Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Internet Explorer 7 on Linux

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the fun-and-exciting dept.

Internet Explorer 234

An anonymous reader writes to mention WebExpose is running a quick guide to get Internet Explorer 7.0 running on Linux. From the article: "Microsoft conditional comments do work, unlike the standalone version of IE on Windows, so you will be able to develop and test webpages across almost all major browsers (IE 5-7, Firefox, Opera) on one Linux box! Also note that we will avoid Microsoft's Genuine Advantage download validation checks, so pure-Linux users will be able to finish the process without having to find a genuine Windows machine to download the IE7 setup file (the check is avoided legitimately, by the way)."

cancel ×

234 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Alpa PNG in other IEs? (4, Interesting)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515154)

One of the problems I've had running IE6 through WINE (not through ies4linux, just a stock Crossover install) is that the filter-based workarounds to trick IE5.5 and IE6 into displaying alpha-transparent PNG images correctly just doesn't work. IIRC, it's because those methods force IE to display the image through an ActiveX control which isn't present on Linux systems. It replaces the image with a blank one, but doesn't display the alpha-blended background.

This shouldn't be an issue with IE7, but it does make it difficult to test layouts that use alpha PNG and rely on the IE6 workaround.

It's good to know that they've got conditional comments working, though. That's always been the trick with running multiple IEs on Windows. You have to tweak the registry, or else each IE engine will parse them as if it were the most recent one installed on the system.

Re:Alpa PNG in other IEs? (1, Informative)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515572)

It's a known bug with IE5/6 that they don't display PNG images correctly. I'd found the info on this page [positioniseverything.net] to be useful in regards to CSS hacks. You might need to use conditional comments to point to a non-PNG image. Gotta love Microsoft standards compliance.

Re:Alpa PNG in other IEs? (3, Informative)

tehwebguy (860335) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515612)

He realizes this, he is saying that the workarounds that generally DO work in IE don't seem to when run under WINE:

the filter-based workarounds
to trick IE5.5 and IE6 into displaying alpha-transparent PNG images correctly just doesn't work/strong

Re:Alpa PNG in other IEs? (2, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515710)

I guess his comment was transparent enough for me to understand. :)

Re:Alpa PNG in other IEs? (4, Informative)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515902)

There are ways to force IE 5.5 and IE 6 to display a PNG through another image library which does handle alpha transparency correctly. The one I usually use is PNG Behavior [eae.net] , because it's unobtrusive -- the only change it requires is assigning a class to alpha PNGs and adding one proprietary CSS rule.

Basically, it replaces the image with a blank one, then loads a filter which displays the actual image in the background. Since the filter can display alpha transparency, you get an alpha-blended image. This works on native installations of IE 5.5 and IE6. On WINE, though, the filter doesn't work, so all it succeeds in is replacing the image with a blank.

(Oddly, I found the same thing happening to the stand-alone copies of IE on my Windows box when I upgraded from the IE7 release candidate to the final version. It prompted me to finally set up VirtualPC.)

Re:Alpa PNG in other IEs? (1)

gerrysteele (927030) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515718)

Yea the png transparency thing is kinda important when testing IE7.... VMware or similar is prob the best way to go.

Just use a VM (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17515206)

I only test on the actual OS it will be running on. Even the summary mentions different behaviour on Linux. Sheesh, I would never trust that setup.

I use VMware or similar to run on the target OS. It's the only way to be sure it will work as intended.

Re:Just use a VM (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17515628)

I use VMware or similar to run on the target OS. It's the only way to be sure it will work as intended.

Sheesh, man, are you living behind the moon? Don't you know that we Slashfaggers hate VMware because it is an actually working roduct instead of being a broken piece of opensores-crap like Wine? The Wine-emulator* is Free as in Useless and Free as in Free Bareback Homosex, which is just the thing we like doing so much.

* Smartass-bait

Re:Just use a VM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17515744)

That's a great idea. At least until you realize that virtual machine software like VMware, Bochs or QEMU in no way guarantees that the video output you're shown will actually match what you'd see when running the operating system directly on physical hardware. So even when using VM software it's more than possible for the graphics you're shown to differ in many ways from what'd be displayed on real hardware.

