Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Firefox Mozilla Upgrades IT News

The Enterprise Is Wrong, Not Mozilla 599

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the beam-me-up-snotty dept.
There's been a lot of noise about Mozilla's new rapid release leading to conflict with Enterprise users. Kethinov found an Ars article that points out that "Now that Mozilla has released Firefox 5, version 4, just three months old, is no longer supported. Enterprise customers aren't very pleased with this decision, and are claiming it makes their testing burden impossible. We're not convinced: we think Mozilla's decision is the right one for the Web itself.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Enterprise Is Wrong, Not Mozilla

Comments Filter:
  • by Animats (122034) on Tuesday June 28, 2011 @11:49AM (#36598154) Homepage

    It's a browser, Firefox people. It doesn't need many new features. One new release every year or two is enough.

    If so many new releases are needed for bug fixes, have longer betas. If the problem is security, beef up the sandbox design so that less of the code is security critical.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28, 2011 @12:03PM (#36598420)

    Its a browser, slashgoon person. It needs many new features. One new release every year or two is not nearly enough.

    If so many new releases are required to add such features, have shorter betas. If the problem is security, aggressively add new security technologies to stay ahead of the curve.

    I'm really, really sick of people badmouthing firefox for what it's not. This is the browser that beat IE (Yes, it did). This is the browser that saved the web from stagnation. This is the browser that forced Microsoft to clean up their act after they killed Netscape. It thrives on new features and new technologies to enable developers to create whole new applications you haven't' even begun to imagine. They can't do this if the feature set never changes.

    Fire fox is not fucking IE6.

    It's not some stable interface for your shitty in-house 10 year old intranet application. Maybe, just maybe, using a general purpose browser that one would use to go on the wild internet is not the same thing they should be using for their legacy web apps. Ever considered that?

    Download, install run. Enjoy. Embrace change or get shoved aside.

  • by gamrillen (1972402) on Tuesday June 28, 2011 @12:11PM (#36598608) Homepage
    I worked for a large corporation on a team that deployed software to ~50,000 desktops and ~10,000 servers. Whenever we wanted to deploy a new software package (Via Microsoft SCCM or Group Policies) it was a huge undertaking, even for the simpler applications. At minimum, it takes at least a month to develop a plan for and deploy an application, and that was just on our end. If it was something that involved websites, and/or browser plugins (Adobe Reader, Adobe Flash, etc) then it would take even longer because testing would have to be done on every internal web based application. That alone took several months and a dedicated project team. Once the software change was ready for deployment, it took a week to develop the scripting and deployment policies. After that, it was deployed to a pilot group for two weeks, and then a test group for a week. After that, it could be put into production. However, if there was the slightest hitch along the way, it could set us back several weeks. Enterprises move VERY slowly on their software deployments. If Mozilla is interested at all in keeping Firefox in the enterprise world, they're going to have to slow down, or at least release an "Enterprise" version so that deployment teams can keep up. Six week release cycles are just going to cause folks like me, who manage software deployments, to stop deploying it at all.
  • Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jdgeorge (18767) on Tuesday June 28, 2011 @12:14PM (#36598664)

    I experience the memory footprint problem also. It may be the sites I'm using are very heavyweight and remain in the cache, but it would be great to see some kind of graph that shows what memory is being used by which tabs, or is unreasonably persisting in the cache.

  • Re:Mozillacide (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kangsterizer (1698322) on Tuesday June 28, 2011 @12:30PM (#36598910)

    FF4 add ons are compatible with FF5 by default. Almost no plugin or addon could have been broken.
    They are compatible because Mozilla marked them all compatible by default (except a very few that they knew would need update)

    Consequently anyone arguing that Mozilla broke addons/plugins has no clue what he's talking about.

    Damn trolls, they don't do their homework.

  • by Kamiza Ikioi (893310) on Tuesday June 28, 2011 @12:51PM (#36599308) Homepage

    And who's call was it to change version numbers? And who was the asshole who told Enterprise users (paraphrasing) "We don't give a shit about you."

    Mozilla went out of its way to pick a fight. And that one statement right there is all it takes. It's not what Mozilla changed. It's the fact that they dumped a codebase on its ass after 3 months. That's not credibility building. That's saying "We have no clue how to plan or beta test our products properly."

    Putting those two things together is, in no way, "the right [decision] for the Web itself." It's fanboy smoke blowing up CIO asses. If it's so right, why is it that Opera, Safari, and Chrome are not on the hot seat? Chrome undergoes changes at a super-rapid pace automatically, but I hear nobody really screaming about it. Two reasons, really. First, it just works, which can be said of FF, but it is not an aura they present especially when they have to drop support after only 3 months of a major release. Second, Google has never said, "F#$% you, CIOs!" Google has made it clear that they want to be the one stop shop for cloud for business.

    The question is, what the hell does Mozilla want? I don't see a vision. They're worse than UI devs who argue over who's system is better, forgetting what their goals actually are.

    At Mozilla, all I see is mismanagement. They can't control their code. They can't control their staff. And they are continually lagging behind all competition, which is especially sad given their rock star performance not too long ago, with social buzz propelling a large install base.

    They don't do anything news worthy anymore, except piss people off. MS learned how to change that, and most CIOs are excited about IE8/9 as a real evolution. Chrome continues to innovate and add support. Opera is continually pushing the mobile envelope.

    Not only were they assholes, but the question quickly flies back into Mozilla's face, "What have you done for me lately?" That mobile app? It's a joke. Slow, bulky, and not appealing. It is not even comparable to other mobile browsers like Opera or Dolphin.

    Nobody really cares about Mozilla anymore. And those that do are finding it harder to justify using it. This isn't about what's "right for the web", this is about a tech that's outlived its prime, by a team that's outlived its usefulness.

  • by ElVee (208723) <elvee61.gmail@com> on Tuesday June 28, 2011 @02:29PM (#36601476)

    I could press a button right now and have FF5 on 40k desktops by midnight. I'd lose my job, but I could do it.

    Testing isn't hard, it just takes a lot of time and money. We have to CERTIFY exactly which of the several hundred internal and external webapps FireFox works with, and which it doesn't, and then create copious documentation in several languages for help desk and field personnel. We have to plan and manage GPO settings for dozens of different groups. If code changes have to be made on servers to support the new browser, that has to be coordinated across the enterprise.

    There's more to it than browsing to a few websites and then letting the code fly.

  • Re:Mozillacide (Score:4, Interesting)

    by IgnoramusMaximus (692000) on Tuesday June 28, 2011 @04:59PM (#36604202)

    pretty obviously if its just a few in the vast majority there's no issue

    Particularly if you are using one of those "minority" choices. Hell, if 3000+ sports and celebrity-related themes work (all counted amongst the "addons"), who cares about the "minority" complicated stuff that is likely to break with wanton changes?! Everyone knows that "regular users" just want pretty and shiny things and cool version numbers! In fact they apparently all want Chrome too, so Mozilla is adoringly porting all the features of Chrome, irrespective of their quality, into Firefox! Oh and every "regular user" wants the UI to change every two weeks. Sooner and more completely if possible! Not to mention that all changes must involve "minimalism", i.e. removing something useful! Otherwise it doesn't count.

    As long as the Lady Gaga Fantasy Football Theme and the Facebook integration does not break its a new major version two days after new Chrome release, at the latest, from now on!

    No?

ASCII a stupid question, you get an EBCDIC answer.

Working...