This goes for our Macs as well which we also lock down and do not let end users install software, because it is a work machine not a toy. In fact the Macs are more locked down than the PCs, we let end users of the PCs install software, but on the Macs we do not, because we don't want anyone but the IT staff having administrative access. There is a HUGE security risk of giving anyone admin level privileges on OS X.

Point in being is that it is a work computer, and they will always have a system of control not matter what platform you run (Linux, Windows, OS X) in the enterprise level. There are so many reasons I will not list them all.

Now that is pure ignorance.

And how do you keep users from dropping apps into ~/applications or their desktop? Admin access isn't and shouldn't necessary to install most software. It's the Windows security nightmare that has most IT staff wrongly looking at users as the source of the problem. The fact is that if the user can be the problem, you've got a sloppy operating system.

I'll just put down one.

For every one person that can be more productive with different software or who can troubleshoot an issue with unsupported software there are at least 20 users who can not support themselves and don't follow the simple rules set up to protect them (save all work to the large amount of space set up just for you on the server that is backed up every night) in case of a problem that will keep you from your computer.

I also wanted to add that after the first 6 months on my job I finally did get Firefox and Thunderbird added to the images we deploy.

And for every user that cannot support themselves there is no need to install more software, only a need to find a competent replacement. This is the twenty first century. If you can't use a variety of software, you're either using very bad software or you should be digging ditches.

The minute the app needs a root level resource it will prompt for the password, adobe acrobat professional is the bane of my existence when it comes to this because of the self heal function.

Also when you have 1000s of computers and have users installing all sorts of software and user A wants what user B installed and can't figure out why it won't work properly it makes it a support nightmare. Users then call the help desk for unsupported software and create more work for everyone else. In my department there are about 15 or so people that run the network and support around a total of 30,000 users with about 10,000 computers on our network. That is not counting servers and network printers either. So, you can clearly see how some sort of system of control needs to be implemented so we can do our jobs. Plus I don't want any user to have the ability to sudo, that is just asking for problems. I already have to deal with users who can't properly back up their data to a network share, or have problems deleting the wrong file off the network share. Then I have to salvage the data.

Web browsers for us, is not a big deal. We let users run camino and firefox, other software can be a huge deal, and can lead down the road of being a support nightmare.

I personally would never give a user admin rights in my current work environment, because not everyone is trust worthy. In a different work environment where people actually work on their computers and don't play games all day or myspace all day then, yes it could be a very different world. Then again I don't know if any work place is like that. I have given "trusted" users over the years admin rights and have them swear to me they won't mess anything up or give out the password. They always give out the password. So, I learned my lesson the hard way and don't give that information out any more to anyone. Unless my bosses have given permission otherwise.

We had an ecomm server that was run by a web development teacher that had a hardware failure and the OS had some issues because of it. I replaced the system board in the server (HP Proliant series) and had server OS issues with it. Since it was their server technically we weren't supporting it, but when they couldn't get it to work it fell back on our hands. This is something we had nothing to do with so we had no idea how it was set up or what all services were running or who all was accessing it. It was a support nightmare to go through all of that and get it back up and running. If it was ours to begin with we would have known what to do because we would have been running it.

I hope you see my points on why things are the way they are sometimes but at the same time I think that a web browser for the most part should be a moot thing on a computer. Some people are just stuck in their ways, and when they are in charge thats what happens.

Oh and to answer your question, IT departments do not set policies, Management does. Welcome to the Government! What applications are you using for your work, things like AS/400 and other terminal based applications that do have really crappy UIs?

It's not so much the applications as the crappy UI built into Windows and the way it allows software developers to create sloppy applications. It makes me cranky when I have to deal with it, and I've had to much more than I'd like over the last week or so.

Woa! How did I miss this bomb??? :eek:
IE is NOT compatible with anything. It is deliberately incompatible because MS is attempting to leverage it and their OS dominance into other markets.

Yes, there are sites that require IE, but that is light years away from being compatible!

MBHockey... can of worms.... now opened!

IE works with every site I go to, FF, Camino, and safari don't. It is the most compatible simply because of Active X driven web based front ends to data bases. I never said I liked it, I am stating a fact.

I personally hate IE, and don't use it unless I have to and firefox is not compatible.

Like I said, that has nothing to do with compatibility. If IE were compatible, there wouldn't be any site that required it. If it were compatible, that would mean that it adhered to web standards so that any site developed for IE would work with any browser that adhered to those same standards. What you're saying is the proof that IE is NOT compatible.

You always have to argue semantics, look at it from management POV

So IE works with everything out there on the net? Okay we will use it?

Do the webkit browsers work with everything? NO, okay, then we won't.

Active X is crap, and i hate it, and it is a good way to get your machine exploited, but the FACT is IE works with everything, therefore it is the most compatible browser out there. No matter how you dress the argument I am right. I am not defending it because I like it, I hate active x and IE with a passion, but I am telling you that is just how it is.

End of discussion.

