Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Time For Microsoft To Open Source Internet Explorer?

Posted by Soulskill on from the if-you-can't-beat-'em dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Ars Technica's Peter Bright argues that it's time for Microsoft to make Internet Explorer open source. He points out that IE's major competitors are all either fully open source (Firefox), or partially open source (Chrome, Safari, and Opera), and this puts Microsoft at a huge disadvantage. Bright says, "It's time for Microsoft to fit in with the rest of the browser industry and open up Trident. One might argue that this argument could be made of any software, and that Microsoft should by this logic open source everything. But I think that the browser is special. The community that exists around Web standards does not exist in the same way around, say, desktop software development, or file system drivers, or user interfaces. Development in the open is integral to the Web in an almost unique way. ... Although Microsoft has endeavored to be more open about how it's developing its browser, and which features it is prioritizing, that development nonetheless takes place in private. Developing in the open, with a public bug tracker, source code repositories, and public discussion of the browser's future direction is the next logical step."

165 comments

  1. But the inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    All the open source freeloaders will just copy it and run it on their linux. And why should Microsoft pay for developers to make a Browser just so it can be stolen and run on linux?

    1. Re:But the inevitable by gweihir · · Score: 2

      I think building a new browser is likely simpler.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:But the inevitable by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I remember IE 4 for Unix. They had IE 5 for Mac.

      I think microsoft plan of isolating Linux from IE failed. Offering it to Linux may give it a few more years of life from it. As people will use IE for Linux to stick with those corporate intranets, that have been made in Front Page, or Visual Studio.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:But the inevitable by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Why would anyone even consider that aside from the challenge of see if it can be built.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    4. Re:But the inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why in Satan's holy name would anybody want to do that?

    5. Re:But the inevitable by jbolden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How did it fail? IE dependencies were a major problem in migrating to Linux in the late 1990s and early 2000s when there was a desire to move away from Windows. IE stagnation retarded the move to web based applications for years. I'd say it was a massive success.

    6. Re:But the inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say it was a massive success.

      That depends entirely on what the goal was.

      If the goal was to simply slow the growth of non-Windows OSs, then sure, it was a success.
      But if the goal was to kill off non-Windows OSs, then no, it was not a success.

    7. Re:But the inevitable by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Anything that retards the move to 'web base applications' is a good thing.

      The whole Personal Computer revolution was based in the notion that everybody got their own computer, and a room full of IT drones in white codes couldn't hold their data hostage anymore.

      Basing people's access to computing power on their connection to the Internet is a bad idea. Let the Net be a domain for information exchange, not a program loader.

    8. Re:But the inevitable by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Remember that revolution happened (at least in big companies) where the core data was on mainframes and the PÇ was auxiliary. For small business / home that wasn't true. Now we have a mixed environment where people have responsive core IT providing mainframe like services and they have local applications for performance and variety. Seems like best of both worlds.

    9. Re:But the inevitable by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Eh... you make a good point in that it caused the sort of problems that Microsoft seemed to be aiming to cause, but on the other hand, it was temporary and eventually led to IE losing a lot of market share. Now web developers often target Firefox and Chrome, and IE has sort of become the second-class browser.

    10. Re:But the inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since that is exactly how smart phone apps work, how is that actually working out in practice?

    11. Re:But the inevitable by blackest_k · · Score: 2

      They are still levering it though, would you believe you can't set IE 10 or 11 home page through group policy unless you are running server 2012 or windows 8

      But then again Chrome is installed on all our systems anyway and google provide policy settings for Chrome. Yes it is annoying locking the home page but some times great idea's are handed down from on high.

      --
      Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
    12. Re:But the inevitable by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Corporate intranets made in Visual Studio work fine in other browsers and have done for a long time. This isn't 2003.

    13. Re:But the inevitable by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      would you believe you can't set IE 10 or 11 home page through group policy unless you are running server 2012 or windows 8

      [citation needed]

    14. Re:But the inevitable by jader3rd · · Score: 1

      Anything that retards the move to 'web base applications' is a good thing.

      Yeah, the current move to Store based apps is way more helpful to spreading information to multiple platforms in an open and free manner.
      Down with the web.

    15. Re:But the inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember IE 4 for Unix. They had IE 5 for Mac.

      I think microsoft plan of isolating Linux from IE failed. Offering it to Linux may give it a few more years of life from it. As people will use IE for Linux...

      Uh, let's just stop right here with that assumption, as most Linux geeks I know would rather go through the pain of installing Windows under a separate VM rather than "infect" their Linux system running IE natively.

    16. Re:But the inevitable by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      It isn't "their" data, it's the company's data.

      I won't argue with the fact that "owning" your data is a lot more convenient, but there are several reasons why centralized data continues to be relevant:

      1. It's hard enough to find a shop where even desktop systems have their disks backed up to a secure but accessible location reliably. It gets close to hopeless when you're talking laptops and portable devices.

      2. If the data is on Fred's computer and Bert needs it, but Fred is off fishing in the Bahamas, there's a problem. If Fred took his laptop with him and it fell overboard, there's a real problem.

      3. If Bert did get a copy of Fred's data, then got laid off, Bert has potentially sensitive corporate assets possibly on his personal home computer and we have only his word that they were erased when he was terminated. If we even know he had it to begin with. One real-world case I know of involved salesmen and their customer contact lists. And competitors.

      4. In an era of Big Data, sometimes even a beefed-up desktop machine isn't up to the task of storing and crunching and serving.

      5. In an era of "Constitution-free zones", you may not want employees travelling around with sensitive data or the only copy of the data on their portable systems that could be confiscated and possibly rummaged through by outsiders. That means the entire state of Florida and the most interesting (business-wise) parts of California, New York, Boston, Washington (DC and state) and so forth. Ditto-plus if you're travelling to less-than-hospitable foreign destinations where other governments are even more likely to do so.

      As far as data-on-web/program-on-pc, that works OK when everyone has a standard copy of Windows. Not so much when it's a mix of Windows, MacOS, Android, IOS, and so forth.

    17. Re:But the inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of what you call web applications would be possible without IE's contribution of XMLHTTPRequest.

    18. Re:But the inevitable by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      http://blog.thesysadmins.co.uk...

      you can google for more

      --
      Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
    19. Re:But the inevitable by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Well yes. But remember net present value is an exponential equation.

