On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 17:02:23 -0700, "John Hokanson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday 22 October 2001 04:07 pm, you wrote: > > On Monday 22 October 2001 05:11 pm, you wrote: > > > On Monday 22 October 2001 02:50 pm, you wrote: > > > > In reply to Eric Baber's words, written Mon, 22 Oct 2001 > > > > 17:07:10 +0100 > > > > > > > > Spoken like a true newbie. Linux and Microsoft do not mix. > > > > > > Could we PLEASE be a little nicer to the poor guy. > > > > > > They *DO* have IE for non-Microsoft operating systems. I believe > > > Sun has a variant, and they were doing one for HP-UX. > > > > Don't forget MacOS and MacOSX. The latter could qualify as a form > > of Unix. > > > > I wonder why MS sees Linux as a threat and not these other Unices. > > I suppose since it can run on the x86? > > I think a better question is, would Linux users even use a MS product, > or would they find it too revolting? > > I personally believe that Microsoft Internet Explorer is the best web > browser out there. > > For any platform. > > Period.
Perhaps if you like the following: 1. The browser is automatically installed and starts up at every boot whether you want it or not (which explains why it seems to load so quickly). 2. When it crashes (which is quite often), the whole OS crashes. 3. It's closed-source, so you have no idea what's going on underneath. For example, the 'snapshot' facility used in the XP products will send whatever is in your memory to Microsoft, even if it is private. 6. You like an inherently insecure application - one which has many well-known exploits which can easily compromise your data and privacy. 5. You don't want to ever use Java. In a move against Sun, Java support has been discontinued in IE6. 6. You don't want to ever use plug-ins. In a move against Netscape and other non-IE based browsers, plug-in support has been discontinued in IE6. 7. You like to use applications designed by a company that doesn't care about the above-mentioned problems, and even denies they exist. Would YOU trust such a company? There are many other things as well, but I think you get my point. > I was watching intently in the mid to late 90s, and I can tell you > right now that MS *DID NOT* attain their position in the browser war > entirely by unscrupulous means. They were well on their way even > before they started bundling it with Win98. MSIE 3.x would tear > anything else apart. And when AOL bought out Netscape, the > writing was on the wall. Hopefully the Mozilla folks can actually turn > things around. There was far more to Microsoft's "unscrupulous means" than simple bundling. A main method used by MS to extinguish competition was through APIs. The APIs designed for third-party apps were (and still are) poorly documented and deliberately crippled in functionality and performance. This made it difficult for companies to code apps efficiently. In some cases, individual third-party apps were targeted by MS engineers in an effort to cripple them. Realplayer, DR-DOS and Lotus 123 are prime examples of this (see my sig). At the same time, MS had their own internal set of APIs, which were _never_ released to the public. These APIs were easier to code for, and provided greater functionality and speed by accessing internal OS components (including the kernel) directly. This, of course, is a major security risk, and largely explains why MS apps are so insecure. It is also the reason why MS apps won't work well under WINE. AOL's purchase of Netscape was a major blow for the company. AOL used MSIE, as part of a Faustian deal to have an AOL icon on the Windows desktop. They had little interest in developing the Netscape browser - they only really wanted Netscape's web services. Hopefully things shall change now that the MS deal was allowed to expire. Mozilla technology is already being used in beta versions of the new Compuserve browser. If things go well, I think AOL would adopt it for their main browser. > MS had the better product. It's as simple as that. MSIE became leaner > and more stable, while Netscape became incresingly more bloated and > buggy. No, it isn't "as simple as that". MSIE didn't become "leaner and more stable", it was just 'assimilated' by Windows so that it looked that way. IE loads up whenever you boot into Windows. When you want to use it, it will pop-up quickly, since it is already in memory. This, combined with MS's use of secret internal APIs, gave MS an unfair advantage over Netscape. When I used to use Windows, I had a utility called 98lite (http://www.98lite.net). It had the capability of 'exorcising' Windows of IE and other bundled apps. The resulting speed and stability boost was amazing. > You'll note that virtually NOBODY on this list has recommended > Netscape as a browser under Linux. They all recommend things like > Ghaleon, Opera, or even Lynx before Netscape. It depends on what you mean by 'Netscape'. Netscape 4 is old and is only maintained by Netscape for bugfixes. It is useful to keep around for compatibility reasons, since most sites out there aren't HTML standards-compliant. Today, I only use it to do my Internet banking. Netscape 6 isn't worth using, because it is based on an old version of Mozilla. Mozilla itself, which is largely developed by Netscape, is shaping up to be a fine browser, but it still has some issues to work out. Nevertheless, it is very usable at present. Galeon, my favourite browser, relies on Mozilla's Gecko rendering engine to display web pages. Gecko is the fastest and best renderer I've ever seen, easily faster than Opera and KDE's KHTML (although those are still very quick). Konqueror is very nice, and it's paned browsing is very useful. Opera is a great browser, but it is closed source and costs money. I have found the banner in the free version to be a little distracting and cluttering, but it is bearable. Lynx and Links (like Lynx, but with table support) are excellent console-based browsers. They give you the raw information on a page, without the unnecessary images. > I personally would not mind a version of MSIE under Linux if it > works as well as it does under Windows. I think the original poster > merely wants to bring ome of the more solid Windows applications > over to help ease his migration. He hardly should be flamed for > that. I think the Windows version of IE is the most horrid thing I've ever seen (see my above points). There is a Solaris version of IE3, but apparently that is not any good at all (perhaps deliberately?). Nevertheless, I have heard many favourable comments regarding IE for MacOS. Because MS don't control MacOS as they do Windows, they are on a level playing field with competitors. Netscape was more firmly entrenched on the Mac (and still are to some degree). Mac users are generally apprehensive when it comes to using MS applications, and they have higher expectations than Windows users when it comes to usability and reliability. Hence, MS had to work extra-hard to win this market over. There were two reasons behind this motivation. Firstly, they wanted leverage over their main desktop rival. Secondly, they were (and still are) trying to convince the courts that they are promoting competition in the OS and application industries. At this stage, I can't image MS ever writing or porting an app for GNU/Linux. The GNU/Linux community as a whole would not accept such applications unless they can be proven to be safe, reliable and standards-compliant. Since MS prefers to be closed (or 'shared') source, this cannot be verified. > - John -- Sridhar Dhanapalan "Windows is not done until Lotus 123 won't run." -- Old Microsoft internal slogan
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
