MS writing Internet Explorer for Linux?

Re:I certainly hope this is true... by Wag+the+Dog · 1999-05-24 20:48 · Score: 1

You should try vmware! I've been running it since 1.0 came out a week and a half ago, and it works great so far. Havn't run any games in it yet, but Office works fine...

M$ in any form on my machine...? by Mickey+Jameson · 1999-05-24 20:00 · Score: 1

The main reason I don't use any Micro$oft products is because I never appreciated M$ trashing my data. I run Linux now and am proud to say I am M$-free. I would never take the chance of putting IE for Linux on my machine. Who knows what sort of nasty code will be in there. Such as code to steal your /etc/passwd, as one example. Would anybody actually trust this?

Re:M$ in any form on my machine...? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 20:20 · Score: 0

Ah, so good to see us all in our perfect form: Hating Micro$oft. Let's face it, Options from MS are just that, options. We will never be forced to buy MS products for Linux. I might try it, or I might not.

Would they GPL it? Probably not. Would it be Free (as in free beer)? Probably so.
Re:M$ in any form on my machine...? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 22:52 · Score: 0

you will be forced to use it -- if everyone else is using it too. thats called a monopoly.

Impossible to make M$ seem worse than they are by Dictator+For+Life · 1999-05-24 23:35 · Score: 1

It's impossible because they are already horrible beyond comprehension. Their products are intolerably, insufferably broken.

Need a way to slow down great hardware? Install Windows NT. It's guaranteed to bog down even the fastest machine -- when it's not blue-screening.
Try running 3 or 4 reasonably-sized apps on NT in 64MB. Try switching between them, and then go make coffee while the disk grinds. Then try the same in less RAM in a Linux box. *Ping* it's up.
Once again it has happened to me: using a M$ app on a M$ OS, doing nothing but working completely within the bounds of said app's interface, not trying anything fancy -- and BOOM the app locks up tighter than a drum, taking an hour's worth of work with it. That's "quality"!

I'm not so much bothered by the fact of bugs. I'm bothered by the lies surrounding those bugs. I'm incensed by the expectation that I HAVE TO PAY FOR M$ TO FIX THEIR ROTTEN SOFTWARE. It's intolerable.

The average person settles for M$ trash because they simply don't know they have a choice. They simply don't realize that it doesn't have to be this way: they don't have to suffer crashes and data loss and bugginess. Linux is a deliverance from the filth and putrescence that oozes out of Redmond, spreading the disease of frustration with computers.

If M$ ever produces IE for Linux, it will be as bloated (like all their products) as a tick on a dog. It will be as slow as a slug sliming its way through the filth and decay of compost pile. It will be as buggy as a malarial swamp, with none of the swamp's beauty.

And it will go on MY Linux box over my dead body.

Microsoft: it's not just a corporation; it's a pestilence.

--

DFL

Never send a human to do a machine's job.

Re:Impossible to make M$ seem worse than they are by Poisoned+Coyote · 1999-05-25 04:12 · Score: 1

If M$ ever produces IE for Linux, it will be as bloated (like all their products) as a tick on a dog. It will be as slow as a slug sliming its way through the filth and decay of compost pile. It will be as buggy as a malarial swamp, with none of the swamp's beauty

Thats just it. The Linux community is a lot different than the average windows user. If MS makes a crap browser for Linux, nobody will use it. MS knows they are sailing into hostile waters with this one, meaning folks will just use netscape if IE isn't significantly better.

If they don't make a usable product, they will have wasted a lot of time and resources, and most of us have figured out by now that microsoft (other attributes aside) is not stupid.

Remember, you are using a real OS.... by InfiniterX · 1999-05-25 05:38 · Score: 1

Your passwd file.. No I dont see any use for MS to get that, but..
How about a list of all the Apps you run, Marketing would love that..
The Serial numbers of all your MS software, or any other SPA protected code on your machine... Yepp, I see Legal slavering over that..
How about the top 10 websites you visit, mmmm good for market research and popup ads targetted at you via your GUID cookie.

Remember that Linux has no GUID cookie. Linux has no Pentium III ID-cracking CraptiveX malicious applets.

Don't want M$ to know what's on your Linux box? Cut off file permissions to all that's necessary. The reason why all the BackOrifice and M$ GUID/spy software works is because under Windows everything always runs as the Linux equivalent of "root" with 777 permissions on everything. Cut off its access to the files, and you're OK. Run Internet Explorer under a restricted user or even run it all under a chroot'ed environment if you're that paranoid about your files....

Re:IE for Linux would be welcome... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 23:35 · Score: 0

If IE is ported to linux, think of what MS will do. jack up download numbers, say they are the best, say they get more downloads on linux software then the others, bah! They should stick with their own OS.

Re:this is old news.. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 02:07 · Score: 0

You are wrong in saying Microsoft has not publicly admitted to the existence of Linux. They made available for download a beta version of NetShow for Linux over six months ago. I downloaded the binary, and it didn't work right, but it came up "Microsoft Netshow for Linux" in the startup sequence. I thought it was at least remarkable at the time.

Re:Beware geeks bearing gifts by IntlHarvester · 1999-05-25 05:40 · Score: 2

I would hold off on the anti-Linux conspiricy theories. (Try anti-Netscape.) Microsoft hasn't been using IE/Solaris and IE/HP-UX to secretly undermine those platforms.

For some reason, they didn't want to get stuck with the "single platform" tag for IE, so they produced the unix versions. A version of IE out on Windows, Mac, and Linux/Solaris/HPUX probably covers about 99.9% of the web browsing machines out there. Once they have that they can start signing up content providers to produce IE-only sites.
--

--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.

Re:NT multiuser? So how can I log on as 5 users@on by Cowards+Anonymous · 1999-05-25 01:55 · Score: 2

The best way to do it though is to run Terminal Server.

And Terminal Server comes built into which version of NT4? Oh.

Funny how multiuser capabilities are built into nearly every major OS since 1970, disregarding the degenerate case of a few popular desktop products, and yet is an add-on product grafted on to NT over 10 years after its initial release.

What's the NT equivalent of:$ sudo fredp -c "xterm" & $ sudo miked -c "xterm" & $ sudo billg -c "rm -fr /" & $ sudo luser -c "netscape http://www.microsoft.com/" & $ sudo yuser -c "netscape http://www.sun.com/" & [CTRL][ALT][F1] gin: harrys ord: $ top [CTRL][ALT][F12]

I'd imagine it would involve something arcane and poorly documented, involving manipulating SIDs by hand. And I strongly suspect it wouldn't be something the casual user could take advantage of.

Yes, it's unfair to say NT isn't multiuser. With some various bolt-ons and heavy work with a saw, it is in fact multiuser by most standards. However, I think it's fair to say NT isn't as thoroughly or intuitively multiuser as UNIX.

That seems to be by design as best I can tell.

Re:that won't work. by Fvision · 1999-05-24 23:14 · Score: 1

Get a window manager that supports frameless windows, map the maximise key to F11, and set up your apps so they have no menus. Hey pretso! You can do that to all your windows.
Whats so important about that extra centimeter, though, I don't know. Shiesh.

Re:Usage by HiThere · 1999-05-24 21:38 · Score: 2

That *sounds* good, but have you been following the "shrinkwrap license" law proposal. (Sorry about the vague language. Check the recent Gripe Line in, I think, PC Week). Basically it seems to mean that the contracts are not only legally binding, but they can be changed AFTER you agree to them.
Actually, this is the issue that finally caused me to decide to switch to Linux.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

Just don't use Shift-Insert by SeanNi · 1999-05-25 04:58 · Score: 1

Just don't use Shift-Insert, and Netscape 4.07 (I think... 4.0-something, anyway) works fine for me (RedHat 5.2 with a 2.2.2 kernel). I've only had it crash once in the last 2 months or so.

Unfortunately, shift-insert (to paste text) locks it up, and you have to kill -9 it, but I've managed to wean myself (after a number of very painful lock-ups) off that windows-ism, and use M-v instead.
--
- Sean

--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean

Re:Just don't use Shift-Insert by SoftwareJanitor · 1999-05-26 19:01 · Score: 1

'cept I only have 2 mouse buttons

I've made it a point to replace any two button mice that come my way (usually with used machines). I've found a few decent (PS/2 style) generic 3-button mice in the $5-$10 range (albiet a lot of cheap mice are crap). I also managed to find several Logitech Mouseman 3-button PS/2 style mice on clearance at a local Wal-Mart, and I bought all of them they had for $15 each. Those are probably my favorite mouse, although I also have a couple of Mouse Systems 3-button combo serial-PS/2 mice that are O.K.

But as a recent convert from Windows, I'm getting the hang of clicking both buttons at once

Ugh. Chord middle... I am stuck with that on my laptop, because the built in (trackpoint) device has only two buttons. Its not fun. I tend to plug in an external mouse when possible.
Re:Just don't use Shift-Insert by SeanNi · 1999-05-26 02:47 · Score: 1

Yeah... 'cept I only have 2 mouse buttons. But as a recent convert from Windows, I'm getting the hang of clicking both buttons at once...
--
- Sean

--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
Re:Just don't use Shift-Insert by SeanNi · 1999-05-28 00:13 · Score: 1

> I've made it a point to replace any two button mice that come my way

Normally, I'd agree with you, but in this case, the 2-button is an old Dexxa (from 1986) that they don't make anymore, and that I absolutely love.

I'll switch when it breaks. Not before. :-)
--
- Sean

--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
Re:Just don't use Shift-Insert by SoftwareJanitor · 1999-05-25 08:24 · Score: 1

Just don't use Shift-Insert (to paste text)

Personally, I use the middle mouse button to paste text. It has never crashed any application.

Re:As for Lynx users... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 15:28 · Score: 0

Lynx could read frames. It just displays it one at the time.

The DOJ Trial STILL Isn't OVER. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 18:07 · Score: 0

Anything to give the illusion of competition - it would really disable M$ predatory practices to be (rightfully) nailed as the monopoly that they are.

"There's this other OS that we 'have' to port our 'free' 'browser/OS component' to."

Bullsh*t. Just to get your weasely little "Embrace and Extend" fingers in everybody's protocol pie - and to get a copy of 'regedit' on ALL computers everywhere.

I'll use Lynx and zgv for the rest of my days before I load IE anything on my nice Linux box at home. (This is not in any way to be taken as a dig at Lynx. I really DO use Lynx (as well as Emacs-w3 mode) at home - it's just more fun to browse that way).

Pointless by eponymous+cohort · 1999-05-24 21:07 · Score: 1

One of the big attractions of Linux is that it is NOT Microsoft. I don't thing many people would really want Linux compatibility in NT.

Consider that because of the Open Source, how many Linux apps are there that aren't already available for NT? All of the GNU tools are, also perl, and countless other apps and utilities. The advantage with Linux is that they all come with the OS, in the NT world you have to buy or download them.

--

Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them

Re:Pointless by eponymous+cohort · 1999-05-25 20:25 · Score: 2

You missed my point... I fail to see how the ability to run Linux programs will be a selling point of W2K. Remember W2K is NT, not consumer Windows. Name a program that runs on Linux, and I'll bet that you can find a native Windows port already, so why bother with emulation?

Linux compatibility may appeal to PHBs, but I don't think it will to many others.

--
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Re:Pointless by Kirby · 1999-05-25 03:51 · Score: 2

Geeks tend to forget that their perspective on Microsoft is unusual. 95% of the software-buying population thinks Microsoft is okay. (Semi-random number - but the point being nearly all.) You'll never convince most people to use Linux based on the virtue that it isn't Microsoft - they don't care about that. One of the big attractions to the current linux community is that it's not Microsoft, perhaps - but that's a dead end road, that's gotten all the people its going to get.

The way, now, to make Linux attractive is to make it _better_ than Microsoft. Anything else is pointless - if Microsoft makes a better OS, where better is defined as possessing qualities that make people use it more often, then they deserve to win. Getting distracted by ideology will make the people who don't hate Microsoft not want to listen to the good parts, where Linux will help them do their jobs better.

--
-- Kate

M$ vs. Micros~1 by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 20:34 · Score: 0

Yeah right. Micros~1 shelling out a billion dollars for R&D in Linux MSIE. With Micros~1's proven track record of cornholing the consumer, YOU seem to think that MSIE for Linux is a Good Thing.
Not so. It will rape your system, and I guarantee it. Linux machines are supposed to be stable. I don't need Micro$oft products breaking my machine. Since leaving Bill Gates and the Evil Empire, I will never settle for anything less. Hence, the only OS I'll never use is one that was made in Redmond.
I am an "anti-Microsoft fanatic" and I'll misspell M$/Micro$oft/Micros~1 any way I see fit. That doesn't mean I'm an unthinking fanatic. That doesn't mean I'm a little weenie that can't think for myself. Micro$oft has been robbing people blind for years in exchange for sub-standard, unreliable products. From your attitude, I'm willing to wager that you are either an employee of M$ or a faithful M$ drone who has never used a non-M$ operating system.

Re:HUH??? by nbor · 1999-05-25 10:46 · Score: 1

HUH?? to you to dude!

Did you think that DELL etc's Windows business vanished because they pre-installed Linux ?

Perhaps you forget that the same vendors (DELL,...) are also MS customers for Windows.
DELL refuses to put IE5 on Linux pre-installs,
MS squeezes their Windows contract.
Replace DELL with another vendor name.
Lather, rinse, repeat.

Just because DELL etc install Linux doesn't overnight make them free of MS leverage. ALL Intel box vendors ( except Linux-only vendors )
are subject to MS monopoly arm-twisting.

Nitin Borwankar

--
The more idiot-proof you make it the smarter the idiots get.

lIEnux by arielb · 1999-05-24 22:29 · Score: 1

The whole point of getting IE on linux is get all the webpages in the world to conform to MS standards instead of cross-browser/w3c standards. That way you'd pay for MS servers running on NT or MS Office on Windows which is tuned for the new MS web. Demand a standards compliant browser from mozilla or Opera or kfm or whatever. Just don't think MS would work on a free browser for linux to strengthen linux

--
---

Re:NT multiuser? So how can I log on as 5 users@on by DevNu11 · 1999-05-25 04:04 · Score: 1

duh... try change user /?
'It's kind of fun to do the impossible.'

--
'It's kind of fun to do the impossible.'
- Walt Disney

Tied to the OS? by kcin · 1999-05-24 20:09 · Score: 2

I don't know if I'm mistaken or not, but wasn't MS spewing BS about IE being part of the operating system? Gee. kcin

Re:Tied to the OS? by xinit · 1999-05-24 21:10 · Score: 1

IE is part of the OS. Windows IS IE, and IE IS Windows.
This way MS can further inflate their Windows Installed Base statistics. Not only did that Macintosh/Solaris/etc user install IE, but thev've also "upgraded" from MacOS/Solaris to Windows.

--
--- http://foo.ca

Re:Don't stoop to their level by Mickey+Jameson · 1999-05-24 20:48 · Score: 1

It sure was meant to be taken seriously. With all the privacy invading tracking "features" already included in the most popular M$ products, I don't want any of that to affect me. Hence, I don't use Micro$oft crap, nor will I in the future. M$ has been tracking users for years, yet it was unraveled not too long ago, and of course, they lied about it by saying, "Oh, that was a feature that was supposed to have been turned off" and whatnot.
It's hard enough trusting my machines at work that have M$ OSs on, but when I rely on my home PCs (not as replaceable), I'm not going to chance M$ copping a peek at my data.

Don't use libc5-based netscape version with glibc2 by Alex+Belits · 1999-05-25 00:58 · Score: 1

"Unsupported" glibc2 version works much better. I have also found a strange problem with Dynamic Fonts with Netscape 4.6 on my system, so I had to remove that library, but that was the only thing that was broken.

--
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.

Re:Usage by clawson · 1999-05-25 02:45 · Score: 1

...is anyone really sure that the problem is totally Netscape's, and not in some form or another a function of the XFree86 server/driver one is using for one's video card?

Since I paid for and installed Metro-X 4.3.1 (for my lame P200MMX, with ATI RageII), I have had 0 problems with Communicator 4.5, whereas before, it would lock up like a Mac...

MS afraid? by Doctor+Memory · 1999-05-24 20:55 · Score: 1

I just read the article referred to in the story, and I didn't get the impression that MS was "afraid" of Linux at all. Rather, they were treating it as a serious platform. My take is that they're porting IE as an experiment, and planning on leveraging the tools they come up with to port the Office apps.

Hmmm, on second thought, the only reason people use Windows is so that they can use Word and Excel, so forget about porting them to a competing OS (and yes, I don't consider MacOS a "competing" OS).

--
Just junk food for thought...

HUH??? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 06:34 · Score: 0

What leverage does Micros~1 have to force IE5 on all Linux pre-installs? I am really confused. Please explain.

Re:HUH??? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 16:10 · Score: 0

But they can't pull that sort of stunt anymore. The DoJ is all over them right now and the press would make a big stink of it if word ever leaked out.

Besides, it'll be easy to delete. C'mon, this is Linux we're talking about here. Probably just delete. No registry surgery or DLL hell. Heck, someone will probably post a simple script on Freshmeat.

Re:Don't stoop to their level by dattaway · 1999-05-24 21:58 · Score: 2

Here is a link you might be looking for. It summarizes some, but not all I have heard, of the dirty tricks.

You are forgetting a browser.... by wilkinsm · 1999-05-24 23:55 · Score: 2

I don't use Netscrape or Internet Exploder.

I use kfm from the KDE windowing system.

It really works pretty well, and no extra overhead.

Re:You are forgetting a browser.... by Leapfrog · 1999-05-25 03:59 · Score: 1

I still count telnet hostname 80 as a web browser, too.

Beware geeks bearing gifts by jabber · 1999-05-24 19:54 · Score: 2

If history is any indication, this is a Bad Thing. M$ is now infamous for writing Trojan Horse Software:
1. Clone a Good Thing to 'offer an alternative'.
2. 'Innovate' via extend and embrace.
3. Squelch the competition with rapid upgrade cycles and useless feature marathons.

Yeah, MSIE for Linux will be a slick product, but it will only compile with the M$libc libs, and as root - so kiss your competitive alternative bye-bye. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if it required us to compile a 'special' driver right into the kernel.

--

-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.

Re:Beware geeks bearing gifts by The+Fleck · 1999-05-24 20:27 · Score: 0

ok... 1) it is gunna be ELF like netscape, obviously... it will have everything... they won't ask you to compile ANYTHING because they aren't gunna give ya the SOURCE... thats M$ here buddy... 2) about the driver in the kernel? i would be suprised if they did ask people do put something in the kernel... that is doubtful...

--
linuxnewbie.com

Does anyone seriously believe MS hasn't already? by Sinner · 1999-05-25 02:11 · Score: 1

I have long been under the impression that IE was already running on Linux inside Microsoft. Releasing it is a strategic decision. My theory is they'll put it out to muddy the waters when Netscape 5.0 is released (to minimise the inevitable boost to the Mozilla project). Presuming they can get it to perform acceptably on machines with less than 128Mb of RAM.

--
fish and pipes

Why bother? Netscape is working just fine for me by Kurt+Gray · 1999-05-24 19:54 · Score: 1

All I want is a web browser that can surf the
web and handle DHTML, Java, etc -- and guess
what? Netscape works just fine, thankyouverymuch.
I also use Netscape for email and very happy
with it. So why should I bother switching to
something bloated and buggier? Especially if it
means you are implicitely supporting Microsoft's
efforts to force new "standards" on everyone.

By installing Microsoft software in Linux you
are feeding the beast -- don't do it. If you
want a new browser then support Mozilla.

Re:Now don't you wish the Unabomber had gotten MS? by dattaway · 1999-05-25 06:00 · Score: 2

Its not cool to joke about bombing a company that has problems with quality. Its not very nice and a good way to get in heaps'o'trouble.

Put it in perspective by imagining one of your coworkers in the next cubicle laughing at great lengths about the company's new firearms policy. Would it make you uneasy?

Just one more to test? by David+Gould · 1999-05-25 02:29 · Score: 1

I don't know about that. We pretty much have to test our web stuff on five separate platforms: both IE and Netscape on both Mac and Windows, plus Netscape on Irix. What with frames, cookies, JavaScript, etc., (I know, yuck, but this is an intranet application) it behaves differently on every single one. IE on (any) Unix would just be one more platform to test for, but it wouldn't really save us from needing to test IE on the other platforms.

As for stability and different versions, I pretty much hated Netscape 3.x (slow and ugly) -- I just stayed with 2.0.2 until skipping to 4. I've been pretty happy since they got to 4.0.4, and I haven't even been tempted to try anything newer than that. That's on the Mac. I guess different versions stack up differently on different platforms. On the Mac, the best ones IMO have been 1.1, 2.0.2, and 4.0.4. Basically, I expect my next browser to be Mozilla.

David Gould

--
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}

a shot to the foot by pohl · 1999-05-24 23:36 · Score: 1

I disbelieve the rumor. Giving Win2000 the ability to run linux apps would be tantamount to inviting developers to ignore the Win32 API, the base of their power. I'll be pleasantly surprised if it pans-out.

--

The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

Re:I certainly hope this is true... by PimpBot · 1999-05-24 19:37 · Score: 1

:-T

kinda a shame to hear that...of course, we *could* hope for something good to finally come out of Redmond... ;-)

Another Idea by jsdkl · 1999-05-24 21:43 · Score: 1

How about doing something like xscreensaver, which basically creates a window the size of your display, maps it, and lets other programs draw to it. Now suck the rendering engine out of Mozilla and a few other little things, and dig the code out of xscreensaver to make a full screen window, tie it all together somehow, and there ya go. Full screen Mozilla.

Maybe I'll work on that in June-July. I'm busy until then...

how about selling it off for its parts? by schmack · 1999-05-24 19:33 · Score: 1

I gotta admit, Internet Explorer 5 is a sweet browser -- but only because it's kept up with the pace of the internet where Netscape Navigator has fallen behind.

I think the best thing about IE5 is the render speed. It'd be great to 'borrow' the code for the rendering engine for IE5 and pull it into Mozilla.

I heard that Netscape claims their Communicator 4.6 is acutally faster! Can anyone actually verify this? Try clicking a comment on a really active /. thread and then click the back arrow -- with Netscape 4.5 i've then got enough time to make a pot of coffee before the page is rendered out of cache. With IE the page snaps up instantly.

