Internet Explorer for UNIX Discontinued
Thursday September 19th, 2002
Gervase Markham writes: "Internet Explorer 5 for HP/UX and Solaris is no longer officially available from Microsoft, according to the IE for Unix front page. The actual download page is still up here, but for how long?
"This is obviously the last nail in the coffin of 'IE's cross-platform support'. Gecko-based browsers are now the only game in town for download-and-install free software on these two platforms."
Though we don't usually post negative articles about rival browsers, this one was too interesting to pass up.
this app never worked quite well. Now the IE for Mac should be next to kill *gg*
"IE for Mac should be next to kill"
Shurely not, Mac IE actually does a fair job with the standards - it's NS4 and PC IE that I'd like to see drop off the web.
#9 page authors...
Thursday September 19th, 2002 11:13 AM
page authors thing, that all IE-Versions are the same and that IE for Unix runs on every Unix. Because of this two points killing every IE version for "alternate systems" helps while arguing against a deny.
> page authors thing, that all IE-Versions are the same
Do they? Amateurs... ;-)
#14 Re: I'm a bit disappointed with the response so fa
Thursday September 19th, 2002 3:50 PM
> Are you sure? Yeah Mac IE may do a fair job with standards but it's so damn buggy.
I've found IE on the Mac to have superior support of CSS than IE on PC. It's not buggy, it's standards compliant! The area I found to be buggy was with it's DOM support.
I don't know about Mozilla on MacOS X, but from my experience with Mozilla for MacOS 9 made me think it's not going to lure any Mac users away from IE in a hurry. It's not well integrated into the OS (no application icon for a start), and it's a lot buggier than the Windows and Linux version.
#17 Re: Re: I'm a bit disappointed with the response s
Thursday September 19th, 2002 8:21 PM
I've had problems with float: right before. When I was working on <http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.0> I had the hardest time getting the dino head to work properly in mac and windows ie. They matched each other with their buggy behavior (The image wasn't actually floating it pushed the other divs to the left of it instead of allowing it to flow nicely underneath)
To fix it I changed something seemingly totally unrelated in the page and it magically fell into place. Can't remember exactly what I changed, but I do remember that it surprized me :)
> Shurely not, Mac IE actually does a fair job with the standards
Are you sure? Yeah Mac IE may do a fair job with standards but it's so damn buggy. Most of the time it totally screws up the layout if it's even showing something. If there was no IE for Mac I could do all pages far more standards compilant depending purely on CSS for layout. But it happens so often with relative and absolute positioning that Mac IE get's confused, it's really difficult. The PC versions of IE all have their problems and behaviours that are against all standards but at least they are fairly stable. If they do something right, they do something right every time, if they do something wrong they always do.
But apart from that I'd be mmmmuuuuccccchhhh happier if there were no IE at all...
Gervase Markham said:
> Gecko-based browsers are now the only game in town for download-and-install free software on these two platforms.
This isn't entirely true. You can download and install Opera for free on many platforms, including Solaris. But it is not available for HP-UX.
I guess Microsoft didn't consider it worthwhile competing against mozilla in the (relatively) tiny market for Solaris/HP browsers.
#18 Re: Makes sense really
Thursday September 19th, 2002 8:36 PM
Maybe they just got frustrated at their inability to "integrate it into the OS" like they're so fond of doing. ;)
> Though we don't usually post negative articles about rival browsers
This isn't a negative article; it's merely reporting some interesting facts. Some people may think it's a good thing. I don't know :-)
#6 Re: Not a "negative article"
Thursday September 19th, 2002 10:28 AM
"> Though we don't usually post negative articles about rival browsers
"This isn't a negative article; it's merely reporting some interesting facts. Some people may think it's a good thing. I don't know :-)"
Some people could see it as schadenfreude. A similar thing would happen if MZ posted news articles about IE security flaws. The site would gradually become less pro-Mozilla and more anti-IE, which IMHO would be a bad thing.
#7 Re: Re: Not a "negative article"
Thursday September 19th, 2002 10:33 AM
To clarify, I particularly thought that the last paragraph of the article ("This is obviously the last nail in the coffin...") could have been seen as anti-IE. That's not to say that I don't agree and think that it's a valid point, just that some people would see it as MZ being excessively negative about IE.
#10 win for everybody
Thursday September 19th, 2002 11:16 AM
> Some people could see it as schadenfreude. I don't think so, this is a win for everybody: - for page authors, that they have one broken browser less to test on - for Microsoft, that they need less work - for Mozilla that it now has one rival less - for the Standards, because there's a broken browser less
#25 Re: Re: Not a "negative article"
Friday September 20th, 2002 8:50 PM
"A similar thing would happen if MZ posted news articles about IE security flaws. The site would gradually become less pro-Mozilla and more anti-IE, which IMHO would be a bad thing."
