Internet Explorer 7 on Linux 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)."
Alpa PNG in other IEs? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Alpa PNG in other IEs? (Score:5, Informative)
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.)
Just use a VM (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
The other significant advantage of VMware is my 'development servers' liv
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because nothing in this posting suggests a Mac at all?
It's nice that that's your solution, but good grief, do the fanboys have to come out at every opportunity to suggest something that's not even being considered in the article?
The article is CLEARLY talking about IE7 on LINUX.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, nuke it from orbit (Score:2)
That's the only way to be sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Mac users are supposed to be homos.
Slashdotters are supposed to be virgins, even though years have passed and lots of people have gotten married and had children, they are still virgins. Maybe Mac slashdotters would be virgin homos.
Woot! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Woot! (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, most of the time I forget to test in IE.
Can I ask an obvious question without being flamed (Score:4, Insightful)
Jokes aside here guys, but what's the point?
Re:Can I ask an obvious question without being fla (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
There are a lot of people who end up doing some casual Web development as a part of their job or hobby. Personally, I do Web development as a minor part of my job and I test with IE7 in a VM. That does not mean everyone who makes Web pages is going to h
Re: (Score:2)
Then I'd bet you'd find that IE hovers around 80%-85% of all browsers.
IE 7 has about 55% of the market according to the best numbers I've seen. It was autoloaded on pretty much all IE6 machines except Win2K and corporate machines that blocked it.
You can even get an obvious answer! (Score:5, Interesting)
From the article summary:
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! (Score:5, Interesting)
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! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can I ask an obvious question without being fla (Score:2)
He shouldn't have to buy a windows OS just for that purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can I ask an obvious question without being fla (Score:2)
I just browse, so, like you, I just use FF.
Re:Can I ask an obvious question without being fla (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
The answer is simple... (Score:2)
A large chunk of people still use IE so sites have to work for IE.
Re: (Score:2)
-uso.
Great question (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Can I ask an obvious question without being fla (Score:2)
Web DEVELOPMENT (Score:2, Informative)
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:Can I ask an obvious question without being fla (Score:2)
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
Re:Can I ask an obvious question without being fla (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 get
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
"You still haven't paid your bill, once you do, we will reconnect."
But I've already told you, I'm just waiting for my bank to support firefox!
(...and in the real world...)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Can I have some of what you're drinking because it is obviously pretty damned strong.
Um, Starbucks "whatever flavor is free" in the machine at work.
Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Washington Mutual... that's just a few of the big-name banks and if you think for a minute that a handful of people asking when they're going to support Firefox is going to cause them to change their sites then you're out of your mind.
You missed my point. In _my_ experience, a call and some polite questioning got me to the right guy. He was aware of the problem, we discussed a few things, and he fixed his site. Direct personal experience, you see, nothing imaginary about it.
I work with all three banks on a daily basis developing direct intergrations in to my company's systems. These companies take 4 - 6 months to add a single new feature to any of their systems.
That may be, I believe, you, I've worked with Wells, Fifth Third, Chase, the other Chase, the other other Chase, and so on. But I'm not saying all banks will change when they're doing somethin
It Butns! (Score:2)
Web developers should not be building their sites so that they "work" in IE. They should be following the proper standards and EXPECTING them to work in IE. After all, what happens when IE gets fixed, and their site no longer "works"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the real world, results are what's cared about, not politics.
Re: (Score:2)
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 vali
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Assume much? I _read_ the article. In my other posts, I pointed out that I don't trust an emulated environment to validate anything and quite honestly, if you do, you're foolish. So how about instead of assuming what I haven't or have read, you address the point of how exactly you feel you can trust a combination of 3 or 4 things which are from different teams, to end up giving you exactly what J. Random User gets on his shiny-new Vista box running IE7? If you're _THAT_ confident in Wine, well, I thi
Re: (Score:2)
WMA voided legally? (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Insanity (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
Basically, I use the WINE copy for (pun not intended) sanity checks, and a native copy for serious testing.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
IE7 on linux might be useful to an end user; they could take advantage of certain compatible features, but end users have different needs than developers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
isn't IE7 on Linux kind of like, (Score:5, Funny)
Nuts. Now I need brain bleach.
Can't believe I even THOUGHT of that...
Re: (Score:2)
Which one?
The Aileen in Monster [imdb.com] Charlize?
or
The Aeon in Æon Flux [imdb.com] Charlize?
