Slashdot Mirror
Internet Explorer 7 on Linux
An anonymous reader writes to mention WebExpose is running a quick guide to get Internet Explorer 7.0 running on Linux. From the article: "Microsoft conditional comments do work, unlike the standalone version of IE on Windows, so you will be able to develop and test webpages across almost all major browsers (IE 5-7, Firefox, Opera) on one Linux box! Also note that we will avoid Microsoft's Genuine Advantage download validation checks, so pure-Linux users will be able to finish the process without having to find a genuine Windows machine to download the IE7 setup file (the check is avoided legitimately, by the way)."
One of the problems I've had running IE6 through WINE (not through ies4linux, just a stock Crossover install) is that the filter-based workarounds to trick IE5.5 and IE6 into displaying alpha-transparent PNG images correctly just doesn't work. IIRC, it's because those methods force IE to display the image through an ActiveX control which isn't present on Linux systems. It replaces the image with a blank one, but doesn't display the alpha-blended background.
This shouldn't be an issue with IE7, but it does make it difficult to test layouts that use alpha PNG and rely on the IE6 workaround.
It's good to know that they've got conditional comments working, though. That's always been the trick with running multiple IEs on Windows. You have to tweak the registry, or else each IE engine will parse them as if it were the most recent one installed on the system.
I only test on the actual OS it will be running on. Even the summary mentions different behaviour on Linux. Sheesh, I would never trust that setup.
I use VMware or similar to run on the target OS. It's the only way to be sure it will work as intended.
This is awesome! Now if we can only get people coding html in Winblows to test their pages on firefox we'll be in business!
....not exactly groundbreaking stuff
Seriously. WHY? Why would I want to do that? What is so compelling about IE7 that I'd want to go through any effort at all? I'm using Firefox 2.0something, it meets my needs. If I were to jump through hoops to install this on my linux box, what would that get for me?
Jokes aside here guys, but what's the point?
Well, I guess that is the difference between knowingly voiding the check and stumbling upon the process that voids the WMA check. I wonder which one the lawyers will believe?
I just don't see how anybody can think this is a good idea for debugging websites. If you see problems with a design, how on earth are you going to be able to tell which are caused by bugs in Internet Explorer and which are caused by bugs in WINE? I know Internet Explorer is exceptionally buggy, but in my experience, WINE is a hundred times worse.
If you're going to need to test in Internet Explorer on Linux, then full-machine virtualisation with a genuine copy of Windows is going to be far more reliable than a partial implementation of the Windows libraries. Yes, it uses more resources, but at least it's not likely to make you chase phantom bugs. The article points out that there are already problems with displaying GIFs - how many other problems like this are lurking waiting to be discovered?
This hack is useful if you really need to use an Internet Explorer-only website, but it just seems crazy to think this is useful for debugging websites.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
For web developers to test out their sites.
What is so compelling about IE7 that I'd want to go through any effort at all? I'm using Firefox 2.0something, it meets my needs. If I were to jump through hoops to install this on my linux box, what would that get for me?
Assuming you, like half of the people here, end up doing some Web development at some point, you get the ability to test those pages in IE7, which has about 50% of the market right now. Being able to do that without having to buy a copy of Windows is a pretty big deal to a lot of people.
I guess so you can pretend you care that your website works for a massive number of all website visitors. But then, it's utterly worthless for anyone who isn't a developer. Before you say "If it works in Firefox it probably at least half works in IE7" try using /.'s "New Discussion System" in IE7. Completely sporked, seriously.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Also, where have you been this past decade? You can use something like VMware server to run Windows if you really need to.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
From the article summary:
If you do your main development on a Linux box, and want to test minor changes in IE as you make them (major changes and final testing should still be done on a native system if possible), it's a lot more convenient to fire up a copy of IE in WINE than to move over to another box or reboot into Windows.
step 1: rm -Rf / step 2: install windows
That's so cool. But you left out the real problem:
How to get Windows to run long enough to view a web site?
If one person is creating a web site, he might want to make sure it works in the primary browser (by usage) in the world.
