IE 6

[Carl Vondrick]

Hi guys,
How can I install IE 6 on k/Ubuntu?

I know, I know -- it's terrible. But I need to test some websites on it,
and I don't feel like installing Windows just for IE support!

Carl
--
Carl Vondrick
Web-Enginner
[url]www.CarlSoft.net[/url]
To contact me, please use my website.

[Misty Smith]

Carl Vondrick wrote:

> Hi guys,
> How can I install IE 6 on k/Ubuntu?
>
> I know, I know -- it's terrible. But I need to test some websites on it,
> and I don't feel like installing Windows just for IE support!
>
> Carl

[url]http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?t=313057[/url]

[Conor]

In article <pan.2006.05.01.21.38.49.585655@home.se>, nobody says...

> Op Mon, 01 May 2006 00:50:57 +0000, schreef Carl Vondrick:
>

> > Hi guys,
> > How can I install IE 6 on k/Ubuntu?
> >
> > I know, I know -- it's terrible. But I need to test some websites on it,
> > and I don't feel like installing Windows just for IE support!
> >
> > Carl

>
> Get CrossOverOffice from Codeweavers. Then download and install IE 6
> directly from within COO.
>

Seconded. Well worth the money. 30 day trial available.


--
Conor,

Same shit, different day.

[Jes Vestervang]

nobody <nobody@home.se> writes:

> Get CrossOverOffice from Codeweavers. Then download and install IE 6
> directly from within COO.

The beta version of wine (>=0.9) runs IE just fine and it's easy to
install using winetools.

Sources can be found using this tool:
<http://www.ubuntulinux.nl/source-o-matic>. I don't remember the exact
lines, sorry.
--
Regards Jes Vestervang

[nobody]

Op Mon, 01 May 2006 00:50:57 +0000, schreef Carl Vondrick:

> Hi guys,
> How can I install IE 6 on k/Ubuntu?
>
> I know, I know -- it's terrible. But I need to test some websites on it,
> and I don't feel like installing Windows just for IE support!
>
> Carl

Get CrossOverOffice from Codeweavers. Then download and install IE 6
directly from within COO.

[Moe Trin]

On Mon, 01 May 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.ubuntu, in article
<RXc5g.71291$H71.19097@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> , Carl Vondrick wrote:

>How can I install IE 6 on k/Ubuntu?

You'll have to use something like CrossOverOffice. M$ did have a version
of Internet Exploiter for *nix, but it was only for Solaris on Sparc
hardware (not the x86 version of Solaris). Solaris IE resembled a well
written Unix application in the same way that a fish resembles a 1961
Pontiac Bonneville 2-door hardtop. If you can believe it, Solaris IE
actually crashed more often than the windoze version. Needless to say,
no one bought that piece of sh!t software, and it disappeared when
microsoft was claiming it to be an essential part of the windoze
operating system in the DOJ unpleasantness.

>I know, I know -- it's terrible. But I need to test some websites on it,
>and I don't feel like installing Windows just for IE support!

The preferred mechanism is to review the code on the website and see that
it follows standards. Testing a website by seeing that it doesn't set the
computer on fire is a little less than perfect.

Old guy

[Baka Dasai]

Carl Vondrick wrote:

> Hi guys,
> How can I install IE 6 on k/Ubuntu?
>
> I know, I know -- it's terrible. But I need to test some websites on it,
> and I don't feel like installing Windows just for IE support!

You could always use Browsershots <http://browsershots.org/>.

Type in your URL and it'll give you back a screenshot of how it looks in IE.
It works well enough, but it's not as convenient as actually having IE
installed in front of you.
--
What was I thinking?

[Lizzeh]

Yes you need standards...you can have a site be valid in all sorts of
ways but look completely different in 2 different browsers.

Moe Trin wrote:

>On Mon, 01 May 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.ubuntu, in article
><RXc5g.71291$H71.19097@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com >, Carl Vondrick wrote:
>
>
>

>>How can I install IE 6 on k/Ubuntu?
>>
>>

>
>You'll have to use something like CrossOverOffice. M$ did have a version
>of Internet Exploiter for *nix, but it was only for Solaris on Sparc
>hardware (not the x86 version of Solaris). Solaris IE resembled a well
>written Unix application in the same way that a fish resembles a 1961
>Pontiac Bonneville 2-door hardtop. If you can believe it, Solaris IE
>actually crashed more often than the windoze version. Needless to say,
>no one bought that piece of sh!t software, and it disappeared when
>microsoft was claiming it to be an essential part of the windoze
>operating system in the DOJ unpleasantness.
>
>
>

>>I know, I know -- it's terrible. But I need to test some websites on it,
>>and I don't feel like installing Windows just for IE support!
>>
>>

>
>The preferred mechanism is to review the code on the website and see that
>it follows standards. Testing a website by seeing that it doesn't set the
>computer on fire is a little less than perfect.
>
> Old guy
>
>

[CBFalconer]

Lizzeh wrote:

>
> Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
> Encoding: 7bit

Please do not use html or mime types in usenet.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>

[Moe Trin]

On Tue, 02 May 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.ubuntu, in article
<bUI5g.4$gq3.0@fe11.lga>, Lizzeh wrote:

>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

[sigh...]

