What you say has strong kernels of truth. The problem I have is the unstated conclusion, "therefore users must suffer". There are many mitigating approaches t

What you say has strong kernels of truth. The problem I have is the unstated conclusion, "therefore users must suffer". There are many mitigating approaches that DON'T require making the users' life hell. Before I begin, please understand I am not directing my criticism at you personally but rather the policies that you are defending. To your points: 1. Large scale environments with heterogeneity have approaches available like desktop virtualization or app containerization that ensure apps can be packaged in a self-contained way so that there's less need for full-OS control. Secondly, your remote wipe scenario makes no sense. If the device is stolen, you WANT your personal stuff wiped too! The root issue is highlighted by your re-imaging scenario: lack of regular, automated network backups. But that has very little to do with ownership amd control, and everything to do with the backup service quality and user training. 2. You're absolutely right about compatibility, but you'll notice the dodge to the original point. "Security" was defined as the reason for the use of a certain browser, not "Stadardization". Which we both know is horseshit - IE 6 has been long deprecated , unsupported, and a massive security hole, for example, to the point that its just budgetary negligence to keep insisting on that version. But again we get to "why hate IT" - its not standardization in reason, it's lying to your customers to cover up poor service. 4. I've run ops for multi tens-of-thousands of desktop environments and I have rarely seen that level of sign off required for non-standard applications except in highly secured (classified) contexts. It's draconian and unnecessary. Also note the misdirection: draconian approvals have little to do with "this requires documentation", it has to do with "preventing change". Of course exceptions require documentation, and at least line managerial approval, but requiring senior approval is a big red neon sign that the stated policy of the organization is "fuck change", rather than "embrace change and manage risk". Finally, to your point: "The specific program is not the issue. IT in the enterprise is all about centralized/standardized management and configuration. Every deviation from the standard is gonna increase the burden of maintenance." I agree with the first part. The latter part is where I say "that's the cost of doing business". The problem we have with much of old IT today is an operations-penny-pinching "change is bad and our processes are designed to prevent it" mentality rather than a balance between delivering new value and keeping it running, where "change is the norm and our processes are designed to manage it". Look man, I get where you're coming from, but after dealing with senior business execs for a long while, I feel IT-as-is is untenable. without a rethink, the abject hatred that many business people have towards IT will grow and rogue systems will flourish. Its like the PC days of 1983 agajn. The price to be paid by technology professionals for this acrimony will be large, similar to what mainframe professionals went through.