Ballmer "Interested" In Open Source Browser Engine

Da Massive writes "'Why is IE still relevant and why is it worth spending money on rendering engines when there are open source ones available that can respond to changes in Web standards faster?,' asked a young developer to Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer in Sydney yesterday. 'That's cheeky, but a good question, but cheeky,' Ballmer said. Then came the startling revelation that Microsoft may also adopt an open source browser engine. 'Open source is interesting,' he said. 'Apple has embraced Webkit and we may look at that, but we will continue to build extensions for IE 8.'"

Oh No!

Microsoft is going to be infected with the GPL virus!

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/craig/05-03sharedsource.mspx [microsoft.com]

Re:Sig correction

Your argument has two glaring problems. Firstly, government regulation does not equal less competition. In many cases it results in more competition, especially in the case of monopolies and collusion between companies. Secondly, the mafia cannot legally exist because of laws limiting them, in other words, government regulation. Without the most basic regulation, then any business could (and probably would) become like the mafia. Competition would be limited to companies competing to be the most intimidating, and whoever could intimidate enough people into paying them. In a world with excessive government regulation, even the kind that produces less competition, at least the government would be regulating against such behaviour.

In other words, your argument makes no sense.

At least he's honest.

"We will continue to build extensions". That definitely deserves a whatcouldpossiblygowrong tag.

Microsoft will never

Microsoft will never open-source Trident. It'd be like letting the entire world look at your dirty laundry.

Re:At least he's honest.

When their beta product is getting 21/100 on the Acid3 test while nobody else's are below 80, I have a hard time believing anybody would be interested.

Some possible problems, here?

Hasn't IE been a fully integrated part of Windows since, what, all the way back to Windows 98? If they start using some open-source code for their browser, will the architecture of the OS still have IE as such an integral part, or will it become a separate application again? Also, is it really such a good thing to have Micro$oft active in the open-source community? Forgive me, but talk like this makes me a little nervous.

Re:Some possible problems, here?

I just got thinking. So let's say Microsoft doesn't include the new IE in it's next Operating System -- how do you get it?

"Sorry, you do not have Internet Explorer installed. To download, please visit http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/ [microsoft.com]"

Sure, most of us probably have a FF install on a USB key somewhere, but what about the people who just bought their computer from the store? This'll drive them insane just like the "Keyboard error. Press any key to continue" error.

Re:Some possible problems, here?

FTP. No, not a solution for the average user, but on a fresh install of XP, I'll often just ftp Firefox (and then install noscript, abp, flashblock, etc. and restart) in order to download the other stuff I need to keep the computer in a relatively useful state.

Yes, I could use IE and go straight to mozilla.org, but off the bat, it loads msn.com and I have no desire to expose IE7 or worse, IE6, to the mercies of the scripts and ad providers on the page.

P.S. releases.mozilla.org is where you want to go.

Re:Some possible problems, here?

If they start using some open-source code for their browser, will the architecture of the OS still have IE as such an integral part, or will it become a separate application again?

You misunderstand. Ballmer said that they would look into a new rendering engine. Which means that IE will still be IE, just with a new codebase under the hood. After all, 95% of their customer base won't understand the difference. All they'll know is that IE is still part of Windows yet works better than ever.

...

Which Microsoft will then go on to say is an inexorable part of the Operating System. (insert eye roll here)

Re:Some possible problems, here?

Webkit is LGPL. As long as they have the engine separated into the same sort of controls they have today, it should meet the LGPL license just fine. Perhaps with a bit of wrapper code released as LGPL.

3 E's

Embrace
Extend
Enjoy

Reality check?

Yes, I suppose Microsoft might embrace open source. Of course, our politicians might lower taxes too. But Microsoft, like politicians, have a long history of saying one thing and doing another. That, and I'm pretty sure Balmer knows that if he mentions open source he'll get a free plug on Slashdot and on other media sites where highly technical people frequent. From a marketing standpoint, it makes sense to hint at open source as much as possible. From a legal and business standpoint, it's more likely he'll dance around on the stage in a Gir suit while singing the doom song.

I don't know what to make of this

Either Ballmer is throwing out a red herring, or future versions of IE (presumably after 8) will finally be decoupled from Windows.

But, what open source browser engines are there other than Gecko and Webkit? Both are developed by MS' sworn mortal enemies. Browsers are complex, time consuming beasts to develop.

Tags

itsatrapwhatcouldpossiblygowrongembraceextendextinguishrunrunforthehills

chair

"Why is IE still relevant and why is it worth spending money on rendering engines when there are open source ones available that can respond to changes in Web standards faster?"

"That's cheeky, but a good question, but cheeky," Ballmer said.

What the story doesn't mention is that the developer who asked that question was found dead later that day with a folding chair wrapped around his neck.

Yeah, he's interested

He's interested in Open Source in the same way ticks are interested in dogs.

Re:Open Source?

Deliberately fucking up/poisoning what everybody else is doing is the only thing they do well!

Re:How?

