5 ms·

Not the best moment in MS' history but some of those questions are kinda "low" too: people seriously expecting that there will be IE9 for Linux? Come on, get re

by Tomek_ 16y ago

Not the best moment in MS' history but some of those questions are kinda "low" too: people seriously expecting that there will be IE9 for Linux? Come on, get real!

cryptoz 16y ago
IE is the only (common, useful) browser that doesn't run on Linux. It's not that absurd to hope that future versions might be cross-platform.
- Tomek_ 16y ago
  IE on Linux would only be used by webdesigners (all 17 of them that actually use Linux) to test if a webpage works good in it, a "normal" Linux user would never use it as his default browser, if only because: a) it's not open-source b) it's from that "evil" Microsoft So there's no sense for MS to invest money into that sort of adventure.
  - cryptoz 16y ago
    Microsoft makes gobs of money from ads on Bing searches, just as Google does from Google searches. In the consumer market, Windows share is falling. Google is releasing an OS later this year, Apple's products are obscenely popular. Android is more and more popular every day. People don't care what OS or browser they're running half the time. The thing is that IE is not an option; it can't be bundled on the most popular smartphones, or the most popular tablets because MS won't let it be. I'm not suggesting that Gentoo nerds who write web software are going to care; I am suggesting that MS is losing out badly because of their Windows-only attitude. The future is NOT Windows-only software: the future is cross-platform software. Microsoft is making a big mistake by not allowing anyone to use IE unless they also use Windows.
    - Tomek_ 16y ago
      At no point I wrote that I'm for IE being Windows only. Sure, Mac version would make sense. But a Linux one? Not really.
      - cryptoz 16y ago
        Linux phones are selling faster than Apple phones. Why doesn't it make sense to support the new, popular mobile OS?
  - jacobolus 16y ago
    A lot more than 17 front-end web developers use Linux. Not that I disagree with your broader point.
  - cubicle67 16y ago
    hey! easy on :) I use Linux, but I have clients (one large corporate one in particular) that use IE6. This means I need to test against IE6, 7, 8 and soon 9, all of which require their own separate OS to run in, and each of those OS require (in theory) a licence to be purchased from MS. This means that soon I'll require four Windows licences for an OS I don't use, just to test against each version of IE. All because MS can't make them run side-by-side
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
phaylon 16y ago
Being able to test the browser that is the most "off" when it comes to standards without buying a license of Windows is of course an investment. But the PR would be much better than what happened here.
qjz 16y ago
I don't think anyone seriously expects IE9 to be ported to Linux or even OS X. These questions simply highlight the possibility that Microsoft's strategy of trying to lock users to applications that are locked to the platform could turn out to be a failure. It's another way of saying, "I don't care about Windows, therefore I don't care about IE." This statement seems much more potent today than it was a few years ago.

by Tomek_ 16y ago

Not the best moment in MS' history but some of those questions are kinda "low" too: people seriously expecting that there will be IE9 for Linux? Come on, get real!

cryptoz 16y ago

IE is the only (common, useful) browser that doesn't run on Linux. It's not that absurd to hope that future versions might be cross-platform.

Tomek_ 16y ago
IE on Linux would only be used by webdesigners (all 17 of them that actually use Linux) to test if a webpage works good in it, a "normal" Linux user would never use it as his default browser, if only because: a) it's not open-source b) it's from that "evil" Microsoft So there's no sense for MS to invest money into that sort of adventure.
- cryptoz 16y ago
  Microsoft makes gobs of money from ads on Bing searches, just as Google does from Google searches. In the consumer market, Windows share is falling. Google is releasing an OS later this year, Apple's products are obscenely popular. Android is more and more popular every day. People don't care what OS or browser they're running half the time. The thing is that IE is not an option; it can't be bundled on the most popular smartphones, or the most popular tablets because MS won't let it be. I'm not suggesting that Gentoo nerds who write web software are going to care; I am suggesting that MS is losing out badly because of their Windows-only attitude. The future is NOT Windows-only software: the future is cross-platform software. Microsoft is making a big mistake by not allowing anyone to use IE unless they also use Windows.
  - Tomek_ 16y ago
    At no point I wrote that I'm for IE being Windows only. Sure, Mac version would make sense. But a Linux one? Not really.
    - cryptoz 16y ago
      Linux phones are selling faster than Apple phones. Why doesn't it make sense to support the new, popular mobile OS?
- jacobolus 16y ago
  A lot more than 17 front-end web developers use Linux. Not that I disagree with your broader point.
- cubicle67 16y ago
  hey! easy on :) I use Linux, but I have clients (one large corporate one in particular) that use IE6. This means I need to test against IE6, 7, 8 and soon 9, all of which require their own separate OS to run in, and each of those OS require (in theory) a licence to be purchased from MS. This means that soon I'll require four Windows licences for an OS I don't use, just to test against each version of IE. All because MS can't make them run side-by-side
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

phaylon 16y ago

Being able to test the browser that is the most "off" when it comes to standards without buying a license of Windows is of course an investment. But the PR would be much better than what happened here.

qjz 16y ago

I don't think anyone seriously expects IE9 to be ported to Linux or even OS X. These questions simply highlight the possibility that Microsoft's strategy of trying to lock users to applications that are locked to the platform could turn out to be a failure. It's another way of saying, "I don't care about Windows, therefore I don't care about IE." This statement seems much more potent today than it was a few years ago.