Rolling Out Mozilla in an Organization?

jdclucidly asks: "I am a network administrator for a small non-profit (about 50 employees). I would like to roll Mozilla 1.2.1 out to all of our desktops. We don't have a single ghost image because the computers on site are too varied. Yes, I did my Googling. The source for the installer is just huge and mind boggling. Is there something like a Mozilla Administration Kit that will generate custom Mozilla installers? If not, would people on Slashdot be interested in starting a new project to make such a kit?" If you were going to deploy a "branded" version of Mozilla, company-wide, how would you do it, especially if you had to worry about a mixed OS environment?

"Here's what I want to do:

• Install everything but Quality Feedback Agent
• Set Mozilla as the default browser
• Disable 'Open Unrequested Windows' (kill pop-ups)
• Install Elveraldo's Crystal-Classic theme as default
• Set Google as the default search engine
• Set 'Georgia' as the default Serif font for Western and Unicode
• Enable HTTP Pipelining
• Enable FIPS internal cryptography
• Set toolbar to 'Pictures only'
• Set Home Page to my organization's intranet site
• Set start page to 'Blank page'
• Disable 'Hide the tab bar'
• Enable Middle-click for new tab
• Enable control+enter for new tab
• Default downloads to 'open a progress dialog'
• Disable Javascript and Plugins for Mail & News
• Enable quicklaunch
• Create an additional shortcut on the desktop and in quicklaunch that uses chrome/icons/mailnew.ico as it's source and points to 'mozilla.exe -mail'

As you can imagine, doing this on 50 computers (and making sure I got each of these) would be quite tedious. Are, there others out there that want to do the same thing. I checked the Mozilla newgroups. I checked the CCK Project page at Mozilla.org -- it appears to be pretty inactive. I checked out the Netscape 7 CCK, which is pretty robust but doesn't do everything I want and it's proprietary -- plus, I don't want all the NS7 proprietary crap on my network.

I installed Mozilla on my machine using the stub installer and had it save all of the .XPI components to a folder. I went in and extracted the .XPI's and examined them. It seems possible to do these things but not without learning XUL, JavaScript, XML and Mozilla.org's own stuffings -- not to mention setting up a Visual C++/Cygwin compiling farm for every next Mozilla release. Can I:

• Directly modify the defaults/prefs/all.js file to incorporate my preference defaults above and then recompress the .XPI?
• Add to the installer Crystal-Classic.jar somehow? Where are those changes made?
• Make the installer NOT allow the user to change any of this?
• Make the installer create the above mentioned shortcut?"

Comments

just copy the directory

[Anonymous Coward]

just copy the directory, mozilla doesn't need registry entries.. it stores all its settings in some whacky xml files

Re:just copy the directory

[MikeFM]

Copying the directory is pretty much what I'd suggest. Configure one browser for each platform and make a tarball for Linux, a zip installer for Windows, etc and just copy your settings over. For 50 machines it wouldn't be worth the effort of using a client customization kit or anything like that. As far as keeping users from changing their settings that's easy enough in Linux but am not sure how you'd do it in Windows or MacOS. Just change the owner of the config files away from the user and give them read but not write permissions to those files.

Priorities

[trans_err]

Seems to me like you're just begging for large scale trouble. Take the time and make annnnnnnn image for all the computers, making the one or two neccesary for differences in platforms are still going to save you a lot of time in the long run. What happens when you decide you want to update to Mozilla 1.3 or roll out some other app? In the long run it seems like you could greatly increase stability, continuity, and prohibit a lot of headaches like this one if you just slow down and build from the ground up.

IMHO of course.

Re:Priorities

[pavera]

He stated in his post that making images wasn't really going to reduce complexity because the systems themselves are too varied, images do not reduce the amount of time needed in this case. if you have 50 computers and they all have different hardware, you've gotta have 50 images, your average win2k image with no software is about 1 Gb, with stuff like office, and other software, easily 1.5Gb each, so, now you're looking at 75Gb of storage just to keep all of your images (not that 75Gb is some huge amount anymore really, but it is pretty big, I used to work in a 130 employee firm, and until about 1 year ago we only had 100gb of total server storage space, so 75 of that used up for images wasn't feasible at all). plus you have to keep track of which image goes to which computer, besides, you'd have to manually install all of the software on *each* computer anyway to create the initial images, images will not help in this case.

Re:Question...

[Alex]

Its called a "corporate standard" for a reason.

Alex

Re:Question...

[dvdeug]

Don't put your kid's picture up as wallpaper (less of a gripe, I don't really care, but give an inch...).

You aren't working with robots. People personalize their space to make it more comfortable to work in; lock them in cold blank walls with everything ISO-standard, they won't be happy. Give an inch.

Pink fonts in Monotype Corsiva on a light blue background makes it tough for me to troubleshoot.

