19 ms·

What Chrome also did far better than everyone else was a user local install, ie an install that didn’t require admin on the PC. Shadow IT installs was a huge ad

What Chrome also did far better than everyone else was a user local install, ie an install that didn’t require admin on the PC. Shadow IT installs was a huge advantage over Firefox in Chrome’s first years.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
I still have to fight this occasionally. :| In one instance, I ended up just telling the antivirus software at a company to flag Chrome as a virus and block it from executing. Software installation requiring admin rights is by design, and circumventing it is unethical as heck.
- praseodym 8y ago
  If you rely on the lack of admin rights to prevent unauthorised software from being run you’re doing it wrong. You should be using whitelisting (e.g. AppLocker in Windows) which also prevents “portable” applications (without an installer) from being used.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    I don't disagree, but a significant majority of IT environments are "done wrong".
- paulie_a 8y ago
  If you try that on my box, your admin rights will be removed. Preventing me from installing necessary software to do my job is unethical.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    Users who have a valid necessity for Chrome can have it, in a very controlled fashion (extensions and cloud features disabled) on request and review.
    - paulie_a 8y ago
      Im ignoring that request and review process. I don't need a beaucratic process. Im just going to do it.
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        That's not your box, though. It's your employers.
        paulie_a 8y ago
        Not necessarily. Byod is commom. And quite frankly even if it is my employers box im not gonna put up with restrictions against installing a web browser. Or deal with some paperwork request, I'll work around it and just do it.
        lovich 8y ago
        Who would bring their own equipment to work in software unless they are a founder? That's like paying to work. Especially when employers like to claim ownership rights to all data generated by their employees in the course of business. Mechanics bring their own tools frequently but their employers don't try to repo their personal vehicles just because the mechanic used the same tools at home and at work
        paulie_a 8y ago
        It's fairly common to byod. Just think about personal phones. Do you have corporate phone or do have slack installed on your personal one?
        lovich 8y ago
        I don't have work slack on my personal phone on principle. If the company wants to require me to be available on their systems they need to provide the hardware
        8y ago
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  The eternal conflict between lowly workers trying to get their job done and the IT department trying to prevent them from doing their jobs to make their own life easier, based on the notion that if users can't use the infrastructure, they can't break it.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    Obviously, Chrome is not needed to do their jobs. If it was, it'd be provided. Browsers, especially Chrome, are a massive malware ingress point, it makes zero sense for end users to install them. IT actually exists to help ensure people can do their job, and do their job faster. As a general goal, I like to learn about people's business processes for the exact purpose of seeing how our IT environment can be improved to expedite their work. And having five browsers on a PC doesn't make it easier for end users. I have no problem dealing with five browsers, but I get a lot of complaints from people when they open link A in browser B and link C in browser D and don't understand why things don't work. You may have experienced poor IT departments in the past, or thought you experienced poor IT departments because you didn't understand the other considerations in play, but that's hardly an excuse to assume any given IT choice is some sort of attempt to prevent employees from doing their jobs.
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      > If it was, it'd be provided. That's a faulty assumption right there. Usually, people providing workers with their computers and software have limited idea what those workers actually need to work efficiently. This works out fine when workflows are defined so well a trained monkey could do the job, and fails miserably when the worker needs any sort of creative control over their workflow or work output (programmers, designers, all sorts of engineers and technicians, etc.). Most corporate work is probably closer to monkey level than to creative level, but enterprises love to do company-wide policy changes, making all work conform to lowest common denominator. > You may have experienced poor IT departments in the past, or thought you experienced poor IT departments because you didn't understand the other considerations in play, but that's hardly an excuse to assume any given IT choice is some sort of attempt to prevent employees from doing their jobs. I've experienced one competent IT department in my life, and their best quality was helping shield our programming team from policies like application whitelisting or limiting admin access, that they were forced to deploy company-wide. For other IT departments I dealt with, most of their actions were explainable if viewed through the lens of caring about the infrastructure to the extreme - that is, "if no one uses it, no one will break it" approach.
- glennpratt 8y ago
  By whose design? Certainly not Microsoft who enabled this pattern and continues to expand on it. On top of that Portable Firefox came out in 2004. This non-security through irritation gives IT a bad name.
- mr_toad 8y ago
  Installation requirements are mostly a hangover from the days when Windows PCs weren’t locked down and anyone could write to the system folders and admin rights were just assumed. Software developers often didn’t bother testing or ensuring that their software would install (or even run properly) without admin rights.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago

