Slashdot Mirror
Ballmer "Interested" In Open Source Browser Engine
Da Massive writes "'Why is IE still relevant and why is it worth spending money on rendering engines when there are open source ones available that can respond to changes in Web standards faster?,' asked a young developer to Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer in Sydney yesterday. 'That's cheeky, but a good question, but cheeky,' Ballmer said. Then came the startling revelation that Microsoft may also adopt an open source browser engine. 'Open source is interesting,' he said. 'Apple has embraced Webkit and we may look at that, but we will continue to build extensions for IE 8.'"
Microsoft is going to be infected with the GPL virus!
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/craig/05-03sharedsource.mspx
"We will continue to build extensions". That definitely deserves a whatcouldpossiblygowrong tag.
Hasn't IE been a fully integrated part of Windows since, what, all the way back to Windows 98? If they start using some open-source code for their browser, will the architecture of the OS still have IE as such an integral part, or will it become a separate application again? Also, is it really such a good thing to have Micro$oft active in the open-source community? Forgive me, but talk like this makes me a little nervous.
Embrace, Extend... wait, there's a third "E" and a third browser technology, isn't there, Steve, and it's probably got something to do with what you'd like to do with Gecko/Firefox.
Wonder what it might be.
Embrace
Extend
Enjoy
Yes, I suppose Microsoft might embrace open source. Of course, our politicians might lower taxes too. But Microsoft, like politicians, have a long history of saying one thing and doing another. That, and I'm pretty sure Balmer knows that if he mentions open source he'll get a free plug on Slashdot and on other media sites where highly technical people frequent. From a marketing standpoint, it makes sense to hint at open source as much as possible. From a legal and business standpoint, it's more likely he'll dance around on the stage in a Gir suit while singing the doom song.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I USE TEH LINUX AND I R ANGRY
Deliberately fucking up/poisoning what everybody else is doing is the only thing they do well!
How can MS really adopt anything open source at this point? IE isn't just a part of Windows, IE practically *IS* Windows and having it being open source would make a valuable part of Windows open source which Ballmer hates with a passion. Take away IE and Active X and half the reason to use Windows goes away. And really, why use WebKit? Sure, its a decent rendering engine but no better than Gecko or the other OSS rendering engines. I really fear for WebKit if MS manages to use it, because rather than having WebKit we will have MS WebKit which is a highly modified version of an older release, Google's Bleeding Edge WebKit and Apple's Stable WebKit. And honestly, this is taking us back to Netscape Vs IE....
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Either Ballmer is throwing out a red herring, or future versions of IE (presumably after 8) will finally be decoupled from Windows.
But, what open source browser engines are there other than Gecko and Webkit? Both are developed by MS' sworn mortal enemies. Browsers are complex, time consuming beasts to develop.
Microsoft won the Browser Wars but failed to achieve its objectives in victory. The war against Netscape was to insure that all apps either network based or not needed Microsoft Windows with IE to run the apps. With such failures such as Active X which never really made it past the Intranet and Extranet application. What happened was web developers for the most part designed as much using open standards (or at least plugins that were more universally compatible) and then were able to make apps that run well on Windows, Mac, Linux, BSD or whatever just as long as you have a fairly modern browser. What was probably really surpassing to Microsoft most of this. Even decided to give the apps a step back in functionality (just recently for the last couple of year the AJAX method with DHTML became fully functional, or at least 85% there) just to keep compatibility.
What killed Microsoft objective more then anything was the insecurity of Active X and the general habit for people when asked a question is to answer yes and get it done. So now Microsoft is spending millions of dollars in IE development without really getting any major competitive advantage out of the deal. Sure you may have 90% of the market but only 5% of that market actually doing IE Only things you are just wasting your money.
