This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
MS writing Internet Explorer for Linux?
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.
Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.
Re:I certainly hope this is true... (Score:1)
M$ in any form on my machine...? (Score:1)
Impossible to make M$ seem worse than they are (Score:1)
I'm not so much bothered by the fact of bugs. I'm bothered by the lies surrounding those bugs. I'm incensed by the expectation that I HAVE TO PAY FOR M$ TO FIX THEIR ROTTEN SOFTWARE. It's intolerable.
The average person settles for M$ trash because they simply don't know they have a choice. They simply don't realize that it doesn't have to be this way: they don't have to suffer crashes and data loss and bugginess. Linux is a deliverance from the filth and putrescence that oozes out of Redmond, spreading the disease of frustration with computers.
If M$ ever produces IE for Linux, it will be as bloated (like all their products) as a tick on a dog. It will be as slow as a slug sliming its way through the filth and decay of compost pile. It will be as buggy as a malarial swamp, with none of the swamp's beauty.
And it will go on MY Linux box over my dead body.
Microsoft: it's not just a corporation; it's a pestilence.
Remember, you are using a real OS.... (Score:1)
How about a list of all the Apps you run, Marketing would love that..
The Serial numbers of all your MS software, or any other SPA protected code on your machine... Yepp, I see Legal slavering over that..
How about the top 10 websites you visit, mmmm good for market research and popup ads targetted at you via your GUID cookie.
Remember that Linux has no GUID cookie. Linux has no Pentium III ID-cracking CraptiveX malicious applets.
Don't want M$ to know what's on your Linux box? Cut off file permissions to all that's necessary. The reason why all the BackOrifice and M$ GUID/spy software works is because under Windows everything always runs as the Linux equivalent of "root" with 777 permissions on everything. Cut off its access to the files, and you're OK. Run Internet Explorer under a restricted user or even run it all under a chroot'ed environment if you're that paranoid about your files....
Re:Beware geeks bearing gifts (Score:2)
For some reason, they didn't want to get stuck with the "single platform" tag for IE, so they produced the unix versions. A version of IE out on Windows, Mac, and Linux/Solaris/HPUX probably covers about 99.9% of the web browsing machines out there. Once they have that they can start signing up content providers to produce IE-only sites.
--
Re:NT multiuser? So how can I log on as 5 users@on (Score:2)
And Terminal Server comes built into which version of NT4? Oh.
Funny how multiuser capabilities are built into nearly every major OS since 1970, disregarding the degenerate case of a few popular desktop products, and yet is an add-on product grafted on to NT over 10 years after its initial release.
What's the NT equivalent of:
$ sudo fredp -c "xterm" &
$ sudo miked -c "xterm" &
$ sudo billg -c "rm -fr
$ sudo luser -c "netscape http://www.microsoft.com/" &
$ sudo yuser -c "netscape http://www.sun.com/" &
[CTRL][ALT][F1]
gin: harrys
ord:
$ top
[CTRL][ALT][F12]
I'd imagine it would involve something arcane and poorly documented, involving manipulating SIDs by hand. And I strongly suspect it wouldn't be something the casual user could take advantage of.
Yes, it's unfair to say NT isn't multiuser. With some various bolt-ons and heavy work with a saw, it is in fact multiuser by most standards. However, I think it's fair to say NT isn't as thoroughly or intuitively multiuser as UNIX.
That seems to be by design as best I can tell.
Re:that won't work. (Score:1)
Whats so important about that extra centimeter, though, I don't know. Shiesh.
Re:Usage (Score:2)
Actually, this is the issue that finally caused me to decide to switch to Linux.
Just don't use Shift-Insert (Score:1)
Unfortunately, shift-insert (to paste text) locks it up, and you have to kill -9 it, but I've managed to wean myself (after a number of very painful lock-ups) off that windows-ism, and use M-v instead.
--
- Sean
Pointless (Score:1)
Consider that because of the Open Source, how many Linux apps are there that aren't already available for NT? All of the GNU tools are, also perl, and countless other apps and utilities. The advantage with Linux is that they all come with the OS, in the NT world you have to buy or download them.
Re:HUH??? (Score:1)
Did you think that DELL etc's Windows business vanished because they pre-installed Linux ?
Perhaps you forget that the same vendors (DELL,...) are also MS customers for Windows.
DELL refuses to put IE5 on Linux pre-installs,
MS squeezes their Windows contract.
Replace DELL with another vendor name.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Just because DELL etc install Linux doesn't overnight make them free of MS leverage. ALL Intel box vendors ( except Linux-only vendors )
are subject to MS monopoly arm-twisting.
Nitin Borwankar
lIEnux (Score:1)
Re:NT multiuser? So how can I log on as 5 users@on (Score:1)
'It's kind of fun to do the impossible.'
Tied to the OS? (Score:2)
Re:Don't stoop to their level (Score:1)
It's hard enough trusting my machines at work that have M$ OSs on, but when I rely on my home PCs (not as replaceable), I'm not going to chance M$ copping a peek at my data.
Don't use libc5-based netscape version with glibc2 (Score:1)
Re:Don't stoop to their level (Score:2)
You are forgetting a browser.... (Score:2)
I use kfm from the KDE windowing system.
It really works pretty well, and no extra overhead.
Beware geeks bearing gifts (Score:2)
1. Clone a Good Thing to 'offer an alternative'.
2. 'Innovate' via extend and embrace.
3. Squelch the competition with rapid upgrade cycles and useless feature marathons.
Yeah, MSIE for Linux will be a slick product, but it will only compile with the M$libc libs, and as root - so kiss your competitive alternative bye-bye. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if it required us to compile a 'special' driver right into the kernel.
Re:Now don't you wish the Unabomber had gotten MS? (Score:2)
Put it in perspective by imagining one of your coworkers in the next cubicle laughing at great lengths about the company's new firearms policy. Would it make you uneasy?
Re:IE for Linux would be welcome... (Score:5)
- Head over to the Web Standards project [microsoft.com], and note the troubles special HTML tags are even now causing.