--

--
Rare Window - free your photos

Re:how about selling it off for its parts? by asa · 1999-05-24 19:43 · Score: 2

Um....Mozilla and its new rendering engine are faster than anything Netscape has put out so far and should be significantly faster than anything MS has out. Check it out at mozilla.org
Re:how about selling it off for its parts? by cswiii · 1999-05-24 19:43 · Score: 2

CNN has this article, a review of the newer Communicator. Supposedly more stable, and, according to this author, slightly faster than MSIE 5

Too bad I only use the standalone...
Re:how about selling it off for its parts? by PimpBot · 1999-05-24 19:50 · Score: 1

wouldn't the standalone have the same rendering engine as communicator, just less baggage? I've always been downloading NS Standalone...the extra stuff that came with communicator wasn't all that useful to me...
Re:how about selling it off for its parts? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 00:47 · Score: 0

I'm reading /. with Mozilla Win32 nightly 1999051808-M6.

Really fast. faster then IE5 or Netscape. Only thing slowing down is that APPRUNNER windows need to come up in front to do any process fast. After it get integrated I don't know how fast will it be. FAST and SMALL program!
Re:how about selling it off for its parts? by cswiii · 1999-05-24 19:53 · Score: 1

They've only updated the communicator, at this point. There's no new release of the standalone that I know of. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Re:IE for Linux would be welcome... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 21:32 · Score: 0

>what do you call Mozilla then?

Nowhere near ready for release

OH MAN by gavinhall · 1999-05-25 19:06 · Score: 1

Posted by Debarge:

What the hell is microsoft thinking everyone must boycot microsoft.

Re:IE for Linux would be welcome... by Jerf · 1999-05-24 22:45 · Score: 5

Silly to think that someone could gain influence over the Internet by implementing special HTML tags?

Head over to the Web Standards project, and note the troubles special HTML tags are even now causing.
Ponder how many browsers are available for the general public. And why aren't they around? Because they can't handle the "real web", which is populated with lots of special tags? (recall that many of the "special" tags have been standardized after the fact, like CENTER)
Consider whether the browser wars were NOT overhyped, but are, in fact, mostly over now. And Microsoft and Netscape both have tremendous influence on the Internet, with, say, Mosiac nothing but a faint memory.

It's not silly to think that... it's just that it already happened, and you no longer notice, because it's in the background.

Re:IE? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 00:58 · Score: 0

I don't know about him, but I have nuclear weapons secrets (stolen back from the Chinese) on my Linux box.

Opera? by Amphigory · 1999-05-24 19:33 · Score: 2

Whatever happened to the Opera port that TrollTech was supposed to be doing? I looked at the apropriate web sites a couple of days ago and there has been no update.

--
-- Slashdot sucks.

Re:Opera? by TedC · 1999-05-24 23:04 · Score: 2

Whatever happened to the Opera port that TrollTech was supposed to be doing?
Good question. It's too bad that one of the moderators doesn't have a clue what Opera is. How can the discussion of an alternate web browser be off topic?
TedC

Re:IE for Solaris by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 04:47 · Score: 0

StarOffice, as bad as it is, is not any where NEAR as bad as Explorer under Unix. Explorer is terrible. Any of the freeware browsers (that I've used at least - I can't say I've used all of them) are far more usable, although much more ugly.

corel on mac by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 22:40 · Score: 0

Corel is thinking seriously about porting the rest of its WordPerfect Office to the Mac...currently the WordPerfect for the Mac is functionally similar to the Windows version, but has an entirely different code base.

When Corel first announced that they would begin to help out the Wine project, it was pointed out that when Corel ported their Windows apps to MacOS, a win32->MacOS library was used. It was created so that they could still use most of the source from the Windows application for their Mac ports. At the time, it was hoped that the experience in creating this library would prove to be an asset for the Wine project.

Re:corel on mac by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 05:08 · Score: 0

It's not emulation, its just making some mods to the API and leaving a lot of the same code.
Corel is working at being a part of the Open Source and Linux community, not at self-destructing.
Gee, that's funny, I thought emulation was about working with software for many types of hardware on one type. Heh, I guess that running SNES9x means I've already lost. :)
Re:corel on mac by Melbert · 1999-05-25 07:27 · Score: 1

No. Running SNES9x does not mean you've already lost. But if Sony had, instead of developing their own gaming platform, instead developed an emulator to run Nintendo games, they would have already lost before shipping the first console.

As the previous writer said, Emulation is a form of flattery. It's the action of a "Me Too" company without the vision to do their own development.
Re:corel on mac by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 01:11 · Score: 0

They did not use the win32 code base for WordPerfect 3.5, which is the current version of WordPerfect for the Mac, functionally similar to WP 7. WordPerfect was ported to the Mac with an entirely fresh code base *before* the Win32 version was created.
CorelDRAW!, however, does use heavy Win32 "emulation" -- as does MS Office 98 for the Mac.
Last rumor I heard was the Corel was trying to decide whether to (a) continue with the Mac codebase for new versions (b) re-write from the ground up for the Mac or (c) use some kind of "emulation" like MS Office does, which I assume is their involvement with WINE, and I know, it's not an emulator :)
Most likely (c) will be choosen; its the easiest way to get it out the door quickly, but at what kind of speed sacrifice I'm wondering.
Anyway, that was totally off-topic :)
Re:corel on mac by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 02:24 · Score: 0

Most likely Corel will just self destruct. They're working at it pretty hard, some would say.

Emulation is a form of flattery, BTW. It's a good way of admitting you've already lost.

What reality are you in? by DavidTC · 1999-05-24 21:12 · Score: 1

Erm, how long has Linux had FAT32 support now? Seven months, maybe? Since 2.0.32 in the standard kernel, and a bit longer if you looked for the patches.

Now, how long has NT had it? What? You mean it doesn't?

I won't even comment on that 'easier to use' line, but you're just spewing FUD.

P.S. Wasn't that 'MS give FAT support to Linux' a segfault article?

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?

Re:Usage by gavinhall · 1999-05-24 20:17 · Score: 1

Posted by _DogShu_:

I know this ain't a popular opinion, but I think IE is better than netscape. Both netscape 4.5 and 4.6 crash ALL THE TIME on my machine. Sure, IE 4.0 crashed just as much, but 5.0 seems much more reliable.
They're both bloatware, unfortunteately. Anybody know where I can download Netscape 3.0? Is Opera out for Unix/Linux yet?

Re:DONT INSTALL IT by daviddennis · 1999-05-24 21:04 · Score: 2

I hadn't heard that problem before, but I did hear (admittedly second-hand) from someone who used IE for Solaris. He said that it was constantly polling, driving system load up to insane heights even when he wasn't doing anything with it. As a result, he dumped it almost immediately.

I have an old Sun that isn't doing anything that could run Solaris 7 - perhaps I'll check it out one of these days.

I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft stuck with poor programming practices to make Solaris look bad, and if so, IE for Linux is likely to be terrible. They certainly wouldn't take much time optimizing it, when doing so would make Windows look bad.

I don't think there's much doubt that current IE is a cleaner product than current Netscape, simply because they did a complete rewrite in 4.x, while Netscape tried switching around their bloated code base. In the end, though, the new Netscape should run rings around it. I sure hope they recreate the old Netscape 3 user interface, which was IMHO the best I've ever seen in a browser. Netscape 4's "pale imitation of IE" interface was a massive step backwards, as JWZ tacitly acknowledged on his web pages even before he quit.

If IE for Linux would bring better fonts (such as Verdana) to the Linux platform, it might really help us. But I'm not betting on it.

Incidentally, for political reasons I am unlikely to use any Microsoft browser for my regular web surving in the foreseeable future; it sends an unmistakably pro-MS message to the world, and I don't want that to be my message. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean NS is actually better than IE; it just means I don't want to publically support MS with every log entry I write on someone's server.

D

----

Yes! Why the sensationalism from /. editors? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 07:03 · Score: 0

I agree completely. I read that bit from the article pointer about Spencer indicating that Redmond is afraid, and there's nothing about that in the article!

Has anyone else noticed that the /. editors seem to be trying to stir up controversy? It seems like every change they get, they hype up Linux vs. Microsoft as some big fight in order to get the Linux zealotry all pumped up. I wonder if the hit counts for these sorts of articles are higher? Does it increase /.'s ad revenue? I'm beginning to feel a little used here.

Junk Windows for NT by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 07:08 · Score: 0

IE runs nicely on windows, but unfortunately windows is a lousy platform that crashes frequently

Forget Windows, switch to NT. Just as stable as the Unix boxes but supports the Win32 API so you can use IE and other Windows apps. I've never had either crash on me (IE or NT). Plus all the Unix freeware of interest has been ported to NT as well. There's no need for Windows anymore (or Unix for that matter).

Re:Junk Windows for NT by Stephen+Williams · 1999-05-25 16:59 · Score: 2

all the Unix freeware of interest has been ported to NT as well.

It's been ported, but it doesn't necessarily work. I tried a port of zsh (my preferred Unix shell) under NT. I tried ^Cing a process. NT bluescreened. This is not intended as a slur againt NT, I'm just pointing out that OS to OS ports are often a bit flaky (as the HP-UX port of IE also illustrated). It always seems best to run an app natively on the OS it was designed for, rather than relying on a port.
Re:Junk Windows for NT by SoftwareJanitor · 1999-05-25 09:14 · Score: 1

Forget Windows,

I certainly wish I could. Although I am completely free of it at home, I am sometimes forced to deal with it at work.

switch to NT.

No Thanks. Tried it, not impressed, not one iota.

Just as stable as the Unix boxes

My experience has definitely been the opposite.

but supports the Win32 API

That, IMNEFCTHO, is a bad thing. Win32 is unecessarily bloated, complex and obtuse. I've had to write code for Win32, and it was not a pleasant experience.

so you can use IE and other Windows apps.

I don't have all that much interest anymore. I prefer Navigator over Explorer even on Windows. and I've got native Linux equivalents at home to everything I am forced to do on Windows at work. If it weren't for the 'standards' at work, I would never need to use Windows.

And for what its worth, NT doesn't run just everything that runs on Windows 95/98. There is a lot of software that is incompatible. And a lot of software that does work under NT seems to require that you relax security under NT so it is closer to what is on 95/98 (weak) in order to work, thus negating significant advantages of NT over 95/98. Additionally, some software that runs under NT does slow either just plain slower or more eratically than it does under 95/98.
Another problem with NT compared to 95/98 is hardware support. While 95/98 are widely supported by hardware, support is not nearly so consistant under NT. In fact, in some areas Linux is better supported than NT. NT also has weak support for laptops.

I've never had either crash on me (IE or NT).

I've seen NT crash plenty. Registry problems, lost data on blown NTFS partitions, etc. Linux and Solaris are far more reliable in my experience.

Plus all the Unix freeware of interest has been ported to NT as well.

Hardly. And you then have to go out and round up all that stuff and add additional stuff to NT which is already significantly bloated out of the box. And from what I've seen, a lot of the freeware that has been ported to NT doesn't work nearly as well there as it does under *nix. If freeware is a major interest, Linux is now the best platform. Most distributions come out of the box with most of the important stuff to begin with. Anything else tends to be developed first or second on Linux. Win32 is generally one of the last platforms to be supported, if at all.

There's no need for Windows anymore

This I could wholeheartedly agree with, but I'd include NT here as well.
(or Unix for that matter).

This I cannot agree with. I prefer just about any *nix to NT, even SCO, which I don't like much at all. I prefer Linux to most commercial *nixes, especially for home or small business uses. Linux runs far better on modest to moderate hardware than does NT. For high end purposes, NT is not yet worthy of consideration compared to any of the major *nixes such as Solaris.

Microsoft didn't announce anything by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 06:38 · Score: 0

Uh, gang? Microsoft didn't announce that they were porting IE to Linux. "Spencer Cat" did. That's right, a rumor column. One that nobody is even willing to sign their real name to. Why do people believe this stuff?

Let's face it. A great way to get hits to your web site (which sells more advertising) is to spread some info (true or false, who cares?) that pits Linux vs. Microsoft. You get all the Linux zealots up in arms and may get some interest from the Windows hordes as well. In other words it sells papers.

But to claim that this is an example of Microsoft touting vaporware is pure bunk! They've made no announcement at all.

Re:Microsoft didn't announce anything by dattaway · 1999-05-25 06:43 · Score: 2

Rumors of vaporware, now that's even better! See how people all got worked up over this? Maybe it was leaked on purpose this way, or perhaps as you suggest, maybe someone just made it all up. I prefer to call it innovative marketing.

Don't stoop to their level by Stephen+Williams · 1999-05-24 20:11 · Score: 2

Who knows what sort of nasty code will be in there. Such as code to steal your /etc/passwd, as one example.

I realize that this post wasn't meant to be taken seriously; however, I don't think this sort of comment is very wise. We get cross, and rightly so, when MS spin doctors spread FUD about Linux. Therefore, we really shouldn't be making unfounded allegations about MS, even in fun, lest we stoop to their level.

I am aware that I might provoke "shut up, you've got no sense of humour" type reactions for saying this. I just think that we need to be careful about what we say.

Re:Don't stoop to their level by Ben+Hutchings · 1999-05-24 23:18 · Score: 1

The only reason GUIDs were in office docs in the first place was so that they could be uniquely identified in Index Server; it allows weeding out of dupes.

Oh, very funny. Now explain why this is at all useful when the same GUID is used for all revisions of the document. That could be hundreds, since plenty of Office users copy existing (possibly blank) documents rather than learning how to use templates.
Re:Don't stoop to their level by spectecjr · 1999-05-24 21:22 · Score: 1

Oh, I dont know... Microsoft does seem to have a disregard for privacy. Remember the GUID's that all their apps tack into documents.

Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Just think IT'S THE SAME WITH CORBA! Lots of NASTY GUIDs (aka UUID's) running around the place! Eeeeek! Same with certain versions of RPC! Argh!

The only reason GUIDs were in office docs in the first place was so that they could be uniquely identified in Index Server; it allows weeding out of dupes. Don't be surprised if someone here at MS comes out with a one-way hash GUID generator in the near future - thus, resolving all your fears, and STILL letting everyone have a way of generating GLOBALLY UNIQUE numbers.

So I think that any MS code on my machine will never run with anything near root privilege.
Actually, given my experience with MS code on my Mac, I'll never let a byte of it on my Linux machine. MS can write acceptable code for their own platform, but anything they do for other platforms really has been sub-standard in my experience.

I take it you've not tried any MS Mac software in the last 2 years then...

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Re:Don't stoop to their level by starman97 · 1999-05-24 20:44 · Score: 2

Oh, I dont know... Microsoft does seem to have a disregard for privacy. Remember the GUID's that all their apps tack into documents. Then there's the infamous 'registration' data dumps that send a list of all your apps back to MS to 'help with compatability problems'. Then there's the forced internet registration of Office 2K or else the program shuts down after 30 days. Of course they had the 'no-DRDOS' code inserted into Windows so it would crash if run ontop of DR-DOS.

Microsoft has a very well documented history of inserting Trojan Horse code in their programs.

So I think that any MS code on my machine will never run with anything near root privilege.
Actually, given my experience with MS code on my Mac, I'll never let a byte of it on my Linux machine. MS can write acceptable code for their own platform, but anything they do for other platforms really has been sub-standard in my experience.

--
Starman97@Gmail.com (bring it on spammers)

MSnopoly 101:name one. by dattaway · 1999-05-25 06:12 · Score: 2

I can't think of any announced ports that never occured...

Vaporware does not imply that it won't be done, but it describes a product that does not exist for some time.

For example, if evil company X promises product Y at Z date, you have 0 until Z. Not only that, W competitors will see that X in gearing up for Y and can steamroll their marketing projections for U. What this means is that U will get 0 and consumers get the shaft.

Browser speed by stuntpope · 1999-05-24 23:41 · Score: 1

I haven't noticed a big speed jump from Communicator 4.5 to 4.6. I can't see how CNN got 4.6 to be faster than IE5, as claimed below. I just tried this: I set all my browsers' home pages to news.com, not a terribly complicated page but with a few elements to download. Then I opened each browser a few times, to test between non-cached and cached speeds. I timed them with second hand on my watch, not exactly a scientific test but just to get ballpark figures. I did this about 5 times for each browser. This is on a Compaq Pentium Pro 266 with NT4sp3. Results: Netscape 4.6 took 9 to *18* seconds to open program and download the page. IE5 took 5-6 seconds to do the same. Opera took 4-6 seconds, but I have to quickly click an "evaluate" button before the page loads, slowing things down. Neoplanet, using IE engine, took 2-4 seconds. Blazing! If it would only have a bookmark setup like Netscape's. I miss that.

Re:Browser speed by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 00:50 · Score: 0

Using the stopp watch is the best way to test any speed.. cuz that's count!

for example Data Transfer speed for hdd.. I use large files and stopp watch to see how fast.

Re:IE for Linux would be welcome... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 06:14 · Score: 0

"They can make any thing work fast and work well for their OS that's obious."

If it's so obvious why do I have to reboot my PC at work three times a day or face constant chunking or the BSOD? I have a feeling you're a part time Linux user that uses Windoze mainly. If this is the case you of all people should know that having well over 2oo coders working on one product, fighting the marketing people constantly, can't produce a stable product. Everyone tries to add more and more features until, like IE5 (which can't even render my page at http://randomstatic.virtualave.net properly) it gets way too big to be useful. For now I'll stick to Netscape 4.6 and Opera.

Not true! by jtseng · 1999-05-24 19:40 · Score: 1

I use IE5 and NS46 on my WinNTW4 here at work and NS is far more reliable compared to IE. Both of them don't really crash, but when an errant process takes hold of the desktop, I have to terminate IE which resets everything. That is what sucks about browser/GUI integration.

PS -- I hate it when Spencer Krapp takes pot shots at my boyz. GO YANKEES!!!

Today's English Lesson: Oxymorons

--

Sanity.html - Error 404 not found

Re:Not true! by gavinhall · 1999-05-24 20:24 · Score: 1

Posted by _DogShu_:

In IE, if you go to tools->internet options, go to advanced and check "Launch Browser Windows in a separate process", IE won't destroy everything that's running when you have to terminate it.
Re:Not true! by stuntpope · 1999-05-24 23:09 · Score: 1

My experience: I've long preferred Netscape and use 4.5 on Linux and 4.6 on NT 4sp3. I get not-infrequent Netscape crashes on the NT, and on Linux often the whole app would close suddenly -- just disappear! Great during downloads. But haven't tried yet with my new RedHat 6.0 to see if the crashes will be fixed. On my work NT box, I've found both IE 4, and now 5, are noticeably faster in program startup and page downloading. And I think IE renders pages better, or in a less frustrating way. Guess I need to improve my HTML...damn pixels and alignment issues in Netscape! But I still tend to use Netscape. I prefer the interface and I loathe ActiveX components downloading to my computer. I don't like lots of things about the "Microsoft Way." In the meantime, on NT, I've downloaded Neoplanet's browser, both the standard release and the beta using the Mozilla engine. The official release uses the IE engine, but seems even faster in page downloads, and lightening-fast in opening the program (I could get a cup of coffee while Netscape opens--well, almost). Plus, the URL autocomplete is like Netscape's, not IE5's. Oh, and BTW, I never could get Opera to do Java applets, so I gave up on that. Anyway, despite all this, I'd probably not let IE touch my Linux. First, I doubt they'll release a Linux version, second, I think it will suck. You think MS really thinks it needs to get IE onto Linux desktops?
Re:Not true! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 00:10 · Score: 0

As far as my experience, my machine (Win98, p2 400, 64 meg ram) definitely had IE freeze a lot more than Netscape in the period that I was using both browsers interchangeably. While IE does load faster initially, i must point out, IE is (obviously) integrated into the operating system wheteher you install IE4 or have it come with win98 and is therefore of course going to load faster. Also, loading netscape becomes quicker under Win98 because MS implemented a cache technique to store info for programs to make them launch faster after the first time after booting (apparently Symantec had a utility to do this in Win95 but MS integrated their own version into win98).
Also, any comparisons of IE and NS should take into account the fact that MS can tweak the API in all sorts of ways, and they have been previously accused of modifying their systems to make competitor's products run less smoothly - notably quicktime. So when netscape crashes, is Win98 sucking or Netscape? Hard to tell a lot of the time. For Unix systems, netscape was of course a windows programs that was ported over - not as ridiculous as the internet explorer people talking about the simulated Win32 API they made for solaris IE, but still, any windows program ported over to Unix could be a whole lot smoother if rewritten. Hopefully some capable programmers shall do that for the new mozilla!
Re:Not true! by Alex+Belits · 1999-05-25 05:28 · Score: 1

For Unix systems, netscape was of course a windows programs that was ported over - not as ridiculous as the internet explorer people talking about the simulated Win32 API they made for solaris IE, but still, any windows program ported over to Unix could be a whole lot smoother if rewritten.

Netscape never was ported from Windows to Unix -- development was initially done on IRIX, and then continued as cross-platfrom as possible. Some overuse of multithreading can be considered to be a windows-ism, but other than that Netscape on Unix is a legitimate Unix application (as opposed to MSIE for Solaris that basically brings half of Windoze with it, or, possibly, StarOffice that was written in something, I have no idea about, but it definitely doesn't look like Unix to me).

--
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Re:Not true! by PimpBot · 1999-05-24 19:47 · Score: 1

really? my machine (p200 mmx, 64 megs of ram, NT4, sp5) runs IE smoothly...NS(4.51) take a significant amount more time to load, and it renders everything slower...plus, its crashed on my half a dozen times...where IE has locked up only once....i'll try NS 4.6 a bit later today then...but I'd be interested to hear other people, their configs, and their expierences with the two titan browsers....

Re:IE for Linux would be welcome... by zaw · 1999-05-24 23:27 · Score: 1

There should never be only one solution available for a component as important as a browser. I'm continually stunned at how little competition there is in the browser market, which was essentially ceded to Microsoft and Netscape/AOL in an amazingly short time.

No maket for Browser, you can't make money with Browser no more cuz they are basically FREE! Netscape Sell Browser! MS give away browser cuz they are rich and jealous of Netscape. If they both were selling browsers and not loading to any OS right now we'll have good browser to surf the net right now. I mean 10X better the IE 5 "which I hate to use".

Reason Netscape is not a good browser is because they don't have any money to make one. Just enough to make Mozilla with Limited programmers.

MS have Billions of Dollors waste and a lot of high paid programmers that know MS's OS archtechure very well. They can make any thing work fast and work well for their OS that's obious.

If MS want to make Browser for Linux, they can setup a team may be they can pay a few Linux Programmers 10X more then what they making and Come out with most stable version of IE for Linux. who knows.

Peoples here Bragging about how good IE5 is Why don't you'll help fellows at www.mozilla.org! ya know what's good there? just like linux its openSource!!

I don't think you know what you are talking about by Alphix · 1999-05-24 21:44 · Score: 1

And you prove it quite well in a few simple statements:

You compare EXT2FS with FAT32 (which is an ugly FAT16 hack) and claim EXT2FS sucks by comparison

You say XFS will *not* be an improvement, you should read up on what a journalling filesystem is

Linux supports FAT32 and is compatilbe with mainstream PC systems, by far more compatible than all proprietary OS'es (which one can mount FAT, FAT32, NTFS, SAMBA etc. etc.)