Experience has shown me that this is more likely to happen when a Mozilla security flaw is exposed.
Since I'm on a Linux box, I just _know_ there's no IE for it and I'm happy with that fact. Really, I didn't care there was a bad port of IE for some *nix and I don't care either that they discontinued it.
#5 Makes Linux IE less likely surely ?
Thursday September 19th, 2002 10:27 AM
The two ports (to Solaris and HP-UX) were dismal, but they did use a Windows <-> UNIX API library (complete with a registry file no less !). This library would have made a port to Linux (yes, a bad port, but a port nonetheless) fairly straightforward. By withdrawing the Solaris and HP-UX ports, they've effectively made the chance of a Linux port of IE near enough to zero as to be impossible.
BTW, can you run Windows IE 6 via Wine on Linux ? If so, can it be run without a Windows partition containing native DLLs being available ? The lack of IE on the Linux desktop is what stops many Web designers from switching to Linux (yes, Mozilla is a better browser, but they need to test on IE as well).
#12 Re: Makes Linux IE less likely surely ?
Thursday September 19th, 2002 3:06 PM
Yes for some reason IE6 runs on Linux using Wine, while some other MS apps do not. You're not going to like this but IE6 under Wine is the fastest browser on my box. I do not know why that is, though.
#19 running ie6 on linux
by narbey3 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Thursday September 19th, 2002 11:14 PM
How does one go about running ie6/wine on linux? what would i need to install?
#27 wine config nothing unusual
Saturday September 21st, 2002 5:03 AM
Using RH7.3, I installed latest wine (I used an rpm, see winehq.org), configure your .wine/config file, I set it to use wine's native "dlls" when available, but I also made a bunch of symlinks to my DOS-WINME partition, as a regular user. Then, without much effort, "wine iexplore" worked. No big deal, but I thought IE6 would be the last thing to work using wine. There's a wine page somewhere at transgaming, I think, with notes on what works using wine.
#21 Re: Re: Makes Linux IE less likely surely ?
Friday September 20th, 2002 5:53 AM
Is IE6 one of their test apps? It would seem to me that the point made above (that IE is necessary for anyone doing web publishing), though I'm not 100% sure I agree with it (even as a web developer), would suggest that IE 6 would be one of the handful of applications folks would most want to run on Wine (the rest being MS Office).
#20 Re: Makes Linux IE less likely surely ?
Friday September 20th, 2002 2:06 AM
It's not the lack of IE that keeps me from changing to Linux desktop, it's the lack of Photoshop for Linux. I rarely test the pages with IE, because after testing them with Mozilla, they usually work like a charm with every browser. Except for NS 4.xx, which some people are still using.
#22 Re: Re: Makes Linux IE less likely surely ?
Friday September 20th, 2002 8:06 AM
> I rarely test the pages with IE, because after testing them with Mozilla, they usually work like a charm with every browser.
Agree but you must always have into mind the lack of fixed positioning support (CSS2) in IE. And quite a few other idiocyncracies (bugs) like the no support of max-width or the flawed calculation of margins.
What it makes IE attractive to developers is, imho, its amazing immunity to html syntax errors. A single html miss-type that might completely break the page in Mozilla, usually causes no harm to IE's rendering. On the other side, of course this is a trap: it's not always as easy to find the error in your html document. So, you might give up with Mozilla and stay with the all-forgiving IE. That's plain wrong if you ask me, but it happens quite often. What MS wants to achieve is clear. Make developers happier by avoiding to apply strict rules on their work. Then, you end up with a html mess but the standards support isn't MS top priority anyway.
> What it makes IE attractive to developers is, imho, its amazing immunity to html syntax errors
To prevent pro-IE people from disputing on the above: I didn't take into acount their market percentage. That's their biggest obvious advantage :(
Who needs Photoshop when you have <a href="<http://www.gimp.org>">The Gimp</a> !
#15 I bet...
Thursday September 19th, 2002 5:25 PM
I bet they just realized no one on Unix was using the damned thing and gave up.
...The rumored IE Linux betas i've been hearing about are off.
The more monolopy the Microsoft get, the better for building cases against Microsoft!!!!!
#30 RE:Re: cant seem to use it :(
Tuesday September 24th, 2002 3:37 PM
What compatibility is missing? It opens and save PhotoShop files fine. You can always use TIFF as an interchange format :)
Plugins are another story, but it's much easier to write them for the GiMP than PhotoShop. I also like the multi-window way of the GiMP and the last PhotoShop I used on Mac much better the the Windoze one app window thing, especially when working on multiple files.