- Ponder how many browsers are available for the general public. And why aren't they around? Because they can't handle the "real web", which is populated with lots of special tags? (recall that many of the "special" tags have been standardized after the fact, like CENTER)
- Consider whether the browser wars were NOT overhyped, but are, in fact, mostly over now. And Microsoft and Netscape both have tremendous influence on the Internet, with, say, Mosiac nothing but a faint memory.
It's not silly to think that... it's just that it already happened, and you no longer notice, because it's in the background.Opera? (Score:2)
Re:DONT INSTALL IT (Score:2)
I have an old Sun that isn't doing anything that could run Solaris 7 - perhaps I'll check it out one of these days.
I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft stuck with poor programming practices to make Solaris look bad, and if so, IE for Linux is likely to be terrible. They certainly wouldn't take much time optimizing it, when doing so would make Windows look bad.
I don't think there's much doubt that current IE is a cleaner product than current Netscape, simply because they did a complete rewrite in 4.x, while Netscape tried switching around their bloated code base. In the end, though, the new Netscape should run rings around it. I sure hope they recreate the old Netscape 3 user interface, which was IMHO the best I've ever seen in a browser. Netscape 4's "pale imitation of IE" interface was a massive step backwards, as JWZ tacitly acknowledged on his web pages even before he quit.
If IE for Linux would bring better fonts (such as Verdana) to the Linux platform, it might really help us. But I'm not betting on it.
Incidentally, for political reasons I am unlikely to use any Microsoft browser for my regular web surving in the foreseeable future; it sends an unmistakably pro-MS message to the world, and I don't want that to be my message. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean NS is actually better than IE; it just means I don't want to publically support MS with every log entry I write on someone's server.
D
----
Re: (Score:2)
MSnopoly 101:name one. (Score:2)
Vaporware does not imply that it won't be done, but it describes a product that does not exist for some time.
For example, if evil company X promises product Y at Z date, you have 0 until Z. Not only that, W competitors will see that X in gearing up for Y and can steamroll their marketing projections for U. What this means is that U will get 0 and consumers get the shaft.
Kernel Integration ? (Score:2)
Anyway having the right to choose between many options always leads to freedom - that a good thing for Computing
News? (Score:4)
Yawn. I suppose we need to keep an eye on Redmond. But --dang!-- those vaporware announcements are getting boring.
Re:Pointless (Score:2)
Linux compatibility may appeal to PHBs, but I don't think it will to many others.
Re:WAIT! MS = Anti-Linux... (Score:2)
Microsoft never started an anti-Linux group. They started an analysis group. Sorry, but as much as ESR and the fanatics would like to think so, the revenue lost to Linux is rounding error in Microsoft's budget.
Thus, users have no reason to be wary. Remember, capitalism functions on competition, and keeping an eye on your market tends to pay off for a company.
If anything, developing Microsoft Explorer for Linux would lend more credence to the operating system, validating to corporate managers (the people controlling the budget) that Linux is at least a blip strong enough that Microsoft can afford to turn a tiny fraction of its resources towards it.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... just an idea (Score:4)
Well could a Linux version of IE be a MS built window manager?
It is afterall the desktop users that MS is really concerned about... suppose you didn't need that
For people who understand X its wonderful and versatile as hell... but its also very complex and has plenty of security issues associated with it. Is that really what a simple end user wants?
Just imagine for a moment a box which ran the Linux kernal and a most of a normal distro and thus was remote adminable - but provided an end user with a windows interface and the same apps as they currently use.
I'd guess that each user would require their own registry or something - nasty as this might sound to some I can see the appeal.
The end user gets a familure box and doesn't need to learn anything new and the admins get remote access and proper file permissions.
like I said, just an idea
Tom
Re:Microsoft didn't announce anything (Score:2)
How to Recognize a Troll (Score:5)
I am not the most expert of trollologists; I am sure that Slashdot has much better trollologists. I just got here first. Feel free to reply to this to add points I missed, or argue points you think I am wrong about.
How to Recognize a Troll
A troll is a form of luser that makes incindiary remarks in order to get others to lose their cool, thus making worse incindiary remarks and making complete fools out of themselves.
Many trolls are made by anonymous cowards; people who do not want to be recognized. But not every AC is a troll, and not every troller is an AC. Some will troll from their named accounts; those are the brave trolls. What we have here is a specimin of the more cowardly troll.
But more important than the username is the post. The "best" kind of troll post will make a remark specifically engineered to push the hot buttons of the group being trolled (here, Slashdot itself). Additionally, the perfect troll fails to give any useful or arguable information.
Two perfect trolling sentences here are, "The current Linux file system sucks" and "With MS beginning to support the Linux community, Linux will be an improved product.". both hit hit a Slashdot hot button (there is a lot of "Microsoft-is-evil/Linux-is-good" running around here). Both are too vague to provide any useful information.
The Dangers of a Troll
The danger here is that, without any real information to argue, the tendency is to degenerate into a flame war. "The current Linux file system sucks" is not even an arguable fact; it is a broadbased opinion, posted to a group of people who believe the opposite.
A properly placed troll can tempt otherwise rational people into portraying themselves as complete idiots. Especially with Microsoft, this is exceedingly dangerous.
Microsoft would love to portray the Linux community (including Slashdot) as knee-jerk jack-booted weirdo geeks. They want to show us as untrustworthy people who can fly off the handle. This is where Astroturfing comes in.
Microsoft performs "Astroturfing". This means starting up fake grassroots movements. They tried to do this to forestall the DOJ trial, and were exposed. I do not believe that they are above hiring people to troll Slashdot and similar things, in order to show us making complete fools out of ourselves.
How to respond to Trolls
The first thing is how not to respond to a troll. Don't let them sucker you in. Think before you post, and do not post a flaming ball of hatred. This will do you, and Slashdot as a whole, harm. That's why flames get moderated down. But they're still on the record, so you and we still get to look like idiots.
