Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

That's only true if IE is open source, which it isn't.


sort by: page size:

IE doesn't need to be open sourced. It needs to be euthanized.

Also, we don't really need the entire application open-sourced. There might be an argument to be made for open sourcing Trident (the rendering engine), but only for the purposes of figuring out what in the hell is happening under the hood that's causing things to work so poorly. If any part of IE were open sourced, I imagine that at least modern versions of it are written on top of .NET which is also open source now, so maybe it would be made to work on multiple platforms? This is a bad thing. As I said before, we need less IE, not more.


For me it has nothing to do with being open source or aligned with the "free" philosophy. I don't like IE because it makes my job harder without any real reason.

Why can't it update automatically and save millions of dollars? Developers cost money and companies have to pay tons of unnecessary hours making a web page work on broken IE renderings.

I would not hate IE, and maybe even use it, if it could update itself without needing it's crap Windows Update thingy.


Agreed. Neglecting issues of open vs. closed source (for whom that matters), the question boils down to "would you refuse to use an arbitrary program because it's named IE". Of course not.

But what about IE?

So it sounds like they are just renaming Internet Explorer. Nothing to see here. What would be compelling is if it was open-source.

Good catch, but not terribly surprising. Developers don't use IE except when they have to test for non-standard behavior. IE hopefully will soon go the way of the dodo - I no longer see any reason for it to exist.

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.


IE only websites was an issue when the engines were closed source and intentionally held back. We're well past that point with modern browser engines.

> There's also the ethos you buy into by supporting IE: you're supporting a closed source, proprietary internet.

By your reasoning, nobody would write an iPhone app either, or anything targeted for a platform other than GNU/Linux.


Modern IE is actually pretty respectable. Its biggest issue is that unlike its competitors, it only works on a single platform.

But if that's the case, isn't that likely because they have internal applications that are IE only? It seems more like a marketing thing--Overcome people's inhibitions by letting them feel like they "only" installed a plugin and are still running IE.

Even Micrsoft doesn't use IE. Their github's screenshot uses Google Chrome... in incognito.

EDIT: I'm actually getting downvoted. This statement is just made in jest people, chill :)


Ah, so IE must implement the experimental version while no one else does?

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.

Indeed they could, I just said that. This lock might force MS to make IE's engine as good as WebKit. I don't see any problem as long as the standards are kept open and the engine doesn't belong to a single entity.

Last time I checked IE was free.

If this were true, wouldn't we all still be using IE?

Thanks for the clarification. I wish I could be as unconcerned, but I remember what IE did to web developers.

It's sad that so much work had to be done by Google to get these standards available to IE users. Had IE been open source, a few patches would have been released to the upstream maintainers, and a fix could have been released years ago.
next

Legal | privacy