He shouldn't have to buy a windows OS just for that purpose.
rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
If your needs are to test web sites you design and build on as many different browsers you can get hold of, then you just might want this.
I just browse, so, like you, I just use FF.
Is that is does NOT have IE. Why in God's name would I want it?
To crash your machine... of course!
1. web testing to make sure your pages work in IE (this is questionable as the article mentions different behavior"
2. accessing idiotically designed websites that require Internet explorer to access (with no good reason why they need it. i know of a few that work perfectly fine if you trick them into thinking it is IE, but otherwise they won't let you in.)
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Web developers should love this. A single box that you can test your web sites with just about every Internet Explorer version in use today.
Granted most technical people use Firefox, but the world is full of un-informed users that use IE because it was pre-installed on their computer when they bought it.
Step 1 would fail after reaching a specific library.
:) Of course, as soon as you try and do anything after it's done running you're toast.
No, it doesn't. I've done it on old BSD servers. The shell is loaded in memory and the rm command is part of the shell. It does exactly what you tell it to
As well as the development reasons noted above, there are still some websites that only work correctly in IE. I normally use Firefox, but occasionally I need to switch to IE to get a website to work. Now if I don't care that much, I don't bother, but if you really want something (info, a product whatever) from these sites you pretty much need to have IE available.
Developers, developers, developers!
A large chunk of people still use IE so sites have to work for IE.
Work Safe Porn
The article is about running IE7 on Linux, not *BSD.
/bin/rm
From my Linux box:
morgan@myhost:/usr/include$ which rm
Now, whether or not the rm command would fail once, say, glibc was removed would depend on the particular setup.
My blog
Or IE6 for that matter... and wow, did I get crapped on in trying to point out a bug about it. So who knows when / if it will be fixed (I stopped caring about it at that point, so maybe it's improved)
And if a couple of hundred bucks is too steep for you, especially as a web developer,....nevermind, I won't go there.
Great question. Seriously.
Before you flame me into oblivion, tell me what I miss with IE7 when I already run Windows + Firefox 2.0. I ask in all honesty. Let's just say I have some legit XP machines and I have "friends" with illegitimate XP machines that won't bother with WGA as they know they'll fail. They'll happily go on downloading security updates but don't bother with IE7, Media player 10, etc.
So what.
Their computers run fine and they seem to be able to do everything that everybody else does - play movies, pictures, music, etc, etc
So in this case, what does IE7 get for people over the ones who are forever doomed to Firefox 2.0 and IE6? What are the benefits?
C'mon IE7 supporters, this is a lay-up. Lay it out for me...
Pat Buchannon humping on Charlize Theron?
Nuts. Now I need brain bleach.
Can't believe I even THOUGHT of that...
Why do you think that M$ gives IE away then?
Will my viruses run on Linux too?
P.S.,
This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated.
welcome to the world of dynamic loading libraries. crash course time; /bin/rm. /bin/rm relies upon /lib/libc.so (among others), loads dependant libraries, links them at runtime and continues to execute /bin/rm /bin/rm removes all files, including /lib/libc.so and /bin/rm (remember they are run from memory not disk.. See How Operating Systems Work 101)
/bin/rm is running. say a kernel thread attempts to access a dependant (non-opened) file that was erased by /bin/rm, etc. best to do rm -rf / while running in single user mode
1) shell tells os to execute
2) os notices
3)
4) you are greeted with a prompt
5) the system hoses itself shortly after*
* - the system can actually hose itself during a race condition while
OSS?
I prefer ALSA.
So only Microsoft is forbidden from making a profit. Apple isn't, Red Hat isn't. Y
From my Linux box:
/bin/rm
morgan@myhost:/usr/include$ which rm
And your point is? What does that have to do with anything?
Now, whether or not the rm command would fail once, say, glibc was removed would depend on the particular setup.
After rm starts, it and all libraries it needs, including glibc, are loaded into memory. It does not matter what you do to the files on the disk at that moment. In this aspect, there is no difference between BSD and Linux, no matter what your "setup" is.