Going to an open source rendering system just seems a way to keep up with the time. By joining the Jones you don't need to keep up with them. Just like with Safari or Chrome all the company needs to do is maintain the browser in features and UI (stuff that closed source companies have seem to shown they have an advantage over open source) and use someone else's Open Source rendering engine (Following specs and making things like rendering engines are what Open Source Developers are good at) So what Microsoft accomplish is a new objective. People will want to stick with Windows because they Like IE over the others.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
itsatrapwhatcouldpossiblygowrongembraceextendextinguishrunrunforthehills
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
In this second great browser wars there are 4 major battles:
Features
Standards compliance
Speed
Security
MS can get features and even standards compliance through proprietary means, on the other hand, security and speed depend on lots of people looking through the code. So in essence, without an open source rendering engine MS can't hope to win. On the other hand, Firefox, Safari, and Chrome have made great leaps because they have all of the above.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
I mean, seriously... Microsoft is just not the same without Wild Bill at the helm.
This is my sig.
If your abusive spouse buys you flowers, you don't stop planning the escape.
How we know is more important than what we know.
"Why is IE still relevant and why is it worth spending money on rendering engines when there are open source ones available that can respond to changes in Web standards faster?"
"That's cheeky, but a good question, but cheeky," Ballmer said.
What the story doesn't mention is that the developer who asked that question was found dead later that day with a folding chair wrapped around his neck.
He's interested in Open Source in the same way ticks are interested in dogs.
Why? There isn't a closed source rendering engine that processes JavaScript anywhere near as fast as Gecko or Webkit. Eventually, this is going to make it very difficult for IE to maintain its market share when common web developers start writing applications that require this kind of performance. There will eventually be web based applications that match Windows or OS X in responsiveness and functionality using only JavaScript HTML and CSS. When ordinary web developers begin to develop software that requires the performance advantage of open source rendering engines, Microsoft will be faced with the decision of switching or becoming obsolete on the web.
The problem is how.
Open source makes this much more difficult.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Ballmer pretty much confirmed (was there yesterday) that was the strategy later on in his answer - to beat the standards bodies to new features. The entire strategy they presented was building a new Microsoft-only Web stack built on .Net, and then trying to lock people in with IE8+.
I understand Stac and Netscape. What the heck did Microsoft ever do to IBM or Apple? Are you upset Apple was given competition? Well, I guess IBM was sort of screwed over by the OEM deals MS did that locked OS2 out. So what did Microsoft do to Apple that was that terrible?
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Your argument has two glaring problems. Firstly, government regulation does not equal less competition. In many cases it results in more competition, especially in the case of monopolies and collusion between companies. Secondly, the mafia cannot legally exist because of laws limiting them, in other words, government regulation. Without the most basic regulation, then any business could (and probably would) become like the mafia. Competition would be limited to companies competing to be the most intimidating, and whoever could intimidate enough people into paying them. In a world with excessive government regulation, even the kind that produces less competition, at least the government would be regulating against such behaviour.
In other words, your argument makes no sense.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
If you look at the latest versions of .NET, silverlight, integration of Ajax and the overwhelming popularity of the Ajax model in delivering web content, they will have little choice. I suspect they know the architecture of IE just isn't suited to the technology they are trying to deliver their next generation of applications on.
In other words, they want to own the server, not the client, when the applications will be delivered from there. Even their own developers use Firefox/firebug for debugging work (who doesn't?)
Extend, Embed, Enjoy
Microsoft will never open-source Trident. It'd be like letting the entire world look at your dirty laundry.
So what did Microsoft do to Apple that was that terrible?
Got two words for you there: "look" and "feel."
MS was an early developer for Macs and had some of the first prototype machines. While assuring Apple that they weren't, they were using their knowledge of the thing that made a Mac a Mac, the Toolbox, to build a GUI on top of DOS. This GUI was released later as Windows, and although apologists try to play it off as based on Xerox's interface (whose designers were at Apple by then anyway), there is much evidence that they ripped Apple off. Apple put a ton of R&D into the interface, it was not much like Xerox's at all -- it was very much an "invented here" mindset as opposed MS's "NIH."