Often, the best way to respond to a troll is to ignore it. This pisses a troll off worse than anything. Some trolls will respond by trolling more. At this point, you get to watch them making complete fools out of themselves. Remember: it is better to be silent and thought a fool, then to speak up and remove all doubt.
The other thing one can do is to note the troll as such. Newbie users won't recognize trolls as well as old farts, so this helps keep the newbies from flaming the trolls. Here, moderation does this. The troll above was moderated up; I disagree with that, so I'm writing this to mark the troll as such.
Again, please feel free to add to this or correct me. Just Say No To Trolls.
Re:Usage (Score:3)
Opera is still not quite ready ( I check every week). Check out their Project Magic [operasoftware.com] page.
DONT INSTALL IT (Score:5)
Re:Of course MS will write software for Linux (Score:2)
I would download it for free, but only if I backed up my data first, or had just done a clean install of a new Linux flavor.
But how well it sells and how well it works right out of the box are both, in a way, irrelevant. Doesn't the whole Open Source mantra prevent M$ from selling it? Doesn't it also mean that J. Random Hacker can improve the version at home and clean out the cruft? Obviously, I'm a newbie... but I don't see the menace here.
If it's useful or improvable, Linux users will use and improve it.
If it supports the evil empire or has a tendency to make Linux less stable than NT (a neat trick if Bill can pull it off), then Linux users will abandon it, and it will die.
My only fear is that they will release the Linux version before their DoJ verdicts are in, and massive (but still small vs. Netscape) download stats will allow them to claim that Netscape occupies a "MS-Like" position in the Linux universe. This will allow a flawed (but attractive) argument that "if they can do that to us, why can't we do that to them?" based on a claim that the Linux and Windows are basically equivalent battlefields.
By the way... does anyone know why Netscape for Linux still basically sucks? I work in Windows using IE when I want to use the web because Netscape for Linux is so laggy--and it's the only choice besides Lynx.
I hate to say it, but the competition might get Netscape off its ass to develop a fast, useful browser. Let's just hope that the benefit doesn't outweigh the cost.
Cheers,
Jurph
Orange marmalade makes everything taste better.
Which distribution would DARE care it? (Score:2)
Same as vs. Netscape or different? (Score:5)
1. MS was afraid of Netscape
2. MS writes Navigator clone, then 'embraces and extends' it, bundling it into the Windows OS, giving it away for free
3. Navigator market share crumbles
4. Netscape loses momentum and edge, stock decreases (perhaps causing some Netscape coders to rethink their options...literally?)
5. IE 5.0 debuts to rave pundit reviews, Netscape is broken up and sold in pieces to two lesser industry evils...
1. MS is afraid of Linux
2. MS is NOW writing a Lunix clone (think I remember a
3. Unix market share, viz NT, is crumbling (Linux is cannibalizing the commercial Unix marketshare for its own marketshare, rather than converting NT shops to Unix, IMHO)
But here is where I think it's different.
4. Linux DEVELOPMENT is non-commercial. The psychic well-being of the coders is not dependent on the fate of a single company, or stock options. Linux should retain its momentum and edge for at LEAST another year
5. Next year conflicts among Linux distributions become a much bigger issue as marketshare growth for Linux begins to flatten - most commercial Unices other than Solaris will probably be inconsequential by this time next year. (blatent, unfounded, bold, bull-ony prediction)
6. MS folds Linux-like functionality into NT, making the OS even more unweildy, but allowing MS to claim to the biz market it has all the good parts of Linux, without that bad lack-of-single-vendor part. Glossy mags go wild for MS LiNTux (thereby MS co-opts both Tux and Linux while keeping the NT brand).
7. Linux coders setup the "Free State of Silicon Valley and Finland," declare war on "The People's Republic of Redmond."
8. President Ventura intervenes, sending in the 101st Airborn and SeALs. As the first victorious third-party candidate in US history, he asserts that precedent to legally mandate all computers to run a third-party OS...BEOS!!!
Ahem...sorry...got out of hand there.
Would it be that hard to port? (Score:2)
Even though I LOVE Linux, I do welcome IE, even though it's from M$, It is the superior browser, that wasn't the case when they were both like 2.0, but the more they progress, the more bugs I see in netscape, and the the more I see IE handle browsing the web better and better. Even though navigator craps out for me a lot (I'm talking about the Win95 versions here), I tend to use it more, because If IE crashes, it pretty much screwed up the whole Windoze environment, seeing as how they make it part of the "operating system".
The biggest reason I welcome IE to Linux is because I'd like to see a Linux browser that properly handles Cascading Style Sheets. I have yet to see that on Linux browsers.
Complete re-write? MS 'doing the right thing'? (Score:2)
Re:this is old news.. (Score:2)
(Note that Microsoft needs a team just to... "port" the Solaris IE to Linux, that I think it's mainly a matter of recompiling and some testing...).
Missing the point of a free browser? (Score:2)
Why are Netscape and Microsoft fighting so hard to give away their browsers? The point is forming a portal for the average Joe's out there, being the first page they see. When you start up a new install of IE, it takes you to MSN, and when you start up communicator it takes you to NetCenter.
This is why AOL is such a powerful force in eCommerce - they can shove their adverts in the face of 30 million naive users every time the poor things log on.
It's a fact that most beginners will stick with the first browser they see, the one that's preloaded on their computer, rather than taking the trouble to download something else. They don't know how to change the default home page. They're not sufficiently interested in computers to care. It's just like the way people (in the USA) who don't care about driving will buy a Ford or a Toyota with an automatic gearbox instead of a sports car with a 5 speed.
Even if MS have no plans of window manager domination, nor to offer Office (their one "killer" app) on Linux, there is no reason to deny themselves the chance to trya nd be the portal for 7m Linux users, as a potential source of revenue.
