Slashdot Mirror


Internet Explorer 6 Will Not Die

caffeinejolt writes "Despite all the hype surrounding new browsers being released pushing the limits of what can be done on the Web, Firefox 3 has only this past month overtaken IE6. Furthermore, if you take the previous report and snap on the Corporate America filter, IE6 rules the roost and shows no signs of leaving anytime soon. Sorry web developers, for those of you who thought the ugly hacks would soon be over, it appears they will linger on for quite a bit — especially if you develop for business sites."

111 of 531 comments (clear)

  1. As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry web developers, for those of you who thought the ugly hacks would soon be over, it appears they will linger on for quite a bit -- especially if you develop for business sites.

    Yeah, IE6 is the herpes of the internet. It appears to be gone after heavy medication but if you look under the first layer of skin, there it is.

    Oh, and I should point out another untimely mark of IE6: we've all made this hilariously fugly hacks to make crap work in IE6 at some point and those relics of the last millennium are still out there. Which means that browsers still have to support the old rendering ways of IE6. Yes, the doctype will tell the browser what standards to use but I'm betting that the support for rendering HTML 4 is just as annoying as having to patch up old struts 1.x applications and read through nested tables galore in the HTML.

    And we all know that 90% of the work out there for developers is maintenance. What a painful irrepressible memory ...

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Jurily · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, and I should point out another untimely mark of IE6: we've all made this hilariously fugly hacks to make crap work in IE6 at some point and those relics of the last millennium are still out there. Which means that browsers still have to support the old rendering ways of IE6.

      Or maybe we can just ignore that crap, start designing according to standards, and get this fucking mess finally cleaned up.

      In the old days, if you pissed off those with IE6, you lost 90% of your viewers. Now it's totally different. Even IE8 respects standards now.

      Let's write off IE6 as obsolete and force those users to upgrade.

    2. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Bashae · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm a web developer and I'm already doing that. However, people from certain areas of business may have the majority of their users still visiting through IE6. When that happens, your only choices are either to support IE6 or not to work for that client.

    3. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by gnick · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not quite that easy.

      We're forced to use IE6 at work - Mainly because IT understands the security risks (significant, but understood) and their web-apps are written to support it. Upgrading is too expensive expensive right now - Especially when the suits realize that we'll have to do it again later. Think of the brake-recall equation from Fight Club - The result is tragic, but real-world rather than ideal. So, IE6 endures...

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    4. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by tepples · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you're so cheap that you can't download a FREE browser to see the web, fuck ye!

      The excuse: "I can download a web browser for free, but I can't install it because I'm not in the Administrators group."

    5. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by alta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree, so for those of us who can work to kill it off, we should.

      We got your back! You keep programming for IE6 because you have to. The rest of us will just use the headers to redirect them to chrome.

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    6. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Jurily · · Score: 3, Funny

      The excuse: "I can download a web browser for free, but I can't install it because I'm not in the Administrators group."

      The answer remains: fuck ye!

    7. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by poetmatt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can't do that to a business though. Ours hates IE6 and is migrating to firefox support but lets look at it this way: if a client is stupid/stubborn and uses IE6 and brings in 10+ million bucks a year for example, would you be able to just say "sorry, we can't support you" when you know there's competition? Not all people welcome browser changes with open arms even if it's just plain ignorance. You'd be dropped for your competitors faster than you could hit send on that email.

    8. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by netsavior · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most of us do not get to pick our customers, and cannot afford to give the middle finger to a very large potential customer base.

    9. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Informative

      If your site is correctly formed HTML, then it will degrade gracefully and be perfectly accessible in lynx.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    10. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Krneki · · Score: 2, Interesting

      the solution is easy and an old one.

      IE6 for Intranet, Firefox + AdBlock for the Internet.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    11. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by JCSoRocks · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Our web application is geared exclusively toward huge corporate customers. Almost all of them continue to run IE6. I would kill to at least be able to get transparent PNG's to finally work. (Ugh). We push people to upgrade every chance we get, but when you're a vendor making an application that has to work on every desktop machine in their environment... you don't have much choice.

      I keep hoping that one day someone will release some brutal worm for IE6 that goes unpatched for months and forces everyone to upgrade. Yes, I'm that desperate to see IE6 go away.

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    12. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by tb3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Leopard is $118 from Amazon. And you can go cheaper if you buy 'used'.
      Or find a friend who has a spare license left in a family pack.

      Methinks thou doest protest too much.

      --

      www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

    13. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by FictionPimp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I switched banks because of IE as a requirement. I moved to mac and was not going to run a virtual machine just to check my balance.

      When I closed the account in person the representative was mind boggled that I would close an account over that. He said "Why don't you just use windows like everyone else?"

      My new bank works fine in safari, firefox, and yes, even IE.

    14. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by ottothecow · · Score: 2, Informative
      Upgrade.

      Your sig is wrong. I like machines that last for 10 years too but if I had a 10 year old PC (until last year, my parents used one regularily) and refused to update my OS, I would be running windows 98SE. Try running a lot of current windows apps on windows 98...it does not work as it is no longer a problem to require XP and drop 98/ME support. The point of a computer lasting 10 years is that it is still updatable to stay reasonably current. Either stick with your old OS and only use old apps or switch to new one for new apps (or buy a new computer)

      --
      Bottles.
    15. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Hadlock · · Score: 2

      My previous bank (wash mutual) had a blackberry app, my current bank allows me to check my balance & activity through SMS what stone age are you living in that you need a computer to check your balance :) get with the times man!

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    16. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by diodeus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "This site requires the Firefox plugin for IE6".

      I wish we could sneak in the back door.

    17. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't need to do a browser detect to send a special CSS to IE6. Use conditional comments, which are perfectly valid HTML comments.

    18. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by s73v3r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So do they plan on supporting IE6 forever? If they upgrade the web-apps to be standards compliant, then they really only have to upgrade once, and from there on it should be just a little bit of tweaking for the newer generations of browsers, if anything.

    19. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When that happens, your only choices are either to support IE6 or not to work for that client.