AccountKiller
2) One of the greatest features of *nix filesystems is that libraries that are in use can be replaced. As long as some program is still using the inode, the data won't be removed, just effectively invisible to anything that doesn't already have it open. Once the refcount reaches zero, it's removed. That's how rm could delete itself.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
The only reason that matters is BECAUSE WE CAN.
Step 1 is redundant. Kinda like you
/bin/rm should be statically linked effectively killing step 2, but the above method is still possible if its not a static binary.
And of course, you get modded +4 Insightful for being an idiot. Only on /. would we give someone karma for not opening his bloody eyes, and simply spouting off anti-Microsoft bile.
As it's been said a few times, this is for developers (something you would of noticed had you, you know, read the article). Why is this a good thing? Because Mircosoft's browser still has easily over 50% market share, that's why. The thing may suck, but it's still here and we have to deal with it.
In Soviet Russia sites test YOU!
Seriously, though, if I want IE7 or anything else to do with Windows, I use VMware on my Linux box. Works like a charm.
...laura
On Linux? No.
Even on *BSD, isn't that /sbin?
http://outcampaign.org/
It doesn't matter that its insanely stupid, hasn't any geek here done something just for the ability to BRAG that they did it. Linux is the proverbial platform to accomplish the most insane crap just to prove you could do it. Much like say setting up an old tape drive (Audio Tape not Digital Tape) so you can find a way to first A) Put the entire Debian archive on them, and then B) Reinstall your machine from it. Its stupid is inane and no one in their right mind would ever think about doing shit like this but people do it just to see if ITS POSSIBLE, and the bragging rights to say that THEY DID IT!
Or the version of Konqueror I have at work.
linux-gate.so.1 => (0xffffe000)
libc.so.6 =>
ash-fox@Tapestry:~$ I have actually done 'rm -rf
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
3) /bin/rm removes all files, including /lib/libc.so and /bin/rm (remember they are run from memory not disk..
Yes on one, irrelevant on two.
The 'rm' just decrements the link count to the file. As long as a process (any process) still has an open file descriptor for that file, the file is in fact still there. It only really disappears when the link count is zero and no processes still have the file open. True for all 'nixes, AFAIK.
(You probably know this, other readers may not.)
-- Alastair
Well, why Slashdot don't provide it's user stats? I would be very nice to see comparison between regged and regular users.
You have to download it and save it locally while still running *nix, burn it to a CD with mkisofs -R -J . . .| cdrecord, then rm -Rf / then install Windows (might have to wait overnight for it to finish). Once installed, disable all network adaptors, physically remove any CAT 5/6 cables just in case, then boot into Safe Mode, and view it from the CD. You should have about 4 minutes before you get the W32.Blaster worm.
Seriously. I do all of my workstuff on Debian Testing, and keep a windows box running next to me for the sole purpose of IE7 testing (I do IE6 testing over terminal server.) This is a good thing, thanks.
Please show me where in my question I spouted any bile. I asked a straightforward question, and even mentioned I was looking for serious responses, many of which I got. Unlike yours.
As it's been said a few times, this is for developers (something you would of noticed had you, you know, read the article).
And if you had read the thread, you'd see that several people have proposed valid reasons why this setup wouldn't be trusted, at least by them, to validate anything. Again, hence my questions.
Why is this a good thing? Because Mircosoft's browser still has easily over 50% market share, that's why. The thing may suck, but it's still here and we have to deal with it.
That's fine, _really_. But I'm still staying with the thought that using an emulated environment to run a browser to validate a website you're developing, is the _wrong_ reason to do something like this. Accessing b0rken websites that some developer wrote only for IEsomething, yeah, OK. Validation, I don't think so.
So there's a well reasoned, non-ranting response to your post. Where are you going to take it now, I wonder?
I know Slashdotters love Opera, for whatever reason, but I wonder why Safari isn't considered a "major browser" according to the post. There are several different surveys here:r owsers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_b
and, no matter which one you believe, Safari seems to have a much larger share of the browser market than Opera. I wouldn't say this is so much offtopic as it is tangential, but do as you will and mod away as you see fit.
I'm just sayin'.
They do NOT give IE for Linux/FreeBSD.
Browsercam.
