Slashdot Mirror
Getting Your Company to Migrate from IE?
RunningFerreT asks: "With all the recent warnings and recommendations on migrating from MSIE, I have come across a serious problem. The company for which I work doesn't want to, even after being informed of all the exploits and problems with Internet Explorer. Having the boss 'try out' Firefox isn't working: a single site looks bad, so IE must be better. Has anyone had success in convincing management types to switch from IE, to another more secure, standards compliant browser? If so, how did you get the job done?"
...which site? And do other sites render worse in IE than they do in Firefox?
;) and give the end users the option to switch. The upside? They get to waste an hour of company time moving into a new browser. :-p And less work for the ITS guys.
As for migrating from IE, I've never had a problem encouring people. The built-in popup blocker is almost an instant 'OK! I'm converted!'. This may or may not be helpful: http://texturizer.net/firefox/faq.html
Perhaps, distribute a company-wide email, linking to a download for Firefox (put it on a local server, first, link to that, save Moz the bandwidth.
Informatus Technologicus
Remind your boss that the reason the sites look so terrible in non-IE browsers is because the sites do not conform to WWW standards. By insisting IE continue to be used indicates Microsoft should dictate what websites should look like, not the Internet inventors themselves. Surely he or she can agree that Microsoft should not be given that power. Thus, sticking to IE is not a solution, rather it contributes to the problem.
I've tried getting my mom to switch countless times, always with problems. My current plan is to wait for Firefox 1.0, and then make her switch again.
:)
At work, many people use IE - but nobody has to. I'm also plannign on moving everyone at the office to Firefox once it hits 1.0. It's hard to get the PHB's to agree to something that's not 1.0
We need everyone in our industry to switch. All of the ISVs and vendor extranet type applications require IE. We cannot switch from IE until the functionality provided by these companies is compatible with mozilla or moved from the browser based application. It'd be nice to have them only load IE for the specific app but trust me: users are stubborn. An extra click or two would cause them too much pain and suffering.
Just because a single site "looks bad" by the boss' taste is hardly an excuse for letting open your company's IT infrastructure to all sort of malware and viruses. Even if not for the technical aspect, the boss will understand how much money can saved by avoiding the problems in the first place, and should be convinced. Same as with backups, really: this comment from earlier today, is pretty insightful to that matter: how much is your data worth ? Justify the migration "costs" (free in your case, but some cosmetic issues the boss will have to do with) by figuring out what your data is worth to begin with.
Branding still means something. I'm installing Netscape Navigator 7.1 on our stations, because it's a recognizable brand name, and more readily acceptable than say, Mozilla, even though they're essentially the same product. I get IE out, and a Gecko based browser in, which is the most important thing.
I understand the enthusiasm here for Firebird, but it's still essentially a beta product. Netscape/Mozilla has always rendered pages for me correctly, so I'M more comfortable with that option as well. Yes, the Feds warning against IE helps, but if you're an IT manager or sysadmin, it's still your rep on the line when something doesn't work right. The fact that Netscape appears to have gotten a reprieve (7.2 is coming out soon) helps matters. Businesses and government organizations like to play it safe. They don't want to hear beta or open source. They want to hear a trusted brand name. When that brand name uses open source, all the better for you the technology implementer.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
In any event, when faced with a similar situation, I generally follow this tack:
1. Write a memo (I'm better with the written word than the spoken word - additionally, the written word has a date on it) that clearly, unemotionally lays out the advantages/drawbacks to whatever I'm proposing. If you're fairly good with the written word, you can weight your bias, if you're so inclined. Even without bias, you can mention stuff like the TRUE costs of fighting a vulnerability (computer/worker downtime, multiplied by the number of users, estimated cost in your salary per instance, etc).
2. Submit the memo, and don't get offended if your idea is not taken. Even well reasoned, compelling arguments are not always enough. Keep in mind that we're focusing on base hits, not home runs.
3. Time is on your side. There will only be more vulnerabilities. This does not mean you should be happy with new vulnerabilities, but they are only serving to bolster your case. Hopefully you've made management aware of the associated costs of dealing with IE vulnerabilities. Keep in mind that management understands cost and benefit. They don't respond to features and feelings. Do a really good job of showing how the cost and benefits outweigh the inconvenience, and you'll usually have a green light.
Anyway, I hope this helps.
We all get along together like tornadoes and trailer parks.
You might try communicating with "management types" instead of writing them off in the way you seem to do from the tone of your submission. I understand that the stereotype is humorous, but if you aren't able to communicate the reasons why Firefox is superior, then the blame falls as much on you as it does on him (or her).
Ok then, it worked at the front receptionist's desk. Biggest culprit of spy/crap/malware in the whole place.
I hate sigs.
Let's stop IE at the webserver. Someone needs to create mod_noie, which returns a page to download FireFox and/or Mozilla if it detects the user is using MSIE. Warn the user they have an insecure browser that's hurting the internet and they need to upgrade.
It worked for Microsoft to squelch DR-DOS, didn't it? Turnabout is fair play.
Huh? The Mac version of IE probably works with fewer sites than Safari. Macintosh IE has nothing to do with the Windows IE that all sites are "designed for".
Total up your costs for coping with IE's problems for each of the past several years, extrapolate that for the next few years, and compare all this with the costs of migrating to Firefox (or the browser of your choice). Show them the graphs of total money spent from five years ago to five years from now, and make it clear how much money you would have (or will) save by making the change.
If you can't show the financial gain for the change, it doesn't make business sense. Period. Better = costs less overall. Period. "Less trouble for the tech guys" doesn't cut it. Neither does "but Firefox is more standards compliant!"
