Facebook or Google+ (or both or neither)

As of a week or so ago, I'm a "user" (if you want to call it that) of both Facebook and Google+. I don't know which is better or if you need either or both products, but I thought I'd mention a few of the biggest things I've seen thus far:

Facebook

Well, I guess the biggest thing is that everybody's already there, so don't assume that it's going away any time soon. Will users want to convert or add a second 'primary' social networking resource to their to-do list? There are also third-party apps that integrate with Facebook and that are used to post updates and interact with the Facebook environment. As mobile as everyone is today, this is a big deal and something that any competing product will need to implement soon. There are also games... I can't STAND the concept of logging into Facebook and seeing ads or requests from friends playing FarmVille or Mafia Wars, but I can't deny the fact that lots of people apparently do play these games and they aren't (as of yet) on the Google platform.

Google+

The biggest thing I've seen at first glance is that there's an effort to make sharing easier via drag-and-drop access to 'circles' that you create to group your contacts based on interest. If you don't want your quilting updates to interrupt your discussion of whether Aquaman felt like a fish out of water amongst the Super Friends, then you can create separate circles and update each of them individually. It's easy to manage right now, but it remains to be seen if this will remain the case when there are hundreds of people that need to be moved in and out of circles. The lack of games and clutter is an attraction to me but, as noted above, that may not be the case with other users and it may not stay this way forever.

Video chatting seems to be a big deal to both players. Google+ has its 'hangouts' feature for this and the recent Facebook/Skype announcement about video calling is a move in that direction. Personally, I haven't seen the need to use a social networking site to initiate video calls with others. I've been trained for years to believe that the whole concept of social networking is to create a ton of shallow connections with people that I may not be able to pick out of a lineup and have no interest in seeing in real-time video. :) The big players are developing it, though, so let's just assume there's a need.

Facebook lets you 'like' a product or 'become a fan'. The Google option has 'sparks' that allows you to pull different interests together in a way that suits you. The concepts are similar, I suppose, and I would guess that each will evolve as the user feedback grows.

It's a quickly-changing landscape and this post will be dated about as quickly as I click 'publish'. Facebook has taken some lumps over privacy concerns and their latest competition has had its own issues over what it does with search results and privacy concerns with products like Buzz.

Final edit: I can't even get 'publish' clicked before this take becomes dated. It's all about privacy per this article as well. **Sigh**

[Image: Library of Congress, 1865, Lincoln's 2nd inauguration. Old-school social networking.]

A word on browsers, GPOs

I'll give this the kiss of death and state that this should be a brief entry. Veterans will remember the days when Netscape was the browser of choice. AOL bought it for over $4B years ago! Then Internet Explorer made an appearance, was bundled with the operating system and lawsuits began. At some point, Mozilla Firefox became an open-source alternative and that's really where my search for browsers ended. I use Firefox and/or IE and they've served my purpose.

These days, there are other products on the market like Chrome and Opera. In fact, I've had one or two people tell me that one of those browsers is faster than IE or Firefox. That had me curious... not curious enough to download them and try them out myself (as of yet), but curious enough to search around for reviews. Sure enough, there's a good LifeHacker article that gives details on browser tests they performed. I'm sure there are other reviews out there as well.

Quick question, though - as an IT administrator in an enterprise, what do you need out of a browser? Here's my quick list:

* Functional (e.g. doesn't fail, renders pages properly, etc)
* Fast
* As best as possible, prevents malware/spyware from being downloaded
* Can be managed at an enterprise level

The last point is the one I'll mention. If you're interested in deploying something besides IE in an enterprise environment, you need to be searching for certain phrases. You'll likely need an MSI file, which is a Windows Installer file or Microsoft Installer file. This is basically an entire install package grouped into a single file. Admins can use MSI files in combination with Group Policy in a Microsoft environment to remotely install a product. Insuch an environment, you'll also want an ADM template or administrative template. These are used by the Group Policy editor to help you manage registry settings for a particular product.

I'm not advocating that you switch browser, but I wanted to use this as a chance to remind you that some of these popular open-source products have these features. Chrome has an MSI file available. A company named FrontMotion has customized a version of Firefox to be managed with Active Directory and Group Policy.

Just be aware of the terms to use and processes you'll want to implement if you ever consider deploying popular products in an enterprise environment. Browsers may be a dull topic, but it could be a relevant one if there's a product out there that will improve the user experience and/or cause less of a headache for you and your staff.