It's a plug, yes. But they deserve it.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
IE7 isn't the primary browser by usage in the world.
\n.\n
LOAD "SIG",8,1
Four Minutes! You must have a low speed connection.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
That's fine for you, but my dad was very frustrated with Ubuntu when I installed it on his PC because I was sick of having to go and de-spyware his computer every couple of weeks. Somehow he had a problem operating the useragent switcher extension for Firefox, and in the case of his online banking the useragent switcher didn't work. So now he has an IE icon on his Edgy desktop, and he can do his banking at home. Firefox gets used for everything else. I would never suggest to him that we should put VMWare on his computer and boot up windows every time he wants to pay a bill.
Being able to run IE under Linux means that Microsoft has lost at least one user that I know of. I would guess many many more.
'so you will be able to develop and test webpages across almost all major browsers (IE 5-7, Firefox, Opera) on one Linux box!'
I want to write a web page and test it on all the browsers.
Currently you cant have IE7 and an earlier IE on the same windows machine.
Here we have 1 machine with all browsers.
Your other options are having multiple machines or not testing.
I'm not disagreeing that using the method in the article is completely foolish. In fact, I'm mostly disagreeing with the fact that you got modded up for not reading the article.
Seriously. WHY? Why would I want to do that? What is so compelling about IE7 that I'd want to go through any effort at all? I'm using Firefox 2.0something, it meets my needs. If I were to jump through hoops to install this on my linux box, what would that get for me?
Why would you want to jump through loops to install IE in Linux? If you're a web developer, designer, or programmer you want to make sure what you create will work in the most popular browser being used. If you don't then you're neglecting a hugh market. That's why. Of course it would be better if you have a Windows machine to test in.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The important question is, why doesn't his online banking site work in Firefox? Have you contacted the bank to ask them when (not if) they'll support Firefox?
That's the only way to be sure.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
It's been quite a while since I encountered a site that required IE, but back when they were more common I was always able to access them by having Opera identify itself as IE. It sounds like that's more of a common experience than I knew.
This space intentionally left blank.
you got pissed b/c you like wind0ws :-)
Out of some 80 posts before yours, this is the first one I've seen that even has the word "opera" in it. It's also the firs tyme I saw safari mentioned, so it's 1 for 1 between how many tymes each as been mentioned.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If you are a web developer or even a hobbyist with a website you will need to code for IE. If you don't want to run windows just to check on changes you've made to a website then you'll want to know how to install Internet Explorer on linux or other operating systems.
http://nyamenation.org/
Unless you have a huge website with cross-demographic appeal, your data is meaningless. If you want any kind of reliable statistic about browser usage you need to look at a whole bunch of sites like MySpace, YouTube, Wikipedia, Amazon, etc. Even that data could be skewed, the best way to measure it would probably be to ask a large random sampling of the general population what browsers they use (a boring old gallup poll, basically). Then I'd bet you'd find that IE hovers around 80%-85% of all browsers.
For web developers to test out their sites.
Web developers should not be building their sites so that they "work" in IE. They should be following the proper standards and EXPECTING them to work in IE. After all, what happens when IE gets fixed, and their site no longer "works"?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
...although probably not the most-exciting totals-your-LAN smokes-your-box editions.
What does come across thoroughly is IE7's inability to use IMG-based form controls. I wonder what security measure trigger that little piece of helpfulness?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Also, where have you been this past decade? You can use something like VMware server [vmware.com] to run Windows if you really need to.
I use Windows now but because of MS's actions as regarding Activation and WGA I am switching to Macs. Running Windows in a VM would mean I'd still have to deal with what is driving me away from Windows. I'd also have to buy a license for an OS I don't want.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Interestingly enough, with a little planning and having some statically linked binaries around (like busybox) you can actually recover from this live on a linux system. Try removing the equivalent under windows and recovering without a reboot.
Some *NIX systems have a directory in the root directory, which contains a set of statically linked utilities that can be used for recovery. On FreeBSD, this is /rescue, which contains statically linked copies of many of the things from /sbin and /bin. If something goes wrong with your linker (or you numpty up and accidentally delete it) then these tools can be very important.