Re:Just use a VM (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17515802)

No different than differences in the "real hardware". You think all video cards use the same driver?

Plus you're only talking about the raw video rendering. With WINE you have to deal with a lot more issues than that.

Re:Just use a VM (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515850)

At least until you realize that virtual machine software like VMware, Bochs or QEMU in no way guarantees that the video output you're shown will actually match what you'd see when running the operating system directly on physical hardware.
I can't tell the difference under vmware (I haven't uses Boches or QEMU in ages).
So even when using VM software it's more than possible for the graphics you're shown to differ in many ways from what'd be displayed on real hardware.
It's theoretically possible but very unlikely.

Re:Just use a VM (2, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17516718)

Virtual machines expose a simple framebuffer interface (typically VESA) to the OS. What you see is exactly what the OS would output on a VESA display. WINE, on the other hand, re-implements the whole GDI. It may have slightly different rule for drawing lines that aren't perfectly pixel-aligned, handle font-substitution differently, etc.

Re:Just use a VM (1)

Vengeance_au (318990) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515868)

Ditto here - for the same reasons. The IE under Mac has official releases have a whole bag of different behaviours than IE under Win, and this method of using IE under Linux suffers the same fate. I've got VM's set up with Win 2k --> Vista, Mac and Linux - each running multiple browsers. I generally only debug using Firefox during development (Firebug ROCKS!) but run the site through the gauntlet before moving it up to production.

The other significant advantage of VMware is my 'development servers' live on my local pc, are an exact mirror of my production environment. No more discovering issues with code that works on one OS/software deployment and does not work under another.

Re:Just use a VM (1)

great throwdini (118430) | more than 7 years ago | (#17516518)

The IE under Mac has official releases have a whole bag of different behaviours than IE under Win, and this method of using IE under Linux suffers the same fate.

The fate may appear similar in some regards, but the underlying reasons are not the same.

Internet Explorer for Macintosh doesn't share a codebase with Internet Explorer for Windows, and so, it's unsurprising that behaviors would differ. Running Internet Explorer atop Linux may expose behavior differences compared to Windows despite shared executable content for reasons that are entirely "other".

Re:Just use a VM (2, Funny)

Thuktun (221615) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515876)

It's the only way to be sure
Nuke it from orbit?

Re:Just use a VM (1)

vought (160908) | more than 7 years ago | (#17516164)

No kidding. What's the problem with using a Mac running Parallels? You can install and use all three major OSs (and various flavors of each) running at native speed without undue hackery.

Nope, nuke it from orbit (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 7 years ago | (#17516500)

That's the only way to be sure.

I have a much easier way (-1, Troll)

macadamia_harold (947445) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515224)

WebExpose is running a quick guide to get Internet Explorer 7.0 running on Linux.

step 1: rm -Rf / step 2: install windows

Re:I have a much easier way (-1, Flamebait)

rhavenn (97211) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515282)

step 1: rm -Rf / step 2: install windows

step 3: Realize your productivity went out the window with Windows. step 4: Install FreeBSD.

Re:I have a much easier way (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515382)

step 1: rm -Rf / step 2: install windows
Step 1 would fail after reaching a specific library.

Also, where have you been this past decade? You can use something like VMware server [vmware.com] to run Windows if you really need to.

Re:I have a much easier way (1)

rhavenn (97211) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515468)

Step 1 would fail after reaching a specific library.

No, it doesn't. I've done it on old BSD servers. The shell is loaded in memory and the rm command is part of the shell. It does exactly what you tell it to :) Of course, as soon as you try and do anything after it's done running you're toast.

Re:I have a much easier way (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515558)

The article is about running IE7 on Linux, not *BSD.

From my Linux box:


morgan@myhost:/usr/include$ which rm /bin/rm


Now, whether or not the rm command would fail once, say, glibc was removed would depend on the particular setup.

