Slashdot Mirror
How Company Employees Use The Web
An anonymous reader submits "VisitorVille Intelligence has released information on how employees of several large companies use the web based on their monitoring of thousands of websites. Presumably using IP address blocks, they group company employees together to produce some interesting facts and figures: Microsoft employees use Google for their searches 66% of the time, but MSN Search only 20% of the time, and Firefox is their second most popular browser behind Internet Explorer 6's whopping 98.76% share. Google employees use Google as their search engine 100% of the time
and 21% use a Mozilla or Firefox browser. Apple employees like Google best and 68% use Safari.
91% of Internap employees use Mozilla or Firefox, Deutsche Telekom AG employees are the biggest users of Linux, and 39% of Sun Microsystems employees use SunOS. Other groups of interest to Slashdot readers include: The White House, the United Nations, The New York Times, Red Hat, and IBM."
Well, only if myself, about half of my immediate colleagues, the Linux Technology Center people, all the people on the internal linux mailing lists and probably quite a few others don't count :-)
Given that one data point looks a bit borked, I'm wondering about the rest of the data...
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
I am very doubtful that Microsoft gives its employees much freedom, if any, to install the software of their choice.
Actually, pretty much all MS employees are admins on their own machines, and aren't particularly heavily restricted on what they can install, as long as it's legal and licenced.
P2P apps and their ilk are restricted, as well as most other stuff at the dodgy end of the spectrum, but no-one's formally restricted on what browser they can install. Except of course for the fact that intranet sites use windows integrated auth, and will tend to break in non-IE
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
Not too surprising, since our intranet apps often use tons IE only features. You can actually do some pretty nifty stuff in IE w/ XML/XSL, Javascript and DHTML. But I'll be damned if it doesn't break every standard in the book. :(
:}
Fascinating stats. Add me to the % that uses Mozilla.
Solaris was designed for servers and workstations. It was never meant for the low end desktop. 39% is pretty high if you think about it.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
At the company I work for (I'm not in the IT department of this one... shucks), we are forced to use IE because certian web applications we use for inter/intra department communication or data storage use asp or other activex controls.
::sigh::), and one of the IT guys just said "we would, but our web apps only work with IE." Ah well...
I asked specifically if I could get firefox installed (I don't have administration access on my desktop...
Looks like their server is clobbered. MirrorDot has the mirrors.
~Jay
Try vivisimo, it is a search result collection and clustering engine-very useful: vivisimo.com
Yeah It could take almost 40 ms less to load the page. that's .04 seconds BTW. .2ms .2 to 7 MS depending on length of ethernet, number of switches you're hopping through etc... I'm going 20 feet, to get .2 MS, I'm assuming that google is in a building larger than 20'x20' wide, so presumablly if you've got 1000 feet of cable, and latency remains constant per foot of ethernet the latency could rise to 2 ms. but that's not considering the possiblitiy they're using lower latency fiber optic netowrks for thier entire lan.
My current latency to Google 47MS to my router
So assuming you're on the lan over at google, your latency should be around
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
You can actually do some pretty nifty stuff in mozilla or khtml w/ XML/XSL, Javascript, DHTML and CSS.
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
" Yeah It could take almost 40 ms less to load the page. that's .04 seconds BTW. .2ms .2 to 7 MS depending on length of ethernet, number of switches you're hopping through etc... I'm going 20 feet, to get .2 MS, I'm assuming that google is in a building larger than 20'x20' wide, so presumablly if you've got 1000 feet of cable, and latency remains constant per foot of ethernet the latency could rise to 2 ms. but that's not considering the possiblitiy they're using lower latency fiber optic netowrks for thier entire lan."
My current latency to Google 47MS to my router
So assuming you're on the lan over at google, your latency should be around
Actually, it'd take as long to load the page in the Google H.Q. Offices as it would you or me. The google servers are hosted in a dedicated server farm, which is outside of their primary building.
Well, for what it's worth there's a picture of President Bush (Dubya 43, not Poppy 41) with a PowerBook G3 (the Pismo model, I think), so we can imagine what he probably uses personally. I imagine that the executive office is primarily Windows and likely part Mac.
And for you blue folk, there's a picture that was in Time of John Kerry with a PowerBook G4, and Al Gore was evidently a Final Cut Pro enthusaist even before getting on the Apple board.
No more than running as a regular user on anything else is.
You can't install shit.
"Run As".
It's not worth the trouble, if you know what you're doing.
Well I certainly "know what I'm doing" and I've been running NT with a regular user account since early 1996. It's not particularly difficult and it's not particularly annoying (certainly no more than anything else).
Opera now spoofs as I.E. by default, and has for about two years.
The ______ Agenda
No more than running as a regular user on anything else is.
.exe files. When you double-click on an installer, the installer basically never checks to see if it has permissions. It just tries to install and then fails with a cryptic error message if you weren't logged in as an admin. Why the heck doesn't it just pop up a password dialog? I understand that "Run As..." isn't that much trouble, but try teaching your mom to install software that way; it's just not intuitive!
Clearly you've never used Mac OS X. Apple got it right. You always run as a normal user, it's impossible to log in as "root". However, every operation that requires root priveleges simply asks for your password. Want to drag a file to a folder that you don't have permissions in? A dialog box pops up: "The item 'X' could not be moved because 'StartupItems' cannot be modified" with two buttons: OK and Authenticate. Click Authenticate, type your password, and you're set.
Programs that require doing several operations in a row as root use a special "padlock" Mac OS X widget. Click it to authenticate once, then you can do a series of operations as root.
Even on Linux, this is also rarely a problem because people tend to either install programs on the command line (in which case it's easy to pop up a root terminal for that purpose), or else they use a package manager to install everything, which makes it easy.
But on Windows, installers are
Don't forget the dozens of Windows programs that simply won't run unless you're logged in as admin.