On 15 June 2012 01:30, Daniel Friesen <[email protected]> wrote: > I do have to mention something on this whole topic. All these arguments seem > to focus on saying that that IE6/7 should be supported because enterprises > are dependent on out of date software and can't update. > This line of thought completely ignores the fact that upgrading isn't even > the only option... the possibilities of simply installing a second browser > for web browsing and only opening IE for internal systems (pretend the page > sitting in IE is an app and use shortcuts) or installing chrome frame. > Given that fact arguments that enterprises "can't and should be enabled" > rather than "just wont and should be ignored" feels rather flimsy.
I hate to perpetuate this topic, but your assumption that adding a browser to a corporate estate will be trivial (or, at least, less work than just upgrading IE from 6 to, say, 8) is not always correct. One UK Government organisation where I used to work was quoted an outline figure of ~ US$300m to upgrade IE6 to IE7 (almost all of which was re-certification to UK National Security standards). The figure for Firefox - which doesn't have baseline accreditation, unlike IE - was ~US$500m, and would only be good until the next *.*.1+ release of Firefox, unlike IE where the patches are signed-off. Sure, these costs are partially inflated by their poor contracts, but full security audits against thousands of bespoke (and badly-written VB-based archaic) apps is insanely expensive. Are these organisations screwed mostly as a result of their own short-sightedness in building systems that weren't standards-compatabile? Yes. Should we trivialise the difficulties into which they've steered themselves? No. Yours, -- James D. Forrester [email protected] [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