      N dollars today is worth N*(1+R)^Y dollars Y years from now, where R is the risk adjusted return I'm aiming for (usually higher than .12). So if R is 15% and Y is 10 years that's slightly over 4 i.e. Microsoft would rather have 1 sale back then, than 4 sales today.

      IE in the last year moved from 2nd to 3rd place. IE in its history has never undersold Firefox.

    20. Re:But the inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 to you sir for using the word "retarded" in a non-pejorative way.

    21. Re:But the inevitable by div_2n · · Score: 1

      Anything that retards the move to 'web base applications' is a good thing.

      That ship sailed the moment Javascript was born which was pretty early in the development of the WWW.

    22. Re:But the inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine the possibilities! Firefox could finally get a MSIE compatibility quirksmode and good bye standard HTML!

    23. Re:But the inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the PÇ was auxiliary

      Pezevengin Çocugu?

    24. Re:But the inevitable by cavreader · · Score: 1

      MS still holds a hefty market share for intranet web applications. And targeting multiple browsers, including IE, has become increasingly easier over the years for those who know what they are doing. And MS market share has declined because there are now other choices. It's easy to capture a +90% market share when there are no competitors. .

    25. Re:But the inevitable by nine-times · · Score: 2

      Try to spin it however you want, but there've been competitors for quite a while (Netscape and Opera), and yet the market has shifted from Microsoft being so dominant that major sites commonly were "IE only" and wouldn't work in any other browser, to a position where its more common to see sites go the other way and say, "If you want things to work right, use pretty much any browser other than IE".

      It's not so bad now, since a few years ago Microsoft saw the writing on the wall and started supporting web standards. But a few years ago, I was running into a lot of sites where the developers simply refused to support IE.

    26. Re:But the inevitable by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      IE 5 was actually my browser of choice in the Mac OS 9 era. Completely different than the Windows version.

    27. Re:But the inevitable by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Spin my ass. I was there when Netscape had the largest browser marketshare and then gave it all away to became nothing more than a footnote in the history of the Internet browser evolution. It was right around the same time Java was a full fledged cluster fuck but I will leave that sad topic for another day. In the time it took to resurrect Netscape into Firefox and Firefox into Chrome MS had already grabbed 90%+ of the browser market. And Opera was hardly a competitor that could threaten MS dominance in any form or fashion. And as far as standards go when you have a 90% market share you are the standard. Even when you have "standards" the majority of website developers never follow or implement them correctly any way. Demanding some one adhere to standards is the same thing as demanding they stop trying to do new things not covered in the holy standards. And updating the standards is not a process that has ever happened quickly enough to keep up with the evolving web development platform. And re-read my earlier comment when I said MS still had a very healthy share of the INTRANET applications. Intranet applications allow a company or organization to pick their own standards when it comes to building their IT infrastructure. If an Intranet web application works in IE but has issues with Chrome who gives a shit when the company has determined IE as there Intranet standard? And of course the same thing happens in reverse if Chrome has been designated the company standard.

  2. Question mark in title! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So the answer must be "no"?

    Isn't this the trend on /.

    1. Re:Question mark in title! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Betteridge's Law of Headlines would indeed say that the answer is no.

    2. Re:Question mark in title! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Funny, the President said "no" ("l'll veto ..." ) more times that I can ever recall during a SotU speech.

      And talk about broken record ..."raise taxes on the rich .... free stuff for everyone else" is just lame playbook. But it works, American voters are stupid.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:Question mark in title! by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      American voters are stupid.

      American voters might, stupidly, get to choose from another-Clinton or another-Bush in the coming presidential election.

      About the only good thing to say is they won't get to vote for Obama again.

    4. Re:Question mark in title! by Drethon · · Score: 1

      One of the points of government is to make it hard to pass laws to the politicians on any side can't push something no one else agrees with.

    5. Re:Question mark in title! by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Pajama Boy and posse aren't very in sync either, you know.

    6. Re:Question mark in title! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      What does Saturday morning cartoons have to do with national politics?

    7. Re:Question mark in title! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In theory. In practice, politicians play politics and attempt to get re-elected based on pushing sounds-good laws that they know won't pass while refusing to pass laws that everyone agrees on because it might help someone else's re-election campaign. The result is that people are lead to believe that the system is "working" because "bad" laws don't get passed but at the same time good and necessary laws--you, know, like budgets and internal government fund transfers--aren't passed because the more crippled the country is, the more blame can be shoved around.

      Honestly, it's one reason why I think it ridiculous to claim that American voters are stupid unless one is arguing to effectively fire most of Congress and replace them with those non-existent saints in the wings. No, as another post mentioned, the two-party system has so gamed things that one has little choice but between Bush and Clinton dynasties (with the occasional 4-8 year exceptions). And yet stuff still won't be done under them unless it's through a lot of questionable backroom deals that warp the law in even more absurd ways and leave Congressmen to sell lobbyists on the idea that they're all getting exactly what they bought.

      What I find most absurd in all this is not that Democrats would want to clean up Washington and fail--although I think their definition of "clean up Washington" is to vote in more Democrats which is absurd--but that Republicans actively argue that government is not the solution and yet they too want to clean up Washington and think more Republican involvement in government is a solution. Honestly, being anti-establishment and wanting to be part of the establishment... At least Democrats, hypothetically, are in the mindset of actually trying to fix a problem instead of merely using every failure as a confirmation that attempts to fix the problem are inherently futile.

      Which brings back the idea that the hippies had it right, all along. Hippies aren't liberals because they're anti-establishment, not about using government to enforce freedom. Hippies aren't conservatives because they're anti-corporation, pro-drugs (or at least neutral), and pro free love (which is obviously not supported by many families/religions). The real shame is like most groups of its sort, its not really designed be self-rejuvenating and has mostly died out. It's why Christianity mostly died out 100 years after Christ died and now we have Zombie Christianity which sucks.

    8. Re:Question mark in title! by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2

      American voters are stupid.

      American voters might, stupidly, get to choose from another-Clinton or another-Bush in the coming presidential election.

      About the only good thing to say is they won't get to vote for Obama again.

      At least, not until Michelle decides to run. :-P

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    9. Re:Question mark in title! by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

      I think basically both sides feel this way.

      Obama is out of sync with the rest of America so we want the Republican Congress to note no on a lot of stupid bills becoming law.

      "The Republicans are (out-of sync) with the rest of America, the veto pen will be needed to stop a lot of stupid bills from becoming law."

      What's happening is the Conservatives are becoming more Conservative and the Liberals are becoming more liberal. There is a whole lot less in-between than their used to be.