Remember who uses the computer day in and day out. Not you.

Please reread that statement again and again when you feel like it's "Your Computer".

It's not "Your Computer", either. I'm not saying you should let pirate software and porn run around the computers, but complaining when the people that use the things change the fonts and colors to something that will make them more comfortable is excessive. Would you complain if someone moved the chair in the company car?

Re:Question...

[SlashdotLemming]

So let me get this straight, the "end user" sitting in front of the machine 99% of the time should use the personal preferences of the grumpy SA. Makes sense. I hope those idiots keep their chairs at the proper height for you too. I mean, you need to be able to do *YOUR* job without distraction.

A genius in a sea of stupidity. How do you deal with it?

Don't ignore the question

[frankie]

* Install everything but Quality Feedback Agent
* Disable Javascript and Plugins for Mail & News
* Create an additional shortcut on the desktop and in quicklaunch that uses chrome/icons/mailnew.ico as it's source and points to 'mozilla.exe -mail'

I would use its leaner & meaner cousin, Phoenix

Knee, meet Jerk. Jerk, meet Knee. Apparently neither Vallon nor his 3 or 4 moderators bothered to read the freaking question. The IT guy specifically wants to use the mail client as well as the browser, and probably NNTP too.

Just because Phoenix is small and 1337 doesn't mean it's the answer to world peace, minty fresh breath, or every question that contains the word "Mozilla".

Re:Question...

[Bake]

Do you put a picture of the family on your desk?
Now why would you do that? The desk is not for your personal use, it's the property of the company, if you didn't pay for it, it ain't yours.

Do you fiddle with the settings on your office chair?
Now why would you do that? The chair is not for your personal use, it's the property of the company. It isn't any of the company's business what settings on the chair are most comfortable for you. Personalisation does not benefit the company.

I wish more end users would remember that.

(</sarcastic-rant> for those who need it)

The computer, just like any other accessory you use in your workplace must allow for some personalisation.
As an IT drone, it is not your job to dictate what background picture/colour I have. If having BIG white letters on a black background increases my productivity, you, on behalf of the company, should be happy, even though it means you'll get to spend a few more minutes with me in the event that I need some help.

Dispite what you may have read when reading the BOFH archives, the system administrator should NOT get to dictate every single detail about the computing environment in the workplace.

*These machines are not for your display of power*

[Kjella]

As an employee, it's not "your computer". It's the property of the company. I wish more end users would remember that. "Why are you messing with *my* computer? I've got it just the way I like it!" Sorry. Pink fonts in Monotype Corsiva on a light blue background makes it tough for me to troubleshoot. Don't put your kid's picture up as wallpaper (less of a gripe, I don't really care, but give an inch...). Don't install the "little program" you brought from home.

Those machines are also not there for the IT staff to use for some kind of power trip. Those machines are there to provide value to the company, which they presumably do when the users are working on them, not you. If the customizations they do make them work more effectively (translation: more motivated), that is good for the company. Certainly if they install viruses and stuff that creates trouble you need to take action, but the whining about text and background images is pathetic.

Somehow I thought that kind of tayloristic management (your desktop will show in 0.04 seconds faster if you don't have a background image) became almost extinct long ago. If you treat people like machines, they also react very cynical - and do as little work as possible without getting fired. Since there's an economic downturn I guess people will stick around - but if all your best men leave when it starts going up, I can't say I'm surprised. I wouldn't want to stick around at least...

Kjella

Re:Lockout users

[chundo]

I believe the poster is referring to changing options in the installation process, not the application itself. As a system administrator, I can definitely see the advantage of forcing the user to install the default options I have chosen.

Obviously you can't prevent the user from changing preferences in the browser after it is installed (nor would you want to), but starting with a common baseline for all users simplifies support concerns immensely.

Why do you need to do this?

[Billly Gates]

*Here comes the flames (gulp)

If all your users use Windows then why do you need to switch them? I am using mozilla to type this and its a great browser but alot of websites send my "connection refused" errors because I do not use IE. It takes alot of man hours and hassle to upgrade all the users not to mention can cause complaints if your users recieve the same error messages that I do on a few sites.

I know Microsoft is a bully and want to prevent users from switching since IE is free and comes standard with every computer, but there really is inertia that locks people in.

You have to ask yourself time is it really worth it to switch them? And also what benefits will it bring to your organization.

Re:Why do you need to do this?

[mccrew]

Mozilla has never had a problem rendering any properly coded site for me. [Emphasis added]

It always rubs me the wrong way when geeks here on slashdot argue how perfect the world would be if all the hack web authors wrote "properly coded" websites. It is just a undeniable reality that the web is chock full of wrongly-coded, badly-coded, intentionally-broken code, and it is important that any browser degrade gracefully under such circumstances[, at which Mozilla does a very respectable job].