I can agree MS produts are easy to use, cause they make all decisions for you..which requires that you can *trust* what the software engineer decided for you.

Re:that won't work. by jsdkl · 1999-05-24 21:40 · Score: 1

I believe Netscape supports the -geometry command line parameters...just figure it out once.

Re:IE for Linux would be welcome... by gavinhall · 1999-05-25 21:02 · Score: 1

Posted by Cable4096:

I agree, Internet Explorer for Linux would be great. I hope that they port Outlook 98 as well, as Linux could use a decent e-mail program with integrated Calendar, Address Book, Journal, Tasks, and Notes that has the options of using a POP3 or Exchange Server or some other Mail Server.

Re:IE port to Linux by Brian+Knotts · 1999-05-25 19:15 · Score: 1

I think the point is that ~99% of the Microsoft Word userbase doesn't need or even know how to use such features. For them, it is indeed "bloat." That kind of stuff should be an optional add-on package; that would help the security situation quite a bit.

And why do people keep saying things like "if Linux is to have any sort of enterprise-level support?" If the "enterprise" wants to use Linux, fine; if they don't, that's fine, too.

--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
World domination: coming soon to a computer near you!

Re:How many times have we heard this? by spectecjr · 1999-05-24 21:13 · Score: 1

Wow. MS doesn't announce anything either way (and hasn't), this entire discussion is based around supposition, and you're complaining about VAPORWARE?

The mind boggles.

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra

Re:Which distribution would DARE care it? by j+c+s · 1999-05-24 22:48 · Score: 1

I'm sure redhat would, seeing as how they gear their distribution towards the windows crowd with all their GUI setup tools and the fvwm95-default window manager. (or so did v5.0)

More likely they were accessing your microphone by WillAffleck · 1999-05-25 05:02 · Score: 1

They were probably doing a BIOS scan to upload the most commonly used words that you spoke into the hidden microphone in your PC.

If you immerse your PC in liquid nitrogen, the microphone will be disabled.

Will in Seattle

--
Will in Seattle

Re:More likely they were accessing your microphone by Rip+Van+Winkle · 1999-05-25 05:12 · Score: 1

Will,

I tried to immerce my PC into liquid nitorgen but it just made this buzzing sound and then switched itself off.. Does this mean the hidden microphone is disabled now?

Rip Van Winkle..

Sarcasm is the best form of humour! :)

--

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are not the responsiblity of the user, as I probably stole them anyway
Re:More likely they were accessing your microphone by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 07:46 · Score: 0

If any one can come up with a perfectly logical reason why the fuck they have to download thousands of bytes from my system, when I should be getting thousands of bytes from there, I'd be perfectly happy to hear this reason, but if you want to be a dick then be a dick, but that does not erase the fact they were downloading more data from my system then they were uploading, from what I can tell the only data they were sending my system could have just been acknowledgement.

IE in Leenoox? by The+Fleck · 1999-05-24 20:19 · Score: 1

I would be one of the first to install IE in my Linux machine. I used to be one of those IE-trashing, netscape-touting freaks but then Netscape got sloppy and IE displays web sites much cleaner than Netscape... Sorry, but I would want IE in ALL distros of Linux (i'm sure then install program will probably install completely into /msie or someting.. hehe) ... as far as having ANYTHING to do with the OS... no, not really... it runs on Solaris and Mac without OS interference, it is only deeply submerged in WINDOWS' internals.

--
linuxnewbie.com

Re:Would it be that hard to port? by eponymous+cohort · 1999-05-24 22:41 · Score: 1

You mean show the world that porting between different 'nixes isn't that hard? There's no way that MS will do that. They'll rewrite the thing, and complain about how hard it is to develop for Linux.

MS ran an article that was supposedly written by a IE for Unix team member, where they claimed to get hung up on trivial things like "Unix allows you to change your Window focus policy, we didn't know how to handle that!" I wish I had the URL, that document was pretty funny!

--

Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them

Re:Competition. by SeanNi · 1999-05-25 04:53 · Score: 1

Oh yeah, me 3. I keep running back to the Project Magic site almost daily, trying to see if any progress has been announced.

On a slightly related topic, has anyone had any success with getting Opera to work under WINE?
--
- Sean

--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean

Re:Good move by MS by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 21:09 · Score: 0

Please feel free to describe, in relative detail, exactly how ext2fs and XFS are not the technological marvels that FAT32 is. Unless, of course, you're a troll.

Re:MS can't do UNIX by eponymous+cohort · 1999-05-24 22:30 · Score: 1

For that alone they should be banned from ever doing UNIX development work again.

In essence they are, part of the deal between MS and SCO was that MS would stay out of the Unix market

Of course there are loopholes, NT has been targeted at the Unix market, and I believe that it even carries the Unix98 branding when used with Interix's product.

--

Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them

Re:Netscape has very poor Java support by Wag+the+Dog · 1999-05-24 21:05 · Score: 1

FreshMeat never hosed my browser...

Kernel Integration ? by Tsk · 1999-05-24 20:01 · Score: 2

Since IE on Windows is so deeply into the OS itself (see last years case against DOJ). Will This mean Microsft will spend $ in engeneering to push the linux Kernel ? (Makes me wonder, will it be faster on linuw than on NT ?, How will it compete with mozilla and its "brothers" ?).
Anyway having the right to choose between many options always leads to freedom - that a good thing for Computing ... NeXT they'll have to port XL and Word .... This might help push free Oses into coprorates space (since *BSD can run linux apps).

--
none Yet.

Re:Kernel Integration ? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 22:31 · Score: 0

Since IE on Windows is so deeply into the OS itself (see last years case against DOJ). ...
You forgot the :-)
Even if it's part of the OS this does not require any kernel integration. eg: vi comes with Linux but has no special kernel requirements ...
Re:Kernel Integration ? by remande · 1999-05-24 21:21 · Score: 3

The other question is: how deeply can one integrate something into the Linux kernel before open-sourcing it? For all their talk about deep OS integration, we of the Linux community might have a strong case to require them to copyleft IE for Linux.
OTOH, I'm not exactly holding my breath on the port, with or without source code. This is less than vaporware; this is a rumor of vaporware.

--
--The basis of all love is respect

Netscape problems by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 02:47 · Score: 0

I really have to wonder about all these Netscape complaints. Maybe the Linux version really does suck, but on my Solaris box the only problem I have ever had was Netscape 4.50 (memory leak). I have never had any problems with 3.x, 4.0x, 4.51, 4.6. Anyone out there have problems with the Solaris versions? If so what where the versions?

News? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 20:11 · Score: 4

Does anyone actually _believe_ these announcements anymore? How many times have you heard "Microsoft is going to port product [x] to platform [y]." ? Now think about how many times it's actually happened.

Yawn. I suppose we need to keep an eye on Redmond. But --dang!-- those vaporware announcements are getting boring.

Re:Open-source? by spectecjr · 1999-05-24 23:49 · Score: 1

A typical example of broken MS scripts (and I am using IE4!). I can't see any content on the page at all, nor any links to anything of obvious interest.

Hmmmm.... *loads up Netscape*. Seems great to me!

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra

Re:MS can't do UNIX by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 02:48 · Score: 0

Don't you really mean to say:
"I could putz around in the *.ini files with Windows 3.1 and it didn't crash nearly so often as when I putz around in the registery of Windows 9x"?

Windows 3.1 could do maybe 1/10 of what Windows 9x does out of the box. Naturally it's smaller.

Re:DO *NOT* RUN IT AS ROOT by jmalicki · 1999-05-24 23:56 · Score: 1

Because Microsoft has a particularly bad record on security??

Re:Don't even think of downloading it..... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 02:13 · Score: 0

Don't even look at it.....

Microsoft was probably uploading a bitmap of a Black Helicopter to spy on you with. You're very important to their success and they have to keep tabs on what you're doing.

Re:Kernel modules :-) by Melbert · 1999-05-25 07:08 · Score: 1

I'm not sure what you mean when you say Linus decided to allow binary-only kernel modules. How can they be prevented? Granted, there will be problems with version compatability, but if Joe-Blow Software Inc. decided to distribute a Kernel module that was binary-only (say just for the matter of the arguement, a WinModem driver produced by Microsoft and available commercially from them) how would Linus prevent it from being loaded? By some sort of string or identifier that has to be in place in the module? That means nothing in an open source kernel, as it can be disabled if present. I don't see that Linus _allowed_ anything.

Re:DO *NOT* RUN IT AS ROOT by spectecjr · 1999-05-24 21:45 · Score: 1

it's from Micro$oft
'nuff said

What the hell's that got to do with anything? As much as possible you shouldn't run ANYTHING as root for security and safety's sake.

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra

Re:So how will MS handle the EULA on a multiuser O by Xenu · 1999-05-24 23:52 · Score: 1

Actually, the NT kernel is fully multiuser; as is Win32; it's just that because of compatibility reasons, this functionality is usually hidden (older Win3.1 apps and some Win95 apps make major assumptions that they'll only be running one instance per machine, which causes problems).

Are you sure about that? I was setting up some SMB connections from a Linux system to a NT system. The Linux system gave me an error message. A bit of research revealed that only one username/password could be associated with the NETBIOS/SMB connection between two systems. I couldn't have multiple users on the Linux system mounting shared drives on a NT system unless they all used a single username/password.

Didn't look very multiuser to me.

Re:Isn't IE for Unix already out... Non-Intel only by Hall · 1999-05-24 19:38 · Score: 1

As has been mentioned by many others already, yes, Microsoft does have software that runs on other operating systems. The best example recently is Internet Explorer. But, look at what they offer it for... Solaris -- for SPARC only (not Intel) and for HP-UX (I don't know what CPU that runs on).

It appears that MS won't build software that runs on INTEL CPUs on a competing OS.

Kernel modules :-) by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 00:59 · Score: 0

In his finite wisdom, Linus decided to allow binary-only kernel modules. So all MS would have to do would be build an ie.o module and hack a requirement that it be present to boot into init.c . Poof! IE is now an 'integrated' part of Linux :-)

Daniel

Re:Kernel modules :-) by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 07:36 · Score: 0

You're thinking of technological limitations, whereas the person was discussing legal ones. Sure, I could write a working binary modules for the kernel and there's nothing anybody could do to stop me. However, it COULD be made illegal by the terms of the licensing agreement.

Re:IE for Solaris by HiThere · 1999-05-24 21:42 · Score: 1

Because it, essentially, will BE the Solaris version.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

Re:IE port to Linux by SeanNi · 1999-05-26 02:51 · Score: 1

> And why do people keep saying things like "if Linux is to have any sort of enterprise-level support?"

Simple. Because I don't want to have to use Windows every day at work.
--
- Sean

--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean

Re:I certainly hope this is true... by Brandon+S.+Allbery · 1999-05-24 19:34 · Score: 1

Yes, I've used IE on Solaris. Huge, slow, buggy (the mouse cursor appeared to suffer from both color inversion and endianness problems, making it difficult or impossible to click on things), and generally not worth the download.

--
-- brandon s. allbery, sysadmin @ cmu electrical & computer engineering "Think, youth, THINK!"

Re:WAIT! MS = Anti-Linux... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 01:00 · Score: 2

First off, stop with the insipid "M$" and "Micro$oft". Your attempt at rebellion goes unnoticed by Microsoft and only goes to make the rest of Linux users look like unthinking anti-Microsoft fanatics.

Microsoft never started an anti-Linux group. They started an analysis group. Sorry, but as much as ESR and the fanatics would like to think so, the revenue lost to Linux is rounding error in Microsoft's budget.

Thus, users have no reason to be wary. Remember, capitalism functions on competition, and keeping an eye on your market tends to pay off for a company.

If anything, developing Microsoft Explorer for Linux would lend more credence to the operating system, validating to corporate managers (the people controlling the budget) that Linux is at least a blip strong enough that Microsoft can afford to turn a tiny fraction of its resources towards it.

Apple's scaring away developers? Lessee... by webslacker · 1999-05-25 23:19 · Score: 1

Microsoft started development of Office98 for Macintosh when Apple was at a low point in 1997.

Quake 3 Arena is coming out on Macs and Windows concurrently. (Linux too)

What about Netscape? Mozilla's already been ported to Mac OSX. What about Adobe's whole slew of image-editing and video-editing software? What about Macromedia? What about Final Cut Pro? It was originally being developed by Macromedia for Mac and Windows, until Apple bought it. What about Dragon? They're porting their speech software. What about Norton? Oh right, there's no Norton2000 for Mac. Oh wait, that's because Mac's don't have enough Y2K problems to justify making a whole product! And I'm only naming the major software houses.

I mean, if you said that two years ago, I might've agreed with you.

Now, I know Microsoft is paying off companies and employees because I know people who were offered checks from Microsoft reps. Get your facts straight. Several development houses have already instituted stipulations where no employee is allowed to accept any money from other companies that the company is doing business with. They're concerned that Microsoft will influence decisions to be concerned with MS's software sales instead of development quality.

Re:Open-source? by spectecjr · 1999-05-24 21:15 · Score: 1

They may be writing the browser, but will it be open-source? Even if it is, would it be GPL or a more restrictuve license (my money's on the second, or not at all)

Who knows... but check this out as a sign of things that may be on the horizon.

http://www.microsoft.com/java/resource/interoper ability.htm

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra

Hmm... just an idea by Sensor · 1999-05-24 21:06 · Score: 4

Reading a few of the other comments in this thread I just had a thought. Don't MS use IE as their active Desktop, and several people have suggested that IE would require a port of the Win32 interface.

Well could a Linux version of IE be a MS built window manager?

It is afterall the desktop users that MS is really concerned about... suppose you didn't need that /nasty/ X-Server/window manager combination but instead you could run a linux OS with IE5 sat directly on top (using something like an SVGA library) giving you your desktop.

For people who understand X its wonderful and versatile as hell... but its also very complex and has plenty of security issues associated with it. Is that really what a simple end user wants?

Just imagine for a moment a box which ran the Linux kernal and a most of a normal distro and thus was remote adminable - but provided an end user with a windows interface and the same apps as they currently use.

I'd guess that each user would require their own registry or something - nasty as this might sound to some I can see the appeal.

The end user gets a familure box and doesn't need to learn anything new and the admins get remote access and proper file permissions.

like I said, just an idea

Tom

Re:Which distribution would DARE care it? by Ellis-D · 1999-05-24 20:01 · Score: 0

Slashmeat maybe.. But if we do carry it, we will carry NS also.
"Windows 98 Second Edition works and players better than ever." -Microsoft's Home page on Win98SE.

--
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-

Re:MS can't do UNIX by /dev/niall · 1999-05-25 02:35 · Score: 1

win 3.x was a lot more stable than doze95 or doze98

What planet have you been on? Have you ever setup a TCP/IP stack under Windows 3.x? It's a nightmare! Or try to run more than one application and watch as one bad app brings everything down.

--
--

Re:IE for HP-UX is a dog by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 23:52 · Score: 0

The same goes for MS products on the Mac. They stick all their crap everywhere except where it should be.

If they wrote their apps the way the rest of the Mac developers do there'd be no need for "self healing apps" cuz nobody would be deleting all those files.

I guess there really is a "microsoft way".

Re:IE? by spectecjr · 1999-05-25 02:17 · Score: 1

>> Ask yourself: Why in hell would MS WANT to get your password file? What could you possibly have on your system that we'd want? Are you really so egotistical and self-important that you REALLY think we'd even CONSIDER for a moment trying to get onto your machine? Please, stop, my sides are splitting.

"We'd"? curious use of the plural self. looks like malda will have to do more to keep the micros~1 trolls out.

but, first, a rebuttal: MSFT does do that. what do you think the registry e-mail they recieve every time I turn on my nt box is for? Loser.

Are you blind or something? Can you read the disclaimer I have at the bottom of my posts? The reason for "we'd" is because I work for Microsoft.

Not only that but "Malda will have to do more to keep the micros~1 trolls out"? That's pathetic (and I know for a fact that Rob doesn't condone the idea of keeping MS employees out of Slashdot).

As for your rebuttal - show me a copy of the registry email that we supposedly receive, and I'll take it up with the NT team. But I know and you know that you're talking through your ass.

Not only that, but who'd take the word of an anonymous poster. At least I'm not hiding.

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra

Re: Netscape has problems by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 02:58 · Score: 0

WHAT? HOW ABOUT MOZILLA? SMALL AND OPEN SOURCE.

Re:WAIT! MS = Anti-Linux... by clawson · 1999-05-25 02:36 · Score: 1

...as for "unthinking anti-Microsoft fanatics", Hmm... I'd agree with the anti-Microsoft, and possibly the fanatic part, but DO NOT assume that it is unthinking...

...as for "analysis group", if you look at some of the DoJ articles regarding the lawsuit, MS does not "analyze" for cooperative purposes. Their goal is to ultimately crush or assimilate whatever is being "analyzed".

Remember, Microsoft still likes to think that they "innovate". Integrate, maybe. But innovate?

Don't fall into the MSSpeak trap...

Yes, MS developing IE for Linux could be seen as a back-handed compliment. But I'm sure Eve thought the same thing when the snake said, "It's OK!"...

MS doesn't quite get it. They still think that Linux is something that can be derailed like DRDOS, etc. through their usual techniques. But Linux and the Linux Crowd are a totally different operating paradigm than the usual MS way of seeing things. Linux just will not go away. It may be that it'll only keep staying at the edges, poking little holes into the cheeseblock. But it'll never go away...and the more MS tries to make it go away the more permanence Linux will get...

How to Recognize a Troll by remande · 1999-05-24 21:51 · Score: 5

The above, my fellow Slashdotters, is a troll. Please take a few minutes to study the warning signs of a troll, to see the dangers of trolls, and to learn the proper way of dealing with a troll.

I am not the most expert of trollologists; I am sure that Slashdot has much better trollologists. I just got here first. Feel free to reply to this to add points I missed, or argue points you think I am wrong about.

How to Recognize a Troll

A troll is a form of luser that makes incindiary remarks in order to get others to lose their cool, thus making worse incindiary remarks and making complete fools out of themselves.

Many trolls are made by anonymous cowards; people who do not want to be recognized. But not every AC is a troll, and not every troller is an AC. Some will troll from their named accounts; those are the brave trolls. What we have here is a specimin of the more cowardly troll.

But more important than the username is the post. The "best" kind of troll post will make a remark specifically engineered to push the hot buttons of the group being trolled (here, Slashdot itself). Additionally, the perfect troll fails to give any useful or arguable information.

Two perfect trolling sentences here are, "The current Linux file system sucks" and "With MS beginning to support the Linux community, Linux will be an improved product.". both hit hit a Slashdot hot button (there is a lot of "Microsoft-is-evil/Linux-is-good" running around here). Both are too vague to provide any useful information.

The Dangers of a Troll

The danger here is that, without any real information to argue, the tendency is to degenerate into a flame war. "The current Linux file system sucks" is not even an arguable fact; it is a broadbased opinion, posted to a group of people who believe the opposite.

A properly placed troll can tempt otherwise rational people into portraying themselves as complete idiots. Especially with Microsoft, this is exceedingly dangerous.

Microsoft would love to portray the Linux community (including Slashdot) as knee-jerk jack-booted weirdo geeks. They want to show us as untrustworthy people who can fly off the handle. This is where Astroturfing comes in.

Microsoft performs "Astroturfing". This means starting up fake grassroots movements. They tried to do this to forestall the DOJ trial, and were exposed. I do not believe that they are above hiring people to troll Slashdot and similar things, in order to show us making complete fools out of ourselves.

How to respond to Trolls

The first thing is how not to respond to a troll. Don't let them sucker you in. Think before you post, and do not post a flaming ball of hatred. This will do you, and Slashdot as a whole, harm. That's why flames get moderated down. But they're still on the record, so you and we still get to look like idiots.

Often, the best way to respond to a troll is to ignore it. This pisses a troll off worse than anything. Some trolls will respond by trolling more. At this point, you get to watch them making complete fools out of themselves. Remember: it is better to be silent and thought a fool, then to speak up and remove all doubt.

The other thing one can do is to note the troll as such. Newbie users won't recognize trolls as well as old farts, so this helps keep the newbies from flaming the trolls. Here, moderation does this. The troll above was moderated up; I disagree with that, so I'm writing this to mark the troll as such.

Again, please feel free to add to this or correct me. Just Say No To Trolls.

--

--The basis of all love is respect

Re:Welcome addition for developers by AJWM · 1999-05-24 22:01 · Score: 1

What the fsck is the point of having a multitasking OS and windowing system if you're just gonna fullscreen the damn app? It's only a doc viewer, for pete's sake.
Go out and spend the few bucks to upgrade your 14" 640x480 screen to something reasonable if you want to see more browser window.
Yeesh, what a useless misfeature.

--
-- Alastair

Re:Usage by Steelehead · 1999-05-24 23:31 · Score: 3

Go to the netscape archive. All versions back to 2.x for Win, Mac and *nix platforms.
Opera is still not quite ready ( I check every week). Check out their Project Magic page.

--
-- 100% MS-Free as of 4-4-1999, 11:47:38 PST. "The lapdance is always better when the stripper is cryin'" Free Kevin,

can the ie stories! by rimez · 1999-05-25 06:17 · Score: 0

Here's the image I have in my head...
A couple of M$ employees are really bored so they plant rumors on the net about certain M$ products being ported to linux. After a few hours they head on over to Slashdot.org and laugh as all of the Linux users babble over the possibility....
This is at least the third such rumour in 6 months. Give it a F**kin break! Who really gives a shit? Are you actually going to use it if it happens to be true?
Quit reporting on this! Ignore it untill it happens.
This is probally just vaporware.

geez,
rimez

DONT INSTALL IT by Gary+Franczyk · 1999-05-24 19:40 · Score: 5

Whatever you do, dont install it... I installed IE for solaris once, and it completely hosed my Netscape installation... And anyone who does any UNIX programming knows that you have to purposely tell a program to write to disk and things dont happen by "accident" like it does with IE and netscape... I for one, will never install it on my computer if they do make it for linux.

Re:DONT INSTALL IT by eponymous+cohort · 1999-05-25 01:10 · Score: 1

Well, one reason is that many web page designers specify specific TT fonts in their pages, and under Linux Netscape, these show up as small, blocky, almost unreadable fonts.

--
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Re:DONT INSTALL IT by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 01:22 · Score: 1

Installing the Microsoft web fonts is an absolute necessity for Netscape under X. Besides most things just looking better, it fixes that awful display problem where text that's supposed to be normal-sized becomes miniscule.