      Before, during Kennedy's and Reagan's time, we at least had a common enemy (Soviets) which help bridge some divides. Now we don't have that. Instead, the enemy is the opposite side of the aisle.

    10. Re:Question mark in title! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      What's happening is the Conservatives are becoming more Conservative and the Liberals are becoming more liberal. There is a whole lot less in-between than their used to be.

      The conservative base of the Republican Party is dying off as angry white old men from the South become fewer in number. The world has moved on without them and they're moving rightward in reaction. Unless the Republican Party expands to embrace moderate conservatives like President Obama, it will soon become a regional minority party.

    11. Re:Question mark in title! by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      See - that's the problem. You view Obama as a moderate conservative. Most conservatives would view him as an extreme liberal and it scares them (and me) to think that you want someone more extreme than Obama.

      The tea party has shown that this is not just angry old white men. My black wife was more conservative than I am and you can see other races moving up in the party and deciding to just think shrug off all the people that will call them sellouts for not subscribing to the groupthink that all minorities must be democrat.

    12. Re:Question mark in title! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Most conservatives would view him as an extreme liberal and it scares them (and me) to think that you want someone more extreme than Obama.

      I consider President Obama to be a moderate conservative because I'm a moderate conservative. From California, of course. If that means to you that I'm an extreme liberal, you seriously need to stop watching Fox News. The Republican Party in California has more in common with the endangered spotted owl than one-tenth of the U.S. population, which is why they're not represented in any state-wide office and probably won't nominate a candidate to replace retiring Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer in 2016.

      If Jeb Bush doesn't sell out to the Tea Party crowd during the primaries, I'll support him in the 2016 election. The Republican Party needs more moderates and fewer extremists.

      My black wife was more conservative

      Black people are more conservative than most people. They became Republicans after the Civil War because President Lincoln freed them from the South. They became Democrats during the Civil Rights era because President Johnson freed them from Jim Crow. If Republicans want black votes, they need to recognize that the southern strategy of pitting poor white folks against poor black folks for the last 40 years doesn't work anymore.

    13. Re:Question mark in title! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's still time for him to change the two terms in office rule ;)

    14. Re:Question mark in title! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before, during Kennedy's and Reagan's time, we at least had a common enemy (Soviets) which help bridge some divides. Now we don't have that. Instead, the enemy is the opposite side of the aisle.

      Now, we have a common friend (Soviets) which helps bridge some divides. "We" do have that.

      Instead, the new enemy is the American people, which is the opposite side of the "international world peace everyone must love each other forever and ever" aisle.

      Reagan was no enemy of Soviets, he just wanted in on the corporate communist action, nothing more.

      Hell, Romney is running on a platform of "serving others."

      We are 100% Soviet infected at this point, "left" or "right," completely hijacked towards collectivism
      and serving the "greater good."

      The Soviets won.

      FTFY.

  3. Never going to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not as long as it remains integral to the Explorer shell...

  4. Nooooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We don't want it!!!!!

  5. Noooooooo! by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they do that, we will get several months of extreme security problems due to all the issues hidden in there. AFAIK they have a whole new thing in development, and they should open-source that instead.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Noooooooo! by Dracos · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't even take a new crop of IE exploits in the wild to make MS stock drop in price. The first two weeks would be a constant flood of blog posts detailing how crappy the code is. Trident is 17 years old, and many of us have heard how much of an unmaintainable mess the codebase has become in their attempts to implement web standards. Even then, MS would have to release it under a fully open license otherwise no one will taint themselves.

      The "new thing", Spartan, is just a rebrand of IE with a new skin. It'll still be built around Trident and Chakra, so web developers will have no reason to have a different opinion of it from IE.

      MS needs a new rendering engine, but they'll never use an open source one. Their only real option is to write one from scratch, which they haven't done since IE1, and that engine was replaced with Trident (which they bought) in IE4. There was IE5 for Mac, but that was pretty much a one man crusade and its rendering engine was nothing like regular IE.

    2. Re:Noooooooo! by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I believe the only "whole new thing" they have in development is a replacement for the shell around IE, not Trident. Not that it's impossible they're working on a new engine anyway, but that isn't what's been announced.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Noooooooo! by DrStrangluv · · Score: 1

      What I saw on the "whole new thing" in development is that it still uses the Trident engine.

    4. Re:Noooooooo! by gweihir · · Score: 1

      A pity. Their OS has gotten halfway decent with Win7, but their apps still suck. I had hoped they would at least fix the browser now.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:Noooooooo! by cavreader · · Score: 1

      " many of us have heard " Define "us". Hearsay and fanboi forums are hardly the birth place of factual information. But judging from the rest of your comment you must already have full access to the MS source codebase. You sound almost smart enough to develop your own super secure rendering engine which is capable of maintaining at least a 1 year backwards compatibility window so your users are not forced to upgrade every 2 weeks to maintain a running system. Of course nobody has managed that particular feat quite yet but you sound smart enough to give it a shot.

    6. Re:Noooooooo! by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      What's kinda funny about that is that, as I understand it, they're only replacing Metro IE, with the desktop IE staying the same. The Metro IE is, of course, actually a very nice (tablet) browser, much nicer than the tablet versions of Chrome or Safari.

      So they're changing it.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    7. Re:Noooooooo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only "new thing" they're developing is a new UI on their existing engine.

  6. Too Late? by Galaga88 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't Microsoft announcing a new web browser intended to replace Internet Explorer today? Maybe it'll be open source. Maybe it'll even be based on Webkit.

    I don't know how much licensed code is in IE that Microsoft would have to untangle the rights to before open-sourcing it, and given the fact that we've mostly figured out how to work around IE's problems at this point, I'm not sure if it'd be worth the effort to do so.

    It'd probably be best to just retire IE, let developers continue struggling through the known-workarounds they've been using until its market-share vanishes, and look forward instead of back. The time spent trying to figure out IE's source could be better spent developing/using a better platform.

    Regardless, I think every web browser should be open source, since they work on (theoretically) open standards, run cross platform, and are the defacto presentation layer for an increasing number of applications. Developers need to be able to understand the internals of the browser to assure the best quality of their own work. Really hoping that's what happens with whatever MS announces today with Spartan. (I just don't think IE is worth the effort to open source at this point)

    1. Re:Too Late? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Isn't Microsoft announcing a new web browser intended to replace Internet Explorer today? Maybe it'll be open source. Maybe it'll even be based on Webkit.