Re:I have a much easier way (1)

dknj (441802) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515716)

welcome to the world of dynamic loading libraries. crash course time;
1) shell tells os to execute /bin/rm.
2) os notices /bin/rm relies upon /lib/libc.so (among others), loads dependant libraries, links them at runtime and continues to execute /bin/rm
3) /bin/rm removes all files, including /lib/libc.so and /bin/rm (remember they are run from memory not disk.. See How Operating Systems Work 101)
4) you are greeted with a prompt
5) the system hoses itself shortly after*

* - the system can actually hose itself during a race condition while /bin/rm is running. say a kernel thread attempts to access a dependant (non-opened) file that was erased by /bin/rm, etc. best to do rm -rf / while running in single user mode

actually.. (1)

dknj (441802) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515866)

/bin/rm should be statically linked effectively killing step 2, but the above method is still possible if its not a static binary.

Re:I have a much easier way (4, Insightful)

AJWM (19027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515998)

3) /bin/rm removes all files, including /lib/libc.so and /bin/rm (remember they are run from memory not disk..

Yes on one, irrelevant on two.

The 'rm' just decrements the link count to the file. As long as a process (any process) still has an open file descriptor for that file, the file is in fact still there. It only really disappears when the link count is zero and no processes still have the file open. True for all 'nixes, AFAIK.

(You probably know this, other readers may not.)

Re:I have a much easier way (1)

lahvak (69490) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515734)

From my Linux box:

morgan@myhost:/usr/include$ which rm /bin/rm


And your point is? What does that have to do with anything?

Now, whether or not the rm command would fail once, say, glibc was removed would depend on the particular setup.

After rm starts, it and all libraries it needs, including glibc, are loaded into memory. It does not matter what you do to the files on the disk at that moment. In this aspect, there is no difference between BSD and Linux, no matter what your "setup" is.

Re:I have a much easier way (1)

Nasarius (593729) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515736)

Now, whether or not the rm command would fail once, say, glibc was removed would depend on the particular setup.
1) rm and everything else in /bin should be statically linked, so this is irrelevant.
2) One of the greatest features of *nix filesystems is that libraries that are in use can be replaced. As long as some program is still using the inode, the data won't be removed, just effectively invisible to anything that doesn't already have it open. Once the refcount reaches zero, it's removed. That's how rm could delete itself.

Re:I have a much easier way (1)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515896)

1) rm and everything else in /bin should be statically linked, so this is irrelevant.

On Linux? No.

Even on *BSD, isn't that /sbin?

Re:I have a much easier way (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515984)

1) rm and everything else in /bin should be statically linked, so this is irrelevant.
ash-fox@Tapestry:~$ ldd /bin/rm
                linux-gate.so.1 => (0xffffe000)
                libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6 (0xb7dfb000) /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0xb7f4c000)
ash-fox@Tapestry:~$
2) One of the greatest features of *nix filesystems is that libraries that are in use can be replaced. As long as some program is still using the inode, the data won't be removed, just effectively invisible to anything that doesn't already have it open. Once the refcount reaches zero, it's removed. That's how rm could delete itself.
I have actually done 'rm -rf /' once, it fails when some library (I'm guessing libc, I don't remember) is removed.

Re:I have a much easier way (1)

Nasarius (593729) | more than 7 years ago | (#17516198)

I have actually done 'rm -rf /' once, it fails when some library (I'm guessing libc, I don't remember) is removed.
Well, I just tried it with a VM running reiserfs on a 2.6 kernel. It left behind /dev and its contents, plus the /proc and /sys directories, but otherwise there were no catastrophic errors and everything is gone. Time to revert...

Re:I have a much easier way (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17515404)

step 1: rm -Rf / step 2: install windows

That's so cool. But you left out the real problem:
How to get Windows to run long enough to view a web site?

Re:I have a much easier way (5, Funny)

dreamlax (981973) | more than 7 years ago | (#17516020)

step 1: rm -Rf / step 2: install windows

That's so cool. But you left out the real problem: How to get Windows to run long enough to view a web site?

You have to download it and save it locally while still running *nix, burn it to a CD with mkisofs -R -J . . .| cdrecord, then rm -Rf / then install Windows (might have to wait overnight for it to finish). Once installed, disable all network adaptors, physically remove any CAT 5/6 cables just in case, then boot into Safe Mode, and view it from the CD. You should have about 4 minutes before you get the W32.Blaster worm.