Either way, it dosen't matter. When an executable file is run then all of its libraries are opened, incrementing their reference count, so deleting them will not actually delete them on disk until the program runs and thus it is possible to run 'rm -rf /' and delete every file.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
If you do 'deltree -y .' (the Windows equivalent), then this will fail, since Windows filesystems have different semantics, and don't allow the deletion of open files.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
For those who have not read the IE7 EULA:
PLEASE NOTE: Microsoft Corporation (or based on where you live, one of its affiliates) licenses this supplement to you. You may use a copy of this supplement with each validly licensed copy of Microsoft Windows XP SP2 and Windows Server 2003 SP1 software (the "software"). You may not use the supplement if you do not have a license for the software. The license terms for the software apply to your use of this supplement.
So you need to have a licensed copy of WXP or W2K3. Looks a little vaque whether you have to be running under the validly licensed OS, though.
You can code your web site in compliant HTML 3.2 and not even have to bother browser checking.
Seriously. WHY? Why would I want to do that? What is so compelling about Firefox 2.0something that I'd want to go through any effort at all? I'm using IE 7, it meets my needs. What would that get for me?
What's the point?
Assume much? I _read_ the article. In my other posts, I pointed out that I don't trust an emulated environment to validate anything and quite honestly, if you do, you're foolish. So how about instead of assuming what I haven't or have read, you address the point of how exactly you feel you can trust a combination of 3 or 4 things which are from different teams, to end up giving you exactly what J. Random User gets on his shiny-new Vista box running IE7? If you're _THAT_ confident in Wine, well, I think you're overconfident. Too many variables.
He was just talking about visitors using IE7, not just any version of IE. To me 20% to 30% sounds more than reasonable.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Sorry, but (seriously!) your Windows install really did get a worm, 'cause you have to unplug your NIC before installing. On Windows XP, the firewall comes up at ~55 minutes in to the install. Unfortunately, the network systems come up 5 minutes before that, leaving a small (but experimentally viable) window for infection.
I did OS tech support a few years back, and of the hundreds of calls personally had at least one person doing a clean install get hit with Sasser before the OS was even fully on the disk.Wow, that's interesting...
IE7 is on linux even before it is on Win2000.
Actually, they say it will never come out for win 2000.
Now... can I run a windows simulator inside my windows in order to run these programs MS is specifically blocking from win2000? Such as IE7, windows live writer (a blog editing program), windows live messenger, etc.
I've installed ies4linux but activex applications don't work. Will they work with this IE7 hack? We have a cyclades KVM at work that uses an activex app to launch the viewer ..it works but it's really annoying since we're a 99% nix shop.
Then I'd bet you'd find that IE hovers around 80%-85% of all browsers.
IE 7 has about 55% of the market according to the best numbers I've seen. It was autoloaded on pretty much all IE6 machines except Win2K and corporate machines that blocked it.
It is only a matter of time until the wine project replaces microsoft windows. While microsoft can only continue to code incompatability with previous versions to retain it's position in the marketplace, it appears that wine will have full compatiblity with XP and earlier versions of windows within a couple of years. Running applications uner *nix with wine appears to not suffer from viruses and other security problems that plauge windows. With pc sales declining, linux and wine appear to put linux ontop in a few short years.
Going through this comment tree, I was waiting for somebody to correct the twenty false comments above you in the stack.
Thank you for not being an idiot.
Wow. The ultimate trojan horse!
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
I thought this was a dead issue too, but I am required to use Promax at my work.
If you can believe it, this thing forces the use of ActiveX objects.
I called to ask how to use it from Solaris or Ubuntu. Their response? "We only support Windows XP. No one uses anything else, anyway."
Ick.
Being a crummy reader, I didn't read the entire article. At this point I'd just as soon build my web to a standard and any browser that can't handle it is outta luck.
That being said, here's a question for that motley crew at Redmond: If your damn browser is so goddamn great, why is there no open, cross-platform version available for schmoes like me? Are your programmers so bad they can't handle more than two OS's?
Firefox: free, and available on damn near any platform you want.