      I sure hope not. We need competing browser engines to keep things honest. The competition between them is the only way we ever get standards compliance.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Too Late? by Galaga88 · · Score: 2

      In best Slashdot style, I did some research *after* posting this, and found out that they're sticking with Trident, so at least that bit of competition will be kept.

    3. Re:Too Late? by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't know how much licensed code is in IE that Microsoft would have to untangle the rights to before open-sourcing it, and given the fact that we've mostly figured out how to work around IE's problems at this point, I'm not sure if it'd be worth the effort to do so.

      To expand on that a little, you've touched on some of the real costs of open-sourcing something like this, and there are others, such as documentation, community support, etc. I think the author of TFA is speaking from idealism, but from a strictly business point of view, you have to consider the costs versus the benefits. One of the primary business benefits of open sourcing something often is to attract unpaid volunteer developers. But that's unlikely to happen in this case: not only do the open source folks generally hate Microsoft (say it isn't so!), those who might be interested are probably already working on one of the existing open source browser projects. Why should they switch over to IE?

      Alternatively, they could just throw it out there and abandon it. But that seems quite unlikely: they would lose whatever brand value they get out of bundling IE with Windows, and they would no longer be considered a player in terms of web standards development. That's not where they want to be at this point, where they're still trying to grow their market share in mobile.

      So, although open-sourcing IE might be a good idea in some sort of cosmic sense, I can't think of any real business case for it.

    4. Re:Too Late? by neilo_1701D · · Score: 2

      According to Thurrott, it's Trident minus all the compatibility cruft.

    5. Re:Too Late? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, indeed. But, my impression is, this is going to be just rebranded IE with all the same issues of integration and bugginess and security holes as IE, just with a "new and improved", "best Browser Ever", "Faster than IE" marketing jargon that might work on people too stupid to remember the last 20 years.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re:Too Late? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None by now.

      IE was originally written by Spyglass - which got stiffed for payment, and went out of business.

    7. Re: Too Late? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Spartan has a very cleaned out trident engine. So much so it is a new fork without baggage and much faster.

      It can't run legacy code. MS has old engine for corporate sites and loads a tab of IE 11.

      IE is not the piece of cap it was last decade. Spartan is much needed as why should quirks mode slow down porting html 5.1 features

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
    8. Re:Too Late? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares, MS products are bloated junk. They make IE not compliant with web standards, to be honest I hate IE and Windows version anything.

    9. Re:Too Late? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So wrong.

      The existence of those Web standards is precisely to allow various pieces of software to work together, without internal knowledge. I won't suggest that Web standards wouldn't have existed in some fanciful world where everything was always open source. However those standards would have been less necessary, less comprehensive, and less rigorous.

      The isolation of logic into blocks that perform defined functions through defined interfaces is a fundamental IT technique to control complexity. "Developers need to be able to understand the internals of the browser..." Really? Web developers need that? Why? All of them? That way madness lies!

      In certain limited circumstances it might be helpful to have access to browser code. However this can backfire too, as it can lead to breakdowns in who is responsible for what. Can you imagine being told by Microsoft in the future, "You don't need us to fix that bug. You understand it, you have total access to the code. Code a workaround, code to the bug!"

      If every developer has to understand everything then web development will become glacially slow and fantastically expensive. Only a tiny number of devs will achieve enough knowledge to be able to be a "proper developer." You know, the ones who have personally read the code for every web server, every browser, every web standard, their preferred language and all supporting libraries, frameworks, JVMs, IDEs, debuggers and all the rest. Oh and let's throw the operating systems in there too, you can't forget about those. If they don't then we won't get the "best quality of their own work"!

      Of course it won't work so then you'd get the following terrible outcome: "Our web application or site only works on Nginx, FireFox and Linux. At these specific versions and patch levels. We have to know what we are interfacing with and we can't support everything."

      Madness. You control complexity through standardized interfaces.

    10. Re:Too Late? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We surely need many implementations of the stds and three is kind-of a minimal value
      Still will IE be able to produce good code ? Or use its Windows OS to push a crappy browser again ?

    11. Re:Too Late? by maccodemonkey · · Score: 1

      Isn't Microsoft announcing a new web browser intended to replace Internet Explorer today? Maybe it'll be open source. Maybe it'll even be based on Webkit.

      I sure hope not. We need competing browser engines to keep things honest. The competition between them is the only way we ever get standards compliance.

      Spoken by someone who wasn't around for the web browser wars of the 90s...

      Multiple browsers led to less compliance, not more. Both Netscape and IE were in a rush to add their own non standard HTML elements to "outdate" the other. ActiveX didn't come along at a time that IE owned the market. ActiveX came along at a time when IE was in fierce competition with Netscape, and needed to BREAK the standard to push Netscape out of the market.

      Having lived through that, I've never understood the logic of "we need multiple browsers to maintain standards." That's never actually happened in practice. It's like free market philosophy gone amok. Even today, we still see that a bit with either draft or pre-draft things getting added to web browsers outside of standards. Stuff like NaCL is not part of any web spec, and is entirely proprietary to Google, but hey, even with all the competition that's supposed to stop that, it still exists. Because competition promotes people creating their own proprietary stuff to beat the other browsers with.

  7. YES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, I need something to laugh at.
    Please please please

  8. Please, don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just pull it behind the shed and rlieve it.

  9. Wow! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That's a lot of spaghetti code in Internet Explorer. I don't think the open source community has enough programmers to unravel that mess.

    1. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How do you know what the code looks like? Just an assumption because lol Microsoft code so bad lol?

      I wouldn't use IE either but it has improved a fuckton, surely code quality has too if it hasn't been completely rewritten even.

    2. Re:Wow! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Historically, Microsoft has always written in spaghetti code for Windows. Also, their financial compensation encourages new lines of code over refactoring old lines of code. Which is why Windows ships with the old black-and-white Command Line and the new colorized PowerShell.

    3. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Which is why Windows ships with the old black-and-white Command Line and the new colorized PowerShell.

      Except that that is completely false, and it ships with the old command line shell due to compatibility constraints. No enterprise customers are going to buy your new operating system if their existing line of business applications won't work, and we're talking about applications for which the source code or original team may not even exist anymore. Linux has the luxurious advantage of being able to arbitrarily break backwards compatibility, because in terms of market share almost nobody uses it anyway.