Re:I have a much easier way (1)

517714 (762276) | more than 7 years ago | (#17516212)

Four Minutes! You must have a low speed connection.

Re:I have a much easier way (1)

gerrysteele (927030) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515816)

Step 1 is redundant. Kinda like you

Woot! (4, Funny)

Maliron (1026708) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515242)

This is awesome! Now if we can only get people coding html in Winblows to test their pages on firefox we'll be in business!

first download wine (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17515254)

....not exactly groundbreaking stuff

Can I ask an obvious question without being flamed (4, Insightful)

djh101010 (656795) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515292)

Seriously. WHY? Why would I want to do that? What is so compelling about IE7 that I'd want to go through any effort at all? I'm using Firefox 2.0something, it meets my needs. If I were to jump through hoops to install this on my linux box, what would that get for me?

Jokes aside here guys, but what's the point?

Re:Can I ask an obvious question without being fla (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17515360)

For web developers to test out their sites.

Re:Can I ask an obvious question without being fla (1)

spaceyhackerlady (462530) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515894)

In Soviet Russia sites test YOU!

Seriously, though, if I want IE7 or anything else to do with Windows, I use VMware on my Linux box. Works like a charm.

...laura

Re:Can I ask an obvious question without being fla (1)

Curtman (556920) | more than 7 years ago | (#17516230)

if I want IE7 or anything else to do with Windows, I use VMware on my Linux box

That's fine for you, but my dad was very frustrated with Ubuntu when I installed it on his PC because I was sick of having to go and de-spyware his computer every couple of weeks. Somehow he had a problem operating the useragent switcher extension for Firefox, and in the case of his online banking the useragent switcher didn't work. So now he has an IE icon on his Edgy desktop, and he can do his banking at home. Firefox gets used for everything else. I would never suggest to him that we should put VMWare on his computer and boot up windows every time he wants to pay a bill.

Being able to run IE under Linux means that Microsoft has lost at least one user that I know of. I would guess many many more.

Re:Can I ask an obvious question without being fla (2, Interesting)

Hotawa Hawk-eye (976755) | more than 7 years ago | (#17516476)

The important question is, why doesn't his online banking site work in Firefox? Have you contacted the bank to ask them when (not if) they'll support Firefox?

Re:Can I ask an obvious question without being fla (5, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515378)

What is so compelling about IE7 that I'd want to go through any effort at all? I'm using Firefox 2.0something, it meets my needs. If I were to jump through hoops to install this on my linux box, what would that get for me?

Assuming you, like half of the people here, end up doing some Web development at some point, you get the ability to test those pages in IE7, which has about 50% of the market right now. Being able to do that without having to buy a copy of Windows is a pretty big deal to a lot of people.

Just buy another box... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17515600)

they're only a couple of hundred bucks for a basic home edition Windows box...you don't need much just to run IE7.

And if a couple of hundred bucks is too steep for you, especially as a web developer,....nevermind, I won't go there.

Re:Just buy another box... (1)

sgholt (973993) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515898)

Oh come on go there!...lame argument from someone who can't possibly be a web developer...and if by some chance he is a web developer, he must not be very good at it. Once you get better at your job you might be able to afford the right tools for your job.

Re:Can I ask an obvious question without being fla (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17515948)

IE7, which has about 50% of the market right now
Source? I'm personally seeing barely 20% of the IE users on my website using IE7 (so that's less than 15% of all visitors). IE7 uptake has been surprisingly slow. I wonder how much of that is due to WGA...

Re:Can I ask an obvious question without being fla (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515380)

I guess so you can pretend you care that your website works for a massive number of all website visitors. But then, it's utterly worthless for anyone who isn't a developer. Before you say "If it works in Firefox it probably at least half works in IE7" try using /.'s "New Discussion System" in IE7. Completely sporked, seriously.

Re:Can I ask an obvious question without being fla (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17515560)

Or IE6 for that matter... and wow, did I get crapped on in trying to point out a bug about it. So who knows when / if it will be fixed (I stopped caring about it at that point, so maybe it's improved)

Re:Can I ask an obvious question without being fla (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17515940)

Or the version of Konqueror I have at work.