      Advocacy goes a long way. The majority of people heading IT departments are reasonable people that can be talked to. In fact, they probably already share your view. It's not going to hurt to advocate to the decision makers in the company why they need to switch away from IE6, including the point that if they delay a switch not only are they going to have to switch anyway in the future, but until they do they're going to be left behind. It's pretty easy with all the other browser choices to illustrate why IE6 is a deficient piece of software without getting into the technical details, I can make my parents and coworkers understand that IE6 is not a good piece of software, that's an easy argument to make (again, considering the other options).

      If the decision makers in the business are hearing that IE6 needs to be dropped, and they're hearing it from their IT staff and their vendors, eventually they're going to get the point. If you take the assumption that they're using IE6 and there's nothing you can do about it, then I think you're part of the problem. You're definitely not part of the solution. Talk to them.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    20. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by BenoitRen · · Score: 2, Informative

      The latest SeaMonkey works as far back as Windows NT 3.51. There's no excuse. I use it without problems on Windows 95. OpenOffice before version 3 works fine on Windows 95 as well.

  2. Dinosaurs rule business by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is simply fossil evidence that confirms it, kind of like a coelecanth.

    --
    Some days it's just not worth
    chewing through my restraints.
  3. Corporate users and backward compatibility by javacowboy · · Score: 5, Informative

    The reason IE 6 won't die is intranet applications that were coded specifically for IE 6 that corporations haven't bothered to make cross-browser. IE 7 (and presumably IE 8) breaks a lot of those sites.

    At my current job, we're not allowed to install IE 7 or 8, and don't have the administrator rights to do it. It sucks because as a web developer, I'd like nothing better than to see IE 6 die a quick death.

    --
    This space left intentionally blank.
    1. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by thedonger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think there is an overwhelming amount of fear/misinformation among corporate IT and their seeming inability to allow IE6 to die. Fear of the unknown. And maybe a little laziness/love of the status quo.

      Two years ago a client of mine (a very large corporation) nearly shit when I set their web site to require 128-bit encryption. Apparently the law of the land forced IE6 and lower encryption for no other reason than it would be way too much work to move 50,000 people to a new standard.

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    2. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by ammit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ha. The company I work for has just forked out over £900 for a broadband provisioning system. Boy does it SUCK. And the first thing it told me to do??? Use IE6. I have to therefore agree with the above statement. For a girl who loves Chrome despite the fact it can't do half the things I want it to yet... well, just someone kill IE6. IE full stop if possible.

      --
      I argue because it's the internet....and I can.
    3. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by notarockstar1979 · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is especially true in the medical field (I'm looking at you Allscripts). You can use IE7, but it breaks the dictation function and a few of the other add-ins.

    4. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by casals · · Score: 2, Interesting

      IE 7 (and presumably IE 8) breaks a lot of those sites.

      On that line we have the infamous "XML Islands" - widely used on BI reports (see "Financial"), giving plain interface operators a harsh time when generating customer reports. Seen a lot of companies going to IE7 and gaining bonus work hours for that. Now, the really interesting thing is the software vendors' default answer to that... basically they just don't care, since the upgrade ratio among their customers is not that great. Lots of these vendors on the next new-millenium-tech-congress. Fancy powerpoint presentations and all. Flamethrowers not allowed, though.

      --
      AT &F1DT0,T0800665544 - Real men, real help desk support.
    5. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by Smooth+and+Shiny · · Score: 2, Funny

      It sucks because as a web developer, I'd like nothing better than to see IE 6 die a quick death.

      Instead, it's dying a slow and painful death. Unfortunately, it is YOU experiencing the painful part of it.

    6. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by siloko · · Score: 2, Funny

      The reason IE 6 won't die is . . .

      There's a reason IE6 wont't die? Thats strange, everytime I use it it seems to die after about 15 minutes. I suppose that could be me smashing my head against the keyboard . . .

    7. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by Vu1turEMaN · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My favorite is Kintera's Site Designer. To use it, they require "Internet Explorer 5". Basically, only IE5 or 6 work with it. Their calendar-based addon popup completely crashes IE7 or 8, doesn't even come up in Firefox 1, 2 or 3, and Chrome justs doesn't even load the page.

      Yet for some reason, my organization is paying them 100k a year to manage a large non-profit's site! LOLOL!!!!!

    8. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm in a similar situation. Our employees are stuck with IE6 because some internal app (not one I built!) won't support over IE6 (and definitely doesn't support Firefox). So I need IE6 to test internal pages. However, our external website is being browsed on by users with IE6, IE7, and Firefox. Firefox is no problem, that's my main browser anyway. But how do I upgrade to IE7 while still allowing myself the ability to see pages in IE6? Virtual machines are nice, but require me to "boot" a Windows instance just to test one page.

      Luckily, I found Xenocode's tool: http://www.xenocode.com/browsers/ Their program loads a virtual instance of the browser so now I'm running IE6 (native), Firefox (native), IE7 (virtual), and IE8 (virtual). I can have all of my windows open at once and cycle through the browser versions as I make changes to the pages. It's a lifesaver (and free to boot).

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    9. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by barzok · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As a programmer, I have the knowledge to maintain my own system, thankyouverymuch.

      Some of the most inept computer users I have ever met are programmers. One in particular told me that if she didn't have kids who needed a computer for homework, she wouldn't even own one.

      You may be able to maintain your system, but many programmers are worse than the non-IT people who are their customers.

  4. /. - are you listening? by dazedNconfuzed · · Score: 4, Funny

    Pay attention to your own news site, CmdrTaco!
    Though this is a site for nerds, that doesn't mean that everyone has abandoned IE, or is at least running the latest incarnation thereof. Some of us, for various reasons, are pretty much stuck with using IE6 for browsing /. and are faced with a pile of mis-rendered & incompatible pages (I'm thinking the user account page in particular). We appreciate having /. optimized for FireFox, but would also like such consideration for the more-used IE6 browser.

    --
    Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
    1. Re:/. - are you listening? by teg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      f. Some of us, for various reasons, are pretty much stuck with using IE6 for browsing /. and are faced with a pile of mis-rendered & incompatible pages

      Slashdot doesn't render properly in Safari 4 or Firefox 3.5 beta4 either - the comment titles and scores aren't displayed anymore

    2. Re:/. - are you listening? by awitod · · Score: 2, Informative

      It doesn't render correctly with Chrome either.