> Moe Trin wrote:

>> Carl Vondrick wrote:

>

>>> I know, I know -- it's terrible. But I need to test some websites on it

>>The preferred mechanism is to review the code on the website and see that
>>it follows standards. Testing a website by seeing that it doesn't set the
>>computer on fire is a little less than perfect.

><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
><html>
><head>
> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
></head>
><body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
>Yes you need standards...you can have a site be valid in all sorts of
>ways but look completely different in 2 different browsers.<br>
><br>

[Rest of the useless HTML deleted]

If the browser is following standards (your's obviously is not because
it's posting this crap in a Usenet newsgroup - which might be a surprise
for you to learn is not some crappy web page), and the web page itself
is following standards, then there won't be problems. The problems occur
when there is a conflict, such as using non-standard character sets,
strange shades of crayon, or using scripting when none is expected.
When I have bothered to look at a page the doesn't work, the nearly
invariable reason is that the page author doesn't understand HTML, and
is going for "it works on _my_ browser" and doing something that would
have Larry Masinter spinning at 7200 RPM.

Personally, I expect a web page to render in lynx, unless it's clearly
a site that needs graphics. I can normally fire up lynx (or the frames
capable 'links') grab the page and find the information I'm looking for
in less time than it takes to boot some all-singing, all-dancing golly-gee
type graphic browser. If the page doesn't render in lynx or links, I'll
usually go elsewhere because the author obviously doesn't want my trade.

Old guy

[Carl Vondrick]

Moe Trin wrote:

> If the browser is following standards Â*(your's obviously is not because
> it's posting this crap in a Usenet newsgroup - which might be a surprise
> for you to learn is not some crappy web page), and the web page itself
> is following standards, then there won't be problem

Standards would have been GREAT for the web, but you must define the
standard *before* releasing the first release. If you try to standardize
an already topic that is branched multiple times, you're going to just
upset a ton of people.

So, let's just revolutionize everything and start again. If we do it now,
we can finally use it in 20 years, if we're lucky!

--
Carl Vondrick
Web-Enginner
[url]www.CarlSoft.net[/url]
To contact me, please use my website.

[Moe Trin]

On Wed, 03 May 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.ubuntu, in article
<SzV5g.66749$F_3.61309@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> , Carl Vondrick wrote:

>Moe Trin wrote:

>> If the browser is following standards <C2><A0>(your's obviously is not

because

Actually, I didn't write that. Your news tool translated a pair of spaces

] If the browser is following standards (your's obviously is not because

into a UTF-8 character which my reader (using ASCII) never heard of. That's
what happens when applications try to improve the viewer's experience by
second-guessing what the author actually coded. Thank you for a perfect
demonstration of the problem..

>Standards would have been GREAT for the web, but you must define the
>standard *before* releasing the first release. If you try to standardize
>an already topic that is branched multiple times, you're going to just
>upset a ton of people.

You mean that the standard wasn't officially published. Yeah, that's
correct - RFC1866 didn't formalize hypertext until November 1995, some
five years afterwards.

1.1. Scope

HTML has been in use by the World-Wide Web (WWW) global information
initiative since 1990. Previously, informal documentation on HTML has
been available from a number of sources on the Internet. This
specification brings together, clarifies, and formalizes a set of
features that roughly corresponds to the capabilities of HTML in
common use prior to June 1994. A number of new features to HTML are
being proposed and experimented in the Internet community.

This document thus defines a HTML 2.0 (to distinguish it from the
previous informal specifications). Future (generally upwardly
compatible) versions of HTML with new features will be released with
higher version numbers.

and by that time, microsoft had decided to improve things (as usual) by
making things incompatible. Actually, I was quite happy using Mosaic,
but when I switched to Linux in 1994, had to switch to lynx.

>So, let's just revolutionize everything and start again. If we do it now,
>we can finally use it in 20 years, if we're lucky!

Well, the web only started about 15 years ago, and this only because a
real problem when everyone decided that they only needed to use one tool
to access this Inter-web thingy. Care to think how long Usenet has been
around, and yet as you demonstrated, there are still compatibly
problems.

Old guy