You can even get an obvious answer! (4, Interesting)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515394)

From the article summary:

you will be able to develop and test webpages across almost all major browsers (IE 5-7, Firefox, Opera) on one Linux box!

If you do your main development on a Linux box, and want to test minor changes in IE as you make them (major changes and final testing should still be done on a native system if possible), it's a lot more convenient to fire up a copy of IE in WINE than to move over to another box or reboot into Windows.

Re:You can even get an obvious answer! (4, Interesting)

djh101010 (656795) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515698)

If you do your main development on a Linux box, and want to test minor changes in IE as you make them (major changes and final testing should still be done on a native system if possible), it's a lot more convenient to fire up a copy of IE in WINE than to move over to another box or reboot into Windows.
OK, right, I see that, but - how much confidence are you _really_ going to have in an artificially constructed pretty-good-emulation running a Windows binary under Linux? I mean, fine for "does it look OK", but to really validate, I think anything other than the real thing running on the real thing, is iffy at best. In the QA environments I've set up, we had a stable of systems in our QA lab, initially each with a different version of 'doze and IE on them. Later, we went to a vmware setup with virtual machines running the OS and browser to be tested, all repeatable golden clean builds and so on. If it were up to me to design something, I'd rather go with a vmware solution and different OS images to boot into.

But, I suppose, if it's just to keep on eye on the site as you go along, fine. So is IE7 really _that_ broken that this is needed? Again not trying to flame, it just boggles the fark out of me that they're still doing that.

Re:You can even get an obvious answer! (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 7 years ago | (#17516320)

Virtual manager might be a silution. No need to run under WINE. No need for another box.

Re:Can I ask an obvious question without being fla (1)

thePig (964303) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515416)

If one person is creating a web site, he might want to make sure it works in the primary browser (by usage) in the world.
He shouldn't have to buy a windows OS just for that purpose.

Re:Can I ask an obvious question without being fla (1)

Beer_Smurf (700116) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515694)

Why do you think that M$ gives IE away then?

Re:Can I ask an obvious question without being fla (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 7 years ago | (#17516042)

They do NOT give IE for Linux/FreeBSD.

Re:Can I ask an obvious question without being fla (1)

njko (586450) | more than 7 years ago | (#17516152)

IE7 isn't the primary browser by usage in the world.

Re:Can I ask an obvious question without being fla (1)

jimlintott (317783) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515432)

If your needs are to test web sites you design and build on as many different browsers you can get hold of, then you just might want this.

I just browse, so, like you, I just use FF.

Re:Can I ask an obvious question without being fla (3, Informative)

compro01 (777531) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515448)

1. web testing to make sure your pages work in IE (this is questionable as the article mentions different behavior"

2. accessing idiotically designed websites that require Internet explorer to access (with no good reason why they need it. i know of a few that work perfectly fine if you trick them into thinking it is IE, but otherwise they won't let you in.)

Re:Can I ask an obvious question without being fla (1)

FatMacDaddy (878246) | more than 7 years ago | (#17516600)

It's been quite a while since I encountered a site that required IE, but back when they were more common I was always able to access them by having Opera identify itself as IE. It sounds like that's more of a common experience than I knew.

Re:Can I ask an obvious question without being fla (1)

mgpeter (132079) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515450)

Web developers should love this. A single box that you can test your web sites with just about every Internet Explorer version in use today.

Granted most technical people use Firefox, but the world is full of un-informed users that use IE because it was pre-installed on their computer when they bought it.

Some websites still only work in IE (3, Insightful)

CheddarHead (811916) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515480)

As well as the development reasons noted above, there are still some websites that only work correctly in IE. I normally use Firefox, but occasionally I need to switch to IE to get a website to work. Now if I don't care that much, I don't bother, but if you really want something (info, a product whatever) from these sites you pretty much need to have IE available.

Re:Some websites still only work in IE (1)

djh101010 (656795) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515766)

As well as the development reasons noted above, there are still some websites that only work correctly in IE. I normally use Firefox, but occasionally I need to switch to IE to get a website to work. Now if I don't care that much, I don't bother, but if you really want something (info, a product whatever) from these sites you pretty much need to have IE available.