I'm no Microsoft fan, but I must admit the Unix version of MSIE5 is actually pretty good - the Solaris implementation is a lot less buggy than Communicator, for instance. It would take them less than 3 man months of work to make it notably better than Netscape's offering. Netscape are stuck between a rock and a hard place here - Microsoft can pour money into their browser effort, and Netscape have to play catchup on what is still their most important platform - Windows. This is why the Windows version of Netscape has better features than the Linux one, though it is slower
It's arguably high time that Netscape put a bit more effort into their Linux port - on this platform, it is *their* browser that ships with the OS install, and that arguably offers them more potential than chasing the Windows download market.
Perhaps competition from the powers of darkness in Redmond on what has been up until now uncontested turf will cause Netscape to wake up. Competitive innovation is after all one of the things that keeps Linux healthy.
Personally, I will be sticking with Netscape for the forseeable future, but watching with interest.
Of course MS will write software for Linux (Score:2)
Of course Microsoft is going to write software for Linux. How better to dominate Linux then to first monopolize the popular software on an OS then cut of its air supply. Anyone here following Apple?
Once IE is available on Linux you can be guaranteed it will NEVER be as good on Linux as it is on Windoze.
The beauty of it is, Microsoft comes out looking like a rose, and all of you suckers fall for it hook, line and sinker!
Power Meower is sometimes wrong. (Score:2)
Re:Love the Full Screen Layout (Score:2)
Netscape 4 also has a kiosk mode, but it's a
secured feature. You have to allow it via the
privilegeManager object first.
This is as it should be. It would be quite
easy to create a Windows-like full-screen
view in Netscape 4 that could fool the average
luser. See rive.boxybutgood.com's WindowMaker
simulation for a non-full-screen example.
K.
-
How come there's an "open source" entry in the
Jargon File [tuxedo.org], when there isn't a "free software" one?
Re:how about selling it off for its parts? (Score:2)
Re:As for Lynx users... (Score:5)
The reason Lynx can't view it is that it is framed, and there is no way to break out of the frame. Here's a straight copy.
Creating a UNIX Application Using the Win32 API
Nancy Winnick Cluts
Microsoft Corporation
November 1998
Summary: Details the cross-platform development of Microsoft® Internet Explorer 4.0 for UNIX using the Microsoft Win32® API. (4 printed pages)
Introduction
Yes, you read that correctly. I said that you can create a UNIX application using the Win32 application programming interface (API). And I have proof. Internet Explorer 4.0 for UNIX was written using the Win32 API. I bet you'd like to know how the team pulled that one off. (I know I did!) If you are interested in the details, read on.
At TechEd in New Orleans, LA, in June 1998, Digvijay Chauhan, Development Manager of the Internet Explorer UNIX team, outlined the cross-platform issues in Internet Explorer 4.0 (for a full list of cross-platform issues, search for my article "Internet Explorer Runs Cross-Platform" on the MSDN Online Web Workshop site at http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/) as well as how to use the Win32 API for cross-platform development. This article is based on the second part of his presentation: Win32 development on Unix. Another session, titled "Targeting Unix & Windows Platforms with a Single Code Base: A Case Study" (IOP05) was given at the Professional Developers Conference in Denver.
Win32 API on UNIX--A Case Study
Imagine that you are on a development team and you are told that you need to develop a browser using the Win32 API and deliver it on both the Win32 and Unix (Solaris) platforms. In order to do this, you need to take into consideration the user interface differences as well as how you are going to actually code the application. X-Windows has a different user interface than Windows. With the pace of the software industry, you do not have the luxury of spending a lot of time and resources on this project--you must get this browser to market rapidly. You also must be sure the Unix version has the same rendering fidelity as the Win32 version. Finally, you must incorporate the Unix look. That's the challenge that the Internet Explorer UNIX team faced and met.
The targeted time frame was 2-3 months after the Win32 version shipped. The team consisted of approximately 50 people. There were about 600 Win32 functions that were used by Internet Explorer. There wasn't time to start from scratch and create their own Win32 layer for Unix, so they looked at vendors that already had such a layer, and tools available. They found two such vendors: Bristol and Mainsoft. Throughout this project, there were some issues the team had to solve, including differences in focus, the Component Object Model (COM), the registry, performance, fonts, UI issues, and portability.
Focus
The biggest area of trouble (read: bugs) had to do with focus. On X-Windows, the user can configure the workstation for multiple Window Manager modes and each Window Manager supports multiple modes. This leads to some interesting differences in the use of focus on Unix versus Win32. On a Win32-based platform, when the user clicks the mouse once on a window, that window gains the focus. On X-Windows, you can configure your system such that the focus follows the mouse. That is, when you move the mouse to a window, the focus automatically moves to that window. The workstation can also be set up to support auto raise focus--when the window gets the focus it is automatically put in the foreground. X-Windows also supports the single-click to focus scheme that Win32 supports. The Internet Explorer Unix team had to make sure the browser they created also supported these different forms of focus.
Modality
In Microsoft Windows®, it is common for developers to create modal windows. A modal window is a window that, when it has the focus, does not let any other window within the application get the focus until the window is dismissed. For example, if you click the View menu on Internet Explorer and choose Internet Options, you will bring up a window that stays in focus until it is dismissed--if you click the Internet Explorer main window, you will hear a ding and the window will not come into the foreground. Windows developers create modal windows through the use of the GetMessage, TranslateMessage, and DispatchMessage functions in a loop. X-Windows employs a Window Manager that must be told, via hints, whether a window is modal or not. Unfortunately, this information is only read once, when the window is shown. The solution to this difference was to use a new window style hint to tell the Window Manager the window modality prior to the window being shown.
COM
Internet Explorer relies heavily on the Component Object Model (COM) in order to function. In fact, any of the window items you see that are outside of the client area of the screen (for example, the rebar, the dialog boxes, and so on) are all COM objects. They use COM to communicate between the browser and the other COM objects. One important portability problem faced by the team involved using C code to access COM object methods directly via virtual table (known as a vtable) structure pointers. The vtable layout is compiler-specific. As a result, the layout of the pointers is different on Solaris. The solution was to replace the C code accessing COM objects with C++ code.