Re: (Score:2)
This is great, but.... (Score:2, Funny)
Some of them... (Score:2)
What does come across thoroughly is IE7's inability to use IMG-based form controls. I wonder what security measure trigger that little piece of helpfulness?
Re: (Score:2)
What does come across thoroughly is IE7's inability to use IMG-based form controls
I don't think that's really true -- I presume you're referring to the earlier story IE7 Compatibility a Developer Nightmare [slashdot.org]. I think this comment [slashdot.org] best summarizes the nonsense that was that article.
Hooray! (Score:2)
Tangent: Safari (Score:2, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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 bei
I know Slashdotters love Opera, (Score:2)
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.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
I have to have a whole different computer setup just to test in Safari. That's all it's used for, testing in Safari, and it's a way across the other side of the desk, and it's not plugged in generally because I need the power socket, and it's quite slow (an old iMac), and it's not even up-to-date because major releases of the browser are tied to major releases of
Re: (Score:2)
1 word from a professional web software developer (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a plug, yes. But they deserve it.
Better check the EULA first guys. (Score:4, Informative)
For those who have not read the IE7 EULA:
PLEASE NOTE: Microsoft Corporation (or based on where you live, one of its affiliates) licenses this supplement to you. You may use a copy of this supplement with each validly licensed copy of Microsoft Windows XP SP2 and Windows Server 2003 SP1 software (the "software"). You may not use the supplement if you do not have a license for the software. The license terms for the software apply to your use of this supplement.
So you need to have a licensed copy of WXP or W2K3. Looks a little vaque whether you have to be running under the validly licensed OS, though.
or.... (Score:2, Insightful)
,,,and I still cant get IE7 on Win2000 !!! (Score:3, Interesting)
IE7 is on linux even before it is on Win2000.
Actually, they say it will never come out for win 2000.
Now... can I run a windows simulator inside my windows in order to run these programs MS is specifically blocking from win2000? Such as IE7, windows live writer (a blog editing program), windows live messenger, etc.
activex support (Score:2)
Much faster way (Score:2)
Bad tools (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I use Windows now but because of MS's actions as regarding Activation and WGA I am switching to Macs. Running Windows in a VM would mean I'd still have to deal with what is driving me away from Windows. I'd also have to buy a license for an OS I don't want.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
From my Linux box:
morgan@myhost:/usr/include$ which rm
Now, whether or not the rm command would fail once, say, glibc was removed would depend on the particular setup.
Re: (Score:2)
1) shell tells os to execute
2) os notices
3)
4) you are greeted with a prompt
5) the system hoses itself shortly after*
* - the system can actually hose itself du
actually.. (Score:2)
Re:I have a much easier way (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
morgan@myhost:/usr/include$ which 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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
On Linux? No.
Even on *BSD, isn't that /sbin?
Re:I have a much easier way (Score:4, Interesting)
Some *NIX systems have a directory in the root directory, which contains a set of statically linked utilities that can be used for recovery. On FreeBSD, this is /rescue, which contains statically linked copies of many of the things from /sbin and /bin. If something goes wrong with your linker (or you numpty up and accidentally delete it) then these tools can be very important.
Either way, it dosen't matter. When an executable file is run then all of its libraries are opened, incrementing their reference count, so deleting them will not actually delete them on disk until the program runs and thus it is possible to run 'rm -rf /' and delete every file.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have actually done 'rm -rf /' once, it fails when some library (I'm guessing libc, I don't remember) is removed.
Whichever system you did this on violated the UNIX filesystem semantics. Once a file is opened, it must be available until it is closed. If rm needs a library, then that library will be opened by the loader, which will increment its reference count. Rm will then decrement it, and when rm exits it will be decremented once more, leaving you with an empty disk (it will be removed from the directory during the rm pass, so the disk will appear empty earlier, you just won't be able to overwrite the disk space
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Sorry, your system got a worm. (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry, but (seriously!) your Windows install really did get a worm, 'cause you have to unplug your NIC before installing. On Windows XP, the firewall comes up at ~55 minutes in to the install. Unfortunately, the network systems come up 5 minutes before that, leaving a small (but experimentally viable) window for infection.
I did OS tech support a few years back, and of the hundreds of calls personally had at least one person doing a clean install get hit with Sasser before the OS was even fully on the dis
Re: (Score:2)
Or just use Linux, and you can have reasonable confidence that your site will be functional for every IE you care to try.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
To crash your machine... of course!
Re: (Score:2)