    3. Re:/. - are you listening? by miceuz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      doesn't slashdot have any bug reporting tools for us to use?

      i doubt CmdrTaco is reading anything below +5 insightful ;)

    4. Re:/. - are you listening? by abigsmurf · · Score: 4, Funny

      There's also a weird bug in quite a few browsers where it cuts of the end o

    5. Re:/. - are you listening? by cbackas · · Score: 2, Informative

      It works fine in the WebKit nightlies, at least as far as comment titles and scores (Don't see any other problems either). I'd venture to guess it's a problem with the Safari 4 build - webkit itself has been updated a lot since then, and should therefore be working when Safari 4 final comes out.

    6. Re:/. - are you listening? by Mad+Merlin · · Score: 3, Informative

      It also doesn't render correctly in Konqueror 3.5 (AJAX everything in comments broken now) or 4.2 (front page autorefresh doesn't work).

    7. Re:/. - are you listening? by mwigmani · · Score: 5, Informative

      Slashdot doesn't render properly in Safari 4 or Firefox 3.5 beta4 either - the comment titles and scores aren't displayed anymore

      The comment titles and scores are being rendered (highlight the page with ctrl-a), the problem is with the CSS - the background image that runs the length of the div element containing the title is being overwritten. This:

      .comment div.title { background:#044 url("//c.fsdn.com/sd/article-title-bg.png") repeat-x left top; }

      get's overwritten by this (appears further down the document):

      .comment div.title { background:#fff!important; }

      You'll notice the issue doesn't occur on some of the alternative stylesheets (Ask Slashdot, YRO, etc). In the meantime, you can hit 'change' in the threshold form to set things straight.

    8. Re:/. - are you listening? by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not to mention that it's 2009, but Slashdot can't even be bothered to work with Unicode yet.
      Here is an em-dash: â"
      Here is some Japanese: æ--¥æoeèzãã
      See?

      --
      He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
    9. Re:/. - are you listening? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      doesn't slashdot have any bug reporting tools for us to use?

      Yes, yes it does..

    10. Re:/. - are you listening? by anaesthetica · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, that's called the 'Candlejack bug,' and it seems to be caus

    11. Re:/. - are you listening? by erlando · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We appreciate having /. optimized for FireFox, but would also like such consideration for the more-used IE6 browser.

      Actually that's exactly what NOT to do. IE6 users need to be constantly made aware that they are using an obsolete browser. The sites being visited by the bosses need to break in IE6. That might turn things around.

      --
      Remember, there are no stupid questions. But there are a lot of inquisitive idiots.
  5. It's up to you! by Mad+Merlin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, you web developers. You need to explicitly stop supporting IE6. Give IE6 users a strong warning that IE6 is completely unsupported and not recommended for use, much like Game! has since about 2005.

    1. Re:It's up to you! by binary+paladin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know about that. When it dips consistently below 5%, maybe.

      What I do though is I generally use the IE6 specific conditional header stuff to grab some css and js and make everything functional but, generally, it's a lesser experience. A lot of the eye candy is stripped and certain things just aren't as nice. It works, and it requires a lot less time than making everything work perfectly and match perfectly. That way I'm free to do fun stuff on the newer browsers and still have functionality on IE6. (jQuery does wonders.)

  6. Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by xgr3gx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And IE6 will go away quickly.
    Stop doing the hacks, and let IE6 render them ugly and broken, while compliant browsers will render them correctly.

    --
    Shameless plug alert: Game server control panel
    1. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by jDeepbeep · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Stop doing the hacks, and let IE6 render them ugly and broken, while compliant browsers will render them correctly.

      Consider that many users will not realize it is their browser. They will simply decide your site is screwed up, and leave promptly. This is not a mistake to be eager to make in many scenarios.

      --
      Reply to That ||
    2. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And scare away 50% of potential consumers because of a "broken website" ?

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    3. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by thedonger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Stop doing the hacks, and let IE6 render them ugly and broken...

      A semantically-coded site should render acceptably, unless you are using tons of nested DIVs and crazy CSS/image methods to make a site act like something it wasn't meant to be.

      Part of the problem is unrealistic expectations of users and overzealous developers. Are your rounded corners in IE worth non-semantic, difficult to maintain mark up, with poor cross-browser and legacy-browser support?

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    4. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by iamdrscience · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... And IE6 will go away quickly.

      ...and so will your job.

      It doesn't matter that getting rid of IE6 is a good idea and this is a good ay to do it. If your job is to write websites for a company and your pages are ugly/unnavigatable/non-functioning for 40% of that companies customers, then you are not doing your job.

    5. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Browser? What's a browser? I just want my internets to work! All of them! What does my browsing being broken have to do with that?

      What's this explanation? Stupid wall of text; I don't have time to read all this! When I click the button, I expect my internets to come up so I can download my emails box! Why is this so hard for you geeks to understand?!? At least Microsoft can make a computer that WORKS!"

    6. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by thedonger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are multiple layers to the answer. Briefly, a basic site will work regardless. Unobtrusive methods of enhancing a site (or Web 2.0ing, if you prefer) can either use minimal hacks or degrade gracefully. Either way, unnecessary markup (the "crazy CSS/image methods" and "nested DIVs") to achieve the desired result is not semantic. Older browsers don't choke on nested DIVs; rather, they choke on the nutty stuff we try to do with them. On the other hand, screen readers or accessibility tools may choke on non-semantic markup.

      There are very few required hacks to produce a usable, attractive site in IE6. No, it doesn't play nice when it comes to RIAs, but maybe that's a different problem.

      FYI - "Semantic" means that your markup defines your document structure, rather than your markup defining your presentation.

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    7. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by adamchou · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not necessarily. Your job is to consult the client in what is best for them. I've had certain situations where a client wanted some specific fancy AJAX functionality that would have been to costly or impossible to build for IE6. In those situations, its your job to present to them the situation and let them decided upon it.

      Of course, I'm slightly biased so when I presented it to them, I helped them understand why the functionality was important to the site and why IE6 would not be worth building support for.