    4. Re:Wow! by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Why not? They have enough programmers to create an equal mess with FireFox...

    5. Re:Wow! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0

      Except that that is completely false, and it ships with the old command line shell due to compatibility constraints.

      I read somewhere that the programmers didn't want to rewrite the old command line, as they get paid for writing new lines of code. Hence, they wrote PowerShell. They could have rewritten the command line and still maintain backwards compatibilty.

      Linux has the luxurious advantage of being able to arbitrarily break backwards compatibility, because in terms of market share almost nobody uses it anyway.

      Except that is completely false. Many of the Linux utilities and command line shells are 20 to 30 years old. That's a lot of backwards compatibility. SystemD is a major exception to that rule.

    6. Re:Wow! by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      That's a lot of spaghetti code in Internet Explorer. I don't think the open source community has enough programmers to unravel that mess.

      Yes, but we need a good laugh sometimes, especially if they include IE6 in the OS package...

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    7. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know where your source is from on "Microsoft pays per line of code written", but I remember a quote from Ballmer speaking on frustrations of working with IBM where IBM was concerned about how many KLOCs MS was writing, and him retorting "how is it a problem if we can solve a problem in 10 KLOCs when you think it should be 50KLOCs".

      So in short, provide a citation or drop you lies.

    8. Re:Wow! by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Less than the mess that is otherwise know as FireFox

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    9. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Historically, Microsoft has always written in spaghetti code for Windows

      To repeat what the other AC asked, how do you know?

    10. Re:Wow! by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      At least FF has been available as OS from the start and is not a proprietary build from a company that has been well off for a long time.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    11. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol Microsoft code so bad lol

    12. Re:Wow! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1
      http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=74

      These junior developers also have a tendency to make improvements to the system by implementing brand-new features instead of improving old ones. Look at recent Microsoft releases: we don't fix old features, but accrete new ones. New features help much more at review time than improvements to old ones.

      (That's literally the explanation for PowerShell. Many of us wanted to improve cmd.exe, but couldn't.)

    13. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone loves to jump on that bandwagon but I've not seen any proof of it. Sure, bash Microsoft for what they do, but all known code reviews of their source leaks point to most of the code being decently written, concise code:

      http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/15/71552/7795

      Despite the above, the quality of the code is generally excellent. Modules are small, and procedures generally fit on a single screen. The commenting is very detailed about intentions, but doesn't fall into "add one to i" redundancy.

      From the comments, it also appears that most of the uglier hacks are due to compatibility issues: either backward-compatibility, hardware compatibility or issues caused by particular software. Microsoft's vast compatibility strengths have clearly come at a cost, both in developer-sweat and the elegance (and hence stability and maintainability) of the code.

    14. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux has the luxurious advantage of being able to arbitrarily break backwards compatibility, because in terms of market share almost nobody uses it anyway.

      Citation needed.

      Half our data center is either Red Hat or Oracle Linux, buddy. We're a $77 billion Pharma company, so this is not a handful of servers I'm talking about. Unless you were referring to desktops, where you certainly have an argument.

    15. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Linux has _never_ broken backwards-compatibility. Not once.

  10. Why, exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article basically just says "because", but does not say what the actual benefits would be.

  11. Do we need another open source browser? by raburton · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm not saying we need a closed source browser more than an open source one, so a better question would be do we need another broswer at all?
    Sure competition is good, even when the product is free, but why do they want to make a new browser at all when there are so many out there already? And if they did why would they bother to open source it and who would be interested if they did? If you want closed source you may need to reinvent the wheel, but if you're going to open source it anyway why bother starting from scratch, you might as well just start with a free, decent open source base and build on that. Otherwise it's just a huge duplication of effort, a lot of time wasted at MS.

    1. Re:Do we need another open source browser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are not making a new browser. Unless you mean Spartan, but that is just a new wrapper around the Trident engine. Even TFA merely talks about open sourcing Trident.

    2. Re:Do we need another open source browser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Why can't we have just ONE standard, open source browser that each OS vendor can optimize for their platform? Just think how many web developers would become unemployed because web development workloads would be cut by a factor of 10.

    3. Re:Do we need another open source browser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Abso-friggin-lutely we do!

      Specifically, Opera 12 needs to be open sourced.

    4. Re:Do we need another open source browser? by DanielOom · · Score: 1

      It's not so much an Open Source browser that we need, but rather a port of Internet Explorer 6 to Linux / Unix.

    5. Re:Do we need another open source browser? by gronofer · · Score: 1

      Otherwise it's just a huge duplication of effort, a lot of time wasted at MS.

      Of course Microsoft are already spending their resources developing IE. You have to wonder whether they are getting value for money: why not just ship Firefox or Chrome with their OS?

      Open sourcing it as abandonware (or nominally to some new or existing "foundation") is an option they should take seriously.

    6. Re:Do we need another open source browser? by x_t0ken_407 · · Score: 1

      Even more specifically, Presto needs to be open sourced!

  12. pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How would it help anyone?

    There are plenty of good browsers, and every one works better across platforms than IE (which works on ONE platform). They should join the rest of the world and care about compatablity and just chunk IE down the toilet.

    I know.. I am dreaming.

    1. Re:pointless by pfleming · · Score: 2

      There are still too many sites that only properly work on IE, business sites that have been clubbed into only working with IE. Once MS has decided that your OS is in their extended, security only, support phase you don't get the new "features" that the IE only sites add on or move to and the proverbial gun to your head is to upgrade the whole OS over one piece of software that should have been broken out into a separate division (open source or not) a long time ago.

  13. Can't happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It can't happen. Not because MS is MS, but because IE is entangled with Windows - the OS. You can't actually take IE out of it and still have something usable left. It's a tribute to FSM, that's what it is.

    1. Re:Can't happen by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      IE is entangled with Windows

      That was true in Windows 98 times, but has anyone actually verified if that still is?

    2. Re:Can't happen by Dracos · · Score: 1

      mshtml.dll still exists. It loads when Wndows boots because it's the core of IE and Windows Explorer.

    3. Re:Can't happen by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Okay. Provide the proof that it is used by Windows Explorer.

    4. Re:Can't happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enter a web URL in Windows Explorer's address bar and it will display.

      Next.

    5. Re:Can't happen by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      What if Windows Explorer just fires up an Internet Explorer container inside itself? What if ripping away IE would only cause Windows Explorer to not be able to open URLs?

