«

I don't know whether to laugh or cry...
<http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34625>.

On the one hand, it lets Linux do something even Dimdows can't do--run two
versions of Internet Explorer at once.

On the other hand ... INTERNET BLOODY EXPLORER?!?

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote, On 26/09/06 11.54 p:
> I don't know whether to laugh or cry...
> <http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34625>.

Given that a number of large (or important) websites are still broken in
non-IE browsers, it's probably a necessity.

> On the one hand, it lets Linux do something even Dimdows can't do--run two
> versions of Internet Explorer at once.

IE (back to v4) can run in standalone mode on Windows.

-Phil

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> I don't know whether to laugh or cry...
> <http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34625>.
>
> On the one hand, it lets Linux do something even Dimdows can't do--run
> two versions of Internet Explorer at once.
>
> On the other hand ... INTERNET BLOODY EXPLORER?!?

You *can* run multiple versions of IE on Windows. I have a Windows box
that has 5.0 5.5 6.0 and 7.0 running on it. No, you can't use the
regular installers to do it, but it's just a matter of extracting some
files into a directory and then running the exe. No more or less
difficult than installing IEs4Linux.

I also have IEs4Linux running on this particular Linux box I'm sending
this message from.

--
Chris Hope | www.electrictoolbox.com | www.linuxcdmall.com

In article <>, Phil <> wrote:
>Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote, On 26/09/06 11.54 p:
>> I don't know whether to laugh or cry...
>> <http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34625>.
>
>Given that a number of large (or important) websites are still broken in
>non-IE browsers, it's probably a necessity.

The necessity is for the non compliant web sites to upgrade to the standards
That said, many of those supposedly "broken" sites work if the browser
simply lies about what it is.

Well stand up, you'll take the weight off it

Bruce Sinclair wrote, On 27/09/06 11.27 a:
> The necessity is for the non compliant web sites to upgrade to the standards

No browser is 100% standards-compliant.

-Phil

In article <>, Phil <> wrote:
>Bruce Sinclair wrote, On 27/09/06 11.27 a:
>> The necessity is for the non compliant web sites to upgrade to the standards
>
>No browser is 100% standards-compliant.

Um ... there are many that get close to "the" standards. There are few that
get close to all the random extensions added by ... persons that shall
remain nameless trying to make those "standards" 'defaults' to break the
standards that have been agreed.
There is a great deal to recommend using the agreed standards and not
standards that only include them as a subset.

Anyway, my attitude to broken web sites (ie the browser I'm using won't read
it) is to report the brokeness to the site. If they fix it, fine. If they
don't ? ... well ... plenty of other sites