Opera: Free. It's probably on my phone.
IE7: NOT FREE. Oh, sure, you can monkey around and get a windows version on Linux, but, really, what's the point? If you're going to insist I spend triple digits just to use your browser--which may or may not work with standards, which may (or may not) be secure, which may (or probably not) run well with my limited knowledge of Linux, and, from some indications, not even work with web servers already out there, why the hell would I?
Yes, I realize this is a rant, but I just need to re-enforce the idea that because something is new it doesn't mean it's better, or more capable than what's already out there. And, because it's Microsoft, their ham-fisted way of pushing the "update" just tells me they're hoping to leave IE6's reputation behind them.
Why did you disconnect my services, and what's this court order all about?
"You still haven't paid your bill, once you do, we will reconnect."
But I've already told you, I'm just waiting for my bank to support firefox!
(...and in the real world...)
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
I should also point out that in very recent version, rm now detects rm [options] / and tells you that it cannot remove the root directory. still some ways to work around that like cd / && rm -Rf * but at least give rm credit for trying to keep idiots safe.
Because damnit I have to feel passionate about something! And without going outside, all I have is the browser I use.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
A web developer running a hacked-in IE7 on Linux is like an auto mechanic using one of those cheap screwdrivers with changeable-heads to fix cars. I'm shopping for web design right now, and I wouldn't hire anybody who told me that this was how they checked IE7 compatiblity.
Then you need a copy of VMWare to test your websites with both IE7 and IE6. Also IE5.5, probably need another image...either cut your performance down even more by having two VMs open at once, or wait five minutes for each one to load each time you need to test your site.
Or just use Linux, and you can have reasonable confidence that your site will be functional for every IE you care to try.
You can remove Internet Explorer from Windows in less than an hour. See, you could have saved a bit of work.
Do we really need that?
$400 a year of $20 a day? Not exactly cheap.
It makes sense if you are a full time web designer, but for someone like me, who makes occaisional changes to a handful of sites, it simple does not make sense.
As far as I know, IE is only 1. bugs, 2.viruses, 3. annoying controls, and 4. 1, 2, and 3. Wait, no, I thought of a few more more! 5. see 4, 6. see 5...
Here ary three browsers I'd rather see on Linux (Safari is Konqueror):
1.Not IE 2.Not IE 3.Every virus on earth in a TGZ equiped with Wine and a fun-looking browser-like trojan GUI.
I do website development on Linux, but I'm perfectly happy with building for the Mozilla and KHTML platforms. Hopefully there will be a fatal flaw in IE7 that proves to most users that IE doesn't work. I mean, one that isn't well documented, and has a source code patch on sourceforge. But until we reach that day:
Just hack IE6 and maybe IE7 for your own pleasure while you're doing rendering or compiling. Testing hacks is no fun.
There are often group purchases on fundable.org, where groups of solo web designers pool their money to purchase a group subscription as if they were a larger company. $40 gets you one year of premium access, and it's not against BrowserCam's TOS, in fact they're aware of the practice and apparently have no problem with it.
There are a few spots left on this group purchase, and if you miss that one, another one is sure to pop up soon.
http://browsershots.org/
slow, but free. browsercam is $1000/year.
This is much more effective:
# cp /dev/zero /dev/hda
# Linux (devices depend on Unix variant)
It left behind /dev and its contents, plus the /proc and /sys directories
/dev should be gone too, but with devfs, /dev is a virtual filesystem like /proc and /sys.
Must be running devfs then. Normally,
Thanks, that is the most useful tip I have ever got on slashdot.
Deserve it they do. This is the best service I have seen, well..., in quite a while. It will save me countless work. Thanks a lot for sharing this.
I just wonder if anyone has had the time to create a Gentoo Linux source ebuild of it.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Have you ever tried contacting these management types? You'll find that all you get is a condescending form letter about them being unable to support anything but IE, and how Firefox doesn't matter. If that.
Interestingly enough, with a little planning and having some statically linked binaries around (like busybox) you can actually recover from this live on a linux system.
I have to question how "live" such a system would _actually_ be.
