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.'"

Comments

At least he's honest.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

"We will continue to build extensions". That definitely deserves a whatcouldpossiblygowrong tag.

Re:At least he's honest.

[jd]

I'd rather not see an entire rendering engine in one huge monolithic chunk. Part of the reason that web standards outpace browser development by so much is that most engines are very hard to extend. What's wanted is a "standard" API for a data-to-data transformation engine. Instead of the W3C producing a proof-of-concept browser like Amaya, all they need do is produce a proof-of-concept transformation engine instead, which can then be used also to verify proof-of-correctness. (Any other transformation engine for that same transform will produce the same output for the same input.)

Sure, they can still have their own web browser, but they don't need to re-write it when they add to the standard, they can just slide in another engine.

How would this work, in practice? Well, my thought is that each opening tag and either explicit or implicit closing tag would be assigned a numerical value that would be assigned by the W3C, much as the IANA assign port numbers. Each engine would then register what numerical values it supports.

The browser would then consist of five parts: network I/O, a preprocessor which converts tags to ID, a set of engines which would "compile" the page from a "high-level" format into a much "lower-level" portable format, a rendering engine which converted the portable format into a much more specific format, and then a display engine which displayed the results.

The primary advantage of this sort of arrangement is that things like CSS could then be easily replaced in a browser. It would be much more pluggable than the Mozilla engine or the libwww engine. It would be much more customizable. A major plus, given that very few browsers conform the the whole standard and all conform to different bits. If you could rip out modules from a browser you didn't like but did support a tag or feature you needed, this would not be a problem.

The secondary advantage is that it would be possible to provide support for non-SGML-derived tag-based systems, such as TeX, Postscript, and so on, natively. At the moment, you can include a link to a .ps file on a web page, but it's very hard to embed it, and completely impossible on most browsers to embed it in a way that integrates completely smoothly with HTML or would allow you to include active hyperlinks within it (unless an independent postscript viewer supported them). By compiling the whole page from all kinds of formats into a single, unified format, anything that is possible in one format becomes possible in all formats.

This isn't how web browsers are written, though, and it doesn't seem likely that this is how web browsers will be done in the future. Which keeps document types isolated from each other and keeps browsers from fully supporting any of those document types.

Some possible problems, here?

[Duncan Blackthorne]

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.

Re:Some possible problems, here?

[Laser_iCE]

I just got thinking. So let's say Microsoft doesn't include the new IE in it's next Operating System -- how do you get it?

"Sorry, you do not have Internet Explorer installed. To download, please visit http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/"

Sure, most of us probably have a FF install on a USB key somewhere, but what about the people who just bought their computer from the store? This'll drive them insane just like the "Keyboard error. Press any key to continue" error.

Re:Some possible problems, here?

[ozmanjusri]

So let's say Microsoft doesn't include the new IE in it's next Operating System -- how do you get it?

They could just fix the "Add or Remove Software" applet so it points towards a collection of optional software hosted on a secure server. If you wanted to install IE, you could choose it there and have it installed automatically.

Maybe they could call it a "Repository".

Re:Some possible problems, here?

[Kjella]

I just got thinking. So let's say Microsoft doesn't include the new IE in it's next Operating System -- how do you get it?

Gee, I wonder how I can install a browser on this Linux box without a browser already. That's unpossible!

3 E's

[Anonymous Coward]

Embrace
Extend
Enjoy

Reality check?

[girlintraining]

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.

I don't know what to make of this

[Dracos]

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.

Tags

[Sasayaki]

itsatrapwhatcouldpossiblygowrongembraceextendextinguishrunrunforthehills

Re:Microsoft can't win evidentially...

[QuantumG]

If your abusive spouse buys you flowers, you don't stop planning the escape.

chair

[Scholasticus]

"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.

Yeah, he's interested

[Anonymous Coward]

He's interested in Open Source in the same way ticks are interested in dogs.

Re:How?

[Toone_Town]

And really, why use WebKit? Sure, its a decent rendering engine but no better than Gecko or the other OSS rendering engines.

One reason for using WebKit over Gecko would be the licensing...I know that for lots of corporations, BSD-licensing is much favored over anything related to GPL...(Gecko is MPL)

Re:The third "E". The other browser.

[Merusdraconis]

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+.

Re:Sig correction

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

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.

Re:Microsoft will never

[denmarkw00t]

My fucking whites!

Someone else mod this guy +1 something - I can't find "Funderrated."

Re:Oh No!

[suckmysav]

"The GPL is viral, and this prevents many commercial companies from adopting and using GPL code, crippling the movement."

Umm, how exactly does the GPL "cripple the movement"?

"If TCP/IP had been GPL, the Internet would be a different place today."

See, this is where you demonstrate your astounding lack of comprehension on this issue.

TCP/IP is a standardised protocol not a software product. There are closed source implementations of TCP/IP, GPL implementations and even completely free implementations today. The licence they are issued under makes no practical difference to anyone.

OTOH, if the TCP/IP standard was "owned" (ie patented) by a commercial company there would be NO internet today.

Re:Oh No!

[Anonymous Coward]

>Many companies refuse to use GPL code because of its viral nature.

They dont refuse to _use_ the GPL code, but to _work_ on GPL code, since the GPL prevents them from closing it up. But since the only goal of such companies would anyways be to close the code up, the GPL ecosystem loses nothing. They don't lose pure users (which don't care if a app is free or unfree) and they don't lose free software developers. All they lose are proprietary/unfree extensions of their works.

Would you care to elaborate what a free software developer would actually _gain_ if a proprietary company took his code, closed it up, and started copyright lawsuits against his users who dare to copy it like they got used when it still was free? If one of his goals when developing his code was freedom, how would somebody closing up the code and launching lawsuits contribute to this stated goal of the original developer?

>That cripples adoption of GPL software.

It only cripples embracement and extinguishment of GPL software, but considering that crippling that has from the beginning been GPL's goal, it works fully as intended.

So please explain: How does encouraging non-free software through non-GPL licensing encourage the deveopment of free software?

>I know TCP/IP is a standardized protocol, which was my point.
>If it had been GPL software, it would have gone nowhere because companies wouldn't have adopted it in the early
>days of the Internet.

The GPL on a reference implamentation wouldn't actually have stopped anybody to implement such standardized protocol independently and chose any licence they want for their own implementation.