You can get the fonts at http://www.microsoft.com/typography/fontpack/defau lt.htm

The 95/98 packages are installers, but the Windows 3.1 packages are self-extracting zip archives that can be extracted under unix with unzip. Install your truetype font server of choice, then bask in the warm glow.
Re:DONT INSTALL IT by Mr.+Slippery · 1999-05-25 00:32 · Score: 1

Ugh. Why would you want to? Truetype fonts are uniformly ugly.
Trying to have identical fonts on screen and on paper is a dumb idea (except when you're previewing a print job). I find it much easier to read page on my home Netscape (on Linux) than the one at work (Win95) because of the fonts.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:DONT INSTALL IT by eponymous+cohort · 1999-05-24 22:52 · Score: 3

If IE for Linux would bring better fonts (such as Verdana) to the Linux platform, it might really help us. But I'm not betting on it.

You can install a truetype font server under Linux and use your Veranda font under Netscape now.

--
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Re:DONT INSTALL IT by Mr.+Slippery · 1999-05-25 04:09 · Score: 1

I haven't encountered that. Of course, if a website is designed in such a brain-dead fashion, I doubt that its content is worth reading anyway.
After all, if the designer cared about the content, she would create a page that could be viewed with any browser. If the designer doesn't care about the content, why would I?

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:DONT INSTALL IT by bobdylan · 1999-05-25 00:35 · Score: 1

>Unfortunately, that doesn't mean NS is actually better than IE; it just means I don't want to publically support MS with every log entry I write on someone's server.

If you don't want webservers to know your browser of choice why not use one of the many anonymizer proxies? It's easy and you get the benefits of IE being the better browser.
Re:DONT INSTALL IT by petchema · 1999-05-25 03:29 · Score: 1

Actually TrueType fonts should be "enhanced" with "hints" that allow them to be rendered on low res devices and still be readable.
I guess the problem is that very few fonts designers take the time to add those "hints", and that all but very standard fonts are ugly at some resolutions.
Re:DONT INSTALL IT by eponymous+cohort · 1999-05-24 20:43 · Score: 2

I've had IE and Netscape running simultaneously on Solaris with no trouble.

The funny thing about Solaris IE though is that it won't install on Solaris 7 (2.7), at least not the version of IE that I had. It says that I need to use a version of Solaris 2.5 or greater!

Also it's the only piece of Unix software that I ever ran across that asked me if I wanted to make it the default browser, typical M$crap

--
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them

Re:Of course MS will write software for Linux by Jurph · 1999-05-25 01:14 · Score: 2

Wow... seems like a minefield for Gates to traverse, whether he's using Minesweeper or Demineur. Seriously, though: how well would IE-Linux sell? I wouldn't pay for it, and I'm a Linux newbie; Netscrape is still a wee bit crufty, but it's on par with IE-Mac (which has had time to settle down).
I would download it for free, but only if I backed up my data first, or had just done a clean install of a new Linux flavor.

But how well it sells and how well it works right out of the box are both, in a way, irrelevant. Doesn't the whole Open Source mantra prevent M$ from selling it? Doesn't it also mean that J. Random Hacker can improve the version at home and clean out the cruft? Obviously, I'm a newbie... but I don't see the menace here.

If it's useful or improvable, Linux users will use and improve it.

If it supports the evil empire or has a tendency to make Linux less stable than NT (a neat trick if Bill can pull it off), then Linux users will abandon it, and it will die.

My only fear is that they will release the Linux version before their DoJ verdicts are in, and massive (but still small vs. Netscape) download stats will allow them to claim that Netscape occupies a "MS-Like" position in the Linux universe. This will allow a flawed (but attractive) argument that "if they can do that to us, why can't we do that to them?" based on a claim that the Linux and Windows are basically equivalent battlefields.

By the way... does anyone know why Netscape for Linux still basically sucks? I work in Windows using IE when I want to use the web because Netscape for Linux is so laggy--and it's the only choice besides Lynx.

I hate to say it, but the competition might get Netscape off its ass to develop a fast, useful browser. Let's just hope that the benefit doesn't outweigh the cost.

Cheers,
Jurph

Orange marmalade makes everything taste better.

Which distribution would DARE care it? by AtariDatacenter · 1999-05-24 19:39 · Score: 2

So Microsoft ports MSIE to Linux. Anyone care to guess which (if any) distribution would carry it? It seems to me that Microsoft has pretty much locked itself out of the Linux desktop. Of course, there's always "MS:L". Ugh.

Re:Which distribution would DARE care it? by extrasolar · 1999-05-25 00:05 · Score: 1

Im thinking Caldera. They are aiming thier distribution for businesse and now newbies, who don't care about bias against Microsoft, who simply want a functional web browser. If MS can make a more functional browser on Linux, then kudos to them. But they will be under constant suspicion and won't be able to outdo mozilla on Linux, I don't think.

--
Re:Which distribution would DARE care it? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 01:16 · Score: 0

[raises hand]
If it's Free, Debian will take it. (of course, the idea of MS writing free software is somewhat difficult to imagine...)

Daniel

Same as vs. Netscape or different? by Paradox+!-) · 1999-05-24 19:40 · Score: 5

So is this the same as MS vs. Netscape or different?
1. MS was afraid of Netscape
2. MS writes Navigator clone, then 'embraces and extends' it, bundling it into the Windows OS, giving it away for free
3. Navigator market share crumbles
4. Netscape loses momentum and edge, stock decreases (perhaps causing some Netscape coders to rethink their options...literally?)
5. IE 5.0 debuts to rave pundit reviews, Netscape is broken up and sold in pieces to two lesser industry evils...

1. MS is afraid of Linux
2. MS is NOW writing a Lunix clone (think I remember a /. article on this...but don't see it in the older section...could be simply delusional) as well as porting IE to Linux - embrace and extend from multiple fronts
3. Unix market share, viz NT, is crumbling (Linux is cannibalizing the commercial Unix marketshare for its own marketshare, rather than converting NT shops to Unix, IMHO)

But here is where I think it's different.

4. Linux DEVELOPMENT is non-commercial. The psychic well-being of the coders is not dependent on the fate of a single company, or stock options. Linux should retain its momentum and edge for at LEAST another year
5. Next year conflicts among Linux distributions become a much bigger issue as marketshare growth for Linux begins to flatten - most commercial Unices other than Solaris will probably be inconsequential by this time next year. (blatent, unfounded, bold, bull-ony prediction)
6. MS folds Linux-like functionality into NT, making the OS even more unweildy, but allowing MS to claim to the biz market it has all the good parts of Linux, without that bad lack-of-single-vendor part. Glossy mags go wild for MS LiNTux (thereby MS co-opts both Tux and Linux while keeping the NT brand).

7. Linux coders setup the "Free State of Silicon Valley and Finland," declare war on "The People's Republic of Redmond."

8. President Ventura intervenes, sending in the 101st Airborn and SeALs. As the first victorious third-party candidate in US history, he asserts that precedent to legally mandate all computers to run a third-party OS...BEOS!!!

Ahem...sorry...got out of hand there.

Re:Same as vs. Netscape or different? by Tolchz · 1999-05-24 20:47 · Score: 3

2. MS is NOW writing a Lunix clone (think I remember a /. article on this...but don't see it in the older section...could be simply delusional) as well as porting IE to Linux - embrace and extend from multiple fronts

They might be also writing a Linux clone but in Windows 2000 there is going to be the capability to run Linux applications on top of Windows. They got together with Interix to achieve this.
Re:Same as vs. Netscape or different? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 20:32 · Score: 0

Sorry, but you are wrong there. Commercial Unix marketshare is NOT crumbling. Windows NT is selling a LOT, but it is not "killing off" Unix. If anything Unix is doing better than it was before. Linux has renewed interest in the Unix platform, which had a reputation for being "old" technology before it came along.

Would it be that hard to port? by Skratch · 1999-05-24 19:39 · Score: 2

Would it be that hard for them to port it to Linux if they already have IE 4.01 and IE 5.0 for Solaris and HP-UX? (They do have it available for download.) I mean, would there be a lot of code to rewrite If they already got the thing working on other POSIX compliant OS's?

Even though I LOVE Linux, I do welcome IE, even though it's from M$, It is the superior browser, that wasn't the case when they were both like 2.0, but the more they progress, the more bugs I see in netscape, and the the more I see IE handle browsing the web better and better. Even though navigator craps out for me a lot (I'm talking about the Win95 versions here), I tend to use it more, because If IE crashes, it pretty much screwed up the whole Windoze environment, seeing as how they make it part of the "operating system".

The biggest reason I welcome IE to Linux is because I'd like to see a Linux browser that properly handles Cascading Style Sheets. I have yet to see that on Linux browsers.

--

-- My neighbors dog has a four inch clit.

Re:Would it be that hard to port? by Jerf · 1999-05-24 22:49 · Score: 1

Look in your processes (either Task Manager in NT, or CTRL-ALT-DELETE). Netscape sometimes hangs around, and you have to explicitly kill it. I haven't figured out the cause yet, but if you kill it, it should restart, fresh.
Re:Would it be that hard to port? by gavinhall · 1999-05-24 20:27 · Score: 1

Posted by _DogShu_:

In IE, under tools->internet options, under advanced, if you check "Launch Browser in a new process", IE won't kill everything running when it gets killed.
Re:Would it be that hard to port? by Skratch · 1999-05-24 22:40 · Score: 1

Wow, thanks, maybe now I can stop using Navigator. What I would do before was this: Surf the web in Navigator until it craps out, (for some reason if you kill it and restart it, it still won't work until you reboot). Then I'd use IE until it craps out, then I'd reboot. Maybe now I wont have to reboot as much... Oh yeah, this is windows we're talking about...

Appreciate the tip man!

--

-- My neighbors dog has a four inch clit.

Complete re-write? MS 'doing the right thing'? by asa · 1999-05-24 19:35 · Score: 2

Would this be a complete re-write of IE? If so It might give MS the oportunity to do something right. If MS has a group of Linux programmers working on this they just might do the right thing and make a light weight, modular and fast browser. They might also see the threat from the Linux/Mozilla combo and react with a decent product. Perhaps this is the beginning of a new browser war - one where MS tries to out-do Mozilla and take control of the browsing experience on Linux. Do you think Red Hat, Caldera, Suse and others would include MSIE on commercial distributions?

Re:Complete re-write? MS 'doing the right thing'? by Locutus · 1999-05-24 23:26 · Score: 1

I really don't think Micros~1 "does" anything but Win32. Therefore I doubt if they have Linux developers doing this and figure they have a porting layer of Win32 APIs mapping Win32 to GNU/Linux APIs. It will be slow and buggy because it is Micros~1 and because it isn't Windows. You can bet they are not doing this for $$ so don't count on a very good product. PR is the name of the game.

--
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Re:Complete re-write? MS 'doing the right thing'? by Guy+Harris · 1999-05-25 00:56 · Score: 1

I really don't think Micros~1 "does" anything but Win32. Therefore I doubt if they have Linux developers doing this and figure they have a porting layer of Win32 APIs mapping Win32 to GNU/Linux APIs.

...or mapping Win32 to UNIX/X APIs (given that GNU/Linux APIs are largely the same as those on other UNIX-flavored OSes).
In fact, that is what they did for the Solaris and HP-UX ports; they used Mainsoft's MainWin, as I mentioned in another comment. Presumably Mainsoft's stuff can be made to work on Linux, as well.
Re:Complete re-write? MS 'doing the right thing'? by PimpBot · 1999-05-24 19:51 · Score: 1

actually, couldn't MS just take the latest mozilla release, clean it up, and then call it IE?

Re:Usage by InvisibleCraterFunk · 1999-05-24 21:09 · Score: 1

It would be excellent to have IE handy to test browser compatibility while developing webpages.

Re:How many times have we heard this? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 22:42 · Score: 0

bloatware not vapourware.

Re:MS can't do UNIX by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 22:40 · Score: 0

MS apps have been growing buggier and more bloated. which planet do you come from ? win 3.x was a lot more stable than doze95 or doze98

Re:this is old news.. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 20:12 · Score: 2

And your is an old mistake. IE is avaiable only for Solaris and HP-UX, it means: *commercial* UNIXes. There is no Linux version at this time. Althought I think that it should not be hard to compile a Linux version (there was a page on the Microsoft web site explaining how they did the Unix port, it's interesting), this will have a strong significance that it goes beyond the program itself: they're making a program for *Linux*, the so hated and FUDded OS.
(Note that Microsoft needs a team just to... "port" the Solaris IE to Linux, that I think it's mainly a matter of recompiling and some testing...).

Missing the point of a free browser? by RallyDriver · 1999-05-25 07:37 · Score: 2

A lot of posters seem to miss the point of a browser from a commerical perspective.

Why are Netscape and Microsoft fighting so hard to give away their browsers? The point is forming a portal for the average Joe's out there, being the first page they see. When you start up a new install of IE, it takes you to MSN, and when you start up communicator it takes you to NetCenter.

This is why AOL is such a powerful force in eCommerce - they can shove their adverts in the face of 30 million naive users every time the poor things log on.

It's a fact that most beginners will stick with the first browser they see, the one that's preloaded on their computer, rather than taking the trouble to download something else. They don't know how to change the default home page. They're not sufficiently interested in computers to care. It's just like the way people (in the USA) who don't care about driving will buy a Ford or a Toyota with an automatic gearbox instead of a sports car with a 5 speed.

Even if MS have no plans of window manager domination, nor to offer Office (their one "killer" app) on Linux, there is no reason to deny themselves the chance to trya nd be the portal for 7m Linux users, as a potential source of revenue.

I'm no Microsoft fan, but I must admit the Unix version of MSIE5 is actually pretty good - the Solaris implementation is a lot less buggy than Communicator, for instance. It would take them less than 3 man months of work to make it notably better than Netscape's offering. Netscape are stuck between a rock and a hard place here - Microsoft can pour money into their browser effort, and Netscape have to play catchup on what is still their most important platform - Windows. This is why the Windows version of Netscape has better features than the Linux one, though it is slower ;-)

It's arguably high time that Netscape put a bit more effort into their Linux port - on this platform, it is *their* browser that ships with the OS install, and that arguably offers them more potential than chasing the Windows download market.

Perhaps competition from the powers of darkness in Redmond on what has been up until now uncontested turf will cause Netscape to wake up. Competitive innovation is after all one of the things that keeps Linux healthy.

Personally, I will be sticking with Netscape for the forseeable future, but watching with interest.

Re:Netscape has very poor Java support by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 03:10 · Score: 0

Why would anybody go out around on the Net?

The Ned Ludd website loads just fine in Lynx.

Of course MS will write software for Linux by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 20:26 · Score: 2

You people are SO naive.

Of course Microsoft is going to write software for Linux. How better to dominate Linux then to first monopolize the popular software on an OS then cut of its air supply. Anyone here following Apple?

Once IE is available on Linux you can be guaranteed it will NEVER be as good on Linux as it is on Windoze.

The beauty of it is, Microsoft comes out looking like a rose, and all of you suckers fall for it hook, line and sinker!

Re:Of course MS will write software for Linux by CamelMike · 1999-05-25 00:02 · Score: 1

The purpose of MS putting IE on Linux would be two fold. First, if they can get a title or two developed for Linux, it would greatly increase their chances with DOJ. I think that they would do this,despite the revolution that it would be, just for the DOJ brownie points.

Secondly, it gets M$ a start in Linux. As much as I despise M$ and their crappy software, they are anything but stupid. Since M$ will be unable to squash Linux like they would like, I guarantee you they will find a way to make money off of it. And I think very soon, that will be their official stategy.

Power Meower is sometimes wrong. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 20:14 · Score: 2

Katt is like Matt Drudge: he's a rumor monger. Like Drudge, sometimes he gets it right, sometimes he gets it wrong. It's entirely possible that somebody's promoting disinformation here. I just can't beleive that Microsoft is going to "endorse" Linux by porting apps to it. Linux is the one product they can't just "embrace, extend, destroy".

Re:It really depends by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 21:07 · Score: 0

I was wondering if any SeaMonkeyUnix sources are
planned for integration with Berlin for DOM stuff?

Was libggi/libgii port of SeaMonkey ever attempted?

Should Berlin make sense for a SeaMonkey hack to
get a smaller memory footprint?

Re:WAIT! M$ = Anti-Linux... by myconid · 1999-05-25 06:51 · Score: 1

Just a week or two ago, wasn't it announced that Micro$oft was starting up an Anti-Linux group?
So they're Anti-Linux, yet developing software for it. Hence, users should be quite wary about this.
They never cease to amaze me.

Gain the user base.. kill mozilla.. stop development for linux
Stan "Myconid" Brinkerhoff

--

SB.

Re:Love the Full Screen Layout by K. · 1999-05-24 20:02 · Score: 2

Netscape 3 had a kiosk mode that did exactly that.

Netscape 4 also has a kiosk mode, but it's a
secured feature. You have to allow it via the
privilegeManager object first.

This is as it should be. It would be quite
easy to create a Windows-like full-screen
view in Netscape 4 that could fool the average
luser. See rive.boxybutgood.com's WindowMaker
simulation for a non-full-screen example.

K.
-
How come there's an "open source" entry in the
Jargon File, when there isn't a "free software" one?

--
-- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.

If you code it they will come... by codejnki · 1999-05-24 22:09 · Score: 1

This is most likely Bill's attempt to break in to the Linux market using the same sorts of techniques he's used in the Word Procesing, Spreadsheet, Browser, etc. markets. Write something substandard but dirt cheap and try to drive everyone else out of the market. But...I guess he's forgotten that 90% of Linux software is already free and far superior and nothing will beat Lynx as a browser.
----
"War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left"

--
"War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left"

Steven Wright

/etc/passwd + /etc/shadow => ftp.microsoft.com by The+Fleck · 1999-05-24 20:34 · Score: 1

ok well if you are all not totally joking about ie sending your password file to M$ then, you are all very stupid and childish and/or very paranoid. chill out, M$ doesn't care about your password file! it's not like they want to go in and kill your Linux computer... you are all just making M$ seem worse than they are by making stupid comments (note: not an M$ supporter)

--
linuxnewbie.com

Mac Experience with Internet Explorer by Colin+Simmonds · 1999-05-26 07:28 · Score: 1

funny you should mention how vehemently some linux users M$, a couple years back, the same thing could have been said about the Mac vs. Wintel arguement, and look now, the top selling office suite on Mac's is a microsoft product.

The case of Office 98 isn't directly relevant here. The Mac users buying it are mostly people who have to work with others who have standardized on the MS Office suite, and have to have a copy, one way or another. Given a choice between

a Mac running a version of Office that tries to adhere to the Apple Human Interface Guidelines
a Wintel box running MS apps in their original bletcherous glory

nearly every Mac user would pick the former in a hurry.

Internet Explorer on the Mac, though, is a much better comparison. Thanks to MS's deal with Apple, IE is now the Mac's standard browser. Last time I checked, though, Apple still includes a copy of Netscape on the system CD, and any reasonably competent computer user can install it instead.

Some Mac people avoid IE for political reasons. Some use it because it's the default browser, for many reasons. Some use it because it has a more Mac-like interface. Some use both IE and Netscape, for checking web designs or for specific features of both. Others feel both IE and the current Netscape are monstrosities, which is why iCab is getting so much attention from the Mac community right now.

This would probably be the case for Linux, although the interface and default cases would be smaller. The avoid for political reasons group would be large. If MS actually tried to get a version of IE that worked decently on Linux, some might choose it on its merits. Web designers might finally have a reason to drop a Windows partition.

This, of course, completely ignores the proprietary standards slant. If MS succeeds in getting a large segment of web content IE-only, some Linux users might have to use IE, at least until the free software community adds the needed features to Mozilla or another open-source browser.

Colin

Re:As for Lynx users... by MikeTurk · 1999-05-24 23:52 · Score: 5

The reason Lynx can't view it is that it is framed, and there is no way to break out of the frame. Here's a straight copy.

Creating a UNIX Application Using the Win32 API

Nancy Winnick Cluts

Microsoft Corporation

November 1998

Summary: Details the cross-platform development of Microsoft® Internet Explorer 4.0 for UNIX using the Microsoft Win32® API. (4 printed pages)

Introduction
Yes, you read that correctly. I said that you can create a UNIX application using the Win32 application programming interface (API). And I have proof. Internet Explorer 4.0 for UNIX was written using the Win32 API. I bet you'd like to know how the team pulled that one off. (I know I did!) If you are interested in the details, read on.

At TechEd in New Orleans, LA, in June 1998, Digvijay Chauhan, Development Manager of the Internet Explorer UNIX team, outlined the cross-platform issues in Internet Explorer 4.0 (for a full list of cross-platform issues, search for my article "Internet Explorer Runs Cross-Platform" on the MSDN Online Web Workshop site at http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/) as well as how to use the Win32 API for cross-platform development. This article is based on the second part of his presentation: Win32 development on Unix. Another session, titled "Targeting Unix & Windows Platforms with a Single Code Base: A Case Study" (IOP05) was given at the Professional Developers Conference in Denver.

Win32 API on UNIX--A Case Study
Imagine that you are on a development team and you are told that you need to develop a browser using the Win32 API and deliver it on both the Win32 and Unix (Solaris) platforms. In order to do this, you need to take into consideration the user interface differences as well as how you are going to actually code the application. X-Windows has a different user interface than Windows. With the pace of the software industry, you do not have the luxury of spending a lot of time and resources on this project--you must get this browser to market rapidly. You also must be sure the Unix version has the same rendering fidelity as the Win32 version. Finally, you must incorporate the Unix look. That's the challenge that the Internet Explorer UNIX team faced and met.

The targeted time frame was 2-3 months after the Win32 version shipped. The team consisted of approximately 50 people. There were about 600 Win32 functions that were used by Internet Explorer. There wasn't time to start from scratch and create their own Win32 layer for Unix, so they looked at vendors that already had such a layer, and tools available. They found two such vendors: Bristol and Mainsoft. Throughout this project, there were some issues the team had to solve, including differences in focus, the Component Object Model (COM), the registry, performance, fonts, UI issues, and portability.

Focus
The biggest area of trouble (read: bugs) had to do with focus. On X-Windows, the user can configure the workstation for multiple Window Manager modes and each Window Manager supports multiple modes. This leads to some interesting differences in the use of focus on Unix versus Win32. On a Win32-based platform, when the user clicks the mouse once on a window, that window gains the focus. On X-Windows, you can configure your system such that the focus follows the mouse. That is, when you move the mouse to a window, the focus automatically moves to that window. The workstation can also be set up to support auto raise focus--when the window gets the focus it is automatically put in the foreground. X-Windows also supports the single-click to focus scheme that Win32 supports. The Internet Explorer Unix team had to make sure the browser they created also supported these different forms of focus.