Registry
On Windows, the registry is used to store and access information such as user preferences. Most Windows applications read these values from the registry in order to persist data from session to session. In Unix, a user can log on to his workstation and use his home directory from any machine with all of his settings preserved. Because the registry resides on only one machine, this is problematic. The team had to figure out how to share registry information across machines.
Another registry-related issue is synchronization of registry settings across processes. Okay, that's a complex sentence. In real terms: Microsoft Internet Explorer and Microsoft Outlook® Express share registry settings. If you change a registry setting in Internet Explorer, Outlook Express immediately reflects the changes.
The solution was to keep the registry in a location that is shared by all workstations, leveraging a single home directory. This way, different processes, regardless of machine, can be in synch.
Performance
The Internet Explorer Unix team created some simple and effective in-house performance tools to analyze performance bottlenecks and solve them. One tool wrapped all of the Win32 APIs in order to log the calls to the APIs as well as determine which thread called the API. This information was used to identify frequently used APIs and determine which should be optimized (the ones that were used often) and which were taking the most time.
Another tool was created to analyze heap space. This was done by mapping the memory allocation functions (malloc, realloc, and so on) along with thread identifiers. They were then able to identify resource hogs (image copy was a big one) and where they could group allocations in order to maximize performance.
In order to help in the debugging process, they created a program that modified exception-handling code to determine (via a stack trace) what caused Internet Explorer to crash. This was particularly helpful in determining if the testers had found a new bug or one that already existed, albeit in a new user scenario.
The final tool that was created was a quick and dirty profiler. This profiler would suspend all threads in a process, sample the program counter, and map the symbols to get a running count of where the application was spending most of its time. Here again, the team could go back and optimize that code.
Fonts
There are a few exceptions to font support using Internet Explorer 4.0 on UNIX. Some fonts are simply not available on Unix. In general, Windows fonts will be mapped to those available on a particular Unix server. The Verdana, Arial, and Sans Serif fonts are mapped to the Helvetica font. The Marlett font is not supported on UNIX at all. Internet Explorer 4.0 Unix maps fonts to an equal or smaller point size. In addition, X-based servers can have different configurations and different font installations. As a result, it was necessary to map fonts for specific font installations on the server. Internet Explorer 4.x shipped some prebuilt font caches for standard server configurations. For nonstandard configurations, a font cache is built the first time the browser starts; however, this proved to cause a slowdown in startup. As a result, Internet Explorer 5.0 has changed to an alternate design.
Interface Issues
The Windows interface is different from the look you get when you run X-Windows-based Motif or common desktop environment (CDE) applications. The Internet Explorer Unix team had to take into consideration the different appearance for their version of the browser. Some of the interface issues that the team had to address were:
A person running Unix is accustomed to using the + and + key combinations to position the cursor at the beginning or end of a line respectively.
Tab completion is also an expectation of the X-Windows user. Tab completion was implemented at the application level by the team.
The middle mouse button is also supported under X-Windows for copy-and-paste functionality.
Selected text is automatically copied to the Clipboard and available to be pasted into another application.
Menus stay dropped down after they've been clicked, even after the mouse moves away from the menu.
Common dialog boxes look different. For example, the CDE File Open common dialog box and scroll bar widgets are different from their Windows counterparts. Based on user feedback, the Internet Explorer team decided to stick with the Windows 3.1 File dialog boxes and the CDE widgets for scroll bars.
Multiple workspaces are supported by the Window Manager.
Additional system menus are supported under CDE.
CDE integration--including CDE color changes dynamically reflected in the application--required additional work.
Coding Issues--Portability Problems
When it got down to coding, there were some interesting issues that the team had to solve, including:
The WCHAR is 4 bytes in most UNIX compilers and 2 bytes in Microsoft Visual C++®. As a result, there were many coding bugs found that assumed the size of a WCHAR was 2 bytes.
Global variables in Win32 dynamic-link libraries (DLLs) are visible across processes, so it is important that developers are careful that these globals do not conflict with any variables within the Unix shared libraries.
Win32 developers have come to rely on Win32 Structured Exception Handling (SEH) in their applications. Unix does not inherently support this. With the help of the Internet Explorer team, Mainsoft now includes fairly complete support for SEH in their Win32 layer.
Visual C++ makes use of keywords for alignment, such as unaligned. The Unix team had to write macros to do alignment.
Compilers for Unix do not support nameless nested structures.
Summary
All of this was a lot of work and the Internet Explorer Unix team learned a lot from it. In the future, they plan to use a common code base between their Win32 and Unix versions so that a change in one will automatically be reflected in the other. They are planning to use the Apoge compiler (http://www.apogee.com/) for this common code base. They also plan to incorporate the feedback they get on interface issues. In the meantime, you now know that you, too, can develop your Unix application on Win32. The Internet Explorer team did it and so can you.
© 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Terms of use.
Mike
--
Re:Unix Crumbling? (Score:2)
already exists.... (Score:3)
You could use GNOME, w/E running it's win95 theme w/win95 widgets and you've pretty much got a win95-look-and-act-alike.
Just this week, I switched my roommate, who was a Win95 user to the core over to GNOME w/E....to him (using the configuration mentioned above) it's pretty much the same box he always used (without the apps of course).
So even if they DID port the Win32 APIs over to Linux (PLEASE NO!!!) they wouldn't need to write a window manager.....
It would be nice to have a working and fast version of IE5 though...it's so much better than NS4.6 it makes me sick.
this is old news.. (Score:2)
Usage (Score:3)
Jaraxle
Re:Usage (Score:2)
Please Mozilla, hurry...!
jaraxle
Re:IE for Solaris (Score:2)
But you have to admit that pages look gorgeous in it, with antialiasing and all. Sure, it's a pig and it's unusably slow, but that's what you get for re-implementing the font subsystem.
I was really annoyed, though, to find that it requires 800K in one's home directory. And the ondisk cache settings aren't changeable.
--
Re:how about selling it off for its parts? (Score:2)
Too bad I only use the standalone...