    6. Re:Can't happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Heheh. I love it when people spout out about something that was true in the past, but no longer is true.

      It demonstrates that they don't understand the scientific method. Test your hypothesis first, grasshopper. Then speak.

      When you try this today on Windows 7, IE 11, you'll discover that it does not render the web page inside Explorer. It shells out to IE (spawning a new process with a separate window), and loads the requested page into that browser. Explorer continues to run, with it's last folder view showing.

    7. Re:Can't happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm running Win7 that's been stripped of IE using RT7 Lite...entering a url in the address bar does nothing but bring up a box saying that there's no associated program to complete the action. Several other subsystems removed too. Done judiciously, it doesn't mess up OS functionality at all. That being said, your assertion seems incorrect.

    8. Re:Can't happen by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      I can verify that explorer.exe links mshtml.dll on Windows 7 x64, I used the Microsoft Dependency Walker (quite reasonably called "depends.exe") to check. However, I can not verify that it's actually in memory, or that it's ever actually used, just that it's still linked. I checked to see if it was within memory with process explorer, it's possible I misused it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Can't happen by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Finally some actual detective work. Thank you.

  14. That's easy: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No

  15. too bad they really cant. by nimbius · · Score: 0

    IE was made an inextricable part of the operating system during the browser wars. Even if Microsoft decides to 'turn the corner' and do this, it would mean completely refactoring a nontrivial portion of an OS that already faces staunch resistance from both corporations and users alike. The best they had done was comply with a european court order to permit choices between browsers for users, and even then the OS still relies heavily on iexplore code without directly permitting browsing.

    TL;DR: an open source internet exploreer is (gasp) an open source Windows.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:too bad they really cant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that's completely untrue and has been for years. Nice FUD, though.

  16. Yeeeeeees! by Jesus_666 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Whether they'd open-source Trident or whatever comes next, I'd be all for it. Then perhaps people could backport it to older versions of Windows and we could stop writing our websites against decade-old IE versions because people can't upgrade IE without buying a new computer.

    --
    USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    1. Re:Yeeeeeees! by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem isn't Microsoft or old versions of Windows. Old versions of Windows run Firefox and Chrome just fine. The blame for the problems lies solely on the users and corporations/organizations that refuse to use a current browser. If you need a certain version of IE for some old intranet application, then go ahead and use it specifically for that app. But there's no reason why websites available to the general public should be required to support old browsers.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:Yeeeeeees! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Website developers are perfectly free to chose which browsers to target. If the web site is interesting or useful people using old browsers can chose to update their browsers. If the website in question is of little use to most people they won't bother upgrading their browser. If your goal is to draw a lot of traffic then it's the developer who determines what browsers the site is going to support to make sure the site can be accessed by as many different browser versions as possible. Internal corporate web sites and applications are usually developed for whatever browser the company has set as it's internal standard. MS got the jump on just about every other development stack because their development tools leveraged their browser an OS making it cheaper and faster to build custom corporate applications starting back in the early 90's. MS's most successful product in terms of grabbing and keeping market share was VB. Prior to VB C/C++ development ruled the day. VB increased the number of potential "developers" which coincidentally meant all those new "programmers" had to target the MS stack. Purists and technophobes can debate both the good and bad traits of MS all day long but those who detest MS in every way should spend more time building something better instead of incessantly complaining about the past. MS achieved monopoly status because a lot of their early competitors took the money and ran when MS came knocking on their door looking to buy their technology. That's not stealing that's just good business. IE was able to surpass Netscape because of the atrocious management and lack of vision of everyone involved with improving the Netscape browser.

    3. Re:Yeeeeeees! by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      No, the problem is exactly Microsoft and old versions of Windows. "I need this specific version of Internet Explorer for this custom intranet app" may be of relevance in big corporations but for SMEs the limiting factor is usually their Windows version.

      Internet Explorer is tied to Windows. You can't install IE10 on Vista. It's simply not possible. That means that for any SME running Vista IE9 is the latest version of IE. And they expect their shiny new website to be equally shiny in IE9. And no, they aren't going to buy new computers or install a different browser because their web designer told them to. (Plus, they know full well that their new site's visitory might also run IE so "just use a different browser" won't convince them even if they do switch browsers themselves.)

      If Windows 8.1 was free and had the same requirements and UI as Windows Vista you could perhaps convince some of these people to upgrade. It isn't, though, and that means that either you cater to their browser choice (which usually means the latest version of IE supported by the oldest version of Windows they run) or they'll take their business elsewhere.

      Having an open Trident/Son-of-Trident would at least allow people to backport it. If the mainstream tech media reported on it word might actually reach these businesses and they might consider installing the latest OpenIE. Not all of them but perhaps enough to further drive the old-IE user base further down until we can finally declare 8 and 9 irrelevant like 6 and 7 already are. Even Microsoft wants that to happen.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    4. Re:Yeeeeeees! by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      But the problem isn't backporting trident. It's forward-porting IE6. Anybody writing web apps today that require the latest IE is nuts. The problem is old web apps that were targeted to IE back when it was dominant. Those apps still exist, and those users need a version of Windows that supports that browser. New apps can run on those old Windows systems (and Macs, iPads and Chromebooks, etc) via Firefox, Chrome or Safari, but those old IE-specific apps can't run on a more recent Windows (or any other system for that matter).

      Which begs the question - why open source Trident, when it has no real purpose any more? Why doesn't Microsoft simply wrap Webkit in a Windows-friendly frame and call it a day. It'd save them a ton of money, and it wouldn't cannibalize anything - unless there's still a part of MS's strategy that calls for leveraging what's left of their desktop monopoly to 'own the web'. But I think that strategy's dead by now - if only because it's failed...

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    5. Re:Yeeeeeees! by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Nobody cares about IE6. At least nobody who counts. As far as web design is concerned, the current shambling zombies are IE8 and IE9. Those are the ones I see people asking about and those are the ones we could get rid of if we could backport newer Trident versions.

      People generally don't use these versions of IE because some internal web app requires them. They use them because they're the most recent versions available for their version of Windows. And they're not going to upgrade Windows because they don't need to; their current setup works for them and there's no business case for upgrading before something breaks.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    6. Re:Yeeeeeees! by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      But those are the users that you could conceivably tell to 'just download Firefox on your old Windows system' and then stop targeting old IE versions in your app. That'd be just as easy as getting them to download a backported IE11 to their XP systems - and possibly less confusing if the IE11 had to co-exist with IE8 or 9, and users had to know which one to launch for your app. At least 'launch Firefox' is a non-ambiguous instruction.