Good point. My employer's timesheet website for instance. I use IE for that and one other poorly written app (the trouble ticket system, as it happens). Everything else plays fine. OK I can see the "b0rken website you have to use" purpose then, thanks.

Re:Some websites still only work in IE (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#17516130)

If a vendor only supports IE I never purchase from them. 99% of the time I'm sure the exact same product is available from a vendor that doesn't cripple their site. Since I'm a Mac user only supporting IE is like telling me they don't want my business.

The answer is simple... (1)

KalvinB (205500) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515516)

Developers, developers, developers!

A large chunk of people still use IE so sites have to work for IE.

Great question (3, Interesting)

tacokill (531275) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515604)

Great question. Seriously.

Before you flame me into oblivion, tell me what I miss with IE7 when I already run Windows + Firefox 2.0. I ask in all honesty. Let's just say I have some legit XP machines and I have "friends" with illegitimate XP machines that won't bother with WGA as they know they'll fail. They'll happily go on downloading security updates but don't bother with IE7, Media player 10, etc.
So what.
Their computers run fine and they seem to be able to do everything that everybody else does - play movies, pictures, music, etc, etc

So in this case, what does IE7 get for people over the ones who are forever doomed to Firefox 2.0 and IE6? What are the benefits?

C'mon IE7 supporters, this is a lay-up. Lay it out for me...

Re:Great question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17516652)

Before you flame me into oblivion, tell me what I miss with IE7 when I already run Windows + Firefox 2.0.
ActiveX. It's all exciting because it's like active and stuff.

Re:Can I ask an obvious question without being fla (1)

ettlz (639203) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515738)

The only reason that matters is BECAUSE WE CAN.

Re:Can I ask an obvious question without being fla (1)

Babillon (928171) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515892)

And of course, you get modded +4 Insightful for being an idiot. Only on /. would we give someone karma for not opening his bloody eyes, and simply spouting off anti-Microsoft bile.

As it's been said a few times, this is for developers (something you would of noticed had you, you know, read the article). Why is this a good thing? Because Mircosoft's browser still has easily over 50% market share, that's why. The thing may suck, but it's still here and we have to deal with it.

Re:Can I ask an obvious question without being fla (1)

djh101010 (656795) | more than 7 years ago | (#17516038)

And of course, you get modded +4 Insightful for being an idiot. Only on /. would we give someone karma for not opening his bloody eyes, and simply spouting off anti-Microsoft bile.

Please show me where in my question I spouted any bile. I asked a straightforward question, and even mentioned I was looking for serious responses, many of which I got. Unlike yours.


As it's been said a few times, this is for developers (something you would of noticed had you, you know, read the article).

And if you had read the thread, you'd see that several people have proposed valid reasons why this setup wouldn't be trusted, at least by them, to validate anything. Again, hence my questions.

Why is this a good thing? Because Mircosoft's browser still has easily over 50% market share, that's why. The thing may suck, but it's still here and we have to deal with it.


That's fine, _really_. But I'm still staying with the thought that using an emulated environment to run a browser to validate a website you're developing, is the _wrong_ reason to do something like this. Accessing b0rken websites that some developer wrote only for IEsomething, yeah, OK. Validation, I don't think so.

So there's a well reasoned, non-ranting response to your post. Where are you going to take it now, I wonder?

Re:Can I ask an obvious question without being fla (1)

Babillon (928171) | more than 7 years ago | (#17516342)

I'm not disagreeing that using the method in the article is completely foolish. In fact, I'm mostly disagreeing with the fact that you got modded up for not reading the article.

Web DEVELOPMENT (2, Informative)

Derivin (635919) | more than 7 years ago | (#17516254)

'so you will be able to develop and test webpages across almost all major browsers (IE 5-7, Firefox, Opera) on one Linux box!'

I want to write a web page and test it on all the browsers.
Currently you cant have IE7 and an earlier IE on the same windows machine.
Here we have 1 machine with all browsers.
Your other options are having multiple machines or not testing.