Re:This makes me think of Star Office (Score:2)
rm -fr the installation you did, and re-install as root using this command:
Install everything in some dir like
and select the "local installation" (the one that's only 5 megs, not 115) option. You'll have the program files in
Welcome addition for developers (Score:2)
i use IE because i can fullscreen the window - there's only the smallest of possible buttons, address bar, and such in *one row* across the top of my screen, without any frame - only the scroll bar. i don't want to look at a window frame, i just want web page. hell - i can even autohide the bar at the top, so the *whole screen* is webpage, except for the scroll bar.
i want netscape to support this, and i want an alternative browser that isn't a development browser for linux (because the unwashed masses aren't going be viewing my pages with them
so - who makes a browser that under X can go into a fullscreen mode, so i don't have to look at buttons i know keyboard shortcuts to, an address bar i can hide, and no annoying greyspace ?
Re:this is old news.. (Score:2)
*Points at GPL* Only way that that would happen (MS Linux w/merged kernel&browser) is if they adhere to the GPL. They try it as proprietary crap and Stallman will probably be all over them. Now, MS coming up withe a library or three and THEN porting the browser over would be a likely scenario...but of course, what they'll port is the APIs and not the acutal browser, leaving us with the bloated crap the we've all come to love to hate.
IE port to Linux (Score:3)
Microsoft ported IE to Linux using MainSoft's Win32 port (they already trashed Bristol Software, Mainsoft's only competitor, by abruptly withdrawing their source code license - there's a lawsuit ongoing over this).
At any event, consider this. A port of IE requires a port of Win32. Which would let everyone else port their software to Linux, right. All you have to do is download IE and then you have the Win32 APIs, unless MS take a lot of time and trouble to remove all the entry points or something. Even if they do, cunning individuals will for sure figure out a way of calling into those routines.
Of course, WINE continues to evolve - although very very slowly - and maybe we *will* have Win32 for Linux soon. I know this will offend the purists but being able to port something quickly to Linux can only help Linux's future, even if the resulting mess might not be very elegant.
Microsoft porting to Unix article (Score:4)
It took a bit of digging but here is the link to "Creating a UNIX Application Using the Win32 API" --
http://msdn.microsoft.com/isapi/msdnlib.idc?the
Beware Netscape users: This page will load a really slow Java applet designed to make you wish you had ActiveX.
--
Open-source? Of course not. (Score:3)
If they were ever to 'embrace' the open source model, they would do so in a half-assed way in the form of something that is not even open source, such as restrictive licensing of NT source code that has been mentioned. That way, they can say "we tried it, and people didn't want it, it's a bad idea and it sucks... back to business". That is the ultimate in FUD. They essentially did the same thing when they ported IE to solaris; they bastardized the port - it was bloated, slow, buggy and the most pathetic piece of software I've ever had the misfortune of running. But I'm sure it shut up all the solaris people who had asked for a port, and it sure looks good when they can go to the media and say "look how badly our wonderful software runs on this platform; we tried, but it's just not as good as windows".
The question of whether ie would be open source honestly never even crossed my mind.
IE vs Netscape vs Opera and Family (Score:2)
I hope and pray that Mozilla will force a browser revolution. I see a future with truely standardized browsers, a networkable format for bookmarks, and many other wonderfull features.
What I don't see helping this come about is the law suit of MS will help bring it about. MS is now on the browser offensive again. They are now going for the jugular and Netscapes next Gen is not ready yet.
Then we have browser like Opera and the browser in Star Office that are fighting for some market share. I don't think they will capture their intended market unless they fully support standards like Mozilla does.Hopefully Mozilla will force every browser to support the true W3 standards!
"There is no spoon" - Neo, The Matrix
"SPOOOOOOOOON!" - The Tick, The Tick
Re:IE port to Linux (Score:5)
Don't be too sure. Back in the time of OS/2 v2.x, IBM was pushing ISVs to release OS/2 versions of their windows software. This resulted in incredibly crappy ports (for example, WordPerfect 5.2 for OS/2), and OS/2 got blamed for the bad applications. (When in fact, good and native OS/2 applications were available from other vendors - the Describe word processor for example - but never got the attention they deserved.)
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re:IE for Linux would be welcome... (Score:3)
It turns out the browser wars were insanely overhyped. It looked important three years ago, but in retrospect, it seems pretty silly to think that somebody could gain influence over the Internet by implemeting and promoting special HTML tags.
IE for Linux would be welcome... (Score:2)
I'm continually stunned at how little competition there is in the browser market, which was essentially ceded to Microsoft and Netscape/AOL in an amazingly short time.
Re:Now they can squeeze the PC Makers again (Score:2)
In the future : Microsoft will be in no position to demand that IE be installed upon Linux boxes, as they have nothing to threaten with.
That's what it's all about : abuse of a monopoly (the monopoly of supplying Win32 operating systems). They don't and can't have a monopoly in Linux, therefore they can't abuse their it.
Re:Kernel Integration ? (Score:3)
OTOH, I'm not exactly holding my breath on the port, with or without source code. This is less than vaporware; this is a rumor of vaporware.
Now they can squeeze the PC Makers again (Score:5)
Now MS can demand that they install IE5 on Linux whenever the PC makers pre-install Linux.
This is the thin edge of the wedgie, folks.
Nitin
Re:Illusion: it's redraw speed, not re-render spee (Score:2)
Actually, IE is quicker (and craftier).
Everytime one changes the window dimentions or font size/face or even changes the toolbars under Netscape (any platform), it reloads the page from the network. IE does the sensible thing and just redraws it from cache.
--
Windows Version vs. Other Versions (Score:5)
I probably won't even touch IE for Linux if the rumor is true (I think it is; Microsoft legitimizes Linux as a competitor if they develop their software for it). Netscape, even the browser standalone is large enough as it is and I don't need another browser mussing up my system.
I imagine it already exists (Score:2)
Re:IE for Solaris (Score:3)
You don't have to be paranoid to realize that the reason they "ported" it and actually released that piece of crap was to demonstrate to the public that Solaris is not a useable OS for running desktop applications.