  7. in-house apps by Lord+Ender · · Score: 5, Informative

    IT departments have no budgets right now. Testing all the in-house apps with IE8 would cost money. Even telling people to press the "render in IE6 mode" button would be quite expensive in terms of calls. So they're just blocking the update.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    1. Re:in-house apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just a quick correction: IE8 Compatability mode renders using the IE7 engine.

    2. Re:in-house apps by wolrahnaes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They don't even have to do that, IE8 has a list of incompatible sites which can have updates forced to it through AD. Corporate IT puts the entire intranet zone in that list, pushes it out, and magic, everyone can use IE8 and have it render their broken-ass webpages designed by retarded fucksticks (yes I do have major anger issues against anyone building with IE6 as a target). Individual apps can be checked out by IT and/or adventurous users one by one and moved off the list if it works in IE8 mode.

      I'm a believer in standards compliance with graceful failure. Write it for proper browsers, then do the absolute bare minimum to make it usable in the shitholes of the internet. If you can, place a notification on those pages explaining their experience is not optimal due to them or their IT department not clicking the goddamn update button. They don't get the nifty stuff, but they get a working site and encouragement to solve the problem thus making the internet better for the rest of us.

      --
      I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
    3. Re:in-house apps by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Informative

      IE8 doesn't have a "render like IE6 would" option; it only has a "render like IE7 would" option. If companies are still forcing IE6, it's quite possible that their intranet sites don't work in IE7, which means IE8's compatibility mode won't work either.

      Also, I've heard that there are some things that work in IE7 that don't work in IE8's IE7 compatibility mode. I haven't been doing web development for awhile, so I don't know what things these might be.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  8. Just because it has users... by mini+me · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just because it has users doesn't mean that you have to support it. Internet Explorer quickly rose in popularity in the first place because web developers blatantly stopped supporting Netscape, even though it had the majority market share at the time.

    Futhermore, the thing to realize about IE6 users is that they do not care about the web. They don't care that your website has pixel-perfect accuracy, for instance. So why waste your time optimizing your website for their benefit? The natural degradation designed into the HTML specifications still allows them to access the content in a limited fashion. That is all that they want. If they wanted to see more, they wouldn't use IE6.

    1. Re:Just because it has users... by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The natural degradation designed into the HTML specifications still allows them to access the content in a limited fashion. That is all that they want. If they wanted to see more, they wouldn't use IE6.

      One of the bigger problems I have with IE6 is that when you wrap major content blocks in DIVs and float your content to position it, IE6 will sometimes throw weird bugs where only half the DIV will show... but when you refresh, a little more of it will appear... or sometimes less. Mostly these bugs seem to be "peek-a-boo" problems, and work-arounds are often fairly straight forward but can on occasion take hours to fix!

      Other IE6 crimes include doubling margin sizes; this one isn't too hard to workaround, but since the impact of incorrect margins can mean floated DIV blocks incorrectly placed on the page (not just a few pixels out, but completely screwed up!). Since the work around is to have IE6 specific CSS rules, this increases maintenance costs since when I make a change to the "common" CSS rules, I also have to make the same changes to the IE6 version.

      Otherwise I fully agree with you though! :D
      I'm no longer too concerned with things looking perfect in IE6; they merely need to look acceptable. But whilst IE6 maintains a significant market share (20 - 30% for me in the UK), it still adds to development costs.

  9. Stop support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The only way to kill IE6 is to stop supporting it and clearly stating "If you can't see this page properly please update your browser".

  10. Businesses by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Businesses often stay about one version behind on Microsoft products, or in some cases about a half cycle behind. They wait for a given MS product to get service packed out the wazoo before deploying it.

    For example, my employer is just starting to roll out Office 2007 very slowly, and based on my experiences and many other reports, this is typical at most businesses.

    Similarly, they are just rolling out IE7 now, when IE8 just came out.

    So it's not surprising that IE6 still has a major deployment base considering that IE8 just came out and that many companies stay about one revision behind.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  11. i have a complex strategy for dealing with ie6 by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Funny


    if(window.XMLHttpRequest){ //proceed as normal
            }
    else
            {
            if(window.ActiveXObject){
                    document.write "Error 404 Page Not Found"
                    }
            }

    i haven't had any problems with ie6 since i implemented this holistic approach

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:i have a complex strategy for dealing with ie6 by wastedlife · · Score: 2, Funny

      Who modded this troll? I'm thinking it was an offended ActiveX developer.

      --
      Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
  12. I wonder by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Old crap tends to stay around, until something kills it.

    What if someone develops a html 5 webapp, using a speedy browser as a base that becomes a killer must have app? Then MS will have no choice or be known as the OS vendor whose browser ain't good enough.

    MS isn't trying to limit IE for nothing, it hopes that nobody dares create a webapp that simply doesn't work under IE. Google has shown with Chrome they are thinking of pushing the envelope, wonder what they got in the pipeline that needs Chrome.

    IE6 will die when using it hurts the user. Personally, for private web-apps, ie ALL ie is dead. It is amazing what you can make a webapp do when IE support is dropped.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >MS isn't trying to limit IE for nothing, it hopes that nobody dares create a webapp that simply doesn't work under IE. Google has shown with Chrome they are thinking of pushing the envelope, wonder what they got in the pipeline that needs Chrome.

      Wave

  13. Re:Developers need to grow a set... by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "I checked the site statistics for my site and IE6 went from 15% of the hits in April to 0% in May."

    Well, duh, because no sod can see anything in IE6 - visit once and never come back again.

    This is the sort of crap that Opera has thrown at it - email a complaint to MSN, the BBC, any large website about parts not working in Opera (although they all do now), and you only ever got "nobody uses Opera to visit us"... OF COURSE NOT! BECAUSE IT DOESN'T BLOODY WORK!

    It's like saying "Since we started banning unhappy people, our store recorded that 100% of customers in the store were happy with us!"

  14. I hear you... by KingSkippus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    At my current job, we're not allowed to install IE 7 or 8, and don't have the administrator rights to do it.

    Ditto. I did, however, install Firefox and use it as my default browser. Some corporate apps don't work (non-standard javascript, mainly), which is why I still have to open some stuff in IE. All of my stuff works in both, some of other people's stuff works in both, and whenever I'm goofing off reading Slashdot and such, I use Firefox.