I always equivocate. Well, almost always.
No you fool! You apply an IE theme to FF and change it's icon and rename it to "Internet Explorer" (or "Porn" depending on what you normally call it).
Your average user would never know the difference.
IE being IE, if you leave him long enough with his machine using IE, he WILL get some kind of worm, virus, or what-have-you.
If he does, then you tell him how it happened. He'll lose his computer for a while while you fix it, and invariably ask "how can I keep this from happening again?" and you tell him.
If he does NOT, then your company's security in other areas is making up for IE's weaknesses, in which case good for you. Still, it might be a good idea to tally up how much money you're spending to protect IE users from themselves, assuming you would actually be spending a lot less if IE wasn't a concern.
And, at the end of the day, if his laptop isn't getting taken over by virii and such, and you can't make a good case for (a) saving money by switching, or (b) reducing non-boss employee downtime by switching...well, you don't really have a problem.
FWIW, I had the same problem convincing my wife to switch. Before her computer got infected, she was highly reluctant. After she lost her computer for a week until I had the time to fix it, she became a convert, and now uses FireFox exclusively.
1999 Free Software Advocate: It's not fair! I don't have a choice of browsers!
2004 Free Software Advocate: Don't give them a choice and they won't be able to use IE!
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Just remove all shortcuts to IE and replace them with FF links.
*and* remember to name them to something obvious (such as "Internet Browser" o "Web Browser"). They might think "Firefox" is some kind of game.
No sig
And then when they next use what they think is IE they'll say "Oh Wow, Microsoft really improved their browser".
No, the best way is to make users aware of the problems with IE, and then show them how Firefox fixes those problems. The fact that open source coders respond to security flaws faster than coders who work on proprietary software is also an advantage.
PHBs don't think like that unfortunately. They think, "Microsoft is everywhere so it is the standard. Everything else is broken or not good enough." When one of their PHB friends talks about how cool moving over to Firefox was next time they are out playing golf instead of working, you'll get a memo telling you about this great new thing that he's found and insisting that you try it out and have it installed on his machine. Next thing you know, a committee will go away and do a cost/benefit analysis and within 12 to 18 months a document will be written recommending that it becomes corporate policy to only use Firefox. Three to four years later it will become policy, you'll get to install it, but it'll be a 2-year-old version full of bugs and security holes and lacking modern standards.
Stick Men
Switching to FireFox probably won't earn the company a lot of money. We all love FireFox, but whenever a major update comes out, every couple months, you'll probably have to completely delete the old FireFox off each machine, install the new one, and set it all up again. And they'll probably never encounter a website that won't work in IE, but they will see sites that will only work in IE. Every security decision comes with a price, and you have to justify every one of them financially.
As an open source advocate and an employee, it's important not to let your beliefs prevent you from giving advice that's in the best interests of the company. Your boss would probably appreciate a bigger range of recommendations, from adjusting IE's security options to autoupdate to of course installing a new browser and making it the default, or just doing nothing about the problem, in which case state the risks and give past examples of problems that have resulted in loss to the company. You'll probably want to mention Thunderbird for email, since it's also pretty secure, has built in spam blocking, and blocks external images (used to verify good addresses).
Where I work, a lot of us are using FireFox, but it's not a policy, people can still use IE, and the employers were already biased against MS to begin with.
Oh please.
... focused on doing what's good for the company. In your case that would be making sure that the systems support the business, and all that that entails. Sounds like you've hit a couple foul balls on strike 2 - I'd be careful about how you proceed.
.. that IE is inferior; and that the risks of using it are clear and present; and that the failure to use it will *cost him money* - and if your credibility isn't shot by now - then you have a duty to make PHB aware of it. If he chooses to ignore the risks, you've done your job; and he's done his. And the consequences are his to bear.
If I was a PHB (what the hell - at my last job, I was) - the next words out of your mouth about this could very well be your last.
Let me explain.
You can't name any of the specific unpatched exploits (because you can't be bothered to look them up). Strike one.
Your argument about who installs updates is incomprehensible. Updatable by THEM? Which THEM? I don't want anyone putting updates on my machines except sys/netadmin staff - not Microsoft, not the end users - nobody. "I can't always be the one installing it" - strike 2. That's your job.
This is a small company - presumably whose purpose is to get real work done. Real work that doesn't involve deploying the latest open-source software and sub 1.0 web browsers for a nebulous benefit. It's good that YOU - the software guy - are doing it; but that doesn't mean that it's good for everyone.
There is money to be made (if you don't want your paychecks bouncing). If IE "just works" - chances are your PHB has weighed the risks of people's data being compromised through their browsers (which is to say, fairly negligible if you - his administrator - is doing his job correctly) - and the very real risk and distraction of putting a new web browser out on everyone's machine. If he can go 1-for-1 as far as finding a site that he doesn't think displays properly, he's probably (perhaps validly) concerned about other users doing "real work" - yep - real work - running into the same distracting issue. Maybe he wants his employees... and yes, you
On a more constructive note, if you can prove... *prove* .
There is a place in business for OSS - hell, I use it every day. But you'll never get it adopted by failing to sell it on the business' terms - dollars, productivity, hours, and risk.
Get yourself an ass-covering letter. Go to your boss and ask them to sign a letter which states that you, J Random Sysadmin, advised them to stop using Internet Explorer in favour of Firefox for reasons of security on suchandsuch a date.
Be serious about this - on the one hand, it might make your boss realise that you're not dicking about. And if he still refuses to switch, and you've got a signed letter, it might save your job some day.