Infrequently Noted

Alex Russell on browsers, standards, and the process of progress.

The Virtual Life: IE At Arms Length

The IE team was kind enough to invite me to a small launch party last night, and while there I ran into someone who was asking how you do "real work" on IE. It's a strange enough thing for a webdev to say, but the setting made it that much more interesting. I guess there's a whole generation of webdevs who would like to put their heads in the sand and pretend that IE doesn't exist. Getting to a productive point when debugging hard problems on IE requires a good toolchain. Here's my setup.

The basic pieces are:

  1. A high-end mac laptop, stuffed to the gills with RAM and a fast HD. Sadly the MBPs max out at 2GB of RAM today. It's a significant limiting factor when trying to work with multiple VMs
  2. A fast external storage device of some sort. In my case, that's a samba server with a half terabyte of soft-RAID'd disk on switched gigabit ethernet
  3. Windows licenses. I use both Win2K and XP. I recommend older if you can get it, just because the older the Windows version, the less RAM the OS will soak up. Configure your VMs for the minimum operating memory you can get away with, you can always bump it up later.
  4. Virtualization software. These days I'm using Parallels, but previously I've used both VirtualPC and VMWare. They'll all get you where you want to go so long as you can quickly make VM clones.

Before I get into the process, it helps to know that I'm not just making VM clones for the hell of it. Yes, there are things floating around that purport to let you run IE 5.5 alongside IE 6.0, etc. The fact of the matter is, though, that these aren't what your users are running. IE isn't built like Mozilla or any other browser. It really is down into the core of the OS because many of its behaviors are determined by the available versions of other components. Take, for example, the networking and javascript stacks. These are the cause of some very critical deployment-time bugs, but their behavior is determined by the versions of winsock and the Windows Scripting Host that are installed in the host OS, not the "IE version". This means that if you're not running the same version and patch-level of Windows, you're not running the same browser that your users are, and if you're not running the same browser, you can't debug the problem or come up with a workaround. To accurately debug issues, you need to be able to step through OS revs, not just rendering engine+browser chrome updates. And as if that's not enough, major Microsoft partners maintain their own IE builds. Getting reports of a problem that only shows up on Dells? There's a reason for that. In cases like this, there's really not much to be done short of buying a POS dell, but we can at least cover most of the rest of the strangeness we see in the wild with virtualization.

As for the choice of Mac, you can try to get away with something else, but if you support Safari or Mac users in general, it pays to have something that can run not just Safari, but all of the other mac versions of the various browsers your organization might care about. That, and OS X is the best desktop Unix available on the market today (sorry Ubuntu, you're not quite there yet).

Here's how I set up my environment:

At this point, you're going to have ton of space eaten up on your external drive with VMs that you might only use very occasionally, and that's OK. Disk is cheap and if you've done stuff the way I recommend, your vms are probably going to be less than 3GB in size each. Should you make the mistake of installing, say, VisualStudio then at least disk is still cheap. At this point, you're set up to respond to the thorniest bugs, and do it faster and more accurately than your co-workers/competition.

Need to test something on IE 5.5? No sweat, just thaw out that VM and give it a whirl. Clients reporting a problem on IE 6 that you can't reproduce? Try the "naked" version of IE 6. Odds are you'll be able to reproduce it there, and with some binary-search style patch application, you can pinpoint down to the individual hotfix when things got fixed.

At this point I should probably disclaim any and all liability you might incur with regards to your Windows EULAs. I'm not advocating that you violate your licensing terms with Microsoft, and depending on your agreement with them, you might be required to do something in addition to these instructions in order to stay in compliance, despite this really being a workaround for Microsoft's design-time failures. Follow this recipe at your own risk.

The Platform Strategy

Every software entrepreneur I know dreams of building a platform business. Not just wistful "wouldn't it be nice" stuff, no, I mean an all-consuming lust to become that which others build on. Led down the garden path by the example of Microsoft's dominance in the desktop market, believers in the platform strategy view ubiquity and control as the backstop against comoditization and a foothold for launching new attacks against the competition. The part that's not so obvious is that becoming a platform means that you first have to come close to winning the market on non-platform merits at which point, voila!, you're a platform...so long as you haven't made it impossible to build on your stuff.