Thus was born the Look and Feel suit; Apple sued Microsoft for ripping off their interface, but in the meantime, Apple's then-CEO, John Sculley, had given Gates a badly-worded agreement that was construed by the judge to be a license to produce Windows using Apple's "intellectual property." Then again, part of the settlement was that MS couldn't use overlapping windows; that's why they were tiled until version 3.
All this actually didn't matter much; Apple made the bulk of its revenues on the Apple II line until 1987 or so, and Microsoft could likely have parlayed Apple's BASIC license into permission to use Apple's interface R&D anyway ("applesoft" BASIC was developed by MS, Woz did the superior "integer" BASIC but never upgraded it to handle floating-point math).
Here's what I consider the main point: Apple saw the Xerox work, and took some of the key people who created it, but they totally improved it. Quickdraw did real regions, roundrects, and other stuff the Smalltalk interface didn't. Microsoft may have seen the Xerox work, definitely saw the Apple stuff, and then put together a half-assed, hackneyed piece of shit.
This is what Microsoft has done ever since. Apple runs Microsoft's interface R&D, in a way. I think that's the real reason MS bailed them out in 1997. Bill Gates famously said, "I want Mac on a PC! I want Mac on a PC!" They always get pretty close, but somehow stay so far.
Linux seems to be much closer, using technology (X) that really was developed independently on a parallel track; thus they have their own thing that isn't some wanna be copy and stands on its own.
They're just tired of trying to compete with Mozilla.. if you can't beat 'em.. join 'em. ;)
-Troll, Flamebait, and Offtopic are NOT equivalent to disagreement.
As a web designer, the nightmare of my day is having to check my code against IE, Firefox, Safari, etc. Most of all was IE. That crap [IE] could really screw with you. The fact that a complex page design almost always couldn't accommodate both W3C standards and IE has made many days almost unbearable. Now I understand, "Well then don't program for it," and trust me I would love to live that idea, but the truth is company execs don't give a rat's ass. A lot of people use IE, and you're page has to work accordingly.
Anyway, my point is that IE8 beta 3 has shown some great improvements with CSS, XHTML, JavaScript support. Finally there will (should be) support for the pseudo :hover, etc. I've already seem some great improvements in complying with W3C standards. Though not up to par with its competitors, Microsoft has actually put some effort into this one that I haven't seen before.
It looks like someone working there ran across this page, or one like it, and thought it was finally time to make a change.
How soon you forget OS/2 and the screw job MS did to IBM there...
Someone buy the above poster a beer.
Well since flowers didn't work, I guess beer is worth a shot.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
As [name any petty tech squabble] grows longer the probability of co-opting language used in historical social movements that faced abuse, torture, and often death against almost insurmountable oppressive inertia approaches one.
It even complies with Unix' "Do one thing, and do it well"
I'm not insane! My mother had me tested.
Let's assume they contribute patches back and you are the project leader. Would you accept their patches?
In other words, exactly how IE4 eliminated Netscape in the first browser war. By burying them in the W3C.
I think what people overlook is that the standards process favors the "big guy" over the "little guy" -- assuming the big guy is paying attention. It will take some time for Microsoft to catch up, but it's a real possibility that they could they could pull ahead of Mozilla/Webkit/Opera within a couple years.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
it just means that many people don't like MS and don't trust it and don't want it. I am one of those people
You can't handle the truth.
exactly. the best example for that is russia of nineties. it was a real libertarian paradize with laissez-faire capitalism and the rest of the life.
most buisnesses were undistinguishable from thugs and the rest paid protection money.
even the law enforcement was the same.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Government control is a normalising force, designed to keep the system working and the interests of the people first and foremost on the agenda.
Well, that's a nice theory. However, you must have been living on Mars. In reality, it morphed into this decades ago: Government control is a force working to keep the Big Corp system working and the interests of the their sponsors - the filthy rich - first and foremost on the agenda.