Microsoft Exploits Firefox 4 Uproar, Beats IE Drum 315
CWmike writes "A Microsoft executive late Thursday used the furor over Mozilla's decision to curtail support for Firefox 4 to plead the case for Internet Explorer in the enterprise. 'I think I speak for everyone on the IE team when I say we'd like the opportunity to win back your business,' Ari Bixhorn, director of IE at Microsoft, said in a post on his personal blog. 'We've got a great solution for corporate customers with both IE8 and IE9, and believe we could help you address the challenges you're currently facing.' Bixhorn addressed his open letter to the manager of workplace and mobility in the office of IBM's CIO, John Walicki, who, along with others, had voiced their displeasure with Mozilla's decision to retire Firefox 4 from security support. In a comment appended to a blog maintained by Michael Kaply, a consultant who specializes in customizing Firefox, Walicki called Mozilla's decision to end security support for Firefox 4 a 'kick in the stomach.'"
Version numbers are meaningless (Score:5, Interesting)
Each company and such has a bizarre meaning to version numbers.
FF 5 IS the security update to FF4.
Much like Chrome goes up by major numbers.
Then you look at open source where things often start in the 0.01 range and every digit could be a new feature release.
A number of companies use major.minor.build however it really isn't as standard as you think.
Cisco ASA devices look like major.minor.build however new features regularly appear in the "Builds"
Juniper security gear has gone to a year.quarter. release numbering system
take your pick.
Harsh Realities (Score:5, Interesting)
I use Firefox, and have for quite a while. I've gone from a strong supporter and proselytizer to... less enthusiastic. It's still my first choice of browser, but just barely.
It was the Awesomebar debacle, and their refusal to include an option to turn it off, that first made me suspect they were headed in the wrong direction. Removing the status bar was a bad idea, and then this ridiculous botchup with versioning... sigh.
They have positives. They have the best plug-in architecture, and they aren't including patented/copyrighted codecs in the browser, which is good (although they should allow a direct interface to the underlying OS codecs, not simply forbid them from playing). Still, I was contemplating shifting over to Opera. Now, today, we learn that Opera is probably going to go to hell in the next few months.
At this point, I'm hoping that somebody will fork Firefox back at the 3.6 version, and take it from there. It needs to go in a direction the users want, and stop trying to force the users into a direction the designers want. If you stop listening to your users, they will leave. It's beginning to happen with Firefox.
Re:Harsh Realities (Score:3, Interesting)
Firefox is still the most customizable browser (from the popular ones). If you're trying to use it's UI as a means to discredit it that means you don't really know Firefox. It will take one direction for default users (appeal to the majority) but the power users will be able to tweak it to a great extent.
Pretending that it suits your specific tastes is just unrealistic.
Something else I don't understand is why "geeks" can't simply use more than one browser. You DON'T have to set on one for the rest of eternity stop arguing about it and actually go and report a bug or feature request! argghhh!
Re:Do they have an IT dept? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, the change is NOT only a number. Mozilla has stated that every major version change breaks ABI compatibility.
That probably doesn't matter to you (it certainly doesn't to me) but if a company distributes Firefox extensions for their employees, they're going to have an upgrade headache on their hands.