    There is one guy that I work with, though, that insists on "coding to the corporate standard," which in his head means proprietary IE6. He refuses to do things even to the standards that IE6 recognizes that are cross-browser compatible. ("Why do you use that getElementById stuff? It's so much more typing!...") It's like he likes for things to deliberately break in non-IE6 browsers. There's a project underway now to upgrade everyone to Windows 7, and AFAIK, part of that project will be FINALLY ditching IE6. I guess he'll have to go back and recode all of his stuff. Me, I plan on laughing at him when he's working on code that's years old that he should have written right to begin with.

    Meanwhile, I have converted so many people at work to Firefox with AdBlock Plus, it's funny. I show them something as simple as CNN on the "corporate standard" browser, then the same page in Firefox. Look ma, no annoyances! Invariably, that's followed by, "Wow, how do I get that? I'm going to use it at home!" I've even converted a few over to using as the default browser on their work machines, which technically, we're not supposed to be doing. Sometimes, they ask me why a corporate application doesn't work. I tell them, "Guess who wrote that one..."

  15. Stop the artificial life support by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A company I work for dropped support for IE6 (not only but also because of my pressure) about a year ago. The impact was minimal. People who came to their page with an IE6 or earlier were asked to update, and they did. According to the logs, people who arrived at the page with an IE6 soon came back with IE7/8 or other browsers.

    Why?

    So far, it seems people don't frankly care what browser they're using. They're just using what they have. And they're usually quite willing to update to something "new and improved", they just don't know that it exists. Now, the average user that visits this client's page isn't too computer savvy (the company is in the adult education sector, the usual visitor of the page wants to be educated), and from the questionary I attached to the booking process nobody was really "annoyed" that they were asked to update. Many were actually happy to learn something new and "better" is out there for them.

    So don't be shy to tell your visitors "hey, there's some new browser out, you might wanna use it for a better browsing experience". People like it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Stop the artificial life support by sakdoctor · · Score: 2, Funny

      There should be an HTTP status code especially for this:

      HTTP/1.1 418 - Piss off, and come back when you have a proper browser.

    2. Re:Stop the artificial life support by AndrewNeo · · Score: 2, Funny

      But that'd just be one more thing IE6 wouldn't support, and you'd have to upgrade your browser for!

  16. Re:Normal people don't upgrade computers every day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Cars have more complexity than "wheel - gas - break". If you have any sense you get them serviced, change the tyres, top up various fluids and so on and so forth. Either you do it or you pay someone to do it for you. Not moving on from IE6 is akin to owning a car for 8 years and never changing the oil.

  17. Netscape 4 again by Tridus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The last time something like this happened, it was everybody wishing Netscape 4 would die. But it kept shambling across the Internet like a zombie for years.

    At this point, IE6 will die when the computers still using it get replaced.

    --
    -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
  18. We still have IE6 at work by Ogive17 · · Score: 2, Informative

    And I use to blame IE6 for making /. look like shit but then I go home and use Firefox and /. still looks like shit. It makes me wonder if there's any browser that will load up /. correctly.

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    1. Re:We still have IE6 at work by Tanktalus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Rumour has it that the browser that was built in to Duke Nukem Forever loads /. fine.

      *sigh* Now we'll never know for sure.

    2. Re:We still have IE6 at work by Canazza · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Safari does aparently (beta 4)

      Basically, you need a browser that hasn't officially been released to browse /. properly.

      this is the only site I know of that attempts to implement things it knows does not work on the majority of browsers, just because they SHOULD work.
      IE6 was the worst offender for this, but just because a browser isn't perfect doesn't mean it should be deliberatly broken.

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
  19. Developers should charge more for IE6 support by atfrase · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There seems like a pretty clear free-market solution to this problem: developing sites that support IE6, with all the requisite hacks and workarounds, is harder. It takes longer, and should cost more. If developers just attach an appropriate premium to this extra work, businesses start having a financial incentive to stop demanding it.

    "Well boss, I got a quote for that intranet app we need developed, and it turns out our IE6 requirement adds 35% to the total cost." "Hrm.. and what's your estimate of the cost of migrating?" "Migrating would cost us more than the 35% on this one project. But looking a year or two out, paying that kind of premium on all future development contracts, switching is way cheaper, and will probably reduce IT expenses for security issues to boot." "Right. Start working on that."

    1. Re:Developers should charge more for IE6 support by chord.wav · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If a single small business site doesn't support IE6, nobody cares. What we need is to make a coalition of porn sites and make them stop supporting IE6. That should do it.

      BTW, I charged extra for IE6 support in one of my latest projects. As a result, I ended up doing just the back-end of the site, and some other guy did the front end. Which in this particular case, was a good thing. But YMMV depending on the project. It's a double edged sword so use this strategy carefully.

    2. Re:Developers should charge more for IE6 support by papershark · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This was something that I have had to address a couple of times. The simple truth is that a IE6 website takes me more time. I'm happy to do it, if your happy to pay. I have found that the most compelling argument for clients is the 'SEO' and the suggestion that Google indexing favours valid mark-up.

      This is how i address it the issue for my customers in my FAQ's or if i need to email a reply on the subject

      21. Will my web site work with Internet Explorer 6 (IE6)?

      You may have noticed that this web site does not look right if your are viewing on Internet Explorer 6. IE6 was a good browser in it's day, but it it is almost 9 years old now. When any company has a web site created it must make the choice as to whether it will render on old technology or whether it must be standards compliant for future technology. We could have used any amount of little tricks and hacks to get web site to look closer to as it intended in IE6, but this would have been at the expense of standards compliance and valid code. We have made the decision to inform IE6 users why the site is not rendering as they expected (a situation that probably doesn't surprise them).

      Please note that we can create web sites that render on a 2001 browser. But we cannot guarantee 2009 functionality and security. And given that an IE6 focused development is based around creating 'valid code', and then hacking it to work in the browser the ultimate result is a longer development process with compromised functionality for the vast amount of users.

