Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
-
posts about #patrickkennedy more → US State Department Rejects Firefox, Which Is Entirely Free, Due to "Expense Questions"
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
| posts about #patrickkennedy more → |
US State Department Rejects Firefox, Which Is Entirely Free, Due to "Expense Questions" |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
07/16/09
07/16/09
Free to download = free to impliment on a secure, international government network?
You shouldn't be writing for a tech blog if you can't concieve of how there MIGHT be an expense or two in the changeover process.
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
and with the internet. It's filtered and the firewall is turned to the max. If you've ever been any where with a shred of classified data, they block larger uploads outside of the local network and disabled a lot of the functions.
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
It costs money (i.e. EXPENSE) to re-code any internal applications which were written to run in IE (such as those that use Active-X)
An IE requirement does not necessarily mean Firefox is barred. It may very well be banned, but that's not made clear.
07/15/09
on an unrelated note.. wtf happened to hillary's arm
07/15/09
And having grown up a military dependent and attending DoD schools, I can't say I'm surprised that the government isn't necessarily concerned about having the best technology available. It's hard enough getting my mom to switch. =/
07/15/09
07/15/09
And in other news, WTF Hillary? I'm sorry to say you are not aging well. She looks tired already and she's only just begun...
07/15/09
07/15/09
Its not just the cost of the browser itself (which is free) but its all the testing required with internal web-based applications, not to mention rolling out the browser on PC's that are locked to prevent application installation, as well as having tech support to assist users who run into installation issues (no matter the application, there are always issues).
IE is already there and works fine for most users. Why waste the money? (I cant believe I said "Why waste the money" in reference to the government).
This is coming from someone who works for a company that refuses to upgrade from IE 6. Yea, I know.
07/15/09
I really doubt that installing something like firefox would be much of a hassle for any IT department, the government spends money in much less useful ways than that. Tech support issues? Sure, there might be some, but it probably wouldn't be much more than they usually see and if they've got all the computers locked down then there shouldn't be any compatibility problems.
07/15/09
And installing ANY application is a hassle. It ALWAYS costs money, and ALWAYS leads to issues. It is a ton of work, and there are always issues that occur. Roll outs are a pain in the ass. I know.
And shouldn't is a nice word, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way in the real world. If something can go wrong, it probably will.
So the question is: If you are getting your job done with IE, why pay the money to institute a new browser roll out?
07/15/09
It's not the software cost, it's the support / training cost. This is the same reason that Linux and Open Office don't dominate the business market.
07/15/09
07/16/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/16/09