Sitting back in a chair and ruminating about "properly coded" sites is not an option.

More on topic, I think that it is a huge mistake if the original poster forces his [ahem, non-standard] choice on the unsuspecting users. As IE is already installed on all Windows desktops already, and since all websites are written with IE as the target, he is setting himself up for a rude awakening.

Re:Why do you need to do this?

[buchanmilne]

Sitting back in a chair and ruminating about "properly coded" sites is not an option.

Yeah, some people take the only option that will help reduce the number of non-standards-complian sites, and that's increasing the number of non-MS browsers. What are you doing about the situation?

Our users like mozilla (after they have used it for a while and see how much better it is). Why should they have to use something else to access a website?

More on topic, I think that it is a huge mistake if the original poster forces his [ahem, non-standard] choice on the unsuspecting users. As IE is already installed on all Windows desktops already, and since all websites are written with IE as the target, he is setting himself up for a rude awakening.

How so? Since IE is *still* on the desktops, the users can use IE if they get to a site that sucks. And they can do the evangelisation.

Remember that supporting IE has it's own headaches (security vulnerabilities go unfixed for months). It's the admin's choice what he wants to support, unless management has directed what to use, which normally isn't the case in small companies (since management doesn't know enough to choose).

Only on Slashdot...

[jmagar.com]

The question has interesting aspects where it relates to software management on the desktop. But it falls terribly short on reason. Why would you replace the user's prefered browser with your idea of what is right? Some may already have Moz on the desk, but I bet most will hate you for replacing IE. Have you nothing better to do than push out a browser (and IMHO a bad one) to the desktop? Surely there are more pressing issues for your IT shop to address.

typical

[g4dget]

What you want to do is use something like Microsoft Systems Management Server, [microsoft.com] Veritas WinInstall, [ondemandsoftware.com] or Novell ZenWorks SnAPPShot [novell.com]

This is pretty typical: in order to get even the simplest task done on Windows, the usual answer is: get another software package.

the money you spend will save you $$$ in man-hours trying

First, you are going to spend many man hours getting your manager to approve the purchase and order the applications. Then you are going to spend many more man hours installing them. Then you are going to spend many man hours trying to figure them out. Then you are going to spend even more man hours fiddling around with them trying to package up Mozilla. Then, you still need to figure out how to get the packages themselves or the client packages for those packages onto the clients. Then, if everything goes really well, you may be ready to install the software.

And when some major software upgrade comes from Microsoft or these vendors, you can start pretty much from square one.

That's of course assuming that those packages are completely bug free. More than likely, they will interact in some unknown way with some other software package and mess up something or other.

hackneyed, crappy homebrew solution in the long run

Professional chefs use a couple of knives to get the job done: they are reliable, predictable, simple, and efficient. Amateurs run out and buy every kitchen appliance under the sun, hoping to compensate with appliances for skills that they lack. It's no different with system management: if you don't know what you are doing, your answer is going to be: "oh, just buy another piece of software".

Windows, unfortunately, doesn't ship with any knives, but with Cygwin and Perl, you can get by. System management on Windows still like preparing a banquet in a kitchenette, but you don't need to make the effort even harder by stuffing the kitchenette full with useless junk.

Re:My Environment vs My Computer

[h8macs]

An admin will develop a sort of possessiveness with their network. You may feel that you as a user spend more time with the computer than an admin, or in most cases recently, "the admin". Most users have no idea and can't comprehend the time that we actually spend working on the computers and networks.

Even if we aren't working over night rolling out a new hosting server. If we are not cabling the building over the weekend. We still vigilantly carry a pager or some other device that gets computer and network monitoring alerts.

You'd be shocked to know what some of the most inept computer doods know and can do.

And one other thing, they (Systems Administrators, Database Administrators, Datacenter Techs, NOC Monitors ... and many other IT people you DON'T see) don't usually get thanks. Users tend to grumble that though they need help, the admin is causing them an inconvenience by showing up to help!

Not our computers!? Well no, we don't own the company. Or do we!? We control every little tid-bit of data, if we don't than we are not doing our jobs. Its not just a job its a passion, and we do it well or we wouldn't still be helping our clients the users.

Companies like our bodies don't function correctly if something is missing. In this analogy the sales department are the hands extending out. Marketing would be the mouth showing our perly whites. R&D obviously the brain.

But where should we put IT, (using IT as an all encompassing term) I would have to say that IT makes up the nervous system (and spread the term back out as you see fit). I guess it's natural to have a few free radicals running around messing with your settings on your corporate workstation. And we haven't even mentioned the user/security issues.

Perhaps you'd like to take a field day (cross matrix training thingie) and be a SysAdmins sounding board. He can ask you questions and you can give him the answers to all his problems!?

My rant for the evening.

Have you thanked your Systems Administrator lately!?