I still have to fight this occasionally. :| In one instance, I ended up just telling the antivirus software at a company to flag Chrome as a virus and block it from executing. Software installation requiring admin rights is by design, and circumventing it is unethical as heck.

praseodym 8y ago
If you rely on the lack of admin rights to prevent unauthorised software from being run you’re doing it wrong. You should be using whitelisting (e.g. AppLocker in Windows) which also prevents “portable” applications (without an installer) from being used.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  I don't disagree, but a significant majority of IT environments are "done wrong".
paulie_a 8y ago
If you try that on my box, your admin rights will be removed. Preventing me from installing necessary software to do my job is unethical.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  Users who have a valid necessity for Chrome can have it, in a very controlled fashion (extensions and cloud features disabled) on request and review.
  - paulie_a 8y ago
    Im ignoring that request and review process. I don't need a beaucratic process. Im just going to do it.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      That's not your box, though. It's your employers.
      - paulie_a 8y ago
        Not necessarily. Byod is commom. And quite frankly even if it is my employers box im not gonna put up with restrictions against installing a web browser. Or deal with some paperwork request, I'll work around it and just do it.
        lovich 8y ago
        Who would bring their own equipment to work in software unless they are a founder? That's like paying to work. Especially when employers like to claim ownership rights to all data generated by their employees in the course of business. Mechanics bring their own tools frequently but their employers don't try to repo their personal vehicles just because the mechanic used the same tools at home and at work
        paulie_a 8y ago
        It's fairly common to byod. Just think about personal phones. Do you have corporate phone or do have slack installed on your personal one?
        lovich 8y ago
        I don't have work slack on my personal phone on principle. If the company wants to require me to be available on their systems they need to provide the hardware
        8y ago
TeMPOraL 8y ago
The eternal conflict between lowly workers trying to get their job done and the IT department trying to prevent them from doing their jobs to make their own life easier, based on the notion that if users can't use the infrastructure, they can't break it.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  Obviously, Chrome is not needed to do their jobs. If it was, it'd be provided. Browsers, especially Chrome, are a massive malware ingress point, it makes zero sense for end users to install them. IT actually exists to help ensure people can do their job, and do their job faster. As a general goal, I like to learn about people's business processes for the exact purpose of seeing how our IT environment can be improved to expedite their work. And having five browsers on a PC doesn't make it easier for end users. I have no problem dealing with five browsers, but I get a lot of complaints from people when they open link A in browser B and link C in browser D and don't understand why things don't work. You may have experienced poor IT departments in the past, or thought you experienced poor IT departments because you didn't understand the other considerations in play, but that's hardly an excuse to assume any given IT choice is some sort of attempt to prevent employees from doing their jobs.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    > If it was, it'd be provided. That's a faulty assumption right there. Usually, people providing workers with their computers and software have limited idea what those workers actually need to work efficiently. This works out fine when workflows are defined so well a trained monkey could do the job, and fails miserably when the worker needs any sort of creative control over their workflow or work output (programmers, designers, all sorts of engineers and technicians, etc.). Most corporate work is probably closer to monkey level than to creative level, but enterprises love to do company-wide policy changes, making all work conform to lowest common denominator. > You may have experienced poor IT departments in the past, or thought you experienced poor IT departments because you didn't understand the other considerations in play, but that's hardly an excuse to assume any given IT choice is some sort of attempt to prevent employees from doing their jobs. I've experienced one competent IT department in my life, and their best quality was helping shield our programming team from policies like application whitelisting or limiting admin access, that they were forced to deploy company-wide. For other IT departments I dealt with, most of their actions were explainable if viewed through the lens of caring about the infrastructure to the extreme - that is, "if no one uses it, no one will break it" approach.
glennpratt 8y ago
By whose design? Certainly not Microsoft who enabled this pattern and continues to expand on it. On top of that Portable Firefox came out in 2004. This non-security through irritation gives IT a bad name.
mr_toad 8y ago
Installation requirements are mostly a hangover from the days when Windows PCs weren’t locked down and anyone could write to the system folders and admin rights were just assumed. Software developers often didn’t bother testing or ensuring that their software would install (or even run properly) without admin rights.