digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at news.cnet.com

State Dept. to Clinton: Please let us use Firefox

news.cnet.com — Despite the rise of open source within the federal government, Mozilla's Firefox has yet to gain an official nod from the Department of State.

Who dugg this? Made popular Jul 16, 2009

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

237 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • borez, on 07/16/2009, -4/+509Somehow I get the feeling that White House tech is not quite as sophisticated as it looks on 24.
  • inactive, on 07/16/2009, -13/+361Somehow I don't understand their (or anybody's) reluctance. Firefox is open source. Don't trust Mozilla? Have your engineers review the code and compile it themselves. Hell, make a custom version for the government with added security if you need to.

    Its all INFINITELY better than using a proprietary, buggy as *****, security-hole-filled POS like IE.
  • rabidbob, on 07/16/2009, -4/+235Why is Clinton involved in deciding IT policy? I doubt she's qualified to do so and a decision like this shouldn't even need rubber stamping. IT personnel need to be making IT policy not politicians.
  • lewhich, on 07/16/2009, -3/+103As hard as it is to believe, most government agencies still use IE6. I believe this is the direct fault of a lazy CIO who doesn't want change. I have had two designers quit because our agency will not upgrade - saying IE6 will be a career killer for them.
    The worst part is we are building a Web 2.0 internal site with strict adherence to IE 6 standards. ... I call that "Trying to make wine out of prune juice".
  • Jaime2000, on 07/16/2009, -4/+91Macs? Isn't the government bankrupt enough as it is?
  • Rinnt, on 07/16/2009, -6/+87Before I get dugg down, let me say I am a firefox supporter, user, and admin. I'm all for the State Dept to use Firefox! However, I think Kennedy has a legit point. Deploying an application on worldwide network isn't the same thing as installing it on your home computer. You have to consider the additional administrative overhead. How does the software play with internal and external systems? Is it compatible? Are there resources in place to manage the overhead of updates, patches, and plugins? Will the helpdesk center be ready to handle the barage of "omg, two internets?!" requests? Yeah maybe it's a lazy CIO. Or they may just have bigger priorities to tackle at the moment. Hard to say.
  • censormagnet, on 07/16/2009, -3/+64gotta ask the government to use free reliable browsers?

    bureaucracy at its finest
  • eviscerator, on 07/16/2009, -6/+66Yes indeed, they should switch from Windows to Macs just for the sake of a browser, and the insane cost it would have to implement alternatives for just about all software used now is ...just another day at the office?

    Even if Macs are the best solution (not saying they are, not saying they aren't), changes like that should be gradual if you ask me.
  • discoburgess, on 07/16/2009, -2/+59This is both the blessing and the flaw with open source projects:
    "It doesn't do something you want? Then you can write it yourself! It's wonderful!"
    "I don't really have the time or budget... What would be better is if it already did the things I need."

    It's like the old Wikipedia argument.
    "Think our articles are inaccurate? Step in and help improve them!"
    "Thanks, but... don't we already have encyclopaedias in existence that I don't have to write myself?"

    Pros and cons, I'm not beating on open source. I use Firefox myself, but having to code on top of it incurs costs that don't exist with IE. Of course, security issues in IE incur their own costs.
  • huskypride86, on 07/15/2009, -0/+49Full transcript:

    http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/july/12594 ...
  • Syphon9, on 07/16/2009, -2/+50Obvious troll is obvious.
  • autoatsakiklis, on 07/16/2009, -1/+49Looks like somebody has "got the facts" from Microsoft!
  • thesparrowband, on 07/16/2009, -2/+47the government is far too stupid to be that smart
  • Inferny, on 07/16/2009, -16/+59One major reason, as a network admin, that I say to use IE over FF:

    Group policy. The ability to set a users internet access, settings and, most importantly, functionality, that ensures the system is controlled, works "properly"(from a users perspective) and secure(no active X, white/black lists, etc) comes before anything else.

    Yes, I know that there are group policy systems out there for FF, but they are not as fine-grained as the IE Group Policy settings.
  • MacParrot, on 07/16/2009, -2/+44I hope it's that English is a second language and not that you're an insufferable moron.
  • Phocion55, on 07/16/2009, -0/+41On 24, they can evidently have IP address ranges past 255. The nerd in me immediately wanted to call them out on it.
  • joaob, on 07/16/2009, -2/+41It's the same reason for the 555 numbers in movies....I'd personally be extremely peeved if my servers I.P. flashed up on the screen as "24's" Pentagon computers.
  • nateyo, on 07/16/2009, -3/+40Sucks for DoS, I'm with DoD and we use Firefox. =]
  • boogie606, on 07/16/2009, -0/+37CRT???
  • Infinitas, on 07/16/2009, -8/+45Yeah that's all *****.
    As an engineer for some govt agency, which does use firefox, these whole "expenses" claim is *****. We lock down our Firefox too, sure it's a little trickier than IE, but we prefer to use Firefox, more sites work with Firefox than IE... except little ***** like SharePoint or Blackberry Enterprise Server Manager, etc.
    IE does also work well with IIS internally with things like Windows Domain Authentication and such, but this whole excuse that it costs to much to install is *****.
    Firefox costs very little, we have a contractors to do this *****.
  • jarjarwang, on 07/16/2009, -0/+36Get back to work DooD
  • rabidbob, on 07/16/2009, -5/+37@phoomp - Yes, I am an IT person. I currently work as a software developer and previously have done support, run the whole IT infrastructure for a small company, done data recovery work, etc etc. Most of us are pretty happy to support change among our users especially if it makes the company more secure. The ones that are not happy to support change shouldn't be in IT because that's the nature of this business.
  • phoomp, on 07/16/2009, -4/+35Have you ever worked with IT personnel? IT hates supporting change amongst their users. Leave it in their hands and people will be using IE6 for as long as possible. They *might* move up to IE7 as IE9 rolls out.

