

Sauce Labs responds to UK govt's decision to stick with IE6 - Jnwinter
http://saucelabs.com/blog/index.php/2010/08/a-quick-request-to-her-majestys-government/

======
cstross
My understanding is that it's not about the desktop web client; it's about all
the back-office web applications that rely on (shudder) ActiveX controls that
_expect_ to run inside IE6 on Win2K or, at best, XP.

Rolling out Firefox or Chrome or IE8 to the desktops would be expensive, but
not a budget-buster. Replacing hundreds or thousands of proprietary server-
side applications written over the past fifteen years would cost billions and
take years, and in the middle of a budget crunch that ain't gonna happen.

(For example: I've heard of one widely-deployed town planning system that
requires the users to download a proprietary ActiveX control in order to view
planning applications on the desktop ... in PDF format. If you don't run the
control, you can't download the PDFs; simple as that. Yes, this kind of
proprietary lock-in is insane. Unfortunately, it was procured in the pre-Web
2.0 era when "nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft" looked a lot more
solid than it does today -- and now it's out there in the wild, and replacing
it would cost millions.)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>Unfortunately, it was procured in the pre-Web 2.0 era when "nobody ever got
fired for buying Microsoft" looked a lot more solid than it does today -- and
now it's out there in the wild, and replacing it would cost millions.)

I don't believe it.

I'm sure you can find lots of software consultants with posh cars and big
offices to tell you it would cost millions. But really. The PDF is on a file
server, all you need to do is link it for the client, how hard can it be.

A decent web developer could probably do it and test it cross browser in a few
days - lets say it's a man-month, that's going to be what, $20k absolute top
for the project. Even if you had to start from scratch it wouldn't take
$millions.

~~~
chc
He isn't saying it would cost millions to replace _that_ piece of software.
He's saying it would cost millions to replace the hundreds or thousands of
ActiveX controls in use, with that being an example of how absurdly pervasive
the technology is in the UK government.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>a proprietary ActiveX control in order to view planning applications on the
desktop ... in PDF format [...] it's out there in the wild, and replacing it
would cost millions

I don't think that's what he is saying. But I'll accept that's what you are
saying and ask you for a citation on this pervasive ActiveX control - I can
then research it as my sister is in Town Planning here in the UK.

------
smiler
Great.. so they test the apps using the saucelabs tool and discover that it
doesn't work in IE8.

They then have to contact whoever wrote the software (do they even know _who
wrote_ all the different apps they must have?). The vendor says "Sure, we can
make it work with IE8 - pay us this much / day". Or they say "Sorry this app
only supports IE6 and look at the 10 year support contract that you signed -
IE6 is the only browser we support"

Nice idea from SauceLab but the reality is that testing whether it works in a
browser is only the first step and not the biggest hurdle. Fixing it is.

(I've also just noticed that SauceLab is a cloud service - yes they have a
solution if your app is behind a firewall - and it says it's as easy as a-b-c.
Of course the reality is different. I bet a lot of the apps are firewalled to
the extent that they're nowhere near an internet connection and would need
network admins to then open it all up. Not really practical given all the
effort involved)

~~~
hugs
Right, they might find it's broken _after_ they test it. But they said they're
not even going to bother testing it because _that_ would cost too much.

------
tjstankus
I'd venture to guess that _not_ upgrading from IE6 is more costly in terms of
overall, sustained economic impact. Sure, it costs the government money to
upgrade _right now_. But multiply the costs of continuing to support IE6
across all their vendors over time and I'd bet that number pales in
comparison.

~~~
cstross
The British government is in the middle of the most savage round of emergency
spending cuts since world war two.

They're trying to cut departmental budgets by 25%-40%.

They're trying to reduce the civil service head-count by 30% or thereabouts.

There is _no_ money for replacing _anything_ that isn't a life-or-death
emergency. They just axed _all_ new school building and structural maintenance
across the entire country. _Leaking roofs_ aren't going to be fixed.

With all due respect, upgrading ten year old computer systems (that still
work, after a fashion) is the bottom of their priority tree.

~~~
tjstankus
Good points, all. I'm not advocating that they should upgrade. I understand
they're in budget slashing mode. Just pointing out that the longview approach
would likely be cheaper and that their "more cost effective" statement should
probably include a caveat that it's based on short-term cost analysis.

~~~
cstross
Unfortunately government accounting rules don't take the long view into
account.

If nothing else, there's a general election due in (5 years minus 4 months)
and counting. After which, the budget is someone else's problem.

------
jpcx01
Solution = chrome frame. Now all their wonderful internal apps will still
work. And the rest of the web world can move on.

Solution != selenium in the cloud. Sauce is obviously just kidding around
here. Selenium doesn't test your site for you. You need to hire extremely
skilled testers to build up a solid selenium test suite.

------
motters
I complained about this decision myself. Continuing to insist upon using IE6
puts civil servants and the public whose data is entrusted to them at
extremely serious risk of being compromised - i.e. data being lost, stolen or
altered by unauthorized persons or criminal organizations.

------
mxavier
I wish this story would have just been a link to the actual decision. This
article is just the news story wrapped in a Sauce Labs ad. I love the idea of
Sauce Labs but is a tongue-in-cheek response to an actually interesting and
controversial news story worthy of its own HN post?

~~~
hugs
Sorry about that, says the guy who wrote said 'ad'. :-) Here's a link to the
actual decision: [http://www.hmg.gov.uk/epetition-responses/petition-
view.aspx...](http://www.hmg.gov.uk/epetition-responses/petition-
view.aspx?epref=ie6upgrade)

------
Charuru
Rather than upgrade to IE8 they should all install Google Chrome Frame.

------
Ardit20
Well, why really should they upgrade? I mean, ie6 does its job of taking you
to the internet which is basically what any browser is supposed to do. So it
works finely, so I think they are right to leave it alone. Ie9 is coming up
apparently, in no more that 3 years ie8 would be considered rubbish too, so
they would have to upgrade again.

What for?