I hope I did not give the impression that I meant only government, because you are absolutely right. In fact, for a while there we were home schooling our kid via Net. And guess what? IE only. And not just IE, but IE on WINDOWS only. And they were even willing to send me a free PC. I declined and began to accuse their team of--yes, laziness. I got a flamethrower response for calling their staff lazy. I look at it from the POV of my company. Imagine a global company not taking the time or care to satisfy the major browsers out there. Will our customers be happy, or irritated? What would be the impression we would be setting forth? Certainly not a care or concern for our customer base. Governments and bureaucracies do not care about customers. They only care about their systems and how they do things. That is why I have always pushed for privatization of these lamebrain ways of doing things. My big pet peeve is with the DMV! Here in California, the inefficiency is ridiculous. And who pays for the inefficiency? Certainly not the employees with their benefits up the wazoo.

Those who have an IE-only attitude do not care for their customers. In fact, Windows software itself came in my face today. I was trying to find the doctor that my wife was taking my kid.

Me: Excuse me, I'm trying to find which doctor my son is with right now.
Receptionist: What is your last name?
I gave the last name and spelled it out.
Receptionist: What is the child's name?
I gave the first name.
Receptionist: His date of birth?
Me: What?
Receptionist: His date of birth?
Me: Can't you do a search using the name?
Receptionist: I'm trying to help you.
Me: This is Windows-based software, isn't it? (I didn't need to ask)

It wasn't a pretty dialog. It ended up not being the right office. When I found the right office, the exact same thing happened. I wanted to pull the plug on their system.

That's the kind of short sighted thinking that's getting American company's butts kicked around the world. When you don't look at the larger picture, you buy the cheapest crap and then wonder why it ends up costing you more. It's why Windows dominates the corporate market, why Walmart dominates the department store market, and why Americans are losing their standard of living.

It is not semantics. It is foolish to think that IE adheres to standards (ie, is compatible) or worse, that it is a standard. It is a proprietary piece of software that should not be allowed on the web. Because it is, we're all worse off, and that includes management.

First, working with everything implies "most compatible" if, and only if, the web designers code their websites to standards instead of to browsers. Unfortunately, most web designers go out of their way to make sure their pages render properly with IE. This is due to IE's user share, and has nothing to do with IE being compatible. As cwtnospam pointed out, if IE were compatible with standards, the sites wouldn't have to be written specifically for IE.

IE does not work with everything. Here is a page IE 7 cannot render properly because IE is not compatible with web standards, even though MS helped to define those standards. (Here is how the page should look.)

There's quite a few sources out there that show just how non-compatible with web standards IE is.

By avoiding standards compliance/compatibility, MS effects a Nash equilibrium in web design strategy. It is to no web developer's advantage to stop catering to IE's incompatibilities until all web developers stop catering to IE's incompatibilities. If everybody stops doing it, everybody (except maybe MS)
wins.

It doesn't work on Firefox either

I think Safari (WebKit browsers), Konquerer and Opera are the popular browsers that can render the page properly. I think FF3 is supposed to be able to pass the test when it is released. Camino will probably pass at that point, as well.

The Nash-Cournot equilibrium, and MS’ monopolistic agenda
 

That’s right on the money! (pun intended)

When my former bank, the largest in Norway, introduced Internet banking some years ago, I just couldn’t get it to work. Finally I called their customer service line and was switched through to someone in charge.

"Sorry, our solution only supports MS Internet Explorer on Windows machines."

I switched banks that same day. And I called every relevant regulatory body and sang out that "this is unacceptable!"

That’s an excellent analysis!

Microsoft did not help develop the international standard in order to comply with it. Rather they did so in order to practice their own standard, which was just deviant enough to serve their owns commercial/monopolistic agenda.

Others may master the technology, and be light years beyond Microsoft in terms of solutions and products. But for decades, no one has mastered the game better than Microsoft.

And they’re still immensely successful at it!

Unfortunately.


-- ArcticStones



PS. Remember that poignant scene in "Pirates of Silicon Valley"? Steve Jobs is droning on and on about his and Apple’s superiority: "We're better than you are. We have better stuff"

Bill Gates shakes his head in disbelief:

"You don't get it, Steve. That doesn't matter."
.
.

.
An added thought on Microsoft’s monopolistic practices:

Whereas American antitrust authorities, led by a new political regime, backed off just when they were about to finally achieve results, the European Union is making demands that are very much upsetting Microsoft’s game plan.

I for one applaud those efforts!

I hate to stray from the current line of conversation including politics, MS, IE, FF etc.... but I'd like to add that I've started working at an academy and EVERYONE uses Macs.

The whole business, the whole institution are now all running macs. The office staff (50-60 people) all have new iMacs in their offices and the Upper Management (22 people) all have Macbook Pro's. Plus all the student machines are all imacs (and a few emacs lying around still) which comprises of another 35 or so machines.

The building is now running about 120 or so Macs and our I.T staff member (we have ONE I.T Guy) is only part time, as he tells me that the system runs almost too well, theres not much for him to do sometimes.

I love this place, plus (attn: tlarkin) I have admin rights to my work computer as do everyone else with theirs, my job would be near impossible without admin privileges.

I just thought this bears repeating.