Re:Web DEVELOPMENT (1)

Stormx2 (1003260) | more than 7 years ago | (#17516352)

Actually you can run IE6 standalone under windows after installing IE7.

Bottommost link [evolt.org]

Very handy really

Re:Can I ask an obvious question without being fla (1)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 7 years ago | (#17516442)

Seriously. WHY? Why would I want to do that? What is so compelling about IE7 that I'd want to go through any effort at all? I'm using Firefox 2.0something, it meets my needs. If I were to jump through hoops to install this on my linux box, what would that get for me?

Why would you want to jump through loops to install IE in Linux? If you're a web developer, designer, or programmer you want to make sure what you create will work in the most popular browser being used. If you don't then you're neglecting a hugh market. That's why. Of course it would be better if you have a Windows machine to test in.

Falcon

The whole reason I run Linux... (-1, Redundant)

Thaidog (235587) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515300)

Is that is does NOT have IE. Why in God's name would I want it?

Re:The whole reason I run Linux... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17515436)

Is that is does NOT have IE. Why in God's name would I want it?

To crash your machine... of course!

Look, son (0, Troll)

MicrosoftRepresentit (1002310) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515488)

Because you're a big gayer and you don't have any friends. Installing IE would at least be a small step to re-integrating yourself with society. Once you're running IE, you can move onto more advanced topics like making eye contact with people and giong outside.

Come on, mod the parent up! (0)

LinuxIsRetarded (995083) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515538)

Hats off to you for the good chuckle!

WMA voided legally? (2, Interesting)

monkeyboythom (796957) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515332)

Well, I guess that is the difference between knowingly voiding the check and stumbling upon the process that voids the WMA check. I wonder which one the lawyers will believe?

To skip having to authenticate your copy of Windows at the Microsoft.com download site (since we're on Linux and don't have Windows...), make use of Google's nicely customised IE7 installer

Re:WMA voided legally? (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515620)

Doesn't matter. The attorney for the Microsoft/Novell Linux patents will be screaming the loudest about violations.

Re:WMA voided legally? (2, Insightful)

finkployd (12902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515836)

That is between Microsoft and Google.

Finkployd

Insanity (4, Insightful)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515340)

I just don't see how anybody can think this is a good idea for debugging websites. If you see problems with a design, how on earth are you going to be able to tell which are caused by bugs in Internet Explorer and which are caused by bugs in WINE? I know Internet Explorer is exceptionally buggy, but in my experience, WINE is a hundred times worse.

If you're going to need to test in Internet Explorer on Linux, then full-machine virtualisation with a genuine copy of Windows is going to be far more reliable than a partial implementation of the Windows libraries. Yes, it uses more resources, but at least it's not likely to make you chase phantom bugs. The article points out that there are already problems with displaying GIFs - how many other problems like this are lurking waiting to be discovered?

This hack is useful if you really need to use an Internet Explorer-only website, but it just seems crazy to think this is useful for debugging websites.

Re:Insanity (3, Interesting)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515644)

I do most of my development on my personal web projects on my Linux box at home. Every once in a while I will fire up the Windows box and test things in IE. But I have a copy of IE6 installed through Crossover Office that I can use to verify that, say, a CSS change I've just made does what I think it does. The main problems I've encountered are fonts and the filter problem I mentioned here [slashdot.org] .

Basically, I use the WINE copy for (pun not intended) sanity checks, and a native copy for serious testing.

Re:Insanity (1)

Stormx2 (1003260) | more than 7 years ago | (#17516086)

Actually, the ies4linux WINE setup is pretty good. I use ies4linux for testing designs, and it's never caused me a blink of trouble. I'm familiar enough with IE6's downsides to know when its an IE6 bug, and when its a WINE bug. 99% of the time, its IE

Re:Insanity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17516144)

> I know Internet Explorer is exceptionally buggy It may sound strange but IE6 is one of the most stable pieces of software I've ever seen. Firefox doesn't even come close.

Re:Insanity (1)

mcpkaaos (449561) | more than 7 years ago | (#17516576)

How many hotfixes, security patches and maintenance releases did it take for IE 6 to get there?

Re:Insanity (1)

stanleypane (729903) | more than 7 years ago | (#17516322)

I have to agree. Emulating IE is never a good idea. It's unpredictable enough without the emulation.