It just isn't possible to write something that crappy and bloated by accident or incompetence.
I guess the reason there's no IE for Linux yet is that they won't recognize it as an OS. When they do that, they will probably release IE for it, and it will be at least as crappy as the Solaris version.
No browser choice under Linux? (Score:2)
I've been using HJ at work now to access a number of NS-crashing java applets - though I'm starting to believe that ALL applets will crash NS.
HJ 3.0 is nice enough for those applets, and for general browsing. It's at http://java.sun.com/products/hotjava/ and runs with the blackdown 1.17 jre or jdk.
Also stumbled across http://www.sun.com/software/linux/ while I was looking for the link above.
Re:DONT INSTALL IT (Score:3)
You can install a truetype font server under Linux and use your Veranda font under Netscape now.
The same old game (Score:2)
A case in point was the use of Word to bring down Mac sales. The Mac version of Word (5.0?) contained all of the source for the Windows version as well as the Mac code. This gave the Wintel platforms a decided performance advantage, in addition to the stability issues.
This advantage was a factor in at least one large company's deciding to transition from Mac to Wintel platform.
The same happened to a couple of companies who were running OS/2.
I would not only advise users not to support IE and other Microsoft apps under Linux, but I would also make sure to advise any corporate entities that you deal with who are using or considering Linux as an alternative. With all of the OSS alternatives (like StarOffice, the Gimp, and other apps out there), it is entirely possible to run a Linux machine in a Microsoft network.
Re:IE for Linux would be welcome... (Score:4)
I basically agree, however, there is an increasing demand (at least in my company) for intranet web-based applications. Static content is fine, but having a web application is a great way to distribute functionality without the overhead of installing programs on client machines. Since most systems nowadays have web browsers, there is (usually) no additional work to be done. Just give them a URL. The problem as I see it is that the standard form elements provided are too simplistic. Simple text boxes, radio buttons, and drop down lists are fine but are limiting. Also, it was only recently that a standardized document object model was introduced by W3C. That, with a good scripting language, can lead to beautiful and functional applications that people can use in a familiar environment.
IE5 provides a nice platform for web applications. A well designed object model (proprietary, but it is well done) with generally solid scripting has allowed us to develop some really cool web pages. Given the newer standards released by W3C, Mozilla and other non-IE browsers should give Microsoft a run for their (lots of) money.
Unix Crumbling? (Score:2)
As for the numbers, yes NT is selling a lot, but what is it being used for? Many companies are now using NT, even NT server on the desktop. File & Print, Mail, things like that.
The really interesting thing is that NT systems tend to be deployed for single tasks, where Unix systems tend to do more. It's not uncommon to see 5-10 NT systems peform the task of one Unix system.
Re:Pointless (Score:2)
The way, now, to make Linux attractive is to make it _better_ than Microsoft. Anything else is pointless - if Microsoft makes a better OS, where better is defined as possessing qualities that make people use it more often, then they deserve to win. Getting distracted by ideology will make the people who don't hate Microsoft not want to listen to the good parts, where Linux will help them do their jobs better.
Re:Same as vs. Netscape or different? (Score:3)
They might be also writing a Linux clone but in Windows 2000 there is going to be the capability to run Linux applications on top of Windows. They got together with Interix [interix.com] to achieve this.
Re:Usage (Score:2)
Nah - IE for Macintosh is actually a native Mac application, with considerably less bloat than Netscape. (And you could argue, the Windows version.)
--
IE5 for Solaris sucks (Score:2)
Roll on Mozilla...
Re:Love the Full Screen Layout (Score:2)
.Laz
--
My car is orange, my sig is not.
Re:this is old news.. (Score:2)
Microsoft has admitted to supporting various forms of Unix, or at least recongnizing their existance. It has not publically admitted to the existance of Linux (except in the Halloween documents and a few PR documents. A Linux version of IE would be interesting change. It could even herald the arrival of Microsoft Linux-- the only kernal with a built-in browser.
But MS will just *require* root access to install (Score:3)
frob% cd
frob% tar -xzf msie5.0.666.tgz
frob%
Error: Internet explorer may only be installed by the superuser
frob% su
Password: *******
frob#
MSIE5.0 installer for Linux x86
Checking for available disk space...
Installing MSIE5.0...
Installing system fonts...
Installing JFC 1.x...
Installing Plugins...
Configuring IE5.0...
Updating system settings...
Done.
The installer will now restart your machine so the changes can take effect...
[beep]
Broadcast message from root (ttyp0) Tue May 25 04:29:06 1999...
The system is going down for reboot NOW !!
[beep]
Stopping ftpd...
Stopping inetd...
...
Unmounting filesystems...
Rebooting system...
[system reboots, BIOS screen, etc.]
Updating ESCD...Success.
Verifying DMI Pool Data...Done
Starting Windows 98...
Re:Usage (Score:3)
But ... if you're one of the "cattle population", would you even be using Linux? Obviously Windows must be better, so you'd be running 98 or NT.
I don't care what people say, I don't believe anyone runs Linux just because they hate M$ products -- those people would probably want to use a Mac in that case. People run Linux because of a billion other reasons -- more control over what the computer is doing; get to learn about the design of a "real" OS; they're used to UNIX or want to learn UNIX; they need a reliable solution to a problem; etc, etc, etc. Hating M$ isn't reason enough, there has to be something else.
It really depends (Score:3)
> Linux if they already have IE 4.01 and IE 5.0
> for Solaris and HP-UX? (They do have it
> available for download.) I mean, would there be
> a lot of code to rewrite If they already got the
> thing working on other POSIX compliant OS's?
It would really depend on how careful/competent the porting team had been. It's easy to write to the POSIX spec and expect the software to build and work on any POSIX-compliant OS, but it's another matter to write it to a specific POSIX-compliant OS (or any small set of them) and then expect it to build and work on any other POSIX-compliant OS.