      Both Google and Facebook are sending the same message... you can use out site with IE6, but with limited functionality. We don't think continued support is viable given that web trends suggest that less than 4% of web surfers will be using this browser by the end of this year. In short we feel that the tipping point for support for this old software has passed in preference for stability in future browsers. And we are advising our Clients of the same.

      However we recognise that statistics can be misleading, just because a small amount of people use IE6, it could be a significant amount of people that you are trying to target. Sometimes focusing development to a browser could be your best strategy. And we will do all we can help you with that.

      It is worth pointing out that Microsoft themselves admit that IE6 is 'less safe' than later browsers
      We urge you to use and encourage your employees to use a W3C Standards compliant browser such as Firefox, Safari, Opera, Google Chrome or Internet Explorer 8. These Browsers are free, and all are easy to install on any computer they are continually updated to be secure and more reliable they have more function and they are faster.

  20. IE6 will not die (true), FF overtakes IE (false). by Khopesh · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is misrepresentative and a sign of false hope; IE has lost no ground to FF according to that chart:

    IE7 + IE6 + IE8 = 43.51 + 18.23 + 8.26 = 70.0% share
    FF3 + FF2 + FF1 = 18.58 + 1.45 + 0.17 = 20.2% share

    This is unchanged from the average (71.6% v 19.84%) or the oldest data in Dec '08 (70.8% v 20.8%).

    There is no growth here, just the obvious resistance to change in the corporate world, which will be more reflected in Windows (IE6) than anything else.

    .

    We'll only really see the demise if IE6 when the corporate world fully adopts the next OS, which would be Windows 7, a year or three after its first service pack (assuming MS plays it smart). That means we're stuck with IE6 for at least another 2-3 years.

    (Yes, I know that a large percentage of corporate deployments are still on Windows 2000. If they're moving to XP but aren't already too far along, it will hopefully be with IE7 or IE8, or even something else entirely.)

    --
    Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
  21. IE6 exists because of illegal Windows XP copies by AtomicInternet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Think about this: if you have a legit copy of Windows XP you're HARASSED to upgrade to the latest version. If you have an illegal copy, you're either smart enough to ignore the harassment, or you constantly fail the required product validation before upgrading.

    I think this proliferation of IE6 is because it was the last upgrade that didn't require validation. It lives on through piracy, which also promotes insecure computers that don't have the latest updates.

    1. Re:IE6 exists because of illegal Windows XP copies by wastedlife · · Score: 3, Informative

      IE7 and 8 are not available for Windows 2000, which is still in use in a lot of companies. Also, most larger companies run WSUS to manage update deployment, this means they can selectively block updates that they do not want from being deployed. This includes IE7 and IE8.

      I'm sure some of the numbers are from piracy, but if you are smart enough to pirate Windows and evade detection, you are probably smart enough to use a more modern secure browser like Firefox, Chrome, Safari, or Opera.

      --
      Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
    2. Re:IE6 exists because of illegal Windows XP copies by wastedlife · · Score: 2, Informative

      I just checked and it seems that Microsoft does not require validation for IE7 any longer. They do not prompt for validation to download the IE8 installer, but at only 16 MB it probably phones home to grab the rest during install which is something a Windows pirate would probably not want even if WGA is not required.

      --
      Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
    3. Re:IE6 exists because of illegal Windows XP copies by EvilIdler · · Score: 2, Informative

      IE7 stopped requiring the validation at some point.

  22. How to block portable apps by tepples · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The answer remains: fuck ye!

    Administrator's response: Fuck executables outside %SystemRoot% and %ProgramFiles%.

    1. Re:How to block portable apps by XedLightParticle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then the corp network you're trying on is probably not using these restrictions.

      The place i work is very relaxed regarding executables and installs, because it is necessary to be able to test and so forth as a developer, so each user is in the local administrators group.

      Yes of course i have Firefox installed, it works great and i prefer it over any newer IE, anyway if I try to download and install a newer IE than IE6, i'm not allowed to, and why? because of some internal webapps they don't want to untangle from IE6 compatible into standards compliant.

      So the major benefit of webapps is void, it's not platform independent and it's not future proof, some day even the standards of today will be void, so what webapps are is an infinite job security for web developers.

      Unfortunately I can't avoid IE6 completely, because it comes installed with the certificates needed to browse our intranet, this browser won't die right away, too many non-tech users on corporate networks around the world, and some places they're even more restrictive when it comes to executables, which is a good thing for the non-techs ("I can have those smileys for my msn?"). The internet should have had more courage back in the IE4-5-6 days, but everybody just accepted, many even made pages that only worked for IE, this is just the aftermath of ignorant/lazy web developers.

      --
      If I was as pragmatic and objective as I claim to be, would I be commenting?
    2. Re:How to block portable apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ultimate Response:

      Fuck their policy: http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2005/12/12/circumventing-group-policy-as-a-limited-user.aspx

      In short, if they don't whitelist each and every single executable that you're allowed to run, and each an every one of those programs respect policies and have no exploitable bugs, then you can defeat their policy (on Windows).

      Happy hacking! :-)

    3. Re:How to block portable apps by jslater25 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've worked for a number of companies that would respond to your 'happy hacking' by simply terminating your employment. Happy hunting (a new job)!

    4. Re:How to block portable apps by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the network overlords are requiring IE6 in favor of Firefox, then someone needs to have a chat with them.

      The software I'm developing for corporate clients is Javascript-heavy stuff, where IE6 has some performance problems (not functionality issues, just performance). IE8, Firefox, Opera etc handle it just fine. If a corporate client comes to us and has a problem because they can't execute Javascript (it's required), or things are just a little too slow to render because they're using IE6, I just get them to put me in touch with the IT people at their company. You might be surprised how reasonable these people are. I've gotten some clients set up with Chrome even.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  23. The "understood" security risks by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know that you are simply repeating the excuse you have been given by your IT people, but they are smoking crack. The "understood" security risks are that using IE 6 to surf the web is probably the most efficient way to funnel malware into the Norton AntiVirus malware collection system. The real truth in most of these companies, if you scratch the surface, is that they have a mountain of HTML code for internal custom applications which assumed all the flaws in IE6, and they don't have a budget, nor a plan, for updating those apps. If you're the CIO or CEO, demand a plan. If they can't produce one, fire them, and get people who know what they're doing.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    1. Re:The "understood" security risks by McFadden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I tend to take a less generous view. I think any IT department that can't figure out a strategy to upgrade IE6 is either useless or fucking lazy. I simply don't believe in this mythical "mountain of HTML code" that has so many problems that couldn't be fixed in a relatively short space of time by a competent professional.