For the mac-centric designer at our small company I setup a spare Dell P3 733MHz with multiple versions of IE, Firefox and Opera fore testing. One of those could be had for about $100 on retrobox. Paired with a KVM, it's much more reliable and not expensive for someone developing websites to afford.

Yes... But... (1)

mynickwastaken (690966) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515496)

Does Internet Explorer run Linux?!

isn't IE7 on Linux kind of like, (5, Funny)

cavehobbit (652751) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515638)

Pat Buchannon humping on Charlize Theron?

Nuts. Now I need brain bleach.
Can't believe I even THOUGHT of that...

Re:isn't IE7 on Linux kind of like, (1)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | more than 7 years ago | (#17516590)

Pat Buchannon humping on Charlize Theron?

Which one?
The Aileen in Monster [imdb.com] Charlize?
or
The Aeon in Æon Flux [imdb.com] Charlize?

This is great, but.... (2, Funny)

gregleimbeck (975759) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515704)

Will my viruses run on Linux too?

Re:This is great, but.... (1)

techamed (1025213) | more than 7 years ago | (#17516348)

troll

ahahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17516658)

you got pissed b/c you like wind0ws :-)

OSS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17515724)

OSS?

I prefer ALSA.

Hyprocrites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17515732)

So only Microsoft is forbidden from making a profit. Apple isn't, Red Hat isn't. Y

Why Ask Why? (1)

themindfantastic (1025938) | more than 7 years ago | (#17515900)

It doesn't matter that its insanely stupid, hasn't any geek here done something just for the ability to BRAG that they did it. Linux is the proverbial platform to accomplish the most insane crap just to prove you could do it. Much like say setting up an old tape drive (Audio Tape not Digital Tape) so you can find a way to first A) Put the entire Debian archive on them, and then B) Reinstall your machine from it. Its stupid is inane and no one in their right mind would ever think about doing shit like this but people do it just to see if ITS POSSIBLE, and the bragging rights to say that THEY DID IT!

Browser stats here? (1)

ogcc (1044542) | more than 7 years ago | (#17516002)

Well, why Slashdot don't provide it's user stats? I would be very nice to see comparison between regged and regular users.

Hooray! (1)

DaveJay (133437) | more than 7 years ago | (#17516026)

Seriously. I do all of my workstuff on Debian Testing, and keep a windows box running next to me for the sole purpose of IE7 testing (I do IE6 testing over terminal server.) This is a good thing, thanks.

Tangent: Safari (2, Interesting)

captainjaroslav (893479) | more than 7 years ago | (#17516040)

I know Slashdotters love Opera, for whatever reason, but I wonder why Safari isn't considered a "major browser" according to the post. There are several different surveys here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_br owsers [wikipedia.org]
and, no matter which one you believe, Safari seems to have a much larger share of the browser market than Opera. I wouldn't say this is so much offtopic as it is tangential, but do as you will and mod away as you see fit.

Re:Tangent: Safari (1)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17516190)

There does seem to be a tendency among some Linux users to look at desktop OSes in terms of Windows and Linux, rather than Windows, Linux/*BSD, and Mac. I suspect it's a holdover from the days when most Linux users were expatriate Windows users, installing Linux on their PCs, and Mac was this other thing that ran on totally different hardware.

As for Safari and Linux, at least you can get a half-way decent approximation with Konqueror. It's far from perfect, of course, since (IIRC) WebKit and KHTML are being developed on two separate tracks that occasionally feed back into one another. Plus there's different fonts, functionality that's outside the rendering engine, and features that rely on Mac system libraries.

I know Slashdotters love Opera, (1)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 7 years ago | (#17516720)

Out of some 80 posts before yours, this is the first one I've seen that even has the word "opera" in it. It's also the firs tyme I saw safari mentioned, so it's 1 for 1 between how many tymes each as been mentioned.

Falcon

1 word from a professional web software developer (3, Interesting)

Qbertino (265505) | more than 7 years ago | (#17516074)

Browsercam. [browsercam.com]

It's a plug, yes. But they deserve it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?