This is especially true when you throw architectural differences into the mix; SPARC and PA-RISC are both 64-bit big-endian architecures (well, PA-RISC might be little-endian; I can't remember). It may well be that their IE for Unix codebase (hopefully they didn't do two individual ports) contains a lot of 64-bitisms. I have learned not to expect good software engineering practices from them.
> Even though I LOVE Linux, I do welcome IE, even
> though it's from M$, It is the superior browser,
> that wasn't the case when they were both like
> 2.0, but the more they progress, the more bugs I
> see in netscape, and the the more I see IE
> handle browsing the web better and better.
IMO, the existing (old) Netscape codebase is slowly collapsing under its own weight. It's high time a Mozilla-derived product got into Alpha...
> The biggest reason I welcome IE to Linux is
> because I'd like to see a Linux browser that
> properly handles Cascading Style Sheets. I have
> yet to see that on Linux browsers.
I have yet to see that on Microsoft browsers. Try some of the CSS conformance tests in IE sometime.
Personally, I'd rather wait for Mozilla on Linux than for IE. Yes... I know... Mozilla might not not be all there yet, but IE for Linux sure as hell isn't.
Re:DONT INSTALL IT (Score:2)
The funny thing about Solaris IE though is that it won't install on Solaris 7 (2.7), at least not the version of IE that I had. It says that I need to use a version of Solaris 2.5 or greater!
Also it's the only piece of Unix software that I ever ran across that asked me if I wanted to make it the default browser, typical M$crap
Re:Opera? (Score:2)
Good question. It's too bad that one of the moderators doesn't have a clue what Opera is. How can the discussion of an alternate web browser be off topic?
TedC
Illusion: it's redraw speed, not re-render speed (Score:2)
Yes, IE5 is much faster putting something up on the screen when you hit the back button, but if you immediately try to scroll down, there's still a wait. It looks like IE5 caches a bitmap of the last window, and remembers where the hotspots are, but if you want to click on something that is outside the "viewport," you still have to wait for the re-render -- delayed a little more by the re-draw.
That's not faster, that's just craftier. Arguably, with the mix of machines out there it's the right thing to do. Just call it what it is.
Re:Don't stoop to their level (Score:2)
Microsoft has a very well documented history of inserting Trojan Horse code in their programs.
So I think that any MS code on my machine will never run with anything near root privilege.
Actually, given my experience with MS code on my Mac, I'll never let a byte of it on my Linux machine. MS can write acceptable code for their own platform, but anything they do for other platforms really has been sub-standard in my experience.
Re:Usage (Score:2)
Re:IE for HP-UX is a dog (Score:3)
The same was true of IE4, according to stuff on Mainsoft's site.
I saw something ages ago on, I think, Microsoft's Web site indicating that they were developing a Win32-atop-MacOS package and getting third parties to do Win32-atop-UNIX packages; they were, I think, pushing this as a way of getting app developers - or, at least, custom in-house app developers - to write Win32 apps and to get them on other platforms with those packages. I don't know if that's the way they do MacOS ports of their own apps.
Re:No browser choice under Linux? (Score:2)
I tried Hotjava under Linux. It looks nice, doesn't crash, even renders slashdot correctly. It's also got the neat java widgets that I like.
However, it is _SLOW_ on my 128MB Pentium II 300 machine. Netscape is much much much faster. Also, if i type a URL in, it's so slow that it will actually mangle the name I type in. I have to type it really slowly so that it can parse it correctly. It's evil.
Hotjava is just too slow to use as an everyday browser, but I suppose if I absolutely need to run a java app from the net, it would work.
Like Win98 Masquerading, Adds Legitimacy... (Score:2)
A bit like when I read that the Win98 refresh includes a "masquerade" capability: perhaps *that* will force ISPs - be it cable, phone, whatever - to accept the legitimacy of such a configuration in general even though *I* don't expect to ever use the Win98 version of it.
(Course, I'd probably be a tad less enthusiastic about the latter if I was vending WinGate.)
Re:mswm? Yikes. (Score:2)
I don't envision Microsoft GPL'ing anything. It does not seem to be their style to actively develop in an open. Why would they budget their resources to a product that has no ties with monetary return when it comes to shrinked wrap sales? They could benefit by supporting GPL software, but I have never seen Microsoft as supporting software. Maybe someone else could relate to Microsoft support, but it escapes my experience.
Re:I would (for testing) (Score:3)
Would I test Microsoft's browser? No Thanks, I would never trust a code base like that on my computer. I don't want something reading my
Regardless of my lack of problems, I hope to have a GPL'd browser soon. It would be nice to swap code with a browser and build something on a whim.
IE for Solaris (Score:4)
It is, unfortunately, a fairly typical Microsoft product. In Windows, IE is better than Netscape (by which I mean it's faster, uses less memory, and crashes less often), because they really need for it to be, and because they can get in bed with the OS. In Solaris, they don't seem to care. It is actually bad enough to make me wonder why they bothered.
Re:Love the Full Screen Layout (Score:3)
The Borg's Prime Directive (Score:2)
I think that, yes, MS will begin pushing their own applications for Linux. They know they can't destroy it - it's too big, too late. What they can do is edge out their competition in this fresh playing field. Ever hear of FUD [tuxedo.org]? As long as a similar Microsoft product is in the works, some of the people (all of the time) will forego buying a competitor's product. After all, you never know when They are going to fall under the shadow of the Giant.
An anti-Linux team may not really translate to getting rid of Linux - it may mean USING it instead. There's a huge, glorious, new market there - can you really picture M$ not getting their fingers into this pie somehow? Get ready to see "NT Server for Linux" on the next round of shiny brochures!
It would be interesting to see the correspondence between the anti-Linux team and the team porting IE.
Wouldn't it be _interesting_ to see the source code of IE for Linux? Keep a sharp eye on your filesystem if you ever install it. Remember, M$ has done twisty little things before (see " Inside the Windows 95 Registration Wizard [ora.com]").
WAIT! M$ = Anti-Linux... (Score:2)
So they're Anti-Linux, yet developing software for it. Hence, users should be quite wary about this.
They never cease to amaze me.