Linked by Kroc Camen on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 19:48 UTC
Google Google Chrome Frame is an open-source plugin that adds HTML5, Canvas, a fast JavaScript engine and more to Internet Explorer; in fact it just swaps out Trident with Webkit! Developers can opt-in to the feature on their sites via a meta-tag / HTTP-header and prompt users to install Google Chrome Frame if they don't have it. Update: Correction, they don't support the HTTP Header.
Thread beginning with comment 385771
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
systyrant
Member since:
2007-01-18

I take issue with the Microsoft loving powers that be statement. As a network administrator for a business I'm not a Microsoft loving person (more like hating), but as it stands many of the Government websites we have to use are IE only. I also have an internal program that requires IE. The program itself is really good, but the IE requirement sucks and I've told them that much.

Another factor for us corporate types is that we like to control the entire network from our desktop. I can do this with IE and to some extent Firefox. Not something I see from many of the other browsers. Well not technically from Mozilla. It's a third party that does that.

Reply Parent Score: 2

fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

I take issue with the Microsoft loving powers that be statement. As a network administrator for a business I'm not a Microsoft loving person (more like hating), but as it stands many of the Government websites we have to use are IE only.


My point was not that the I.T. folks in all departments are MS-loving folks. The powers-that-be are NOT the I.T. folks. Instead, they are goverment officials, corporate managers, etc. Many of the I.T. people I know are not too happy with the restrictions, but THEY HAVE NO POWER in this area. They have to follow the company policy, which is often very brain-dead, because it's "easier" that way.

On the other hand, I've also worked in I.T. departments where most of the "dudes" and "dudettes" were really just dialog clickers. Click next, next, fill a few boxes, and click OK. These folks will always be more comfortable in a mono-culture. I must admit, it is much easier to work in an all-Microsoft shop. When the question arises, "What web server do we use", there is only one answer. When the question arises about Email Server, DNS, Content Management System, Proxy Server, IDE, etc, etc, etc, there is usually that one Microsoft choice. The only "drama" is waiting for Microsoft to release new products or new versions of existing products.

It's funny, I once worked in an I.T. department where the boss was an ex-Microsoft manager. Suddenly all our systems were replaced with Microsoft solutions. He had the gall to say he wasn't a Microsoft dude, but that Microsoft's solutions just happened to win out every category. It was probably 8 different products that were chosen for 8 of our core functions. What a coincidence! That's what I mean by the numbing of I.T. minds in schools and businesses.

Reply Parent Score: 2

systyrant Member since:
2007-01-18

I've never worked at a place where management told me I had to run Microsoft products. Probably because when they start I just tell them that if they would prefer to do my job I will simply step aside and let them.

Now that said I'm also not one of these idiots who tell grumbles and complains every time Microsoft is mentioned. I do whats best to suit the needs of the business I work for. I leave my personal feelings and agendas at the door.

Just for the record I don't take offense at what you said. I merely wanted to give another side because even my experience isn't shared by all.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I take issue with the Microsoft loving powers that be statement. As a network administrator for a business I'm not a Microsoft loving person (more like hating), but as it stands many of the Government websites we have to use are IE only. I also have an internal program that requires IE. The program itself is really good, but the IE requirement sucks and I've told them that much. Another factor for us corporate types is that we like to control the entire network from our desktop. I can do this with IE


None of these considerations would prevent you, as a network administartor, from installing the Google Chome Frame plugin for IE on all of the machines on your network. It won't intefere with their operation on IE only sites, but it will allow all your machines to correctly render W3C-compliant sites (unlike IE alone can do).

Google Chome Frame will let you retain IE on all your machines, keep compliance with those websites and applications that you mention, yet still give you a browser for all your users that can get 100/100 on acid3 complaince tests.

Where is the downside for you to install Google Chome Frame for your users?

Reply Parent Score: 2

systyrant Member since:
2007-01-18

Consider this then. Every piece of software you add to a computer adds another potential door for hackers to get through. While I have considerably more trust in Google's code than I do Microsoft's I'm still not going to load it up on every computer just so they can render the Acid 3 test correctly. Until some real benefit pops up I'm not going to install it at all. We restrict web access here anyways so probably the sites they want to see are blocked to begin with.

Reply Parent Score: 2