Matthew,

It's good to have diversity. We shouldn't be stuck with only one politically-correct browser -- and that would be Firefox.

I'm critical of opensource, I have no religious belief in it, therefore I treat Firefox more neutrally. I use it more than IE simply because it is pushed more everywhere on services I use.

And, unlike you, I can be honest about the actual performance of Firefox -- it hangs at least once a day, it crashes and gives me an option to open up the sites it remembers or not; it jams and refuses to handle PDF files -- there are some websites it simply refuses to read, forcing me to go hunt for IE and use IE.

What you need to do in calculating costs of "free opensource software" is *consulting fees and geek salaries like your own*. When someone at the State Dept. complains of the costs of maintaining opensource software, they aren't kidding. So often this "free" software comes with a huge balloon payment -- the constant need for geeks to tweak it.

When something is free and open and worked on simultaneously by all kinds of fanatics, well, you get what you pay for.

No, Matt, I sure do know what I'm talking about because *I use Firefox constantly and I'm reporting valid user information to you*. I realize that arrogant geeks often have real trouble accepting feedback like that from users, but deal with it. Nor does anything I've said here indicate any "failure to read" your post. Could you drop these Digg and Slashdot forums and realize you're on a political blog now where you can't use that sort of cultural discourse to try to win an argument? Next thing you're either going to tell me I like cats or post a picture of a LOLCat.

I have read widely on browsers, and I don't need to go to "my public library" to read about them, thanks for the insult. There are different solutions for different problems. There are add-ons and extensions and APIs that work better or worse. But that there is a browser war, and that it involves opensource versus proprietary ideologies you simply cannot deny, as it is on the record. Stop with the lofty tekkie hectoring and see this as a simple matter:

You are an opensource adherent, and indeed fanatic, judging from your post, and have joined the snarky geeky bandwagon to hate on IE because it comes from Microsoft, a big monopolist company which you love to hate, and find bonding experiences with your fellow geeks in loving to hate. You find that the government is still evidently exclusively using this MSFT browser and it puts you in a frenzy, and you post something snarky and cynical about IE not working, and grants.gov not being able to take applications of someone uses Firefox. (Of course, I use state.gov and whitehouse.govwith FF perfectly fine but -- whatever). That any grant-seeker could just instantly download and use a free and easy IE browser evidently escapes you, so deep is your need to impose the opensource solution on the user and rant and ridicule about IE without factual reporting.

It's not about me "putting words in your mouth," which is what happens each time a poster like you is caught out at in fact inevitably revealing your not-so-hidden agenda.

You *do* believe Firefox is better -- hence the trawling of the Internet for IE Fail stories.

You even have an ascerbic "You would" snark for your client, because you think IE is "the bane of web developers" -- which of course, isn't quite true, but it's just the sort of hyperbole you indulge in, bonding with certain folks of your views, without the slightest concern for the truth. Some people use and develop with IE; some don't. If it was the "bane" you imagine, it would dwindle to such lack of users that MSFT would likely not post it anymore.

Your post has been read and re-read. I'm not changing *a thing* about my writing and you insolent and thin-skinned response. My critique stands:

o you are snarky and cynical and hyperbolic about IE, because you hate MSFT and its works for ideological reasons, and that makes actual user -- and dev -- problems with FF opaque to you
o you love Firefox and are uncritical of it -- there is no criticism of Firefox in your post whatsoever, and then saying "I never denied FF performance" becomes a lame, catch-up argument
o you want to push Gov 2.0 as an opensource project and therefore want to privilege FF

If any of these are NOT the case, gosh, forgive me, and let's here you DENY any of these statements.

BTW, another strange thing I've found about IE. I noticed teenagers and kids constantly chose it over Firefox. I can't understand why. I've seen a lot of it lately. Even when I repeatedly delete IE from computers I use, and put in FF, my kids, their friends, and kids in other homes I see, put that IE back on. I suppose it's because of some facet of search or instant messaging they like.

FF froze on me yet again. It's a terrible nuisance. I may be driven back to IE.

BTW, let me post Kennedy's answer here in full, because he's absolutely right about the real cost of "free" and the endless patches and support and problems and consulting needed that ends up costing you when you opt for opensource:

UNDER SECRETARY KENNEDY: Nothing is free. (Laughter.) It’s a question of the resources to manage multiple systems. It is something we’re looking at. And thanks to the Secretary, there is a significant increase in the 2010 budget request that’s pending for what is called the Capital Investment Fund, by which we fund our information technology operations. With the Secretary’s continuing pushing, we’re hoping to get that increase in the Capital Investment Fund. And with those additional resources, we will be able to add multiple programs to it.

Yes, you’re correct; it’s free, but it has to be administered, the patches have to be loaded. It may seem small, but when you’re running a worldwide operation and trying to push, as the Secretary rightly said, out FOBs and other devices, you’re caught in the terrible bind of triage of trying to get the most out that you can, but knowing you can’t do everything at once.