      I've heard these kinds of excuses time and time again, and on every occasion I've asked the IT admin staff responsible to give me some solid examples of where the problems lie (i.e. actual apps/code that moving to IE7/8, Firefox, Chrome or whatever would break and couldn't be fixed within minutes). Never seen a single example yet. They don't even know because they don't have a clue.

    2. Re:The "understood" security risks by remmelt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      YEAH! That only leaves the problem of not having a budget.

    3. Re:The "understood" security risks by gbjbaanb · · Score: 3, Informative

      Most of it isn't down to the IT department to upgrade their web pages and ActiveX controls, but the 3rd party vendors who supply the 'mission critical' apps that need to work. I'm talking companies like SAP or Siebel whose ability to change direction makes an oil tanker look zippy.

      Most IT departments do have a strategy to upgrade:

      1. buy upgrade of vendor for tens of thousands of dollars.
      2. change and configure the new system at cost of more tens of thousands of dollars
      3. install on new servers (that cost.. you get the idea by now) and pilot it
      4. roll it out to users, if it actually works and provides the features the old version did.

    4. Re:The "understood" security risks by cml4524 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I simply don't believe in this mythical "mountain of HTML code" that has so many problems that couldn't be fixed in a relatively short space of time by a competent professional.

      If I say I don't believe in you, will that make you disappear?

      I have one application sitting here right in front of me that is comprised of over 5618 files (about half of which are ASP or HTML) that were orginally built around IE5. When IE6 came out they broke. When IE7 came out, they broke. IE8 won't even render half the site.

      The people who were commissioned to build it were done and gone years before I started working here. I have no documentation, the code is laced with inline SQL, .HTCs, and, in some places, 7 or 8 layers of includes. The database is undocumented, I'm the only person in the company who understands any of it.

      COULD it be fixed? Yes. But it would take months for me to do it, and it would cost too much to hire someone else. Scrapping it and rebuilding it is the only viable option, but management spent a ton of money on this app and nobody will admit that it's a disaster and a $1 million+ mistake.

      Whether you admit it or not, a lot of early web code out there was written by a lot of people who never had any business being anywhere near the profession. It's not going away any time soon.

    5. Re:The "understood" security risks by gnick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The "understood" security risks are that using IE 6 to surf the web is probably the most efficient way to funnel malware into the Norton AntiVirus malware collection system.

      You're only half-way there. "Understood risks" can be explained up the chain. Other risks can not. If you have no funding to document risks in new software, you can't pass them up for approval. In the corporate world, that's fine - You only need to get it past your CIO.

      In the government world, it means you need to pony up for your IT staff to write up new security docs or live in an insecure (but approved) IT world. Ugly, but true.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    6. Re:The "understood" security risks by afidel · · Score: 3, Informative

      How about, the version of enterprise apps x,y,z,q, etc that we run are certified and supported running in IE6 with ActiveX controls a,b,c,d,l,m. We have a strategy of moving to the current version of those apps over then next N years as we reach the current systems end of life (which may be extended from the originally planned EOL by the lack of capital for the replacement systems). The only possible strategy for us would be to move to Firefox for general web browsing but that requires significant additional effort and buy-in from the users. Sorry but I'll use my limited resources and political capital for projects that make sense to me and the business, not to make some web developers life easier.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    7. Re:The "understood" security risks by FictionPimp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I suggest you find a new job. That is a time bomb. Any management who won't admit that in 5 years a important part of the business logic is not going to work. Microsoft is going to stop supplying security patches for IE6. It's a fact, at that point you are going to have to run a very insecure browser while you do what you are saying is too expensive to do. Only now you have even more risk then starting the project before it's an emergency.

      What happens when new hardware simply will not run XP and you have no choice?

      My company just went though this. Luckily they listened to me and were proactive. We had tons of PHP4 code, a lot of it incompatible with php5. I pointed out plans from several projects we use to drop PHP4 support and the fact PHP itself was getting ready to drop support.

      So we got approval to start the project. It took us 2 years of modest work in addition to our normal projects. We also made sure all new projects were fine with PHP5. While we were at it, we rewrote everything to conform to a standard that worked in all major browsers at the time IE6, firefox, and safari.

      We also came up with a unified plan for the future. Doing things like putting an end to little access databases and random mysql servers. Unifying that took even more work as we had to reverse engineer work from developers long gone.

      Now we have a very flexible framework to work in that allows us to quickly change directions as trends change in our field. Boss wants a site to work on his blackberry, no problem. He suddenly switches to an iPhone, again no problem. He goes bonkers and moves to linux, guess what, no problem.

    8. Re:The "understood" security risks by FlyingBishop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Try putting Firefox in front of a user. At my last job, my boss used IE6. Everyone in the office assumed that she was too backwards to upgrade. I went in and told her her browser was out of date, and that she should upgrade it, but I really thought she should use Firefox instead. Her response - "I'll use whatever you think I should use."

      Most users can't tell the difference between IE6 and Firefox if you port your apps. You can safely tell the rest to shut up and deal. Just change the 'Mozilla Firefox' icon to say 'Internet.' If you like, 'Internet (Mozilla Firefox.)'

      All the user sees is a slight change in Window dressing, and a shiny new toy.

      And as for the bit about making developers' lives easier, that's fine. Use IE8. However, you need to have a strategy to update any internet-facing unencrypted programs (especially an ubiquitous browser) every year. The security issues will not wait more than a few months for you to catch up.

    9. Re:The "understood" security risks by Fred_A · · Score: 4, Funny

      I suggest you find a new job. That is a time bomb.