Modality
In Microsoft Windows®, it is common for developers to create modal windows. A modal window is a window that, when it has the focus, does not let any other window within the application get the focus until the window is dismissed. For example, if you click the View menu on Internet Explorer and choose Internet Options, you will bring up a window that stays in focus until it is dismissed--if you click the Internet Explorer main window, you will hear a ding and the window will not come into the foreground. Windows developers create modal windows through the use of the GetMessage, TranslateMessage, and DispatchMessage functions in a loop. X-Windows employs a Window Manager that must be told, via hints, whether a window is modal or not. Unfortunately, this information is only read once, when the window is shown. The solution to this difference was to use a new window style hint to tell the Window Manager the window modality prior to the window being shown.

COM
Internet Explorer relies heavily on the Component Object Model (COM) in order to function. In fact, any of the window items you see that are outside of the client area of the screen (for example, the rebar, the dialog boxes, and so on) are all COM objects. They use COM to communicate between the browser and the other COM objects. One important portability problem faced by the team involved using C code to access COM object methods directly via virtual table (known as a vtable) structure pointers. The vtable layout is compiler-specific. As a result, the layout of the pointers is different on Solaris. The solution was to replace the C code accessing COM objects with C++ code.

Registry
On Windows, the registry is used to store and access information such as user preferences. Most Windows applications read these values from the registry in order to persist data from session to session. In Unix, a user can log on to his workstation and use his home directory from any machine with all of his settings preserved. Because the registry resides on only one machine, this is problematic. The team had to figure out how to share registry information across machines.

Another registry-related issue is synchronization of registry settings across processes. Okay, that's a complex sentence. In real terms: Microsoft Internet Explorer and Microsoft Outlook® Express share registry settings. If you change a registry setting in Internet Explorer, Outlook Express immediately reflects the changes.

The solution was to keep the registry in a location that is shared by all workstations, leveraging a single home directory. This way, different processes, regardless of machine, can be in synch.

Performance
The Internet Explorer Unix team created some simple and effective in-house performance tools to analyze performance bottlenecks and solve them. One tool wrapped all of the Win32 APIs in order to log the calls to the APIs as well as determine which thread called the API. This information was used to identify frequently used APIs and determine which should be optimized (the ones that were used often) and which were taking the most time.

Another tool was created to analyze heap space. This was done by mapping the memory allocation functions (malloc, realloc, and so on) along with thread identifiers. They were then able to identify resource hogs (image copy was a big one) and where they could group allocations in order to maximize performance.

In order to help in the debugging process, they created a program that modified exception-handling code to determine (via a stack trace) what caused Internet Explorer to crash. This was particularly helpful in determining if the testers had found a new bug or one that already existed, albeit in a new user scenario.

The final tool that was created was a quick and dirty profiler. This profiler would suspend all threads in a process, sample the program counter, and map the symbols to get a running count of where the application was spending most of its time. Here again, the team could go back and optimize that code.

Fonts
There are a few exceptions to font support using Internet Explorer 4.0 on UNIX. Some fonts are simply not available on Unix. In general, Windows fonts will be mapped to those available on a particular Unix server. The Verdana, Arial, and Sans Serif fonts are mapped to the Helvetica font. The Marlett font is not supported on UNIX at all. Internet Explorer 4.0 Unix maps fonts to an equal or smaller point size. In addition, X-based servers can have different configurations and different font installations. As a result, it was necessary to map fonts for specific font installations on the server. Internet Explorer 4.x shipped some prebuilt font caches for standard server configurations. For nonstandard configurations, a font cache is built the first time the browser starts; however, this proved to cause a slowdown in startup. As a result, Internet Explorer 5.0 has changed to an alternate design.

Interface Issues
The Windows interface is different from the look you get when you run X-Windows-based Motif or common desktop environment (CDE) applications. The Internet Explorer Unix team had to take into consideration the different appearance for their version of the browser. Some of the interface issues that the team had to address were:

A person running Unix is accustomed to using the + and + key combinations to position the cursor at the beginning or end of a line respectively.

Tab completion is also an expectation of the X-Windows user. Tab completion was implemented at the application level by the team.

The middle mouse button is also supported under X-Windows for copy-and-paste functionality.

Selected text is automatically copied to the Clipboard and available to be pasted into another application.

Menus stay dropped down after they've been clicked, even after the mouse moves away from the menu.

Common dialog boxes look different. For example, the CDE File Open common dialog box and scroll bar widgets are different from their Windows counterparts. Based on user feedback, the Internet Explorer team decided to stick with the Windows 3.1 File dialog boxes and the CDE widgets for scroll bars.

Multiple workspaces are supported by the Window Manager.

Additional system menus are supported under CDE.

CDE integration--including CDE color changes dynamically reflected in the application--required additional work.

Coding Issues--Portability Problems
When it got down to coding, there were some interesting issues that the team had to solve, including:

The WCHAR is 4 bytes in most UNIX compilers and 2 bytes in Microsoft Visual C++®. As a result, there were many coding bugs found that assumed the size of a WCHAR was 2 bytes.

Global variables in Win32 dynamic-link libraries (DLLs) are visible across processes, so it is important that developers are careful that these globals do not conflict with any variables within the Unix shared libraries.

Win32 developers have come to rely on Win32 Structured Exception Handling (SEH) in their applications. Unix does not inherently support this. With the help of the Internet Explorer team, Mainsoft now includes fairly complete support for SEH in their Win32 layer.

Visual C++ makes use of keywords for alignment, such as unaligned. The Unix team had to write macros to do alignment.

Compilers for Unix do not support nameless nested structures.

Summary
All of this was a lot of work and the Internet Explorer Unix team learned a lot from it. In the future, they plan to use a common code base between their Win32 and Unix versions so that a change in one will automatically be reflected in the other. They are planning to use the Apoge compiler (http://www.apogee.com/) for this common code base. They also plan to incorporate the feedback they get on interface issues. In the meantime, you now know that you, too, can develop your Unix application on Win32. The Internet Explorer team did it and so can you.

Mike
--

--

Mike
--
"Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër?"

Where is the Fear? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 01:16 · Score: 1

He indicates that Redmond is afraid, very afraid.

Where? I don't see that, I can't even read it between the lines. FUD is FUD whether it comes from MS, Sun or Slashdot.

Re: Netscape has problems by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 01:03 · Score: 0

What we really need is "opera" or something lightweight, fast, and small.

Netscape is huge, and has HUGE HUGE memory leaks. 4.6 is much better about crashing though; I haven't had a single problem with it apart from that annoying block while using DNS and the largest memory leak of any application I have ever seen.

Mark

Re:Unix Crumbling? by eponymous+cohort · 1999-05-25 20:26 · Score: 2

Nope, I've seen people run NT Server as their desktop OS.

--

Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them

already exists.... by Suydam · 1999-05-24 21:20 · Score: 3

GNOME and KDE already HAVE the active-desktop-esqe thing going on though....so I dont' really see the point.

You could use GNOME, w/E running it's win95 theme w/win95 widgets and you've pretty much got a win95-look-and-act-alike.

Just this week, I switched my roommate, who was a Win95 user to the core over to GNOME w/E....to him (using the configuration mentioned above) it's pretty much the same box he always used (without the apps of course).

So even if they DID port the Win32 APIs over to Linux (PLEASE NO!!!) they wouldn't need to write a window manager.....

It would be nice to have a working and fast version of IE5 though...it's so much better than NS4.6 it makes me sick.

--

Werd.

Re:already exists.... by mdxi · 1999-05-25 00:18 · Score: 1

I hate to burst your bubble, but *ALL* window managers (not Gnome and KDE, they are desktop environments, different thing entirely), even one from Microsoft, require a working X server.

Your understanding of how X actually works appears to be flawed.

--

--
Posted with Mozilla
Re:already exists.... by Omnifarious · 1999-05-25 00:26 · Score: 1

If you would read the post carefully, you'd note that the poster merely used the phrase 'window manager' as a handle for a concept familiar to the Unix/X community. The poster went on to propose that the MS 'window manager' would use SVGA lib, or some such thing to talk to the display. This would make it a completely non-X program.

I too can see why Microsloth may want to do this. I personally wouldn't mind if they did. There'd be a level app playing field again with Microsoft's garbage OS would be out of the picture.

And I personally think that Microsoft's apps are OK. They're not particularily fantastic or innovative, but they're mostly OK. I wouldn't mind having them on an OS that actually worked.

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Re:already exists.... by Sensor · 1999-05-24 22:21 · Score: 1

1) Gnome/KDE require a working XServer and for you to setup your monitor properly.

2) Gnome/KDE do not provide compatability with windows apps (wine _might_ in the near future... so don't quote that at me).

3) The point is not that they need to write an window manager, but they might want to... remember if they control the desktop they control the apps and the average user.

what I was trying to say was that I can see the a use for a MS window manager that could run the apps AND I can see the marketing spin/straglehold that this sort of port could provide.

Tom

Re:It really depends by Skratch · 1999-05-24 22:50 · Score: 1

> It may well be that their IE for Unix codebase
> (hopefully they didn't do two individual ports)

Unfortunately, they did, there's two different files to download for the two different unices.

> I have yet to see that on Microsoft browsers.
> Try some of the CSS conformance tests in IE
> sometime.

Actually, you have a good point, but what I mean is that Navigator 4.5 for Linux doesn't seem to support any CSS at all, except for maybe the color attribute, whereas for Win95, Navigator supports maybe a third of whats available, and IE supports like 60%. I'm guessing as the browser wars progress, IE will continue to have better CSS support, that why I welcome it to Linux.

And you're right about them not using good engineering principles, thats definately the truth when it comes to most of their products, but you gotta admit, they do have some applications that are quality products. But thats probably due to the fact that they might have used their hostile takeover tactics on some good programming shops...

--

-- My neighbors dog has a four inch clit.

IE? by drwiii · 1999-05-24 20:20 · Score: 1

If their port of IE is as "charming" as their release of Frontpage server extensions for apache, then count me out. On the other hand, M$ might just be trying to compete with Netscape on as many platforms as it can, quality be damned.

Ugh. I hate the thought of starting my X session only to be greeted by a happy and cheery spinning M$ windows-logo globe while some ActiveX IE extension sends my password file back to microsoft.com.

Oh well. I don't think any Microsoft product will fit on my Linux system anyway, since ext2 partitions only have a few terabytes of storage capacity. :-)

Re:IE? by spectecjr · 1999-05-24 21:27 · Score: 1

Ugh. I hate the thought of starting my X session only to be greeted by a happy and cheery spinning M$ windows-logo globe while some ActiveX IE extension sends my password file back to microsoft.com

You really think we have to go that far? We've already got your password file, your credit card records, and pictures of you and your family.

Ask yourself: Why in hell would MS WANT to get your password file? What could you possibly have on your system that we'd want? Are you really so egotistical and self-important that you REALLY think we'd even CONSIDER for a moment trying to get onto your machine? Please, stop, my sides are splitting.

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Re:IE? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 01:27 · Score: 0

I don't know Mr. Simone Cook, why in the hell _would_ Microsoft want to pull data off of computers? They've done it in the past, why wouldn't they do it again?

I don't think the poster is egotistical --he is cautiously protective. You may not want his password file, but I guarentee that if Microsoft felt they could extract valuable marketing information from a computer, IE would be doing it.

Face it, sir. The existence of irrational M$ haters does not invalidate people's concerns. Microsoft is a huge, arrogant company with a history of unethical behavior. On top of that, they (more often than not) promote technically inferior solutions and actively pollute/crush technically superior solutions.

No, Microsoft is not Evil Incarnate; but it has done more harm for personal computing than good.

Anonymous Kevin
Re:IE? by starman97 · 1999-05-25 03:28 · Score: 1

Your passwd file.. No I dont see any use for MS to get that, but..
How about a list of all the Apps you run, Marketing would love that..
The Serial numbers of all your MS software, or any other SPA protected code on your machine... Yepp, I see Legal slavering over that..
How about the top 10 websites you visit, mmmm good for market research and popup ads targetted at you via your GUID cookie. MS does own one of the biggest banner ad sites now, you dont think they let all those demographics in the server logs go to waste?
Compared to the security holes created by Java and Javascript, ActiveX is a canyon. Having that on my system would be like allowing people to upload Perl scripts and then run them as CGIs, sandboxing that sort of thing is very difficult.
My concern with MS directly snooping is for my privacy. The rest of the net using the MS 'features' as exploits is the real risk, remember 'Back Orifice' ?
With Closed Source API's, there's all sorts of holes waiting to be exploited with only a few eyes looking over the code to make sure its secure.

--
Starman97@Gmail.com (bring it on spammers)
Re:IE? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 04:32 · Score: 0

I really must agree with Simon here. What use would Microsoft have for your password file? Please folks, all this does is make us look like a bunch of paranoid people.

As an aside (though not much of one), I'm sure Microsoft would love to gather as much marketing information on each of of as they could. But stealing password files may be a bit overboard.
Re:IE? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 01:52 · Score: 0

>> Ask yourself: Why in hell would MS WANT to get your password file? What could you possibly have on your system that we'd want? Are you really so egotistical and self-important that you REALLY think we'd even CONSIDER for a moment trying to get onto your machine? Please, stop, my sides are splitting.
"We'd"? curious use of the plural self. looks like malda will have to do more to keep the micros~1 trolls out.

but, first, a rebuttal: MSFT does do that. what do you think the registry e-mail they recieve every time I turn on my nt box is for? Loser.
Re:IE? by spectecjr · 1999-05-25 05:58 · Score: 1

The Serial numbers of all your MS software, or any other SPA protected code on your machine... Yepp, I see Legal slavering over that..

I'd be happy to see that, personally. Piracy costs me money. If you're pirating software, please feel free to go to hell.

The rest of the net using the MS 'features' as exploits is the real risk, remember 'Back Orifice' ?

Hellooooo? Back Orifice is a TROJAN HORSE. The same attack would work against Linux.

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra

MS can't do UNIX by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 21:15 · Score: 0

MS has already amply demonstrated that they can't do UNIX, and in the process they inflicted SCO on us all. For that alone they should be banned from ever doing UNIX development work again.

Re:MS can't do UNIX by spectecjr · 1999-05-24 21:35 · Score: 1

MS has already amply demonstrated that they can't do UNIX, and in the process they inflicted SCO on us all. For that alone they should be banned from ever doing UNIX development work again.

Hello? How long ago was that? Since 95, MS apps have been getting much better than they were in the past (I wouldn't be working here today if I hadn't seen that happen).

Talk about prejudices and preconceived notions. Sheesh.

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra

Re:It's a two-headed strategy by Melbert · 1999-05-25 07:19 · Score: 1

You are making ridiculous claims. Microsoft does not have to convince companies not to produce software for the Macintosh. Apple did that themselves by sheer incompetence.

No company is going to try to develop for the Microsoft platforms, to run on thousands of types of computers sold by as many vendors, and go through all the hoops that involves (a rather baroque API, and tons of hardware variations) and then spend the same amount of time developing a version for the 5% of their customers using a totally different operating system. It just doesn't make business sense any more.

Re:Usage by petchema · 1999-05-25 03:11 · Score: 1

Mmmh, if IE for Linux is just as bloated and slow as IE for the other *nix OSes (Solaris and HPUX right now, iirc), then using IE on Linux will be a good way to be disgusted of Linux from the very start.
And I really don't see how it could be otherwise; Starting a native *nix version (no more megs of "win32 compatilibity libs") from scratch would cost too much of development time, for a low priority platform...
IE is fast because it is integrated (you pay the loading time when the GUI start, where it is less noticable), so if you want IE, you'll have to use Windows or be very disappointed by performance. IE was not designed for portability, mind you.

Personally, I'm don't feel a huge need to replace Netscape bugs with Microsoft ones on my desktop. IE parsers must be horrible cludges (ever tried an URL with "&sect=" as a substring ? just an example of what shouldn't happen). I hate how IE promotes the use of tables with fixed sizes everywhere. Can anyone write pages "best viewed in 680x800" so it looks good on my browser ?). And so on.

No thanks.

Re:Usage by chamont · 1999-05-24 20:39 · Score: 1

The real problem here ISN'T that IE will be a workable browser under Linux. That's no big deal. The problem is that IE was not built to be a cross-platform app. They just used software to bring all the Win32 crap to Unix as-is. You think NS is buggy, wait until you install the sloppy 200MB IE5 onto your workstation. It will be cool for about 3 minutes, and then you'll delete it.

Monty

Re:I would (for testing) by clawson · 1999-05-25 02:41 · Score: 1

...that's what VMWare (run Windows as a surrogate OS) or VNC (run a Windows desktop from another system on Linux desktop) are for...

VNC is free...

VMWare isn't, but running 4 other OSs at the same time? Yeah, that could be worth spending $300 (plus 64MB RAM for each surrogate OS to run...) to me, as it's cheaper than 4 other machines...

Re:IE port to Linux by cesarcardoso · 1999-05-25 00:04 · Score: 1

Yes, it will be true - IF developers doesn't understand that a port is not only getting the source and compile it. It involves tailoring, at least a bit, the program to the new OS.

--
Cesar Cardoso can be found at cesar at zyakannazio dot eti dot br (or at least I believe so)

Why MS needs Linux IE by IGnatius+T+Foobar · 1999-05-24 23:53 · Score: 1

It should be fairly obvious. If Micros~1 were to port MS Office to the Linux environment, and MS Office is supposedly oh-so-integrated with the web, would they really want you using Netscape? Of course not! It's a cinch that if MS is going to get into the Linux apps market, IE absolutely would be the first app on the list to get ported.

Remember, it's not merely a browser that they're bringing over -- it's their whole integration framework. Once they've got the MS HTML rendering engine, CraptiveX/COM/whatever, and the rest of the glue that they use to tie their applications inextricably to each other, only then will they be ready to port apps like Slurd and ExHell over.

Sounds like a pretty straightforward plan to me. Ideally, they'd like for that framework to be "absolutely essential" on all of the world's Linux boxes, essentially making Linux useless on the desktop unless you buy MS Office for it, but I really doubt any free software authors (or even other commercial Linux apps developers) would fall into that trap.

--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!

IE vs. Netscape by magellan · 1999-05-24 21:53 · Score: 1

I have both Netscape 4.51 and IE 5.0 on my machine, an AMD K6-2 266 running NT 4.0 SP3. I find IE to be slower at accessing sites and rendering HTML. Maybe I spend most of my time on sites that are optimtzed for Netscape, I do not know. I agree about the stability, sometimes, after a running for a while, Netscape decides it wants 98% of the CPU. I still can't figure that one out.

to show they have competition by johnrpenner · 1999-05-24 22:09 · Score: 1

it seems to me that porting IE doesn't make sense for gaining linux user marketshare (what linux user would use IE instead of Netscape???). but it does make sense in light of the fact that the DOJ trail isn't over, and if they seriously want to show that they're not a monopoly, then what other platform are they writing any applications software for? hmmm... a linux version of IE proves that we actually have competetion. the engineering "team" to deploy this is 1 guy -> recompile *nix version for linux; and 9 guys -> FUD FUD FUD.

this is old news.. by Josh+Picker · 1999-05-24 19:20 · Score: 2

i think that you can go to Microsoft's site and you have the option of downloading IE for UNIX. when you click on it, it says it's still in development and to be on the lookout for it, soon.

Re:this is old news.. by Pierce · 1999-05-24 20:41 · Score: 1

"they're making a program for *Linux*"

Don't they already have a media player for Linux?
Re:this is old news.. by paitre · 1999-05-24 20:14 · Score: 2

*coughs*
*Points at GPL* Only way that that would happen (MS Linux w/merged kernel&browser) is if they adhere to the GPL. They try it as proprietary crap and Stallman will probably be all over them. Now, MS coming up withe a library or three and THEN porting the browser over would be a likely scenario...but of course, what they'll port is the APIs and not the acutal browser, leaving us with the bloated crap the we've all come to love to hate.
Re:this is old news.. by Jeremy+Erwin · 1999-05-24 19:30 · Score: 2

Linux and Unix are not the same. It is not likely that the source will be available, so the Solaris verion of IE would be rather non-useful to a Linux user.

Microsoft has admitted to supporting various forms of Unix, or at least recongnizing their existance. It has not publically admitted to the existance of Linux (except in the Halloween documents and a few PR documents. A Linux version of IE would be interesting change. It could even herald the arrival of Microsoft Linux-- the only kernal with a built-in browser.

Usage by jaraxle · 1999-05-24 19:22 · Score: 3

Just wondering, who would actually use it? Knowing how vehemently most Linux users despise Microsoft (myself included), it would be interesting to get figures of how many people would use it if Microsoft actually came out with MSIE for Linux. I think I personally would, but only for testing purposes to make sure my web sites look right in both IE and Netscape. I figure that would be the main reason why most people would use it as well. Hey, at least it would be useful, eh?

Jaraxle

Re:Usage by jaraxle · 1999-05-24 19:39 · Score: 2

ya, you're right... all "moral" issues aside, it would be great to have some decent competition in the browser area for Linux. However, I would be surprised if it's not a huge piece of bloatware. Another poster (sorry, can't remember who) mentioned that the Solaris port of IE effectively had the "whole Win32 API" running on top of the OS. If this is going to be the case for Linux IE, then I can't see it as anything but bloat. Probably won't be any better than what we currently have...

Please Mozilla, hurry...! :)

jaraxle
Re:Usage by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 22:51 · Score: 0

I would use it, because IE is actually much better than Netscape. Most people will hang me for saying that but on Windows platform anyways IE loads better, doesn't have the irritating bugs and implements more HTML4/CSS properties with better standardization. If IE on Linux doesn't change much from Windows than I'm sure it could beat Netscape on Linux, which is basically a huge hack. Netscape on Linux crashes if you try to do any kind of javascript or CSS above the image rollover level.
Re:Usage by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 07:29 · Score: 0

YOur right. Everything from Microsoft does not suck, for example -- my kids Actimates Barney has had 300+ days uptime with no reboots....In all reality, I am an avid Linux user -- but I get so frustrated to do a "top" and see Netscape using 40-60 Megs of Memory...Which is not as bad as the customary crash every 5 minutes....I would say the browser market for Linux is ripe for the pickings.
Re:Usage by m3000 · 1999-05-25 00:09 · Score: 1

I sure would. In fact, it would give me another reason to try out Linux (no, I have never tried it). I can't stand Netscape, so I'd be overjoyed if MS brought over IE5 to Linux. I guess I just don't understand why it seems like everyone at Slashdot hates MS and absolutly loves Linux. It seems as though yall think EVERYTHING from MS sucks, which it doesn't. Sure, it has a monopoly on the computer market, but I like most of it's products, and it seems like most of the computer mags do to, otherwise they wouldn't rank them as high as they do. And no, it's not a conspiracy by MS paying off computer magazines. I'm so glad though, that MS is possibly going to get IE on Linux.
Re:Usage by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 19:25 · Score: 0

If it ran longer than the .0092 minutes at a time that netscape does. I'd run it in a second.
Microsoft or not. I'm sick of restarting netscape all day long. :P
Re:Usage by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 20:24 · Score: 0

I don't disagree at all. Unfortunately ALL browsers on Windows suck eggs through a straw. IF IE weree available for Linux I would give it a fair shake no problem. Same thing for almost any Microsoft application (except maybe Bob).
Re:Usage by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 21:21 · Score: 1

That's because other than AppleWorks its the only office suite on the Mac. AppleWorks (formerly ClarisWorks, which was an Apple subsidiary was reorganized into FileMaker Corp. to handle their relational database [which is amazing], and Works went back to Apple where it began on the Apple II) is the #1 selling piece of works software ever, the #1 selling piece of Mac software, and the #1 selling software product in education for both Windows and Mac clients.