Honestly, leaving IE and ActiveX in is half the reason NOT to use Windows. Replacing them with a more secure, stable, standards-compliant browser core? Sounds great. Updating the old junk and pretending it's not five years past its prime on release date? Fail.

Re:How?

I know, but some of the people who are determined to hate Linux or OS X say that their bank, work, school, grandma won't work without Active X or that their bank, work, school, grandma won't render correctly with Firefox/Safari/Chrome.

Re:How?

And really, why use WebKit? Sure, its a decent rendering engine but no better than Gecko or the other OSS rendering engines.

One reason for using WebKit over Gecko would be the licensing...I know that for lots of corporations, BSD-licensing is much favored over anything related to GPL...(Gecko is MPL)

Re:How?

One reason for using WebKit over Gecko would be the licensing...I know that for lots of corporations, BSD-licensing is much favored over anything related to GPL...(Gecko is MPL)

Parts of WebKit are under the LGPL and parts are under a BSD-style license (I don't know which parts and I can't be bothered picking through the source code to find out), Gecko is all MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-licensed. You're going to have to adhere to the conditions of the LGPL if you actually want to use all of WebKit, so what's the difference? Gecko could be said to be better as you get to choose between a library-level or file-level copyleft, since you only have to adhere to one of the licenses.

Choosing WebKit over Gecko would probably be more about speed (WebKit is definitely faster), code-cleanliness (I hear Apple chose KHTML over Gecko to base WebKit on because of this), and simple bad feelings. A lot of people at Mozilla still don't like Microsoft, and the feeling may well be mutual among the browser developers on both sides. Apple probably just seem a more palatable choice to be working with for Microsoft.

Re:How?

Most likely, if they were to do such a thing, it would be a recognition of the fact that it is no longer possible/practical to attempt lockin by mucking with HTML/javascript rendering stuff. I would expect to see a browser that is very heavy on the Silverlight, with webkit used to render HTML and Javascript at the lowest practical cost.

ActiveX is an abortion, and has (mostly) died its well deserved death; but MS now has Silverlight, which is a much more competent stab at the web-stuff-plus-secret-windows-sauce concept than ActiveX ever was. I do strongly suspect that they cannot, and know they cannot, continue to make IE exclusive HTML/javascript a selling point. Keeping IE current is a chore, keeping it ahead has proven impossible, and there are now enough mac users out there, particularly among desireable demographics, that making websites IE only is no longer practical for anybody who wants a broad audience. That said, though, they seem to be moving forward with Silverlight, which isn't an IE exclusive; but might well be exactly the sort of "proprietary innovation" that Ballmer is referring to. Unfortunately, Silverlight is more competent than ActiveX ever was, so just waiting for it to collapse of its own weight probably won't work.

Re:Microsoft can't win evidentially...

If your abusive spouse buys you flowers, you don't stop planning the escape.

What Microsoft did to Apple

So what did Microsoft do to Apple that was that terrible?

Got two words for you there: "look" and "feel."

MS was an early developer for Macs and had some of the first prototype machines. While assuring Apple that they weren't, they were using their knowledge of the thing that made a Mac a Mac, the Toolbox, to build a GUI on top of DOS. This GUI was released later as Windows, and although apologists try to play it off as based on Xerox's interface (whose designers were at Apple by then anyway), there is much evidence that they ripped Apple off. Apple put a ton of R&D into the interface, it was not much like Xerox's at all -- it was very much an "invented here" mindset as opposed MS's "NIH."

Thus was born the Look and Feel suit; Apple sued Microsoft for ripping off their interface, but in the meantime, Apple's then-CEO, John Sculley, had given Gates a badly-worded agreement that was construed by the judge to be a license to produce Windows using Apple's "intellectual property." Then again, part of the settlement was that MS couldn't use overlapping windows; that's why they were tiled until version 3.

All this actually didn't matter much; Apple made the bulk of its revenues on the Apple II line until 1987 or so, and Microsoft could likely have parlayed Apple's BASIC license into permission to use Apple's interface R&D anyway ("applesoft" BASIC was developed by MS, Woz did the superior "integer" BASIC but never upgraded it to handle floating-point math).

Here's what I consider the main point: Apple saw the Xerox work, and took some of the key people who created it, but they totally improved it. Quickdraw did real regions, roundrects, and other stuff the Smalltalk interface didn't. Microsoft may have seen the Xerox work, definitely saw the Apple stuff, and then put together a half-assed, hackneyed piece of shit.

This is what Microsoft has done ever since. Apple runs Microsoft's interface R&D, in a way. I think that's the real reason MS bailed them out in 1997. Bill Gates famously said, "I want Mac on a PC! I want Mac on a PC!" They always get pretty close, but somehow stay so far.

Linux seems to be much closer, using technology (X) that really was developed independently on a parallel track; thus they have their own thing that isn't some wanna be copy and stands on its own.

Re:The third "E". The other browser.

Ballmer pretty much confirmed (was there yesterday) that was the strategy later on in his answer - to beat the standards bodies to new features. The entire strategy they presented was building a new Microsoft-only Web stack built on .Net, and then trying to lock people in with IE8+.