      And there is another class of in-house (or 3rd party) web applications that were written to use some features of old IE versions that won't work in newer versions, and for some people, at least, that's the reason they haven't upgraded Windows. Maybe they don't count in your book, but they're out there.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    7. Re:Yeeeeeees! by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      The problem is not really the customers themselves but the expected visitors to the site. (And yes, I'm talking about websites. Web apps follow different rules as the customer and the user are the same person.)

      Generally, customers expect future visitors to use something similar to what they themselves use. If the customer uses IE8 they will assume that a significant number of visitors will also use IE8. Telling the customer to switch to Firefox is useless as they can't assume that all visitors will now also magically have switched to Firefox. The only argument that does work is if we can show to them that the IE version in question has a negligible market share.

      If there was a legitimate new version of IE for old Windowses it might help in driving old versions out of the market, even if it only gets the IE diehards to upgrade. Over here in Germany we already had mainstream media telling people to stop using IE (especially after the DHS and the BSI issued warnings); we might very well see computer mags reporting on an open-sourced IE for those who can't switch. That would further reduce market share and make the day when IE8/9 can be safely ignored come sooner.

      (Then all we need to do is get rid of iOS <8 and Android <4.4 and we might even be able to ditch most remaining vendor prefixes.)

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  17. Not gonna happen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's like expecting Adobe to opensource Flash. Licensing and copyright issues probably prevent that to begin with, let alone the security implications. You think OpenSSL's recent problems were bad? Just wait until Explorer's flaws are become even to find.

    1. Re:Not gonna happen. by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      So the argument here is that security by obscurity is the only thing that is making it usable?

      If that is a case then the whole thing should be killed. It's even worse than I thought it was.

      And damn the shoddy business aps that rely on it. Maybe the can actually take responsibility for their mess for once.

    2. Re:Not gonna happen. by DrStrangluv · · Score: 1

      "Security by obscurity" doesn't mean what you think it does. After all, even correctly handled passwords are still just a sufficiently obscure sets of bytes relative to all possible sets of bytes.

    3. Re:Not gonna happen. by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2

      Bah. The argument was that there are security flaws that will be used as attacks if the code is on view of the public. It's the classic (meaningless) anti-open source argument. If the code was good then it wouldn't matter if it is viewed or not.

    4. Re:Not gonna happen. by Eythian · · Score: 1

      Bah. The argument was that there are security flaws that will be used as attacks if the code is on view of the public. It's the classic (meaningless) anti-open source argument. If the code was good then it wouldn't matter if it is viewed or not.

      It's not a real argument, but I bet that opening it would expose many vulnerabilities. The code has never seen the outside world before, it's not hardened from experience like other engines.

      This said, it's probably the most tested by exploit writers, so maybe it cancels out.

  18. Why just IE? by houghi · · Score: 1

    Why not make the same arguments for Office? Or for Windows?

    If anything, they should perhaps make it easier for plugins to be linked. Yet do not forget that end-users are not their customers. Companies are. Be it big companies that buy licences directly or computer manufacturers.

    At work I am not even able to install AdBlock, so why would I be wanting to use Chrome instead of IE? As an IT person, IE works for what it does at the job, so why would I want to add anything else (unless the CEO wants it). You can not really remove it, so why bother? And let the people use at home what they want.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:Why just IE? by itsenrique · · Score: 1

      BYOD?

    2. Re:Why just IE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > BYOD?

      Not an option at some / many places; at my workplace, connecting your personal device to the company network is a fireable offense.

    3. Re:Why just IE? by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

      Why not make the same arguments for Office? Or for Windows?

      Unlike those two, they give IE away as part of "the Microsoft/Windows system". So, on the face of it, IE is an expense but doesn't directly produce revenue. However, it does add some genuine value to Windows in terms of giving users a useful tool for immediately downloading a better browser.

    4. Re:Why just IE? by gnupun · · Score: 1

      Why not make the same arguments for Office? Or for Windows?

      Office and Windows bring in money, IE does not, at least not directly or as substantial. Making them open source would bankrupt MS. IE too would have been commercial, but was made free as a tactical strategy by MS to bankrupt (or cut off air supply of) Netscape since MS was afraid the Netscape Navigator browser would take over platforms and make operating systems, such as Windows, not as useful/important anymore. Navigator would've turned OSes into ordinary device drivers.

      This does point to a curious fact: since all major browsers (IE, firefox, opera, safari etc) are free, there is zero incentive for commercial browsers to enter the market. The lowered competition due to free product has probably resulted in low quality of browsers that are too buggy, insecure, consume memory like pigs etc. Does free == low quality?

    5. Re:Why just IE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does free == low quality?

      Sometimes, it does.

      Sometimes, it does not.

      It's far too broad a question, since there are many different measures we could define to quantify what we mean by the word "quality".

      From a scientist's perspective, if we can't measure it, we don't understand it.

  19. Peter Bright = "GOITER MAN" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of worrying about IE Peter Bright should take care of his goiter http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H... since it looks like he has goiter.

  20. Ditch Trident, ditch IE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look, everything about IE and any Microsoft browser going forward is about Trident. Microsoft might be changing the names but the core browser for Microsoft is all about Trident. I personally think Microsoft should offer simply a basic no frills, no add on browser that is focused on what a basic user wants and still allow it to cater to Enterprise. Otherwise, open up the opportunities to allow end users to truly use another browser as default. I seriously don't see this happening, but it should. What will happen is Microsoft making a browser even more committed to their ecosystem across Windows platforms and even less friendly with alternative browsers. This scenario is not just happening at Microsoft but Apple has done it with IOS, Google does it with Chrome OS and it lends proof that a battle not just between browsers is happening. But ecosystems would be the better description of what is happening. I personally have nothing against IE as a browser, I must use it for business and so its perfectly fine. But if your a Chrome or Firefox fan, or prefer even something more unique. You may find yourself not only choosing a browser, but also deciding on a ecosystem. With so many web apps and cloud storage. The trend is selling the end user on living within a ecosystem of apps, operating systems and hardware. Look around, and you will see the very start of this trend happening. Its not just Apple who feels your life belongs in their closed garden. Google and Microsoft feel that same way.