Corel is thinking seriously about porting the rest of its WordPerfect Office to the Mac...currently the WordPerfect for the Mac is functionally similar to the Windows version, but has an entirely different code base.

But it's true: MS's goal with IE and Office on the Mac or on unices is to assimilate the competing platform. IE was heavily marketing (or, leveraged by The Monopoly) because they were afraid Netscape would create a cross-platform product that would make Win* moot. The point of porting IE and Office to the Mac OS or the unices is to make everyone dependant on MS bloatware for whatever platform to "ease" the transition to Win* that they expect us to make.
Re:Usage by kijiki · 1999-05-25 12:50 · Score: 1

I managed to fix almost all of my NS crashing problems by switching to communicator 4.08 libc5 version. This is remarkably stable for me.
Re:Usage by Wyatt+Earp · 1999-05-24 19:55 · Score: 1

If they get the same group that puts the Macintosh 4.5 browser togeather, it will be a nice broswer.

I'm really getting sick of these crappy browsers from Netscape that are as stable as a one-legged chair.
Re:Usage by IntlHarvester · 1999-05-24 20:42 · Score: 2

Nah - IE for Macintosh is actually a native Mac application, with considerably less bloat than Netscape. (And you could argue, the Windows version.)

--

--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Re:Usage by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 23:09 · Score: 0

Do not forget that AOL now owns Netscape. It's a
tough choice on which browser to use! :-/
Re:Usage by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 08:41 · Score: 0

IMHO, IE is fairly useless for testing purposes because it is /too/ forgiving... it displays anything that vaguely resembles HTML, balking at only the most egregious errors, and therefore promotes sloppy HTML coding. That said, I use it exclusively to surf (Wintel platform) for reasons of stability and the aforementioned forgiving nature, i.e., it lets me view most people's pages more or less as intended... when I develop HTML documents I test mostly with Netscape because it reveals more errors, but the IE/Notepad combo is ideal for quick-and-dirty editing because of the way the "View Source" command is implemented in IE, loading the original file into your text editor for editing in the case of local files (a cached copy is loaded for remote files of course) rather than Netscape's method of always loading the cached copy (into a proprietary text viewer, not an editor, no less) in all cases.
Re:Usage by felicity · 1999-05-24 22:19 · Score: 3

M$ doesn't have much to worry about, most consumers assume that M$ makes the better (or best) application sets, so if they make a web browser for linux (charging a nominal fee for it of course), that's what the cattle population will use, even if there is a free alternative.
But ... if you're one of the "cattle population", would you even be using Linux? Obviously Windows must be better, so you'd be running 98 or NT.
I don't care what people say, I don't believe anyone runs Linux just because they hate M$ products -- those people would probably want to use a Mac in that case. People run Linux because of a billion other reasons -- more control over what the computer is doing; get to learn about the design of a "real" OS; they're used to UNIX or want to learn UNIX; they need a reliable solution to a problem; etc, etc, etc. Hating M$ isn't reason enough, there has to be something else.
Re:Usage by SoftwareJanitor · 1999-05-25 08:47 · Score: 1

I sure would. In fact, it would give me another reason to try out Linux (no, I have never tried it). I can't stand Netscape,

I can't think of any reason to like Explorer over Navigator. I am not saying that Navigator is perfect, but I'd rather use it than Explorer even if I was stuck using MS-Windows. Unlike what other people (mostly anonymous cowards) have reported, Netscape has been fairly reliable for me on both Linux and Solaris. I avoid doing anythin on Windows where possible, but I use Netscape on Windows when forced, and it seems as good as can be expected there. I have also used Netscape on MacOS, and it works fine there too.

so I'd be overjoyed if MS brought over IE5 to Linux. I guess I just don't understand why it seems like everyone at Slashdot hates MS and absolutly loves Linux.

I absolutely love Linux because it works, it works well, and the price is right. I don't like Microsoft's way of doing business and I don't like their products.

It seems as though yall think EVERYTHING from MS sucks, which it doesn't.

I have yet to see a Microsoft product I was favorably impressed by. While not all of them completely suck, I would be hard pressed to think of one that was the best in its niche. And most of them really are pretty awful. Flashy in most cases, but in terms of overall usability and reliability, most of them are fatally flawed.

Sure, it has a monopoly on the computer market, but I like most of it's products, and it seems like most of the computer mags do to, otherwise they wouldn't rank them as high as they do.

One thing I've noticed is that most magazine reviewers tend to rate things on something I like to call a feature chart comparison. This tends to favor the most bloated product. Microsoft's design strategy seems to be: announce early (vaporware), ship pathetic initial version alpha version labeled as beta (and charge for it), ship (and charge for) lots of subsequent "upgrades" (read as bug fixes) which add any feature chart bullets the reviewers don't award to the Microsoft product.

And no, it's not a conspiracy by MS paying off computer magazines.

Oh, its true that its not that overt in most cases. Its partially the subltle pressures of what magazine is going to write a bad review of a product of their largest advertiser? That is a hard thing for large media companies to do -- they are also ruled by the bottom line. Microsoft has a well deserved reputation of being vendictive towards those that are not favorable to their products.

I'm so glad though, that MS is possibly going to get IE on Linux.

Personally, I could care less. I probably won't use Explorer even if it was available.
Re:Usage by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 21:31 · Score: 0

What's the betting that IE for UNIX will be
incompatible with IE for Windows?

P
Re:Usage by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 04:54 · Score: 0

Why do you insinuate that Micros~1 would charge for LinuxIE? They don't charge a penny for any other version.
Re:Usage by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 04:56 · Score: 0

I wouldn't hang you at all. I also believe that on the Win (and possibly the Mac) platform that IE -is- the better browser. I'm using CSS on a departmental web site and I foolishly expected NS 4.x to handle it better than IE. Boy was I wrong.
Re:Usage by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 03:30 · Score: 0

I'd give it a try. Netscape's crashed on me for the third time today. I could do with another well-featured browser on Linux.

PS, not AC, just forgotten my login/password.
Rachel
Re:Usage by Mike+Bridge · 1999-05-24 20:47 · Score: 2

funny you should mention how vehemently some linux users hate M$, a couple years back, the same thing could have been said about the Mac vs. Wintel arguement, and look now, the top selling office suite on Mac's is a microsoft product. This would be nothing new for M$ to do. M$ doesn't have much to worry about, most consumers assume that M$ makes the better (or best) application sets, so if they make a web browser for linux (charging a nominal fee for it of course), that's what the cattle population will use, even if there is a free alternative.
Re:Usage by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 02:21 · Score: 0

Hadn't you already noticed? Most of those Macin-users have migrated to Linux. The ones who haven't just kept their old Mac hardware or bought an iMac, that is.

Sadly, Linux to some people is just a club to beat Microsoft with.
Re:Usage by PimpBot · 1999-05-24 19:31 · Score: 1

I would...remeber when NS 4.6 came out? Take a look at the thread...lots of complaints about memory hogging and crashing...I would at least give IE a chance...and if its anything like IE5 for NT, then it might be an effective NS killer for the 'nixes....
Re:Usage by Neph · 1999-05-24 19:32 · Score: 1

I can certainly relate, but if that's the market they're aiming for, they had better beat Mozilla to the punch. I for one would be nothing short of astonished if they managed to make a better product.
Speaking of which, M6 was scheduled for release on Saturday... Shouldn't be long now...

Steve 'Nephtes' Freeland | Okay, so maybe I'm a tiny itty
Re:Usage by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 20:46 · Score: 0

You can browse ftp://ftp.netscape.com to find version 3

narbey

Unix versions of IE allow for corporate market by Colin+Simmonds · 1999-05-26 08:02 · Score: 1

For some reason, they didn't want to get stuck with the "single platform" tag for IE, so they produced the unix versions.

I wonder if there may be another reason for the Unix ports. The company I was an intern at had a (likely expensive) site-wide license for Netscape. All the engineers had HP or Sun workstations, and the managers were all using Macs at the time, so Netscape was the only possibility for a standard company browser. They began to transition out the Macs in favor of Windows for the managers, but the engineers won't give up Unix. With HP-UX and Solaris versions of IE, it has a shot at becoming the "standard" browser in companies that can't all go to Windows, and still pay MS for the privilege.

Colin

Re:Junk Windows NT by Poisoned+Coyote · 1999-05-25 23:49 · Score: 1

When I said "Windows" I meant *any* version of Windows. My last job was as a Windows NT support technician, and I can tell you it does crash, and crashes ugly. Just because you've never crashed it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. NT can be stable with the right hardware and system configuration, but unfortunately nobody does it that way.

"All the unix freeware of interest"? There may exist equivilent imitations or proprietary solutions (IIS instead of Apache? Ugh.) but they usually don't impress me much. Besides that, I did say it was a lousy OS as well. I don't like being tied to microsoft's broken way of doing things.

I've done my time in the trenches, and I learned enough about Windows NT to know I didn't want anything to do with it anymore.

Re:No browser choice under Linux? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 01:08 · Score: 0

Lynx is the best solution for those of us who have better things to do with our time than wait for the purdy pitchers to download.

Isn't IE for Unix already out for some platforms? by seth · 1999-05-24 19:24 · Score: 1

I remember, not too long ago, MS ported IE 3(?) to Solaris (?) and was saying that they were porting it to the two remaining big unicies (which were HP-UX and SCO, as I recall) which caused a huge stir b/c Linux wasn't on the list.

IIRC, one of the guys who did the majority of the porting of the JDK to Linux was involved with the initial port of IE to Solaris. I forget if it was Randy or Steve.

Re:Don't even think of downloading it..... by Rip+Van+Winkle · 1999-05-25 05:09 · Score: 1

*sarcastic mode on*

Ohhh.... You've got to watch out for those infamous Black Helicopter Bitmaps. Next we'll all be looking for ways to break out of the Matrix!

*sarcastic mode off*

Get with the program. Microsoft isn't out to keep tabs on a single user. They would love to kill the Netscape following but they would prefer businesses to use IE as "Thats where the money is".

--

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are not the responsiblity of the user, as I probably stole them anyway

Re:Exploder for Linux by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 22:44 · Score: 0

course it would. both programs use the same mail protocol..and thats program independent

Re:I don't think so by spectecjr · 1999-05-24 21:10 · Score: 0

On yet another note, I found out at a class dinner in the last week of school that a guy in my Japanese class is going to be working on IE this summer. I feel dirty now. I always thought his "Microsoft" sweatshirts were a bit stupid, but I didn't know he was going to work for them! I spent the rest of the dinner whispering "Go Mozilla!"

That's okay. I feel dirty every time I talk to people who programmed the Commodore 64. Every time I do, I spend the rest of the day whispering "Go Sinclair!".

Which just goes to show: You have an irrational, almost religious anti-MS zeal building up.

Sheeesh.

Yours, hoping that you don't go out, buy a copy of Catcher in the Rye, and come out to Redmond.

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra

Re: It was Randy Chapman by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 00:42 · Score: 0

FWIW

The reason it would be great to have IE 5.0. by Axe · 1999-05-25 03:40 · Score: 1

- Good support for displaying whatever format Office 2000 spits out. De facto standard of the Word documents is THE major problem with wider adoption of Linux.

Actually, Microsoft can financially win if they just port Office for Linux and just price it higher (by the cost of a copy of Windows OS). A lot of people will buy it. (I would)

--
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>

Re:Don't even think of downloading it..... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 07:49 · Score: 0

All right then, give me a perfectly logical reason why they would need to take thousands of bytes from my system just so I could view an html file?

Next your going to tell how information is not power.

Re:IE for Solaris by Andrej+Marjan · 1999-05-25 00:19 · Score: 2

The students' union installed it at school, so I gave it a try. It was disorienting to see IE in afterstep...

But you have to admit that pages look gorgeous in it, with antialiasing and all. Sure, it's a pig and it's unusably slow, but that's what you get for re-implementing the font subsystem.

I was really annoyed, though, to find that it requires 800K in one's home directory. And the ondisk cache settings aren't changeable.
--

--
Change is inevitable.
Progress is not.

Re:Illusion: it's redraw speed, not re-render spee by Melbert · 1999-05-25 07:52 · Score: 1

And when you want to print a page from Netscape, it reloads the page for the printer from the network. When saving a permanent copy of a slow-to-load page (the kind of page you WANT to print since you're not sure you'll ever have the patience to load it again), it's extremely frustrating. All the info was downloaded to display the page that's on the bloody screen. It, to me at least, seems most stooooopid. What's the cache for, if not for things like this???

Re:WAIT! MS = Anti-Linux... by Brian+Knotts · 1999-05-25 07:37 · Score: 1

Every company tries to squash their competition.

And therein lies the problem...this is the kind of short-term thinking that pretty much guarantees that Microsoft will lose its dominance in the next five years.

Only by focusing on the customers needs, and not their competition directly, can a company achieve long-term success.

--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
World domination: coming soon to a computer near you!

Re:Welcome addition for developers by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 03:06 · Score: 0

Buy a WebTV.

I would by Sabalon · 1999-05-25 00:43 · Score: 1

As long as it worked okay, I'd be glad to dump that piece of junk netscape for it.

It's a two-headed strategy by webslacker · 1999-05-25 06:56 · Score: 1

Well, the Microsoft's strategy with Macintosh is like this:

Plan A: Make money by moving Mac users to Windows.
Plan B: If Plan A doesn't work, make sure you still make money off Mac users.

MS is playing both fronts against the Mac users. On one hand, they invest in companies and "persuade" them to stop developing on or for the Macintosh. On the other hand, they develop MS Office for the Mac platform. Microsoft is placing bets on the Mac platform failing and also on the Mac platform succeeding. If Macs continue to thrive, they make money on Mac Office. If Macs wither away, they make money on Windows. Either way, they make money, those damn geniuses. Consider that Microsoft makes about as much money from Office sales as they do from Windows sales. (Of course, running Office on Windows would be even better, but they know there's a lot of die-hard Mac fans out there)

Now, what are they going to do about Linux?

NT multiuser? So how can I log on as 5 users@once by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 22:16 · Score: 0

Allowing many users to log on one at a time does not a multiuser OS make. At least with Windows 3.11 you could switch users without quitting every application. This USEFUL ability was REMOVED from later versions of Windows. Now when I'm logged on as FOO with 5 apps open and realize I need to copy one file to my HD that only BAR has access to, I am screwed under 95 onward, not so with Win3.11 on down. Stupid Microsoft...

Re:This makes me think of Star Office by soren.harward · 1999-05-25 03:06 · Score: 2

This is a pretty common "error" among StarOffice installations. It's not a well-set-up install program, and this trick is buried in the README.

rm -fr the installation you did, and re-install as root using this command:

./setup /net

Install everything in some dir like /usr/local/soffice. Then log in as a normal user, and run

/usr/local/bin/soffice/setup

and select the "local installation" (the one that's only 5 megs, not 115) option. You'll have the program files in /usr/local/soffice and your personal files in your home dir.

(offtopic) Berlin + SeaMonkey by MenTaLguY · 1999-05-25 02:42 · Score: 1

> I was wondering if any SeaMonkeyUnix sources are
> planned for integration with Berlin for DOM
> stuff?

Maybe. Berlin isn't quite to the point yet where we can make those kinds of decisions. We're still a little further down the design/implementation ladder. Maybe in the next six months to a year.

It has already come up on the ML, though; you should really start following the archives if you're interested (better yet, subscribe and help development directly).

Wouldn't need to integrate the stuff in the actual codebase anyway; most of the stuff should be usable via CORBA, which is extremely pervasive in the Berlin architecture (read: everything is implemented using it). (just FYI, CORBA doesn't incur any extra function call overhead over normal C/C++ for method invocation between in-process objects, so performance should be quite decent)

> Was libggi/libgii port of SeaMonkey ever
> attempted?

No, you'd need:
a) a raw libggi windowing toolkit
b) a widget set to use on top of it

I did write the first draft of libgwt (which was a step towards item a), but I never really had time to keep after it, and the other folks development fell to had the same problem.

Assuming that libgwt was finished at some point, all you'd probably need to do for item b is to port GDK to libgwt, and you've got GTK+, so the GTK FE could then be used on top of libggi directly.

> Should Berlin make sense for a SeaMonkey hack to
> get a smaller memory footprint?

I don't understand the question. email me if you like, rather than continuing this offtopic thread.

--

DNA just wants to be free...

I don't think so by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 19:40 · Score: 1

For one thing, I've never heard a positive comment about IE for Solaris, so either they'll put out a very buggy version for Linux or take forever making one so that it Mozilla comes out as a release version first anyway. I don't think they'll be able to come out with anything reasonable any sooner than mozilla.

On another note, I guess this would help their case a little bit. If they're actually supporting their competition with their own products (though I doubt this part), then they can say "We don't need to be broken up! We're competing just fine!"

On yet another note, I found out at a class dinner in the last week of school that a guy in my Japanese class is going to be working on IE this summer. I feel dirty now. I always thought his "Microsoft" sweatshirts were a bit stupid, but I didn't know he was going to work for them! I spent the rest of the dinner whispering "Go Mozilla!"

And on a final note, yes, I've typed this in IE (though I've tried to get rid of any punctuation that will show up as question-marks in Linux). I'm at work. We have standards :(

Re:I don't think so by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 21:31 · Score: 0

Well, I was mostly joking. I realize the childishness of whispering "Go Mozilla" in a Japanese restaraunt. He took it as a joke. I didn't trip him or steal his wallet or anything! I'm in college with very little support for the traditional sports rivalries. I substitute OS/Browsers. It's a largely irrational preference (though orders of magnitude more rational than the sports rivalries, I think), and I recognize it as such. Doesn't mean I can't have fun feeling that way.

And while I'm at it:

Go US of U, AMD, Bill Bradly, and Leno!

Welcome addition for developers by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 19:43 · Score: 2

i have an NT box at work, which i code html (heh) and asp on, and it has netscape so i can test compatibility, but i have my linux box right next to me to check *that* compatibility as well - which informed me that a linux box / browser couldn't cope with the java on our homepage - it crashed netscape every single time.

i use IE because i can fullscreen the window - there's only the smallest of possible buttons, address bar, and such in *one row* across the top of my screen, without any frame - only the scroll bar. i don't want to look at a window frame, i just want web page. hell - i can even autohide the bar at the top, so the *whole screen* is webpage, except for the scroll bar.

i want netscape to support this, and i want an alternative browser that isn't a development browser for linux (because the unwashed masses aren't going be viewing my pages with them :)

so - who makes a browser that under X can go into a fullscreen mode, so i don't have to look at buttons i know keyboard shortcuts to, an address bar i can hide, and no annoying greyspace ?

Re:Welcome addition for developers by Mime · 1999-05-24 20:17 · Score: 1

You don't really need a browser that can do "fullscreen mode" in Linux. Just set up virtual desktops in you window manager, resize the window to extend beyond the top of the desktop and onto another and you end up with a fully functional "fullscreen mode" no title bar, no buttons, and if you don't want the scroll bar resize that off the screen too, magic.

Re:Open-source? by davedavedave · 1999-05-26 21:17 · Score: 1

Hang on, moderate this response down as offtopic, but my original one wasn't. It's about MSIE4Linux, how the hell is that off-topic????

--
~ Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity ~

As for Lynx users... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 23:00 · Score: 0

You can load this and read a nice copyright notice...seems you can only view it with JavaScript...

(Can we say "BAD DESIGN!!!!" ?)

You should try MS Source(UN)Safe for UNIX by Locutus · 1999-05-24 23:09 · Score: 1

They ported the whole bloody Windoz feel over. Damn it sticks our like a sore thumb. I keep forgetting that the Micros~1 way is the ONLY way.

--
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus

Netscape has very poor Java support by L1zard_K1n6 · 1999-05-24 20:28 · Score: 1

Not to sound insulting, but if you get around the web a bit more you can find a variety of sites that easily crash netscape.

Try chat sites using java as a start. Open up another Netscape window while the first is open in the chat site. Sooner or later you will get errors.

Try Freshmeat - it routinely hoses Linux browsers (due to some seemingly unwise decisions by the site's developers, who are targetting the linux audience).

s/s//g by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 08:16 · Score: 0

Not all binary-only window managers are worthless bloated crap, just the toolkits that come with them.

IE port to Linux by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 20:16 · Score: 3

I *did* register, honestly. Just haven't got time right now to wait for my pwd. Coward or not, here's my 10c worth.

Microsoft ported IE to Linux using MainSoft's Win32 port (they already trashed Bristol Software, Mainsoft's only competitor, by abruptly withdrawing their source code license - there's a lawsuit ongoing over this).

At any event, consider this. A port of IE requires a port of Win32. Which would let everyone else port their software to Linux, right. All you have to do is download IE and then you have the Win32 APIs, unless MS take a lot of time and trouble to remove all the entry points or something. Even if they do, cunning individuals will for sure figure out a way of calling into those routines.

Of course, WINE continues to evolve - although very very slowly - and maybe we *will* have Win32 for Linux soon. I know this will offend the purists but being able to port something quickly to Linux can only help Linux's future, even if the resulting mess might not be very elegant.

Re:IE port to Linux by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 03:14 · Score: 0

ALL THE WORDPROCESSORS ARE BLOATED! EVERY SINGLE COMMERCIALL ONE OF THEM. 90% OF THE FEATURE MOST PEOPLES DON'T USE LIKE MACROS VBSCRIPTS.. OH YEAH.. THEY MAKE GOOD VIRUSES.

