Slashdot Mirror

The people have spoken, and their preferences - despite bundling and presets - have been made known.

Hardly. More like, it's the only thing that works.

Let's say you try to do something like a firefox deployment on an organizational level. The first thing you will notice is the lack of an MSI file for deployment with AD. Which means getting it out there requires some third party package manager, or re-imaging.

Once that's done, you'll notice the lack of policies for it. (Something Chrome supports, and even provides ADMX files for.) So setting things requires pushing out a config file to the machine, (because per user policies don't get enforced), that is appropriate for all users of that machine.

Once that's done, up until recently, deploying a CA cert was a pain in the ass. Why? Because firefox didn't support using the certs from the system store, and insisted on using certs that it provided. (Which meant you had to run a logon script to create / update the profile for each user and install the needed certs manually. Which also meant the end user could get screwed up if they created a new profile during that session and didn't relogin.) It does support using the system store now (supposedly, I've not tried it.) but it's still a beta feature that must be turned on explicitly. (Chrome doesn't have this issue at all.)

Originally the last two issues were solved via things like CCK2. But since firefox decided to play gatekeeper when it came to using extensions, that solution is no longer an option. So even if it used work, now it doesn't and there's no replacement on the horizon.

Long story short, firefox (and it's derivatives like pale moon), are not organization friendly. Yes, giving users choice is a good thing. But the sysadmins need choice too. (Especially in enterprise deployments where legal and corporate policy compliance is an issue.) If you don't provide it, we have to go elsewhere. Guess what? Chrome and IE provide it, so that's what is used.

Side note: Chrome under linux doesn't support using the system cert store. (old nssdb in /etc or the ca-certificates package used by distros like fedora and ubuntu.) So we can't use it there. In that case we default back to firefox using bash_profile to install certs and set prefs. (That are not enforced.) So it's not just a Windows problem.

I have not tested this yet but they are working in making Firefox read Windows certificate trust store for certificate authorities

This is a data-driven change. It does affect some use-cases, but there are add-ons to bring back the old behavior (see Mike Kaply on Keyword Search and Firefox 23 for example).

Really? Lip service isn't the same as actually catering to enterprise customers.

To quote Firefox evangelist Asa Dotzler

Enterprise has never been (and I’ll argue, shouldn’t be) a focus of ours. Until we run out of people who don’t have sysadmins and enterprise deployment teams looking out for them, I can’t imagine why we’d focus at all on the kinds of environments you care so much about.

Here you go, now you'll be able to start using all the proper diagnosis tools like about:memory?verbose
Don't forget to follow the Memshrink and Snappy progress.

This isn't about version numbers. This is about end-of-life for "old" versions.

this is exactly the source of the confusion. the "end-of-life" for "old" versions is solved by upgrading to the next highest version number. simple and plain. instead of sporadic updates on minor versions and RCs, you have a solid, scheduled update cycle. maybe it's mentally traumatic for the confused to shift the paradigm in their heads. you don't have "support for ff4" and "support for ff5." you just have "support for firefox" which now comes in the form of more frequent new versions. it should be obvious that between ff5 today and ff8 in december that nothing huge is going to change between versions. just like it is with chrome.

on this blog post mike kaply says:

As person involved in the corporate deployment of Firefox, I think it’s a really bad idea. Companies simply can’t turn around major browser updates in six weeks (and each one of these is a major update).

except that they do with chrome. and even with microsoft when it bundles your version upgrade into automatic updates. not saying firefox is as safe as chrome, and not disputing asa's ambivalence toward enterprise users. if i play devil's advocate for your side i still conclude that the microsoft rep was defeating his own straw man. if the microsoft rep wanted to be forthcoming he could have made that point himself, but he's using your natural tendency to infer that firefox is comparable in security. notice that he didn't go after chrome for their similar update/release cycles.

What's relevant isn't that Firefox's version numbers are going up so fast per se, it's that no version gets more than six weeks worth of security updates.

it is very relevant that firefox's version numbers are going up so fast, since your precious security updates are simply labeled Firefox++. (that's an increment operator, for the non-programmers). what i think is worth noting is that firefox's solution should really be to make their version upgrades as seamless as they are with chrome. reading the comments on this article, it looks like several linux users have already noticed, or more accurately not noticed, seamless firefox upgrades.

This isn't about version numbers. This is about end-of-life for "old" versions.

What's relevant isn't that Firefox's version numbers are going up so fast per se, it's that no version gets more than six weeks worth of security updates. They're coupled, and I think that's a poor choice because it means you can only choose two of the following three options:

1. Secure
2. Stable
3. Firefox

But that's their choice to make.

Asa himself suggested IE to enterprises. This Asa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asa_Dotzler. It's sort of a backhanded compliment, but it's pretty clear:

IE9 is a fine browser and probably better suited to those who want long-term support. It’ll always be behind the consumer browsers (Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera) but it does offer enterprises a more conservative and slow-moving option.

cite: http://mike.kaply.com/2011/06/23/understanding-the-corporate-impact/#comment-10692

There's really nothing dishonest here. Firefox is making a choice, explicitly and consciously, and their employees are promoting that choice. Their choice is for enterprises to be low priority. Some enterprises who bet on Firefox are disappointed. Of course the competitor that chooses to make enterprises high priority will jump in with their offering. I mean, when even Mozilla employees suggest IE for a use scenario, there's really nothing dastardly about it.

Asa seems generally okay with ceding that part of the market to IE (at least as long as it's IE9 or higher), and seems to argue that it's kind of small beans anyway.

And will they please release the management utilities via open source?

From the article

A number of third-party tools have been developed over the years to simplify certain aspects of organization-wide Firefox roll-outs. One of those tools is the Client Customization Kit (CCK), which was developed by Firefox modification consultant Michael Kaply while he was employed by IBM. Kaply still actively maintains the tool and released an updated version for Firefox 3.6 in March. IBM is using it alongside other tools to ensure that its Firefox adoption plan goes smoothly.

IBM already has developed the initial version. CCK is currently Mozilla Public License 1.1 and I have not seen any notice that they're changing that so your question is answered.

K THX BYE

Anytime, brah.

Here's an idea: get your head out of Microsoft's ass and help with projects that do exactly what you're interested in, like THIS ONE: http://www.kaply.com/weblog/2008/03/14/group-policy-extension-for-firefox/ God forbid people actually learn how to do something they didn't learn in MCSE class *SIGH* Or even worse: looking at page 2 or 3 in a Google search.

And within hours there is already a Firefox extension that does everything Microsoft Activities does - http://www.kaply.com/weblog/2008/03/07/microsoft-activities-for-firefox-new-version/
There is a web slices extension in development already too - http://www.glazman.org/weblog/dotclear/index.php?post/2008/03/07/WebSlices-in-Firefox-2

I'm a little disappointed that there wasn't more information in this article about the work that IS going on.

IBM (and other folks) are actively trying to get more people involved in making Firefox better for the enterprise.

We realize this isn't an area that Mozilla Corp. cares much about, so we're trying to rally more folks to support in this arena.

If you want to participate, check out:

http://www.kaply.com/weblog/2008/01/03/firefox-enterprise-newsgroup/