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!
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
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.
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?
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
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.
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...
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.
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
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.
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'.
Browsercam.
It's a plug, yes. But they deserve it.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
'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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
Are you sure?
I've just entered the following:
wget http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/downloads/ies4 linux-latest.tar.gz
./ies4linux -beta-install-ie7
tar zxvf ies4linux-latest.tar.gz
cd ies4linux-*
And it failed.
Update: it seems that you need two hyphens before the "beta". It is also necessary to download the special beta version of ies4linux, which is not linked to from the main ies4linux page.
wget http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/downloads/ies4 linux-2.5beta3.tar.gz
./ies4linux --beta-install-ie7
tar zxvf ies4linux-2.5beta3.tar.gz
cd ies4linux-2.5beta3
That should work, but I'm getting "An error occured when trying to cabextract some files."
Oh come on, don't overreact. Wine and ies4linux are perfectly adequate for ordinary testing purposes during web design. One the whole thing is finished it'll probably be a good idea to give it a final check on a Windows machine, but even that is perhaps paranoid.
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.