ALL I EVER WANTED WAS SOME THING THAT IS GRAPHICAL, SPELL CHECK AND GRAMMAR CHECK .
Re:IE port to Linux by ReinoutS · 1999-05-24 21:16 · Score: 5

Of course, WINE continues to evolve - although very very slowly - and maybe we *will* have Win32 for Linux soon. I know this will offend the purists but being able to port something quickly to Linux can only help Linux's future, even if the resulting mess might not be very elegant.
Don't be too sure. Back in the time of OS/2 v2.x, IBM was pushing ISVs to release OS/2 versions of their windows software. This resulted in incredibly crappy ports (for example, WordPerfect 5.2 for OS/2), and OS/2 got blamed for the bad applications. (When in fact, good and native OS/2 applications were available from other vendors - the Describe word processor for example - but never got the attention they deserved.)
Re:IE port to Linux by SeanNi · 1999-05-25 05:29 · Score: 1

First of all, please don't shout.

Thank you.

Now. As to your assertions that many word processors contain functions that nobody needs, I have to disagree. The example you posed is a very good one. I, for one, use the VBA Macros in Microsoft Word daily. As do the 10-thousand-odd other people who work at the same company I do.

Internally, we have a very extensive set of Word templates, Excel spreadsheets and Access Databases all linked together using VBA macros to synchronize and co-ordinate data over the network.

What does this mean? Let me give you an example. I just went on business trip last week. When I returned yesterday, I entered the time spent into a Word Template, Alt-Tabbed to Excel to input an expense report (again into a template), and switched again to MS-Project, where I checked off against a couple of Project milestones that I had completed. Back to Word, where I clicked on a single button, and a whole bunch of macros fired up in the background that automatically correlated that data into a timesheet for the week which it sent through to payroll (money is nice), printed out a copy for my records, and input that data into the Employee database. Oh yeah. It also brought up Outlook so I could reschedule a telephone appointment that I missed (although that was sort of an ancilliary function).

That's an example of the sort of use these features have. Maybe you don't use the VBA macros. That is certainly your prerogative. It just so happens that I, as well as many other people, do. I not only use them, I pretty much need them.

If Linux is to have any sort of enterprise-level support (on desktops, not just servers), it needs to have the sort of integrated suites, complete with macros and so on, that can perform this type of feature. If that means what you call "bloat," well, that's the way it is. One man's meat being another's poison, and all that.

Maybe all you ever wanted was something graphical with spell- and grammar-checking. I want more.

Thanks for your time :-)
--
- Sean

--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean

Microsoft porting to Unix article by IntlHarvester · 1999-05-24 20:46 · Score: 4

It took a bit of digging but here is the link to "Creating a UNIX Application Using the Win32 API" --

http://msdn.microsoft.com/isapi/msdnlib.idc?theU RL=/library/techart/msdn_unixwin32.htm

Beware Netscape users: This page will load a really slow Java applet designed to make you wish you had ActiveX.

--

--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.

Netscape 3 was *BAD* by Micah · 1999-05-25 00:21 · Score: 1

Remember, NS 3 was the one that had a "bus error" every 10 seconds. You could do some library hacking which sometimes fixed it, but it was definitely buggy.

I don't know why everyone says NS 4.x is so bad. Yes, it crashes occasionally on my system, but it's no more than once a day, usually about once or twice a week, and in one case I think I went a month or two without a crash.

I've been using 4.50 (with RH5.1) and now 4.51 (with RH6). Both are stable enough. Netscape is usually the first app I launch in the morning and the last one I close at night. It runs all day.

Re:IE for Solaris by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 22:16 · Score: 0

It just isn't possible to write something that crappy and bloated by accident or incompetence.

I suppose you haven't had much experience of StarOffice, or of typical bespoke software.

Open-source? Of course not. by jamesm · 1999-05-24 21:26 · Score: 3

Why would it ever be open source?? The idea that MS would give away its browser source is almost laughable, especially in any way that would even remotely resemble OS. Microsoft is scared of open source; embracing the model would legitimize the Linux development model they have, so far, gone to great lengths to downplay in front of the media.

If they were ever to 'embrace' the open source model, they would do so in a half-assed way in the form of something that is not even open source, such as restrictive licensing of NT source code that has been mentioned. That way, they can say "we tried it, and people didn't want it, it's a bad idea and it sucks... back to business". That is the ultimate in FUD. They essentially did the same thing when they ported IE to solaris; they bastardized the port - it was bloated, slow, buggy and the most pathetic piece of software I've ever had the misfortune of running. But I'm sure it shut up all the solaris people who had asked for a port, and it sure looks good when they can go to the media and say "look how badly our wonderful software runs on this platform; we tried, but it's just not as good as windows".

The question of whether ie would be open source honestly never even crossed my mind.

Be unstunned by unitron · 1999-05-25 05:12 · Score: 1

"I'm continually stunned at how little competition there is in the browser market..."
With Microsoft giving away Internet Explorer there aren't enough people left willing to pay for something else to make developing that something else very profitable, and when you've got to cover your overhead and meet a payroll you tend to lean towards marketing stuff you expect to turn a profit on if you want to stay in business and keep your investors happy. I'm not saying there's no money to be made; something must be keeping Opera afloat, but could they and four or five other companies all survive on smaller slices of the same sized pie?

--

I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

IE vs Netscape vs Opera and Family by pqbon · 1999-05-24 19:41 · Score: 2

I hope and pray that Mozilla will force a browser revolution. I see a future with truely standardized browsers, a networkable format for bookmarks, and many other wonderfull features.

What I don't see helping this come about is the law suit of MS will help bring it about. MS is now on the browser offensive again. They are now going for the jugular and Netscapes next Gen is not ready yet.

Then we have browser like Opera and the browser in Star Office that are fighting for some market share. I don't think they will capture their intended market unless they fully support standards like Mozilla does.Hopefully Mozilla will force every browser to support the true W3 standards!

"There is no spoon" - Neo, The Matrix
"SPOOOOOOOOON!" - The Tick, The Tick

that won't work. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 21:20 · Score: 0

screw making the virutal desktop, going around and sizing the window, then dinking the mouse back and forth until it fits. YOU TRY THIS and tell me how practical it is when you are *working*...

one key - F11, and IE goes into perfect fullscreen. that's what i want.

No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 21:17 · Score: 0

One of the reasons I switched to *nix at home was the lack of M$ proprietary binary bloat.

What was it that 'ol Petreley Said over there at Infoworld?

Nonetheless, I trust Microsoft about as far as I can throw the state of Washington.

hehe.

http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayArchive. pl?/99/18/o13-18.100.htm

Netscape does it by MenTaLguY · 1999-05-25 03:14 · Score: 1

There's a largely undocumented kiosk mode in Navigator. I forget the details, but you can find out about it deep in the bowels of the Netscape developer site.

--

DNA just wants to be free...

name one. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 03:40 · Score: 0

I can't think of any announced ports that never occured...

Connect As... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 03:42 · Score: 0

it's not that difficult.

mswm? Yikes. by Glytch · 1999-05-25 00:44 · Score: 1

An M$-built window manager. Brrrr. If it was GPLed, I might run it to try it out, but otherwise...
I just don't see that happening. Well, not a reliable window manager, anyway. I'd hate to see how dumbed-down it would be, with who knows how many useless features. Can we say "bloatware", boys and girls?

For people who understand X its wonderful and versatile as hell... but its also very complex and has plenty of security issues associated with it. Is that really what a simple end user wants?

Um, yeah, actually. I barely understand X, and I'm just a user (and wannabe perl hacker, but that's off topic), but I love X. It may take me a few hours of reading the man pages and my paper documentation to figure out a new feature or how to configure something, but in the end it's worth it. And yes, I do have a 9 to 5 job. :)

Can't wait for WINE...

Re:mswm? Yikes. by dattaway · 1999-05-25 06:28 · Score: 2

An M$-built window manager. Brrrr. If it was GPLed . . .

I don't envision Microsoft GPL'ing anything. It does not seem to be their style to actively develop in an open. Why would they budget their resources to a product that has no ties with monetary return when it comes to shrinked wrap sales? They could benefit by supporting GPL software, but I have never seen Microsoft as supporting software. Maybe someone else could relate to Microsoft support, but it escapes my experience.

/usr/X11R6/lib/xscreensaver/bsod by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 07:45 · Score: 0

/usr/X11R6/lib/xscreensaver/bsod is a pretty good facsimile, and can work health wonders: ever since I switched from the Amiga to the PC, I have become increasingly irritable. It turns out, /usr/X11R6/lib/xscreensaver/bsod gives me the guru meditation kick I need to start the day.

Re:Open-source? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 03:07 · Score: 0

You forgot to capitalize Open Source.

Show some Reverence before we have to come out and smack you one.

IE for HP-UX is a dog by Stephen+Williams · 1999-05-24 19:49 · Score: 4

I remember, not too long ago, MS ported IE 3(?) to Solaris (?) and was saying that they were porting it to the two remaining big unicies (which were HP-UX and SCO, as I recall)

I tried IE for HP-UX last year. It stank: it was almost unbelievably slow; the GUI was a custom-designed job that looked like the illegitimate child of Windows and Motif; the Unix convention for config files (human-readable text files) was thrown out the window - the silly thing created a $HOME/.microsoft directory and wrote a registry into it.

It strikes me that Microsoft's engineers have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a port to Unix should be. It should have the functionality of the Windows original, but behave in a way typical of the target platform. The HP-UX port felt like a botched job.

Re:IE for HP-UX is a dog by Guy+Harris · 1999-05-25 00:52 · Score: 3

The IE ports to UNIX are implemented atop Mainsoft's MainWin product, which is a "Win32 API atop UNIX" package. See this item about IE5 and MainWin, which says:
Rather than rewrite the code for the UNIX version, Microsoft chose to use MainWin to rehost the source code on UNIX.

The same was true of IE4, according to stuff on Mainsoft's site.
I saw something ages ago on, I think, Microsoft's Web site indicating that they were developing a Win32-atop-MacOS package and getting third parties to do Win32-atop-UNIX packages; they were, I think, pushing this as a way of getting app developers - or, at least, custom in-house app developers - to write Win32 apps and to get them on other platforms with those packages. I don't know if that's the way they do MacOS ports of their own apps.

How many times have we heard this? by Ensign+Nemo · 1999-05-24 19:44 · Score: 0

Ahhh, more vaporware.
I'll believe it when I see it.

Don't even think of downloading it..... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 01:33 · Score: 0

Last time I went to their site using Internet Explorer, doing research, it was uploading thousands of bytes from my system while only sending a couple of hundred to my system. On top of that I had to disconnect from my ISP just to stop it because it was taking to long to down load 1 page and it locked me out from stoping IE. Instead I decided to try downloading the page and viewing it later when I downloaded it it only took 5 seconds!!!!!!! And I downloaded the java script to see what was in there and it only took 2 seconds to download, and nothing in there would have been uploading thousands of bytes from my system, so there is definetly so garbage going on with IE and their web site. If I were everyone I would not get it.

Re:Don't even think of downloading it..... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 07:36 · Score: 0

They were not uploading anything, they were downloading more data from my system then they were uploading to my system, you need to learn to read, or no wait you need to learn to understand what you read.

Re:IE for Linux would be welcome... by Bob-K · 1999-05-24 19:45 · Score: 3

It seems to me that browsers are really a pretty trivial application. That's not meant to downplay the fact that there are some complex things going on inside. But look at the interface. Forward, Back, choose a bookmark. From the users' perspective, they're all pretty much the same. Unlike word processors or spreadsheets or accounting or graphic packages, there really aren't many ways to make one browser dfferent from the next, especially from the end-users' perspective.

It turns out the browser wars were insanely overhyped. It looked important three years ago, but in retrospect, it seems pretty silly to think that somebody could gain influence over the Internet by implemeting and promoting special HTML tags.

IE for Linux would be welcome... by L1zard_K1n6 · 1999-05-24 19:25 · Score: 2

There should never be only one solution available for a component as important as a browser.

I'm continually stunned at how little competition there is in the browser market, which was essentially ceded to Microsoft and Netscape/AOL in an amazingly short time.

Re:IE for Linux would be welcome... by Jae · 1999-05-24 19:42 · Score: 1

here should never be only one solution available for a component as important as a browser.

what do you call Mozilla then?

--
-Jae
Re:IE for Linux would be welcome... by dvdbn · 1999-05-25 11:13 · Score: 1

>If it's so obvious why do I have to reboot my PC at work three times a day or face constant chunking or the BSOD?

because Microsloth turns out trash products so that in 3 years they can sell a *new* and *improved* and *insert random buzz word here* version that "fixes" all the bugs but leaves new ones. vicious circle.

microsoft's programmers are decent at the very least and incredibly talented at best. but the politics of the company are disgusting. i would be willing to bet money that programmers are forced to insert bugs in the pay products so that upgrades and new versions CAN be sold - it's not in microsoft's best interest to turn out a perfect product because they'd never sell the next version.

along comes the free product, internet explorer, and it's nearly perfect. why? to kill netscape. in this case, it IS in their best interest - they kill the competition now, and when they're the only vender around then they raise the price for their browser to $20. pretty sweet deal for them if you ask me...
Re:IE for Linux would be welcome... by Megaweapon · 1999-05-24 20:25 · Score: 4

I basically agree, however, there is an increasing demand (at least in my company) for intranet web-based applications. Static content is fine, but having a web application is a great way to distribute functionality without the overhead of installing programs on client machines. Since most systems nowadays have web browsers, there is (usually) no additional work to be done. Just give them a URL. The problem as I see it is that the standard form elements provided are too simplistic. Simple text boxes, radio buttons, and drop down lists are fine but are limiting. Also, it was only recently that a standardized document object model was introduced by W3C. That, with a good scripting language, can lead to beautiful and functional applications that people can use in a familiar environment.

IE5 provides a nice platform for web applications. A well designed object model (proprietary, but it is well done) with generally solid scripting has allowed us to develop some really cool web pages. Given the newer standards released by W3C, Mozilla and other non-IE browsers should give Microsoft a run for their (lots of) money.

--
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
Re:IE for Linux would be welcome... by Megaweapon · 1999-05-24 19:50 · Score: 1

what do you call Mozilla then?

Pre-Alpha code.

--
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with

Re:This makes me think of Star Office by Belatu-Cadros · 1999-05-25 01:38 · Score: 1

I just installed StarOffice 5.1 this weekend... try using the '/net' command line option. ('./setup /net' i believe) Then just like wordPerfect though, each user will need their own license. There is more in the README file.

This makes me think of Star Office by lubricated · 1999-05-24 23:02 · Score: 1

Star Office as we all know is a popular office tool for us linux users. I tried it once. I installed it as root. Then I couldn't run it as anyone but root! When I did run it it brought up a windoze type screen including a desktop and window borders. It was almost as ugly as windows. That's what I'm thinking the port of ie will look like in Linux. You have to run it as root. It will emulate a windows desktop. It will stick channels on the desktop. Ask if you are sure you want to go to slashdot. It would make a $HOME/.microsoft directory and then write a registry to it. Only run as root. Hopefully none of this will happen. The best that I could see happening is if they used gtk to make the port write human readable configuration files etc... but what are the chances of that

--
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.

Re:Now they can squeeze the PC Makers again by hadron · 1999-05-25 01:13 · Score: 2

Previously, Microsoft were in control of the market ; if you didn't install IE on a Windows PC, you wouldn't get windows.

In the future : Microsoft will be in no position to demand that IE be installed upon Linux boxes, as they have nothing to threaten with.

That's what it's all about : abuse of a monopoly (the monopoly of supplying Win32 operating systems). They don't and can't have a monopoly in Linux, therefore they can't abuse their it.

Re:Good move by MS by Yarn · 1999-05-24 21:18 · Score: 1

The current linux filesystem is quick, and does what is required by a basic unix-style filesystem. Linux *does* have the ability to use fat32, but fat32 doesnt have all the features that are required (file ownership for example).

NTFS, on the otherhand, looks like it *might* be interesting. There is preliminary support for read/write NTFS filesystems.

As for GUIs, it seems that they're sticking with the old motif toolkit for IE, thats not good. Motif has numerous UI contradictions (from my pov).

--
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent

My experiences with MSIE 5 on NT... by belbo · 1999-05-24 20:29 · Score: 1

It was a horror trip:

I had white checkboxes on a white background in the 'Preferences' tab (talk about choice, hah),
it hangs when I try to open the adress panel,
the automatical search function is a bore (you are really expected to type www.slashdot.org again...),
it refused to load Slashdot several times,
it completely hanged the whole system while trying to run a Java app.
So I ended up installing Lynx. Some 40 MB less, but it just works. It doesn't expect the user to be a complete dum-dum, that's why.
I don't want apps that insult my intelligence. You expect that from MS apps, because that's the MS way of computing. But it's certainly not UNIX.
belbo

--

--
"Just believe everything I tell you, and it will all be very, very simple."

Re:WAIT! M$ = Anti-Linux... by RoLlEr_CoAsTeR · 1999-05-25 00:46 · Score: 1

Yeah... I kinda thought of microsoft and linux as arch-enemies. Not that users of Linux specifically hate users of Microsoft (or Microsoft itself... or vice versa), just that, as a general condition, Linux is in a class by itself that lends its supporters to "see the light" and not like windows anymore (if they haven't already lost all good opinion for M$) Personally, I never plan to use any Microsoft product/software tool under linux on my computer. Its [almost] taboo.

--

Insert mind here.

killall -9 netscape by Poisoned+Coyote · 1999-05-25 03:45 · Score: 1

does that sound familiar? I use that command often enough that I made an alias for it, and I'm probably not the only one. Can microsoft possibly make a browser for Linux worse than netscape already has? Having seen IE on the macintosh, I'd say they most definately can, but I'm curious to see if they don't. I'm not a microsoft lover by any means, but I like to use good products. IE runs nicely on windows, but unfortunately windows is a lousy platform that crashes frequently. When I use Linux, it seems like netscape is the only thing that ever crashes. Maybe a little competition will encourage netscape to make a product that's a little more stable.

Re:I would (for testing) by A.S.M. · 1999-05-24 20:42 · Score: 1

No doubt. I got sick of all the Netscape 4.x's crashing and locking up all the time, and just went back to NS 3.04. Works great. Never needs restarting, doesn't both with the mail and news clients I never use, and the only difference I've noticed is pages with style sheets look funny. Oh well.

('course, for extra-super stability, just use Lynx. Why bother with all those .jpg's when you can just get nice, clean, pure text.)

Now they can squeeze the PC Makers again by nbor · 1999-05-25 00:12 · Score: 5

This seems to me to be a way to get back control of the straying PC makers.
Now MS can demand that they install IE5 on Linux whenever the PC makers pre-install Linux.
This is the thin edge of the wedgie, folks.

Nitin

--
The more idiot-proof you make it the smarter the idiots get.

Re:Now they can squeeze the PC Makers again by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 11:21 · Score: 0

aww man,
imagine a Microsoft Linux distribution...
Re:Now they can squeeze the PC Makers again by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 13:43 · Score: 0

They do have something to threaten with.
IF someone (say DELL) refuses to install IE5 on Linux, MS squeezes their *Windows* contract.
Don't forget the PC vendors still sell mostly Windows boxes. That makes them eminently MS-Squeezable.

Nitin

found a link.. by Josh+Picker · 1999-05-24 19:26 · Score: 1

Microsoft's page..

it's at the bottom..

Re:Illusion: it's redraw speed, not re-render spee by IntlHarvester · 1999-05-25 05:44 · Score: 2

Actually, IE is quicker (and craftier).

Everytime one changes the window dimentions or font size/face or even changes the toolbars under Netscape (any platform), it reloads the page from the network. IE does the sensible thing and just redraws it from cache.

--

--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.

Windows Version vs. Other Versions by Hrunting · 1999-05-24 19:46 · Score: 5

I suspect that this version won't be the IE that people have come to know. On my Windows machines, I use IE5 and I love it. It integrates rather nicely with the operating system, takes advantage of many of Windows' features, and provides a very smooth, stable browsing platform. I've also used IE4.5 for the Mac, and the complete opposite is true. It was slow, bloated, tended to crash a lot, and extremely clunky to use. Without the operating system's built-in mechanisms to take advantage of, IE becomes just another application and it's not particularly an efficient one.

I probably won't even touch IE for Linux if the rumor is true (I think it is; Microsoft legitimizes Linux as a competitor if they develop their software for it). Netscape, even the browser standalone is large enough as it is and I don't need another browser mussing up my system.

A well-deserved 5 by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 05:22 · Score: 0

Bravo! There seems to have been an increase in trolling since last week. I'm seeing more potty-mouthed attacks on slashdot and more unsupported slams on Free Software than ever.

Best of all, I'm watching slashdot participants see the trolling for what it is. For a bunch of "college hackers" and "punk kids", they're showing far more maturity than the trollers.

I imagine it already exists by scrytch · 1999-05-24 19:27 · Score: 2

IE was ported to Unix with Software AG's porting toolkit, which has Linux as a target. It effectively runs the entire Win32 API on top of Unix, and is exactly the bloated monstrosity you think it is. Then to top it off they statically link it with Motif.

--
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.

Re:IE for Solaris by segmentation+fault · 1999-05-24 21:27 · Score: 3

It is actually bad enough to make me wonder why they bothered.

You don't have to be paranoid to realize that the reason they "ported" it and actually released that piece of crap was to demonstrate to the public that Solaris is not a useable OS for running desktop applications.

It just isn't possible to write something that crappy and bloated by accident or incompetence.

I guess the reason there's no IE for Linux yet is that they won't recognize it as an OS. When they do that, they will probably release IE for it, and it will be at least as crappy as the Solaris version.

--
-segfault

No browser choice under Linux? by xinit · 1999-05-24 21:32 · Score: 2

I keep hearing that people are stuck with Netscape or Lynx. HotJava has a newer version out that's not a fraction of the speed-impaired pig that HJ1 was.

I've been using HJ at work now to access a number of NS-crashing java applets - though I'm starting to believe that ALL applets will crash NS.

HJ 3.0 is nice enough for those applets, and for general browsing. It's at http://java.sun.com/products/hotjava/ and runs with the blackdown 1.17 jre or jdk.

Also stumbled across http://www.sun.com/software/linux/ while I was looking for the link above.

--
--- http://foo.ca

Re:No browser choice under Linux? by Poisoned+Coyote · 1999-05-25 03:58 · Score: 1

Yes, but some of us are actually interested in web *design*. Believe it or not, the web exists for other reasons besides being a place for die-hard unix admins to dig up HOWTOs and perl scripts.

Lynx has its uses, and may be the best solution for you, but it is certainly NOT the best for everyone.
Re:No browser choice under Linux? by edgy · 1999-05-25 04:00 · Score: 2

I tried Hotjava under Linux. It looks nice, doesn't crash, even renders slashdot correctly. It's also got the neat java widgets that I like.