Try removing the equivalent under windows and recovering without a reboot.
I think it's pretty safe to say the "equivalent" would nuke the vast majority of unix machines beyond any hope of quick and easy recovery. You, yourself, indicate it needs "planning" to be able to do.
Fundamentally, if you have a service that requires 24/7 availability but is impacted by a server failure - be it from hardware failure or sysadmin butterfingers - then you have a broken architecture.
It was autoloaded on pretty much all IE6 machines except Win2K and corporate machines that blocked it.
And the pirates who haven't hacked WGA (which is a substantial market segment). And those of us who haven't installed WGA on principle (which, I'll grant, is substantially smaller).
Maybe now theyll start using some of windows security tools in linux. It will be grand.
This implies having a Windows XP licence, which is a bit more than "Just"
some prices
Even if these prices are out of date, you get my drift that this is an extra overhead.
I don't think you are allowed to run IE without a windows licence anyway, so the whole idea of running IE in linux would only be for convenience.
Just so you know I have an msdn subscription and therefore legal access to windows, however I would dearly love to ditch this dependency.
Having to test for IE clients is yet another lock in to windows.
Respect copyright - the GPL relies on it.
any clues on how to fix these terrible fonts? (look at the address bar and the menu bar): http://dheera.net/wineie.jpg I've already installed all the MS TrueType fonts. I'd like it to actually use TT fonts for the widgets...
You can't install Windows (XP and earlier versions) onto a machine that has previously had a Linux system on it. Windows comes with a rather christian version of fdisk that not only can't create non-Windows partitions, it can't even delete them either! Before installing Windows you need to boot up a Linux liveCD, run cfdisk, delete all the old partitions, and create one FAT32 partition spanning the whole drive. (Just zeroing-out the partition table with dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=512 count=1 might work; can't remember as it was so long since I tried this.) You can then repartition as you think fit during Windows installation. But Windows fdisk can't handle any partition with a non-Microsoft ident.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Except you shouldn't use cp on devices.
This will do:
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda
I'm COMPELLED to use it as the web based accounts package we have switched too will not run on firefox (yet). Myself and my ofther staff have linux desktops, either native or as X terminals and hence need a solution like this to do our bookkeeping!
Without Wine or IE4Linux I would be most stuck!
I say screw IE7, 6, 5, and all others. Seriously. No two flavors of IE render alike, and quite a few high profile sites (newspapers especially) simply don't render correctly at work (IE6). I find it annoying when graphics cover up the text. I don't have that problem at home with Firefox on Linux.
Just code to specs and forget about the idiots who can't write a decent browser (I'm talking to YOU, Microsoft programmers). When womeone emails you with "your site is shit" write back with "no, your BROWSER is shit, download one that CSS actually WORKS in that will have a nice side effect of not making you vulnerable to exploits 284 days a year. Get Firefox, Opera, or anybody else's browser."
Nobody who knows anything at all about computers uses IE. NOBODY. Yeah, grandma uses it but she's pwned, isn't she?
Code to spec. When everybody does, Microsoft will have to write a browser that actually WORKS.
My direct personal experience differs from your speculation. I called my bank when I got online banking, complaining that I didn't want to have to run IE just to access their site, and that I was considering switching banks as a result of their problems. They got me in touch with the developer, and we spent maybe 30 minutes chatting about stuff, and couple weeks later, they released a new version of the site that didn't break firefox. Not complicated. If you don't ask, you'll never know. Assuming the answer will be "no" or "pound sand" without asking, is unfair to your bank _and_ to the other customers. Once they tell you to go away, sure, follow up by doing so; if they hear it enough they just might get it. Or not. But, there's plenty who do, and I've switched banks over less.
Err, yes you can. Try doing it
No, I'm not an idiot.
Yes, this is actually what usually happens. The rm itself can exhibit errors because some process has some file read-locked (or r/w-locked) -- and in many cases libc.so does end up read-locked by some process, but, you're right, rm won't crash until some other part of the system like init or something else that ultimately causes a kernel panic or some other equally hosed condition.
Single-user mode is about the only place you're going to be able to run an rm -rf / that isn't going to crash though.
