Having to comply with 600 rules and having methodologies that make this whole evolution process is not the problem, it’s the methodologies themselves which are.

There is a fundamental problem in an enterprise or government’s workflow when it takes years to upgrade software. That’s hampering productivity and progress.

Not seeing there’s an easy solution, but there’s definitely something to be done.

Now I can say I’m rusty on VB.Net. I did not think I have to do an “Imports” on an NotInheritable class. With C#, we don’t have to do that.

Thanks!

Should be:

container.Register(AllTypes.Pick().FromAssemblyNamed(“Northwind.Data”).WithService.FirstNonGenericCoreInterface(“Northwind.Core”))

You’ll need these 3 imports:

Imports Castle.Windsor
Imports Castle.MicroKernel.Registration
Imports SharpArch.Web.Castle.WindsorExtensions

Were you able to convert this code into VB? And can you share the code?

container.Register(
AllTypes.Pick()
.FromAssemblyNamed(“Northwind.Data”)
.WithService.FirstNonGenericCoreInterface(“Northwind.Core”));

Anyways, I do agree that Chrome Frame could well be used as a reason to keep the old browser around even longer.

Shortly after Chrome Frame was announced Microsoft spoke out and recommended against using it for security reasons (arguing user would be vulnerable to IE issues + Chrome Frame issues). That’s about all Enterprise IT needs to hear to rule it out. Even if the argument is essential hooey. Secretly, even Microsoft knows it’s hooey. But the fact is, they want people off IE 6 as much, if not more, than anyone else (assuming people move to another version of IE, of course).

Chrome Frame is an excuse to stick with IE 6. And for that reason I don’t wanted the Government of Canada using Chrome Frame either. The GoC needs to bite the bullet and do the necessary work to be able to move to a modern browser. It’s going to be costly and time consuming, but it needs to be done.

My department is doing it, though they’ve run into some bumps in the road, they ARE doing it. In my department, Firefox is available with a valid business case and I think that is the path to take for folks who have a real business need to access the “modern web” now. One has to also remember that an out of date browser is just the tip of the obsolete technology iceberg on which the GoC is perched. Thankfully, the Auditor General has flagged this, and some attention (and funds) are finally getting earmarked to tackle it.

How do we think about the lifespans of our work & accommodate for inevitable upgrades & maintenance work that needs to be done to keep information relevant, secure & accessible?

Also, are there ways to use tools like http://code.google.com/chrome/chromeframe/ to help bridge the gap and help keep folks who are locked into old technology able to still experience a modern web?

Recently for the sake of learning WCF I downloaded IE 7. Only found it didn’t work for the application I worked on, which only worked with IE6. Then I had to remove IE 6, only found IE 6 didn’t work as well. It costs much ado to get my pc work.

The situation is in no way ideal. There are costs associated with both moving forward and keeping the status quo. I am definitely not arguing that. I am simply pointing out the IT side of the question, as there are plenty of end-users out there arguing their perspective. My department has decided that blocking half the Internet is a less costly security approach than upgrading to a newer browser if that newer browser means HR can’t process 25,000 employees paychecks because the pay application doesn’t work outside IE6. Really, you want access to Facebook or your paycheck? I mean, how F’ed up is that?

My department spends about 80% of its IT budget just “keeping the lights on”, as we say. Only 20% of our budget can be used to move forward (upgrades, enhancements, etc). And it isn’t IT that gets to decide where that 20% goes. We get our marching orders from the program areas. Our IT systems are ridiculously out of date. We know it. And now thanks to the Auditor General many more people know it too. The AG’s report is finally getting us some money to do something about it.

Regarding having two browsers, personally I agree (in fact I do have both IE6 and Firefox, officially installed). But I am going to try to dig up the statistics about how much helpdesk calls dropped when we went from two browsers to one. It was significant. Downright scary in fact to see find out just how many people apparently were unable to close one browser and open the other if a site didn’t work properly. Perhaps our workforce is more computer literate 7 years later… I don’t know.

We support 200 applications developed in-house and some 2000 commercial software products. What’s one more browser. And we should also support Open Office too. And people who want to use an Apple, and another 50+ applications for that. Oh, and I want to carry an IPhone rather than a BlackBerry. And why doesn’t my IPad work on the network?

Tell your Minister to stop passing legislation that requires changes to IT systems, and tell them to instead direct that 20% to upgrading the applications that are holding IE6 around.

I’m curious if any consideration to the hidden costs associated with failing to upgrade legacy systems, supporting deprecated technology, or the security risks IE6 continually exposes employees to. What about the damage the organization inadvertently contributes to by leaving hundreds of thousands of IE6 referer stamps in server logs around the world? (With enough people visiting a site with IE6, that site will likely feel obliged to continue to support IE6 out of necessity, thus holding back their own site’s evolution and that of the internet overall.) I guarantee you that if the current IT landscape which you have illustrated is going to become a lot more costly and problematic as it is continually ignored.

Like @patlaj and @David have suggested, users should have alternate browsers choices available to them. Even Firefox with IETab installed would make a major difference in terms of security and overall web experience and the costs of doing so would be minimal. Contributing towards positive change with measurable results does not need to cost millions…

It may be time for a second look at the “one enterprise browser” policy. Yes, there are additional costs (if not in licenses, in effort to maintain and support). But two browsers gives you a path forward out of the trap. You can keep IE6 for legacy applications and also have available a modern, standards-compliant browser to enable new, improved software and other productivity increases from browser improvements. Over time, as legacy applications get upgraded or replaced, the need to hold on to IE6 will diminish and eventually disappear. In the meantime, you can benefit from the full range of sites and software on the market – not just the ones that work with IE6.

Those benefits may very well add up to more than the cost of adding another browser.

I think a lot of people don’t give a thought to their browser – IE6 works well enough for them. And for those that do care, Firefox can be installed alongside IE6. So workers can use Firefox for whatever they normally use their browser for, and switch to IE6 whenever they need to book leave (or whatever internal app requires that browser). No need for IE7 or 8 at all, but you get all the benefits of modern software.

I think the problem is that you might have to be a fairly sophisticated user in order to use two browsers like this. Maybe those who would make the request are also those sophisticated enough to be able to handle it?