Information Technology

I recently received an email relating to a project I am working on. The segment below triggered this post.
Q. I don't know if you use firefox or IE, but...
A. For work both Mike and I(Ed) have IE for browsing and I have IE for home as well. Please don't hold this against us and we will try to do better in future.
To cover my bases, I have to inform that the project the 3 of us are working on is connected to and approved by the company, so that use of company email is permitted, and may even be required (see other posts).
Ed seems to be aware that I am not a strong fan of Microsoft's Internet Explorer. He is probably also aware that my advocacy lies in a different direction (see other posts). I would also not hold it against them as it is not their fault.
The reason they are where they are, is simple. Firefox is free.
The explanation of why they do not use Firefox because it is free is perhaps a little more complex.

Follow up:

Firstly, the reasons for using Firefox are also simple:-

1. It is FREE. Yes free.
2. It is available to run on multiple platforms, including Microsoft.
3. It runs on top of the o/s, unlike IE which is embedded. Embedding potentially opens security hole.

There are more, personal, reasons why I prefer Firefox, but those 3 really can't be argued against.
To explain why Mike and Ed use IE and not Firefox we need to know more about them.

• They work with computers most of the day.
• They are application specialists and not tech-heads.
• They also have an off-line life.

The systems that Mike and Ed have at home are either company issued or personally purchased. The latter will have a version of Windows installed, as does every Intel-based PC sold (see other posts). Later versions of Windows include IE. As the office machines also run IE, why install another browser and learn that when you have one right in front of you.
The former, company systems, have a different profile. The company has to have rules on the use of their equipment. We all know how easy it is to contract a virus or worm, and how easily and quickly it can spread. To reduce the risk of damage to mission critical application, it is imperative that they are prevented from coming into contact with any infected systems. Firewalls can do much to protect the network infrastructure from cyber attack from without, but can do little once the attacker has breached it. Trojans are the culprits, the rogue software can hide on a USB drive, CD or DVD, or piggyback on a legitimate HTTP request or email. The attacker, once behind the firewall, will wait until its execution is triggered, when it will complete its programming.
The company should have rules designed to protect them from malicious miscreants. This particular company has a more realistic outlook on the situation. They know that people also belong to the world out there and allow them to check there personal emails from company machines. The idea is to deter them from using company email addresses for personal business, not that they want to stop it, rather they do not want to invest in the extra storage required to save such emails, which often contain graphics and video that require vast amounts of disk space.
The important 'rule' for this argument is to only use software from approved vendors, which has other benefits including standardization, controlled training costs, and in-house expertise. The problem with the Open Source community is that there are no vendors, therefore the 'Company' knows nothing about Firefox. Individual staff members may well be aware of open source products, but the potential backlash, should something untoward happen, appears greater than any benefit gained. Besides, IE is packaged with the operating system, do you remember in the early days of WWW when it wasn't?

This is why Open Source, and particularly Linux, has fallen short of its expected increased share of the desktop market.