Like I said -- it depends on the particular setup.
My blog
Can I have some of what you're drinking because it is obviously pretty damned strong.
Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Washington Mutual... that's just a few of the big-name banks and if you think for a minute that a handful of people asking when they're going to support Firefox is going to cause them to change their sites then you're out of your mind.
I work with all three banks on a daily basis developing direct intergrations in to my company's systems. These companies take 4 - 6 months to add a single new feature to any of their systems.
I didn't say that I didn't try, because I did. And for all I know they do support Firefox now, I haven't checked. At the time they did not.
There was another case where the Canadian government issued a census that was mandatory for all citizens to complete. It could be filled out online, but only with Internet Explorer. So a whole bunch of us harassed them through various channels. They quickly added support for Firefox.
I have no problem raising a stink about this myself, but I do not expect my father to be passionate about these things, and I don't expect him to suffer through them, or go without some service because of them. I don't even expect him to understand why it's a problem in the first place. He doesn't really care (I can tell by the blank stare on his face when I rant about them). He has IE available to him when he needs it, and I'll do the yelling and screaming for him.
Um, Starbucks "whatever flavor is free" in the machine at work.
Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Washington Mutual... that's just a few of the big-name banks and if you think for a minute that a handful of people asking when they're going to support Firefox is going to cause them to change their sites then you're out of your mind.
You missed my point. In _my_ experience, a call and some polite questioning got me to the right guy. He was aware of the problem, we discussed a few things, and he fixed his site. Direct personal experience, you see, nothing imaginary about it.
I work with all three banks on a daily basis developing direct intergrations in to my company's systems. These companies take 4 - 6 months to add a single new feature to any of their systems.
That may be, I believe, you, I've worked with Wells, Fifth Third, Chase, the other Chase, the other other Chase, and so on. But I'm not saying all banks will change when they're doing something stupid, I'm saying it's worth _trying_, and if they won't, they don't meet your needs so switch. Is one phone call from one guy likely to change a big bank? No, but in the case of the one I deal with, my call was at the right time, to the right person, and the outcome I wanted was released. In their case they were simply checking user-agent strings and blocking based on that. The thinking was "well, old versions of IE don't support the proper encryption." Which is true. So we talked about SSLCipherSuite settings, and the techie explained to the decision makers that doing it by crypto level made more sense than guessing at a system's crypto standard based on a browser's own identification of what it is. So if you get the right person, who knows what you're talking about and can make decisions and changes, go for it. If you can't, and they won't talk to you, (shrug) banking is a commodity product, plenty of others out there.
Jokes aside here guys, but what's the point?
Because WE CAN! That's what nerds do.
I don't even think this is a joke...
Atheism is a non-prophet organisation
I'll be installing IE just as soon as I finish putting that old Ford Pinto engine in my Ferrari.
I keep hearing that IE7 autoloaded, but it didn't autoload on any of the four computers I regularly use. Its installer was downloaded and cached, but never run.
I finally installed it on one of my two work machines a few days ago just to see it (and am using it at the moment)... the favorites menu finally has a scrollbar, but other than that its a downgrade. The toolbar layout can't be modified anymore and I especially hate the tabs... I already run a window manager with controls for quickly switching between windows, why would I want a second window manager inside my application that's invisible to the OS window manager?
Doesn't it still violate the Terms of Use set out in the License Agreement?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
> ...IE7, which has about 50%...
yes, but until IE6 has 0%, you still need a windows box to text IE6, so you may as well just use IE7 on windows. No serious web developer can get away with only one platform.
May be this has been asked but....will it bring along all the security problems to LINUX also?
Use of Flash 9.0 (8.0 is the highest version available for linux). Use sites that exclusively support IE.
Actually Flash Player 7 is the highest version for Linux, though a beta of 9 is available (and there will be no 8)
I have to question how "live" such a system would _actually_ be.
How about currently running programs are still running. Only new processes fail and only if they are dynamically linked. That's pretty live. My databases continued to run, media player, mail apps, web browser, chat windows.... Anything already running continues to run in the scenario I described.