  21. 0-day open source factory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given what we should have learn with the OpenSSL fiasco, Poodle (2x), ShellShock and so on: does we need another messy codebase in the wild, or we already have plenty of attack surface exposed anyway? Let Microsoft opensource what they feel, but please NOT IE! :-)

  22. Wave sayonara to the P.O.S. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Better yet, dump it, and include an OSS variant in future Windows.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  23. Darn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was always hoping that they would open source Clippy...

  24. It's fine the way it is. by FujiBoink · · Score: 0

    IE is the fastest browser, that's all I care about.

    1. Re:It's fine the way it is. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IE is definitely NOT the fastest browser. Not even close.

      Microsoft had indeed made great improvements since IE9, I'll grant you that.

      http://internet-browser-review.toptenreviews.com/

      Please, Microsoft shill, don't let the facts get in the way of truth.

    2. Re:It's fine the way it is. by FujiBoink · · Score: 0

      The truth is here sir. http://www.techradar.com/us/ne...

  25. ie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MS can't open source IE. There is far too much info going out to Microsoft from your computer. It would upset too many people if they found out how much.

    1. Re:ie by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      MS can't open source IE. There is far too much info going out to Microsoft from your computer. It would upset too many people if they found out how much.

      I think you're right. But what they could do is create a subset of the IE code that's scrubbed of all info gathering and other proprietary code, and anything that might give insight into properties of the operating system, and release *that*. (I have some hazy memory that M$ has done this before with some product, but I can't remember the details.) It probably wouldn't even be functional, but may allow some smart programmers to fork IE and create something that works.

      I've written that, and I'm staring at it, and I can't think for the life of me why anyone would want to do it. Never mind.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    2. Re:ie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much would be left though?

    3. Re:ie by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      How much would be left though?

      The name?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  26. bigger problem by frovingslosh · · Score: 2

    We all know that IE is tightly integrated into Windows and the two can never be separated Microsoft testified to that under oayh, and we all know that they would never lie to the court or congress. So making IE open source would demand that Windows be open source. Clearly Microsoft can't open source Windows, so they will have to keep IE closed source too. That's too bad, because I was looking forward to that piece of crap working it's way into other projects.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:bigger problem by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      Windows and the two can never be separated Microsoft testified to that under oayh

      Integration doesn't mean they can't separate the rendering modules from the main app.

  27. so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Open source is not just the code accessible to everyone, it's about building a community around it.

    Also ... considering how they managed to encumber Android with patents, I think it's impossible for them to truly open source that browser, or any of their code really.

  28. Opening sourcing IE... by DrStrangluv · · Score: 1

    Opening sourcing IE would just perpetuate it, and I'm not sure I want that to happen. I would, however, like to see them use a public issue tracker (and I'm not talking about Connect here) that allows the part of the public that cares to help drive feature prioritization and bug fixes.

  29. why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Regular people, the ones more likely to use IE to begin with, don't give a hoot if it's open source or not.

    1. Re:why? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Regular people, the ones more likely to use IE to begin with, don't give a hoot if it's open source or not.

      Absolutely agree. But open sourcing IE might cause it to become a better product, which, one would think, would benefit regular people even if they did not realize why.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  30. "Huge disadvantage" by Yunzil · · Score: 1

    I don't know, being open source hasn't helped Firefox, which keeps getting progressively worse with every release.

  31. Is it time? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    Way WAY past time. But one possible issue might be that Microsoft doesn't want anyone to see how yucky the code is.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  32. malware potential by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the larger challenges I see is from a security perspective. Today IE is used pretty frequently by phishing malware to gain access to personal information. I can only imagine the potential impacts of having the IE source open for those with bad intentions. It seems like the phishing/malware level would worsen until it has been open sourced long enough for people to remove the vulnerabilities.

  33. What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When that browser from Microsoft ('Spartan' rebranded) still has that crappy Trident rendering engine?

    Outside of Windows phones, few people proactively use Internet Explorer. There are better browsers out there.

    Never forget that it was Microsoft which brought us the 'browser dark ages' - use Internet Explorer, or else. 'Best viewed on IE'. Remember those years?

    A leopard will never change its spots, the prudent ones should cast a cynical eye on Microsoft.

  34. Useless by whizbang77045 · · Score: 1

    Who would want this thing? Why invest time in an open source project that's doomed from the start?

  35. Reasons to open source IE? by cjjjer · · Score: 1

    So people can patch IE 6,7 & 8 so they can keep it updated in Windows XP. Screw that shit...

  36. Please don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please keep that old pile of shit under cover. I don't want to imagine IE code creeping into other browsers.

  37. Partially open sourced? by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Since when is Safari and Opera 'partially open source'? I thought they were always closed source. Unless they're just talking about webkit

    1. Re:Partially open sourced? by x_t0ken_407 · · Score: 1

      Yes, they're referring to the layout engines (Webkit and Blink); that's the partiality of each respective browser in regards to 'open source'

  38. Does anyone still use IE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who needs all of that obsolete code?

  39. Internet Explorer can please sink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's no reason to open source one particularly hellish and awful browser. The HTML codes for webpages are all SUPPOSED to follow common specs. Browsers that meet the specs should come and go like flowers in the spring... And chrome and Firefox and WebKit get under the hood upgrades all the time. Rip a whole engine out and replace it every few years. IE is the anomaly that was so wired to Windows it COULDN'T be easily chucked as technology moved on.

  40. Internet Explorer forever Windows only .. by lippydude · · Score: 1

    This won't happen as so much of Internet Explorer code is mixed-in with the help sub-system, Microsoft Office or embedded in the Operating System. That's why Internet Explorer won't run on anything else except Microsoft Windows.

  41. Bypass Demonstrated for Use-After-Free Mitigation by lippydude · · Score: 1

    "Most recently, Microsoft brought new memory defenses to the browser, loading Internet Explorer with two new protections called Heap Isolation and Delayed Free .. last week .. Jared DeMott successfully demonstrated a bypass for both"

    ref.

  42. This will allow IE to take its rightful place.... by SpamHeart · · Score: 1

    ....as an integrated component of systemd.

  43. Why bother? by Woadan · · Score: 1

    IE will be deprecated in Windows 10 and a new browser introduced. Let's worry about the new browser.

    --
    You can't bend reality to meet your perceptions.
  44. Fuck that. Open source Presto!! by x_t0ken_407 · · Score: 1

    -Fan of Opera 12.x and below

  45. Just throw it away, please! by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    What is the point in open sourcing IE? Just throw this steaming pile of garbage into the digital trash can and forget that it ever existed.