However, it is _SLOW_ on my 128MB Pentium II 300 machine. Netscape is much much much faster. Also, if i type a URL in, it's so slow that it will actually mangle the name I type in. I have to type it really slowly so that it can parse it correctly. It's evil.

Hotjava is just too slow to use as an everyday browser, but I suppose if I absolutely need to run a java app from the net, it would work.

The same old game by Storm · 1999-05-24 21:19 · Score: 2

Microsoft seems to be up to their same old games. Historically speaking, they have in the past used their application arm to bring down competition.

A case in point was the use of Word to bring down Mac sales. The Mac version of Word (5.0?) contained all of the source for the Windows version as well as the Mac code. This gave the Wintel platforms a decided performance advantage, in addition to the stability issues.

This advantage was a factor in at least one large company's deciding to transition from Mac to Wintel platform.

The same happened to a couple of companies who were running OS/2.

I would not only advise users not to support IE and other Microsoft apps under Linux, but I would also make sure to advise any corporate entities that you deal with who are using or considering Linux as an alternative. With all of the OSS alternatives (like StarOffice, the Gimp, and other apps out there), it is entirely possible to run a Linux machine in a Microsoft network.

--
--Storm

Unix Crumbling? by eponymous+cohort · 1999-05-24 20:58 · Score: 2

A year or two ago, it seemed as though that the PHBs all over the place couldn't wait to dump their Unix systems in favor of NT. But I believe that reality has set in. I see many more cases of Unix and even Linux being chosen over NT. I see fewer people who truly believe in NT.

As for the numbers, yes NT is selling a lot, but what is it being used for? Many companies are now using NT, even NT server on the desktop. File & Print, Mail, things like that.

The really interesting thing is that NT systems tend to be deployed for single tasks, where Unix systems tend to do more. It's not uncommon to see 5-10 NT systems peform the task of one Unix system.

--

Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them

Re:Unix Crumbling? by geocajun · 1999-05-25 07:49 · Score: 1

NT *server* on the desktop!?
are you sure that you don't mean NT workstation?

HPUX CPU by Wag+the+Dog · 1999-05-24 20:43 · Score: 1

Probably the HP-PA1.1

IE5 for Solaris sucks by Tet · 1999-05-24 19:57 · Score: 2

Coincidentally, I tried out IE5 for Solaris/Sparc this morning. Boy does it suck. It's horrendously slow and bloated. Though both of those apply to Netscape, too, they're worse in IE5. If the Linux version is similar, I, for one, won't be using it for anything other than verifying that my web pages look OK in both browsers.

Roll on Mozilla...

--
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown

Re:NT multiuser? So how can I log on as 5 users@on by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 01:58 · Score: 0

Terminal Server? Terminal Server! [snicker]

And how much extra does _that_ cost Mr. Simone Cook? Is it much more than my trusty xterm?

Anonymous Kevin

Micros~1....Wants the internet.... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 01:42 · Score: 0

They want to own the internet, plain and simple. They want everyone to use their browser and then from there they can create and control any crappy/inconvenient/complex/contradictory/inconsis tent standard they can concieve, and with such control they can easily make other standards incompatible and buggy, and if everyone does use their browser then everyone will be at their mercy. That is real, why wouldn't microsoft want to control the internet, what corrupt company wouldn't want to control the internet? None, they all would like to be at the center of it, recieving money from it like a black hole, for doing nothing but getting in the way.

my experience is the opposite by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 21:28 · Score: 0

I use Netscape on NT, and it is stable and fast.
My collegues use IE 4.0 or 5.0, and they have many problems. Example : IE 5.0 is unable to display some recent jpeg images. Netscape is.

I have used both. I don't think the difference is where you situated it. Netscape has mail, html editor and news in it. For mail under IE, you need to load outlook, and that is much slower that only click on the small letter box icon of Netscape.

Re:Love the Full Screen Layout by raulmazda · 1999-05-24 19:42 · Score: 2

Netscape for win32 has a full screen mode IIRC. It's called super kiosk mode (we used it for some library computers that were basically web browsing terminals). You have to start netscape with an argument of -sk I think, but I could be wrong... there's docs about this kind of stuff on the developer portion of netscape's massive web page.

.Laz
--
My car is orange, my sig is not.

I certainly hope this is true... by PimpBot · 1999-05-24 19:28 · Score: 1

Granted, MS is not exactly the most...ummm...moral of companies, but after using IE on my NT partition and comparing that to Netscape on both Windows and Linux, I prefer IE. Its quick and stable...which is far more than I can say for Netscape.

But, IE is pretty much a Windows thing...does anyone have any expierence with IE on Solaris or HP-UX? Does it keep its quick and stable reputation on those platforms?

(And before you start calling me a MicroSerf, I'm running Linux right now...and I do most of the time. I only use NT for Half-Life and doing somethings with MS Office)

darn, US of A by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 21:32 · Score: 0

oops

But MS will just *require* root access to install by root · 1999-05-25 01:30 · Score: 3

It'll go something like this

frob% cd /tmp/ie
frob% tar -xzf msie5.0.666.tgz
frob% ./ms-install
Error: Internet explorer may only be installed by the superuser
frob% su
Password: *******
frob# ./ms-install
MSIE5.0 installer for Linux x86
Checking for available disk space...
Installing MSIE5.0...
Installing system fonts...
Installing JFC 1.x...
Installing Plugins...
Configuring IE5.0...
Updating system settings...
Done.
The installer will now restart your machine so the changes can take effect...

[beep]

Broadcast message from root (ttyp0) Tue May 25 04:29:06 1999...

The system is going down for reboot NOW !!

[beep]
Stopping ftpd...
Stopping inetd...
...
Unmounting filesystems...
Rebooting system...

[system reboots, BIOS screen, etc.]

Updating ESCD...Success.
Verifying DMI Pool Data...Done

Starting Windows 98...

Re:Isn't IE for Unix already out for some platform by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 21:00 · Score: 0

I've seen what IE for Solaris.... I ran it on an
Ultra 5. It really sucked. Graphics were terrible, had this annoying habit of flickering,
it was extremely slow. IMHO, it was not usable, I can't believe they even released it.

It really depends by MenTaLguY · 1999-05-24 20:30 · Score: 3

> Would it be that hard for them to port it to
> Linux if they already have IE 4.01 and IE 5.0
> for Solaris and HP-UX? (They do have it
> available for download.) I mean, would there be
> a lot of code to rewrite If they already got the
> thing working on other POSIX compliant OS's?

It would really depend on how careful/competent the porting team had been. It's easy to write to the POSIX spec and expect the software to build and work on any POSIX-compliant OS, but it's another matter to write it to a specific POSIX-compliant OS (or any small set of them) and then expect it to build and work on any other POSIX-compliant OS.

This is especially true when you throw architectural differences into the mix; SPARC and PA-RISC are both 64-bit big-endian architecures (well, PA-RISC might be little-endian; I can't remember). It may well be that their IE for Unix codebase (hopefully they didn't do two individual ports) contains a lot of 64-bitisms. I have learned not to expect good software engineering practices from them.

> Even though I LOVE Linux, I do welcome IE, even
> though it's from M$, It is the superior browser,
> that wasn't the case when they were both like
> 2.0, but the more they progress, the more bugs I
> see in netscape, and the the more I see IE
> handle browsing the web better and better.

IMO, the existing (old) Netscape codebase is slowly collapsing under its own weight. It's high time a Mozilla-derived product got into Alpha...

> The biggest reason I welcome IE to Linux is
> because I'd like to see a Linux browser that
> properly handles Cascading Style Sheets. I have
> yet to see that on Linux browsers.

I have yet to see that on Microsoft browsers. Try some of the CSS conformance tests in IE sometime.

Personally, I'd rather wait for Mozilla on Linux than for IE. Yes... I know... Mozilla might not not be all there yet, but IE for Linux sure as hell isn't.

--

DNA just wants to be free...

SOLUTION to Slashdot back-arrow speed problem by Micah · 1999-05-25 00:38 · Score: 1

That very problem has been annoying me for a while, and here's what I do:

When clicking on a /. reply, I use the middle button (or the left and right simultaneously for 2-button mice), which opens a new Netscape window. When you're done reading that page, you close that new window, and you're instantly back where you were!

Other bonuses: When you go back (close the window) you are EXACTLY where you were - it isn't effected by Netscape's stupid bug that takes you back to the top of a page if it has tables. Also, you can Alt-Tab back to the original page and continue reading it while the reply page is loading.

Re:WAIT! MS = Anti-Linux... by Rip+Van+Winkle · 1999-05-25 05:47 · Score: 1

Do you honestly think that Microsoft is the only corporation doing it? Do you not think that any company that is in Microsoft's position wouldn't do the same?

Look at the porpose of big business? Is it there to be the saviour of society or to make profit for shareholders? It's the latter and I can tell you if I owned shares in any big business that wasn't targetting their competitors then you will deffinately hear me yelling at the Shareholders Meeting.

Every company tries to squash their competition. The only difference with Microsoft is that they're the biggest and most powerful.

Just to let you all know... No.. I do NOT work for Microsoft and NO... I do NOT have shares in Microsoft. NO.. I do NOT like Microsoft products.

--

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are not the responsiblity of the user, as I probably stole them anyway

Re:NT multiuser? So how can I log on as 5 users@on by spectecjr · 1999-05-25 05:55 · Score: 1

And how much extra does _that_ cost Mr. Simone Cook? Is it much more than my trusty xterm?

I have no idea how much "extra" it costs - if at all.

However, I do know one thing - if it costs more than nothing, you won't be happy. So I don't know why I bothered replying to you.

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra

Re:NT multiuser? So how can I log on as 5 users@on by spectecjr · 1999-05-24 23:03 · Score: 1

Allowing many users to log on one at a time does not a multiuser OS make. At least with Windows 3.11 you could switch users without quitting every application. This USEFUL ability was REMOVED from later versions of Windows. Now when I'm logged on as FOO with 5 apps open and realize I need to copy one file to my HD that only BAR has access to, I am screwed under 95 onward, not so with Win3.11 on down. Stupid Microsoft...

Try using the REMOTE command, or run a telnet server on your NT box.

Oh hang on a minute... you're talking about being "Screwed under 95 onwards", and about running on "Win3.11". You seem to be ignoring NT completely.

The best way to do it though is to run Terminal Server.

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra

Why would they do that? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 21:22 · Score: 0

Strategically it would be a bad move. Very few hardcore Linux users will want it anywhere near their machines, and it would make the pointy hairs that much more likely to consider a Linux solution. Especially if they think MS is taking the OS seriously.

"afraid, very afraid"?? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 09:05 · Score: 0

Where does it say that Redmond is "afraid, very afraid"??

Now don't you wish the Unabomber had gotten MS? by CentrX · 1999-05-25 04:30 · Score: 0

Think about it, gotten rid of MS but before that, Microsoft would send their goons out and catch him therefore saving lots of lives because he couldn't bomb anyone else *and* it would have impeded Microsoft. Think about it people, wouldn't you rather have one large, ugly corporation die that many innocent people?
And now they're going to come after me...

--

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson

Illusion: it's redraw speed, not re-render speed by HadMatter · 1999-05-25 03:56 · Score: 2

If I'd installed it first on my main machine, I'd never have noticed. On the old 486 where I install s/w that I need to document for tech support, it's painfully obvious that IE5 looks faster than it really is.

Yes, IE5 is much faster putting something up on the screen when you hit the back button, but if you immediately try to scroll down, there's still a wait. It looks like IE5 caches a bitmap of the last window, and remembers where the hotspots are, but if you want to click on something that is outside the "viewport," you still have to wait for the re-render -- delayed a little more by the re-draw.

That's not faster, that's just craftier. Arguably, with the mix of machines out there it's the right thing to do. Just call it what it is.

Ithink your're missing the point by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 21:00 · Score: 0

To ms, Internet explorer is not a web browser. It's a marketing tool, for many reasons. I'm not going to go through the obvious ones of expanding its user base, but we all know by now how MS has been building a database of people/computers that use their products, and specifically which ones. The windows update, piii id, and the office guid all lend themselves to this conclusion.

MS's stance on Linux is also clear. They are unsure of its power; why not gather intelligence? They probably will, with IE.

Re:Exploder for Linux by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 00:40 · Score: 0

Netscape is kinda big and slow for email. Real men use pine.

Exploder for Linux by shine · 1999-05-24 19:59 · Score: 1

This is good, they need to get some experience under their belt wrting for the next dominant OS. I can't imagine who would use IE though.

Hey, I got GNOME and I think I like it as much as KDE. Now I'm stradlin. But at work I use NT. I want to convince my boss to let me use Linux as a desktop machine but what could replace the OutLook client for email? I use Netscape with my ISP at home, would it work on the network here?

Re:So how will MS handle the EULA on a multiuser O by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 01:58 · Score: 0

"NT is fully multi-user" MY ASS! I have to install ALL apps as the end user in my school's labs (for which I am tech support) or it doesn't run. AutoCAD, Office, etc. ever notice that any changes in office is shared by all users? duh!

Re:Can I get it with... by /dev/niall · 1999-05-25 01:47 · Score: 1

I love those BSoD's, why doesn't linux have any those cute screens?

It does. They're called "oops" and they're black. ;)

--
--

Proves one thing... by Recall · 1999-05-25 01:30 · Score: 1

Microsoft's product development is not market driven nor user influenced.

Love the Full Screen Layout by seppy · 1999-05-24 19:29 · Score: 1

Can't figure out why Netscape didn't adopt the full screen feature that IE had. Hooks into the OS maybe. Anyways, I'd use it. It would be another bloated piece of crap on my hardrive waiting for either Opera, or Gecko to appear in functional varieties at which time it would disappear. Hope opera will support full secreen.

--

Brian Seppanen

Minister of Information and Propaganda
Area 54 The Secret Government Disco Labs Provo

Re:Love the Full Screen Layout by andyf · 1999-05-24 19:36 · Score: 3

Actually, some italian guy wrote a shareware program called FullScreen for Netscape that does just what IE does, plus a little more. It's only for Windows, though, I think.

--

Photos of bits of the past hiding in the present: afiler.com

Re:Open-source? by Ben+Hutchings · 1999-05-24 23:12 · Score: 1

A typical example of broken MS scripts (and I am using IE4!). I can't see any content on the page at all, nor any links to anything of obvious interest.

So how will MS handle the EULA on a multiuser OS? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 21:37 · Score: 1

Since MS has no true multiuser OS (even with NT users do not run apps on the server), I'm curious as to how MS will handle their software license agreement since the one user==one computer assumption forever true in the DOS/Win world goes out the window under Linux. The user may have his own PC, or he may just have an X terminal, but IE need not be installed on either to be able to be run.

new topic? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 01:33 · Score: 0

shhhhhhhhh, stay on topic 8->

Like Win98 Masquerading, Adds Legitimacy... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 20:00 · Score: 2

I would welcome availability of IEx on Linux simply because by doing so they endorse Linux as a legitimate alternative. Certainly helps with the "sales pitch".

A bit like when I read that the Win98 refresh includes a "masquerade" capability: perhaps *that* will force ISPs - be it cable, phone, whatever - to accept the legitimacy of such a configuration in general even though *I* don't expect to ever use the Win98 version of it.

(Course, I'd probably be a tad less enthusiastic about the latter if I was vending WinGate.)

good idea by josepha48 · 1999-05-24 20:03 · Score: 1

I think that it would be a good idea if they wrote a version of internet explorer for Linux. But would anyone use it? I am not sure that they are afraid of Linux to that degree, but with IE and MS Office on Linux M$ would still have its "hold" in the market even if companies did switch OS's. It would or should not be to difficult to port IE from Solaris to Linux.

--

Only 'flamers' flame!

Open-source? by davedavedave · 1999-05-24 19:49 · Score: 0

They may be writing the browser, but will it be open-source? Even if it is, would it be GPL or a more restrictuve license (my money's on the second, or not at all)

--
~ Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity ~

Re:Open-source? by import · 1999-05-24 23:32 · Score: 1

Maybe they'd open-source it to fragment Mozilla development.. Though I've heard that they only have a handful of volunteer coders working on Mozilla.. Hmm.

Re:So how will MS handle the EULA on a multiuser O by spectecjr · 1999-05-24 21:42 · Score: 1

Since MS has no true multiuser OS

Actually, the NT kernel is fully multiuser; as is Win32; it's just that because of compatibility reasons, this functionality is usually hidden (older Win3.1 apps and some Win95 apps make major assumptions that they'll only be running one instance per machine, which causes problems).

Terminal Server is pretty cool. I use it all the time here at work (mainly for development; I do my buddy builds from a remote session, and run my checkin suites that way).

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra

Competition. by Leapfrog · 1999-05-25 02:06 · Score: 1

I, for one, can't wait to see Opera released for Linux. I've used the product under Windows, and it just wipes the floor with IE & NS as far as speed, reliability, and memory footprint.

Of course, it won't be free, which might turn off a lot of open source fanatics. but you can bet IE won't be free (free like speech, not like beer), either. I remember seeing IE for Solaris crash more than a few IPC's in my day.. Hopefully Opera and TrollTech (who's actually doing the port) know what they're doing.

If they do a decent job with it, I'll shell out the $35 for Opera.

I would (for testing) by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-24 19:54 · Score: 0

Our stuff needs to work with both Netscape
and Microsoft browsers. If I had IE for
Linux I wouldn't have to go over to the
marketing guy's PC and ask him to see if my
pages are screwed up under IE. I'd still
stick with NN 3.0 for day-to-day browsing.

-- cary

Re:I would (for testing) by dattaway · 1999-05-24 21:38 · Score: 3

I have had issues with Netscape 4.x being stable before, but have had no problems with it in the Redhat 6.0 distro. The problem with severe memory leaks and random crashing and on certain pages appears to have vanished. I only restarted netscape a few days ago when I accidently killed the window with Alt-W (I frequently have dozens of browser windows open.)

Would I test Microsoft's browser? No Thanks, I would never trust a code base like that on my computer. I don't want something reading my /etc or /home or whatever back to the parent company to see what competitor's products I have. Its a matter of trust and Microsoft does not have it. Not only that, I don't want to get comfortable with such a product to only get "locked in" to the standards they promote. Active-X? No Thanks!

Regardless of my lack of problems, I hope to have a GPL'd browser soon. It would be nice to swap code with a browser and build something on a whim.

Freshmeat and Linux by Dictator+For+Life · 1999-05-24 23:13 · Score: 1

I have never had a problem with Freshmeat crashing Netscape, and I go there at least two or three times every day. The one "problem" with it is that Freshmeat takes a little while to render. On a P-120, it requires 2-3 seconds of 100% CPU before any of the page displays -- and this is *after* downloading the whole thing.

--

DFL

Never send a human to do a machine's job.

IE for Solaris by shani · 1999-05-24 19:36 · Score: 4

I downloaded it. It is large, slow, and extremely crash-prone. On the other hand, it did consume all available memory (I can't run both Outlook and Explorer on my desktop, since I only have a measly 64 Mbyte of RAM.)

It is, unfortunately, a fairly typical Microsoft product. In Windows, IE is better than Netscape (by which I mean it's faster, uses less memory, and crashes less often), because they really need for it to be, and because they can get in bed with the OS. In Solaris, they don't seem to care. It is actually bad enough to make me wonder why they bothered.

Re:IE for Solaris by phazer · 1999-05-25 09:07 · Score: 1

you should try a trueType font server..
i use xfstt with the windows fonts..

-phazer

If it's free (beer), it probably won't matter by Stephen+Williams · 1999-05-24 21:43 · Score: 1

ISTR that pre-integration versions of IE were available for free download. This is one way that MS managed to gain increased market share over Netscape, which was payware at the time.

I suspect that a hypothetical future version of IE for Linux would be freeware "for non-commercial use", in line with the versions for HP-UX, Solaris and Windows. Provided you're not charging for using it, you'll be free to install one copy of IE on your server and all your users will get unlimited access.

(donn't forget that this is speculation about a product which doesn't exist and may never exist)

read this article by geocajun · 1999-05-25 05:33 · Score: 1

Illiad from userfriendly wrote an article that I think describes what MS is doing very well. Read it here

Re:WAIT! M$ = Anti-Linux... by fornix · 1999-05-24 23:27 · Score: 1

So they're Anti-Linux, yet developing software for it.

Ah, the Zen of Microsoft. One can never completely comprehend it.

The Macintosh platform: M$ developed for it and at the same time tried to kill it.

Me thinks it is part of a strategy to kill off interest in Mozilla.

X-Windows? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-05-25 17:15 · Score: 0

What is X-Windows? You would think the trademark holder of Windows wouldn't even want people to be confused and would use the correct name.. the X Window System or X11 or just X. ;-)

The Borg's Prime Directive by The+Silicon+Sorceror · 1999-05-25 04:37 · Score: 2

Microsoft has one purpose statement: _MAKE MONEY_. All their actions are just logical extensions of this goal (combined with a few shady morals). Microsoft doesn't really have anything against Linux, but they want to destroy it because the Open Source movement is threatening their market. If destroying Linux will lead to more M$ capital, so be it.
I think that, yes, MS will begin pushing their own applications for Linux. They know they can't destroy it - it's too big, too late. What they can do is edge out their competition in this fresh playing field. Ever hear of FUD? As long as a similar Microsoft product is in the works, some of the people (all of the time) will forego buying a competitor's product. After all, you never know when They are going to fall under the shadow of the Giant.
An anti-Linux team may not really translate to getting rid of Linux - it may mean USING it instead. There's a huge, glorious, new market there - can you really picture M$ not getting their fingers into this pie somehow? Get ready to see "NT Server for Linux" on the next round of shiny brochures!
It would be interesting to see the correspondence between the anti-Linux team and the team porting IE.
Wouldn't it be _interesting_ to see the source code of IE for Linux? Keep a sharp eye on your filesystem if you ever install it. Remember, M$ has done twisty little things before (see " Inside the Windows 95 Registration Wizard").

--

~ Give me 101 plastic soldiers, and I will conquer the world.

WAIT! M$ = Anti-Linux... by Mickey+Jameson · 1999-05-24 22:22 · Score: 2

Just a week or two ago, wasn't it announced that Micro$oft was starting up an Anti-Linux group?
So they're Anti-Linux, yet developing software for it. Hence, users should be quite wary about this.
They never cease to amaze me.

Er... yeah, but who'd use it? by Halster · 1999-05-25 04:38 · Score: 0

Isn't this like someone trying to give away whaling harpoons to Greenpeace!!??

I mean, the Linux community, I feel, wouldn't be very supportive of Microsoft products!

Who needs another bloated browser anyway?

--

"How much truth can advertising buy?" - iNsuRge - AK47

Slashdot Mirror

MS writing Internet Explorer for Linux?

358 comments