      Wait ! Not yet !
      First document it on The daily WTF and /. and *then* find a new job. There's no sense in letting the good bits of your current job go to waste. Of course, this thing will blow in some one's face sooner or later. You probably don't want to be around when it happens.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    10. Re:The "understood" security risks by kullnd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I, being in IT, have been strong handed into keeping IE6 running due to the fact that I still have THREE! 3rd party vendors that we depend on which have not updated their crap to work in anything else --- I upgrade and my users can't do their job, simple as that. My job is to ensure that my users can do their job, so therefore we use IE 6 and that will not change until I can perform that upgrade without breaking shit. I don't consider myself "useless" or "fucking lazy", just someone who lives in the real world of business and how shit really works.

      --
      +++ATH0 NO CARRIER
    11. Re:The "understood" security risks by DisKurzion · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sorry but I'll use my limited resources and political capital for projects that make sense to me and the business, not to make some web developers life easier.

      Here's some business sense for you:

      Business is all about minimizing risk. By trying to minimize current costs, you could end up spending a lot more in the long run simply because you're increasing the risk (in the form of increased damages, or increased likelihood of happening). Is it better to have a small staff work on training and upgrading a new system now, so that you are prepared to switch over quickly, or to have your entire IT staff cleaning up a mess because one of your employees visited an exploit site?

      The only possible strategy for us would be to move to Firefox for general web browsing but that requires significant additional effort and buy-in from the users.

      Seriously? Significant effort? I've got your strategy right here:

      1. Lock down IE6 to only be usable with your enterprise applications, making it unusable for any other web browsing. (A proxy setting would make this trivial)

      2. Install $BROWSER.

      3. Send email to users, stating web browsing will no longer be possible in IE6, and they must use $BROWSER. If they don't like it, too fucking bad. There are plenty of qualified people looking for jobs that could do what they do for less pay.

      Total effort required:
      1 hour for a system admin to make a group policy change to IE.
      Deploy Firefox (only hard if you don't have any sort of remote installation)
      10 minutes to compose email.

      Savings: The risk that some idiot employee takes down your whole network due to an exploit for an unsupported browser.

    12. Re:The "understood" security risks by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All of those problems can be fixed, too, by a competent IT department. The fact that they persist, today, years and years after these issues *should* have been fixed (noting also that many of which there was no excuse for creating in the first place) is a testimony to the very sorry state of affairs in enterprise IT these days. The rules are pretty simple, for a CIO. Fire everyone who told you to deploy applications in .asp. Fire anyone who told you that Windows was just as secure as UNIX. That pretty much wipes out your staff. Now, go find a bunch of eager young beavers who actually grok computers and networks and start over.

      --
      If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    13. Re:The "understood" security risks by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My question is why the fuck don't 'trapped' businesses mandate, say, Firefox for web browsing, and use IE6 only for the internal crap.

      In fact, hook IE up an internal proxy so it can't be used elsewhere.

      IE 6 is too insecure and too broken to use as a web browser, period. If a business needs it because of internal code, fine. And the fact that they can't use IE7 or 8 at the same time means they can't upgrade, but there are other browsers out there.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  24. slashdot is rendering for by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Funny

    ie9 and firefox5

    they're way ahead of the curve man

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  25. Re:Developers need to grow a set... by netsavior · · Score: 3, Informative

    this kind of idiocy pisses me off. I have always had weird browsers on cellphones and other devices... I would rather see a partially broken page than a stuffed shirt jackass page telling me to install a browser that CANNOT be installed on my device or work laptop.

  26. Apply end6.org to your web site! by dwheeler · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Go to www.end6.org, download the little Javascript app, and apply it to your web site. Then, the first time the user goes to that site, they see a nag screen telling them to update their web browser. If they start seeing them on every site, they'll begin to get a clue.. while those whose companies will NOT allow change can at least get work done (it's not THEIR fault!). I installed in on my site, www.dwheeler.com, though in my case I complain about obsolete IE7 too.

    --
    - David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
  27. Re:Can't; not root. by mini+me · · Score: 2, Funny

    How do I update another user's browser?

    Through one of IE's numerous vulnerabilities?

  28. Yeah, umm, good luck with that. by jonadab · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Feel free to continue trying to use it to browse the web. Heck, you can try to use IE4 if you want, what do I care?

    But as a web developer I quit testing in IE6 a year or so ago, and at this point I no longer test in IE7 either, since IE8 is on Automatic Updates, so any Windows system connected to the internet *should* have it, unless somebody has gone out of their way to avoid it, which is Their Problem(TM) as far as I'm concerned.

    I haven't gone out of my way to *break* IE6 and 7, and in fact I haven't done any significant sweeping changes to the website at work since IE8 came out, so for now it almost certainly still works fine in IE7, and well enough in IE6 to be usable if you can ignore things like the lack of proper transparency support. The old legacy IE6 stylesheet that I developed for IE6 several years ago is still there and probably still has things covered pretty well. For now.

    But, next time my boss comes to me and says, "I think we should change the website up again", IE6 and 7 will probably break. I don't test in them any more. How would I? All of the computers have been upgraded to IE8.

    Web developers can't make users upgrade their browsers. But neither do we keep supporting ancient browsers forever and ever. You can upgrade or not, your choice. But don't come whining to me if the site doesn't look right in NCSA Mosaic. I try to support a wide variety of browsers, but I've got limits, and anything that came out more than three years ago is generally beyond the limits, unless it's still the *current* default browser for one of the major platforms (as was the case with IE6 well beyond three years until IE7 finally hit Automatic Updates, for instance). More than three years old and *used* to be the default browser? Sorry, I've gotta draw the line somewhere. Feel free to send me a screenshot showing the problem, but I make no promises.

    --
    Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  29. Easy peasy by geekoid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "If you upgrade to a newer version of IE, or Firefox we will give you 5% off next year."

    You will save that in not needing to maintain for the pile of crap.
    It's business, money talks.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  30. Re:Can't; not root. by afidel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You're forgetting the XP virtual machine in Win7, it can be made to run IE6 seemlessly. That wouldn't even be that unusual of a situation for a large enterprise. Back in 2003/04 I was on a team that switched out a VERY large mortgage originator from all the loan processors having two PC's to one. The second PC's were used to run OS/2 with a custom origination software, we were upgrading their XP machines so that they could run VirtualPC with OS/2 as the guest. That app had millions in development costs behind it and was certified in almost every state, there was no way in hell it was going to be scrapped.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.