I got to thinking about this because the tiny sliver of time that Java occupies in my mind these days is generally dedicated to dissecting it's rise and fall. The more time I spend on it, the more I realize that what's happened to Java in the last couple of years is a failure to recognize a couple of things:

  1. that Java won, despite it's myriad warts
  2. that winning is not a god-given right
  3. that you can't expect to win on your own terms

In fact, Java never won on its own terms. It won by having enough pluck and backing to build up a real, honest-to-god platform. The platform became a platform because it got used for enough good things that it came close (enough) to winning the market for a certain class of apps. Java the language is a pitiful mess. Java the platform? Now that's a thing of fucking beauty. Not only did Sun build the alliances necessary to ensure that Java would be available to whoever wanted it, the "Pure Java" marketing actually worked.

The result is a system that won because it created an environment where, no matter what the OS, developers could plug in a set of Java libraries (I'm ignoring the JAR cluster-fsck for now) and know that it would all "just work" thanks to a common bytecode interpreter. Now, other languages have used a similar form of platform aikido to catapult themselves into utility. Python, PHP, Perl, and Ruby spring to mind as languages that don't really mind their C dependency chains. Quite the contrary! The communities around these languages (rightly) consider being able to "swig up" some C or C++ hairball as something they can script as a core feature. It allows them to turn one platform win into another. Which is exactly where Sun continues to self-destruct.

Instead of understanding that they won the platform war and will inevitably lose the language skirmishes, the Java camp seems hell-bent on trying to shoehorn Java (the language) into ever more places that it doesn't belong. JSR 290? Gimmie a freaking break.

All of this points to a bright future that Sun, currently, seems too limp-willed to exploit. There's an amazing amount of good code that people have churned out in Java. The "Pure Java" thing actually played! Instead of allowing the partisans to throw stones at folks who want to run other, more productive, languages on top of the JVM (aka: the platform), Sun should follow through on it's baby steps and start giving real respect to the dynamic languages folks who want to help them continue to win on a platform (not language) basis. Hiring the JRuby guys and shipping jrunscript (aka: Rhino) in Java 6 are good first steps, but they don't go far enough. The atmosphere has to change. Acrimony needs to be turned into understanding, and real investment needs to be made in making the platform successful, even if it comes at the cost of one particular language.

It's not too late. I hope.

"Mobile Ajax" Slides

Here are the slides from my talk on Mobile Ajax development. I've got a longer-ish blog post in the works about getting a working emulation environment set up, but it's taking much longer than I'd anticipated to try to track down some of these things (if you know anyone at SonyErickson or Obigo, drop me a line). Hopefully next time I give this talk I'll be able to include a demo of the "foldable interface" thing I keep muttering on and on about.

There's some fun data in the slides that the carriers would really rather not have disseminated, not that their collective folly hasn't been laid bare qualitatively already.

On The Shoulders of Giants

I'm in Brussels this week at EuroOSCON, and yesterday I was fortunate enough to give a tutorial session on "Building Better Ajax Applications". The slides are online, but don't try to view them with anything but Firefox 1.5 or later.

For the last year or so I've been occasionally giving a talk like this and this time I decided to overhaul the whole thing. Every time I've done the talk I admonish folks not to use Ajax just because they can, and if at all possible to work with interaction designers. Last week at the "Future of Web Applications" conference in SF, Jeff Veen boiled the key points of the ID problem down into the most coherent set of objectives I've heard. He outlined them as:

Having worked with a wonderful set of interaction designers (and now friends) at Informatica, I've got nothing but the deepest respect and admiration for the questioning eye that good user-centric design brings to the process of building applications. Jeff's description of the problem instantly made sense, and I've tried to put the example code in section 2 of the tutorial into the framework of those points. The distillation of the problem into easily digestible terminology is one of the things that was new with "Ajax". Hopefully Jeff's list of the 4 goals of ID can help developers similarly start to frame the problem better.

In Defense of "Use"

Good writing (in contrast with mine) is defined by great verbs. Verbs are the essential component in answering "how?". You can't tell a story without the verbs. The sad little world of nouns and adjectives only tells, it never shows.

Which is why we need to fucking bury the word "utilize".

Maybe it's just that I've been free of the corporate-speak haze for too many moons, but nothing gets the hair on the back of my neck to stand up in empathized embarrassment like hearing a smart person say "utilize" when all they needed was a simple "use". It's as though the accreted mental sludge of sitting in meetings causes some sort of malapropism-Tourettes. To my delight, it seems the dictionary on my MacBook agrees with me; from the "utilize" entry:

Because it is a more formal word than use and is often used in contexts (as in business writing) where the ordinary verb "use" would be simpler and more direct, "utilize" may strike readers as pretentious jargon and should therefore be used sparingly.

See! "Used sparingly"! Not effing "utilized sparingly".

Older Posts

Newer Posts