Wrong!
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| mjjohansen Sep 30, 2006 2:24 PM EDT |
What is the deal with this? Not too many years ago, people cared about the importance of using free or at least open source software. Now, it seems that a lot of people are clapping their hands, when they get the opportunity to use closed software on their open systems. It is like the FF-on-Debian issue. Compromise? But why? We would never, never as in NEVER, have the systems we have today with a proprietary model. The corporate effect and the commoditization of Linux has this result - let us chase the proprietary world, since that is where the others are. Acceptable to you? Then, why are you using Linux? I believe in the open model. I believe that is what is making us develop faster, better and more securely. Then why bother being weighted down by proprietary yesterday's news? |
| jimf Sep 30, 2006 2:39 PM EDT |
Well, the moralitity of the thing aside, even the thought of running IE on Linux is lame. The native options are soo much better. |
| dinotrac Sep 30, 2006 2:39 PM EDT |
The deal with this is very simple: If you are a web developer being paid by clients to provide web sites, you MUST test the site with Internet Explorer. There is no ethical option. Running IE on Linux is a lot more palatable than coming up with a WIndows box. |
| jimf Sep 30, 2006 2:51 PM EDT |
> There is not ethical option. True. The truly ethical option is not to support IE at all, but that's too much to ask for those who make a living from support. Starving children and all.. |
| dinotrac Sep 30, 2006 3:17 PM EDT |
jimf -- Not to mention the fact that taking somebody's money implies that you are going to deliver the goods and/or services that they are paying you for. I suspect that most clients, whether they know better or not, presume that a web site will work properly with IE -- and want it to, as that is still the vast majority of users. |
| nalf38 Sep 30, 2006 4:10 PM EDT |
"The corporate effect and the commoditization of Linux" ....is precisely how the Linux kernel got to be so amazingly great. We're lucky to have the contributions of countless open-source friendly corporations like IBM/Novell/Red Hat/Adaptec/Intel/SGI and hordes of others that got 'tit for tat,' as Linus called it; they got to make a little money off Linux, and we got a better (and still free as in speech) kernel out of it. I get a little tired about hearing how 'evil' corporations are, when if it weren't for them, we'd all be stuck with RMS' ancient-and-still-not-working-GNU/Hurd. That said, I don't use IE and never will, but I'm not a web developer whose job might depend on it. |
| herzeleid Sep 30, 2006 9:22 PM EDT |
I think this is a neat hack for those who must test websites with msie - If it were my website, I'd code it to w3c standards, and let the experience be determined by the quality of the users browser. If it doesn't look right in msie, offer a firefox download. But, as mentioned, this tool is much better than having to support a windoze box just for that task. That said, I would use such a tool very sparingly - because I'd much rather be in my own comfortable native linux browsing environment., and the last thing I'd want to do is inflate msie web stats... |
| jimf Sep 30, 2006 9:33 PM EDT |
> I get a little tired about hearing how 'evil' corporations are Well, sorry, but they pretty much are. And RMS is not the only other person that has contributed to Linux. I very much doubt you'd be left with Hurd :D |
| nalf38 Sep 30, 2006 11:16 PM EDT |
jimf--- I don't think I can argue that point. I just think that I've gotten exactly what I expected from the LInux experience, and I hope that the majority of corporations who've contributed to Linux can say the same. I'm not sure people can say the same with Hurd. I suppose if Linux had never happened, the GPL3 argument would be primarily centered around Hurd. |
| mjjohansen Oct 01, 2006 12:21 AM EDT |
""The corporate effect and the commoditization of Linux"
....is precisely how the Linux kernel got to be so amazingly great. We're lucky to have the contributions of countless open-source friendly corporations like IBM/Novell/Red Hat/Adaptec/Intel/SGI and hordes of others that got 'tit for tat,' as Linus called it; they got to make a little money off Linux, and we got a better (and still free as in speech) kernel out of it." I... partially agree, but suspect I did not make my point entirely clear. The companies you mention have contributed to the open source development, and one must respect the contributions made to this process. What concerns me is the kind of eagerness to get the penguin on the desktop that makes people accept all kinds of closed guano on one's Linux box. I don't buy that. |
| Teron Oct 01, 2006 1:59 AM EDT |
:P Even that is a matter of opinion. Do I consider Opera to be guano? No. IE is guano, no matter what way one looks at it - On the ideology side, it comes from Redmond. On the practicality side, it's just shit. But, anyway, I'm not a web dev, so this if of little interest to me. I strive to keep my box clean of IE. (or, in the case of the machine's 'doze side, make accidentally using it as difficult as possible) Opera and Firefox simply are better, both technically and ideology-wise. |
| jdixon Oct 01, 2006 5:59 AM EDT |
> > I get a little tired about hearing how 'evil' corporations are > Well, sorry, but they pretty much are. Not really. Corporations aren't people, and as such can't really be either good or evil. They are simply human creations which can be used for either, pretty much like anything else we make. However, since a corporation is, by definition, created in an attempt to make money for it's owners; there's always the temptation on the part of management to take shortcuts and value money over people. That's largely where the "evil corporation" reputation comes from. It's important to realize that it's actually people doing this hovever, not the corporation. As a perfect example, a complete changeover in management at Microsoft could result in a company which is as FOSS friendly as IBM, rather than the dedicated enemy we have now. |
| jimf Oct 01, 2006 6:15 AM EDT |
> Corporations aren't people Well, legally they are for many purposes. That, and the limited liability aspect make them open to abuse and likely to misbehave. The ability to lobby, and make political contributions assures that they have more than ample means to accomplish evil ends. Note that the ability to lobby was, I believe. a Federal Circuit Court decision and has never been reviewed by the Supreme Court. |
| jdixon Oct 01, 2006 6:23 AM EDT |
> Well, legally they are for many purposes. Yes, but evil is a moral issue, not a legal one. I agree that even giving corporations the legal status of individuals was a mistake though. |
| jimf Oct 01, 2006 6:28 AM EDT |
> a mistake though. What a convent understatement :D |
| hiohoaus Oct 01, 2006 7:16 PM EDT |
The deal? One click is simply more convenient than switching to a 'Doze box to check that your web pages still work in MSIE. Yes, I agree, you shouldn't have to check. Odds of getting MS to come to this party? Zero. Also, MSIE under WINE can be much less destructive when it trips over a black-hat trick, than it would be native. Every MS-Windows populated customer LAN I've lost (bar one) has been virussed into the ground either because someone's MSIE fell into a trap, or because Outlook fell into a trap. The one exception was an evolution-in-action winner shoving a Warez CD into his drive. Killed every 'Doze machine on the LAN within a couple of minutes. It was immune to virus scanners, whatever it was. The Linux boxes on LAN blinked and kept right on working. Glad I didn't have to reinstall them all, but wish I'd been able to charge for doing it (would've amounted to at least AUD$9,000 if they'd had all of the right media and licencing). |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!