated in windows to add functionnalities to applications designed to interact throught COM/ATL (Active Template Library); COM containers can be internet explorer, windows file explorer, windows shell or any other application. Internet explorer is just one special case of the ActiveX technology usage.

Ajax is Javascript-based so that it is interpreted, has some browser dependencies (but well most browser support DOM, XMLHttpRequest and other quite standardized ways to work) but is (natively) not sufficient for maintaining a connection due to its limited actions. As such, buzzen seems to have used a flash application to fix the problem; this might be a limitation but i believe that's the best way they found. Javascript is also a wide spread technology but it does not define how browsers should handle memory allocation, garbage collections and some other issues that can make JS take resources, like any other application would do (but maybe more, it's difficult to say and very varying).

Finally, i didn't have much time to look at buzzen v2 webchat area, but it looks like no javascript on the webchat (especially not on the page where the chat area is done) uses XMLHttpRequest objects. You may say "so what ?" and I may answer "so this is no Ajax without XMLHttpRequest s". If you read DHTML (Dynamic HTML) definition as stated on Wikipedia:

Dynamic HTML or DHTML is a collection of technologies used together to create interactive and animated web sites by using a combination of a static markup language (such as HTML), a client-side scripting language (such as JavaScript), a presentation definition language (Cascading Style Sheets, CSS), and a Document Object Model.

This is exactly matching what seems to be done on buzzen v2 webchat site: HTML4, CSS, Javascript (which may include DOM manipulations). Ajax is the usage of all this plus XML and sending asynchronous HTTP requests from Javascript and processing the result to present it using (X)HTML and CSS (and it's not limited to that). It's not only about formatting text using javascript and displaying it using HTML and CSS by communicating with a flash application which is more in the DHTML scope.

As for XForms, it is an intent to provide an XML-description language for forms that is presentation-INdependant. It is, as stated on wikipedia, much like attempting to define a MVC DP (Model View Controller design pattern, quite a complicated one as there are many approaches and derivations of it). Sure it could be used probably with AJAX but it is not a way to standardize AJAX as far as i can see it from reading currently or previewed released XForms specifications.

Laughing at someone saying that ActiveX is not that insecure if users are smart and controls are *signed* (otherwise ie6 sp2 and ie7 do not let them execute) looks to me quite incorrect coming from someone who is speaking about AJAX, XForms and related technologies without seemingly reading reference documentations or technologies behaviour.

To finish with, i am not blaming anyone here but just want people to be smart when writing and not to hide behind popular technology names.

Thanks for those who read this message entirely,

Have a nice day,

Lievre2mars

P.S. I think you're right Xplozion, the matter is "where users wanna be". But changeing users habits a lot is always like betting against users as so many changes as Buzzen is doing can be seen by users as migrating to something completely new, which is quite the same as changeing from a service to another.

P.P.S. If you see mistakes or incorrect things in this message do not hesitate to tell it ^^

Talk about an essay!

Finally, i didn't have much time to look at buzzen v2 webchat area, but it looks like no javascript on the webchat (especially not on the page where the chat area is done) uses XMLHttpRequest objects. You may say "so what ?" and I may answer "so this is no Ajax without XMLHttpRequest s". If you read DHTML (Dynamic HTML) definition as stated on Wikipedia:

This is exactly matching what seems to be done on buzzen v2 webchat site: HTML4, CSS, Javascript (which may include DOM manipulations). Ajax is the usage of all this plus XML and sending asynchronous HTTP requests from Javascript and processing the result to present it using (X)HTML and CSS (and it's not limited to that). It's not only about formatting text using javascript and displaying it using HTML and CSS by communicating with a flash application which is more in the DHTML scope.

Client is based on html, javascript, css, flash, xml, and asynchronous calls. Programmers are not bothered to give it a specific name, but ajax comes close. If anyone wants to give this kind of programming a specific name, be my guest.

As for XForms, it is an intent to provide an XML-description language for forms that is presentation-INdependant. It is, as stated on wikipedia, much like attempting to define a MVC DP (Model View Controller design pattern, quite a complicated one as there are many approaches and derivations of it). Sure it could be used probably with AJAX but it is not a way to standardize AJAX as far as i can see it from reading currently or previewed released XForms specifications.

I agree that AJAX and XForms will be used in conjunction. However, this blog explains better what I meant:

However, the W3C already has an alternative to Ajax: XForms. Now I’m sure not many people read weblogs from W3C members but I tend to do that — remember the being unique thing? Mark Birbeck is an invited member of the HTML Working Group and he has written two articles on how to implement Google Suggest using XForms and Google Maps (the basics). Of course, we can’t really style XForms or use it. Note that having a semantic solution for Ajax doesn’t make javascript more accessible; that is still a real world problem.

 

Now I’m not advocating for XForms in combination with XHTML2. XForms is the semantic counterpart to Ajax.

 

http://annevankesteren.nl/2005/05/ajax

Here is an article that goes into more detail: http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2006/03..._revisited.html

ActiveX is not that insecure if users are smart and controls are *signed* (otherwise ie6 sp2 and ie7 do not let them execute)

Actually, it isn't secure compared to ajax or something similar.

1. It may work for well known companies like Yahoo, MSN, and Adobe, but signed code can be from wrong publishers and still it will have trust issues since once activex control is accepted it gains direct access to windows api. This is not an issue with javascript in webbrowsers since it is built to work without signing and thus puts security limitations on commands that can be sent through javascript.

Here is an example of activex issue that I'm talking about:

In addition, IE provides more information about the publisher of a program as well as whether the program is digitally signed. That’s not necessarily a big advantage for users, however, especially when dealing with publishers who are actively trying to deceive them. During the course of testing, I found one program that had been digitally signed using a legitimate certificate but phony information, and two others that had been signed using homemade certificates, including one from – no kidding – Joe’s-Software-Emporium.

 

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=109

2. Another problem that comes from direct access to windows api by activex controls is that if there is a security exploit like buffer-overflow then an attacker can use it to take over the computer of a user. This is mitigated with the use of javascript in popular webbrowsers and components build on popular activex based runtime like flashplayer because they are used by millions of users, therefore, these kind of exploits will be discovered and patched very quickly compared to custom developed activex control that would be used by comparatively much less users.

I hope that makes it more clearer.

Now instead of a clone debate, it's now a ajax or ocx debate.

Nah, its not a debate. Both Chuck and Lievre2mars were just showing people the comparisons between them both. No debate.

I will debate anything anti-buzzen I just wonder if the other clones are gonna be prepared for the big exodus from buzzen. Because beleive me, people are not at buzzen because they like the service. They are at buzzen because at the time we had the early jump on the clone market. Wonder how much more mmm2cutes credit cards can handle.

don't pick on ajax too much i'm using it on tg's new layout lol

For a site, theres nothing bad about it.

gonna but me stock in Buzzen, and try one of those get rich quick schemes.

<reserves comment>

ajax is nice in moderation Too much and I can't stand it.