    More than likely, it *is* an IT decision, but we're just hearing the answer through Clinton's mounth.
  • Gudeldar, on 07/16/2009, -0/+28The Oval Office has a cathode-ray oscilloscope? That really is odd.
  • billricardi, on 07/16/2009, -7/+32Then... they can write a more fine-grain Group Policy module for FireFox. That's the beauty of open source: the code is there, naked before you to use as you wish.
  • discoburgess, on 07/16/2009, -0/+25He got the last word, everyone. No use burying him, he already said it won't help. That must mean he's right, IE8 really is better than Firefox. That's a fact, based on facts.
  • gamepr0, on 07/16/2009, -6/+31A software developer should know how to use the reply button, don't you think?
  • septicmadman, on 07/16/2009, -2/+26Uh-huh because Internet Explorer is running legacy apps from the 70s. Also calling a program legacy based on what language it is written in (especially C/Assembly, I can see you attacking COBOL but really now...) is uninformed.
  • gcauthon, on 07/16/2009, -0/+24If you downloaded and installed a browser called EI, that may explain your virus problem.
  • TheShad0w, on 07/16/2009, -3/+26Obvious troll is obvious.
  • inactive, on 07/16/2009, -1/+23It's people like you who give people like us a bad name.
  • flyingmeteor, on 07/16/2009, -3/+24@gamepr0 Regardless of incorrect reply button usage, valid points were made.
  • MacParrot, on 07/15/2009, -5/+25There is no way in hell that DOS will go to Macs. FireFox could be doable though
  • frieddonuts, on 07/16/2009, -2/+22Thank you for being the first commenter who sat down to think about Kennedy's motivation instead of being some internet armchair expert like the rest of the idiots in this thread. He didn't do a good job explaining himself (probably didn't realize this would spread over the internet), but anyone with experience in how the government handles IT would know what he was talking about. I love firefox but ultimately the world revolves around money.
  • BoomShake007, on 07/16/2009, -3/+22I'm a heavy Mac user, but even i think that idea is retarded.
  • lodeswrath, on 07/16/2009, -1/+20syntaxgs is a famous troll, guys. let the man do his work!
  • MacEnvy, on 07/16/2009, -1/+20This isn't about the White House, this is about the State Department.
  • ak47ak47, on 07/16/2009, -4/+23wow dude, seriously? IE 6 doesn't even render most web pages properly. how could being lightweight overcome that fact?

    firefox 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, google chrome, pretty much every opera version, safari, all these browsers are faster. IE is only "lightweight" because it's built into the operating system.
  • 4AntiStupid, on 07/16/2009, -1/+19I can run Firefox on my Windows, Linux, Solaris, and Mac-OS boxes. Can I do that with IE8? I also do all my web development in Firefox because there's far more good developer plugins. These are all facts.
  • dagamer34, on 07/16/2009, -0/+18Security through obscurity is no security at all.
  • inactive, on 07/16/2009, -0/+17@septicmadman

    I can see the government (or any corporation) slapping a modern interface to some ancient-as-***** mainframe / software because its been working for them for the past 50 years.

    I'll grant you that a well-written app in any language, especially a low-level language if it needs to process, say, a million requests a second, can be perfectly appropriate. However, my main point is about high level software - namely, their browser. I really don't see a point whatsoever in continuing to use such a security ***** as IE for secure business.
  • brianpeiris, on 07/16/2009, -0/+17This is great!
    With all the anti-IE6 initiatives recently, it's like watching an immune system suddenly fight a chronic disease.
    As a web developer I'm glad that individuals are standing up against their organization's status quo, and in the government no less!
  • flyingmeteor, on 07/16/2009, -0/+16"security-hold-filled" ? I think it's still security-hole-ridden. If they filled the security holes there'd be none left.
  • gcauthon, on 07/16/2009, -5/+20There are private IP ranges they could have used.
  • 4AntiStupid, on 07/16/2009, -3/+17That's true, but I've found group policy settings for IE tend to be a major hindrance to the office rather than a help. Restrictions get set not for rational reasons but because they're available. Network security should also be done in the network layer and not assume some piece of desktop software will take care of it.
  • megaton, on 07/16/2009, -1/+15It's certainly not a matter of trust or security--the intelligence departments PREFER Firefox. It's money. It's not cheap to deploy an application to tens (hundreds?) of thousands of computers, keep them updated, deal with compatibility issues, etc.

    It's not nefarious. It's not complicated. It's just money.
  • ThantiK, on 07/16/2009, -2/+15If you haven't been paying attention....firefox abides by group policy now. Since Firefox 3.1b2 (before they changed it to 3.5)
  • BigSabowski, on 07/16/2009, -2/+15I use FF exclusively, but as a sysadmin, I would agree with the argument(s) raised by the State Dept. It takes additional resources to manage/administer FF. And on top of that, I can use Group Policy to config IE and WSUS to patch it. FF needs to be patched manually using admin credentials. IE is old hat but has too many advantages from this standpoint.

    Not to mention that Oracle in many cases is only certified for IE6. Yes, there are patches now in the wild for Oracle to work properly with IE7, but those patches require testing, testing, testing.
  • HonoredMule, on 07/16/2009, -1/+14Working properly, standards compliance, functionality...these are all features. And as OP noted, IE is not bogged down with 'use' features.
  • ruskicommi, on 07/16/2009, -0/+13Well I'm glade he focuses on being president more then televisions.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 248 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.