Slashdot Mirror
Firefox Struggling to Compete as Corporate Browser
ericatcw brings us an article describing some of the obstacles Firefox is facing while competing with Internet Explorer for business use. Quoting Computerworld:
"Now nearly three-and-a-half years old and nearing the release of Version 3, Firefox no longer can be accused of being callow. And while many IE-only apps remain, plenty of others have been overhauled to support Firefox as well. However, other obstacles to broader adoption have emerged. Mozilla thus far has neglected to develop tools to help IT departments deploy and manage Firefox, and it doesn't offer paid technical support services to risk-averse corporate users. Janco Associates Inc. in Park City, Utah, currently gives Firefox a 16% usage share among visitors to 17 business-to-business Web sites that it monitors. Janco puts IE's share at 67% while giving 9% to Netscape and 3% to Google Desktop."
And I haven't ever had the urge (or need) to call Firefox tech support. For one, I've rarely had problems I couldn't solve on my own with a little tinkering. And even if I did, I could google it. I've always thought that support forums can often times be a lot quicker and then you can bypass talking to someone from India...
IME medium and upwards sized firms are used to a certain way of working and if anything doesn't fit the model, it has zero chance of being used.
1. Is it secure? TICK
2. Does it work in our environment? TICK
3. Do they have guaranteed response times on support calls? CROSS
OK, forget that one. Next?
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
I would this squarely in the category of "its not worth the effort"
Why? Simple, we are aready so locked down, scanned, and updated, that the risk of IE is down to levels not worth going beyond. In other words, going to a new browser gains nothing but incurs cost, training, and support.
Can firefox be locked down so users cannot add plug ins? As the article mentioned there isn't support for risk adverse let alone push services.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
What Mozilla needs to do is create their own operating system and incorporate Firefox into it in such a way that it cannot be uninstalled =P
Failing that, I think the ideas pointed out in the article are legitimate reasons that IE, albeit an inferior product in most reguards (or maybe all reguards), is dominating the corporate market. I think just the fact that it is a free product hurts them on some level. From my experience in the public sector, the brass always gets a little nervous when you start using the F-word of economics. They would rather dish out a couple grand to have a support and maintenance contract, if not only for the accountability aspect. I can't say that I've ever used FirefoxADM, but as a third party product, it looks like it suffers from the same lack of a guarantee for support and maintenance that the browser does.
I think the application compatibility is becoming less of a problem. A lot of GUI developers have already been throwing in browser checks for years because of Netscape, so I don't see Firefox as being that big of an issue. I haven't used any webpage IDEs in a while, but I'm willing to bet they already have that integrated as well. I can't recall in the past couple years that I've had a problem loading a page in Firefox.
Needless to say, I think Mozilla has their work cut out for them. Even if they do end up offering a superior enterprise class product, I think it's gonna be hard to get a lot of companies that have been partnered with M$ for years to move away from IE.
Capitalism: When it uses the carrot, it's called democracy. When it uses the stick, it's called fascism.
standards? when have we been there?
This article is wishful thinking at best. FireFox is still rising steadily in popularity and IE is steadily sliding.
Most of the so called evidence that this article points to are articles on computerworld.com too...
I'm seeing about 27% Firefox/Mozilla on my sites (about 60k uniques / day) and there has not been a month in the last year that that number was lower or equal to the month before it. IE has gone down to about 66%, if the current rate of FF/Mozilla/Iceape/name your flavour continues then within 2 years IE will be at parity with the rest of the pack.
Sure there are lots of businesses that still run IE, but there are plenty of them that have switched to FF, and once switched it seems they stay switched. When IT departments switch they usually do a bit of research before they 'go for it', and it can take time to make sure that all the web-applications that the users need in order to be able to get through their working day.
What is more surprising is that given the fact that IE is a default installed piece of software that *SO MANY* it departments decide to make the switch anyway.
It's not like firefox's outrageous marketing budgets* are in any way capable of offsetting that default installation.
* attempt at humor.
MP3 Search Engine
With more companies adopting security practices such as web proxies, blocking broad Internet access, removing administrator privileges to user desktops & laptops, browser security receives less of an emphasis that feature functionality. In general, corporate IT staff are not tasked by their management to make sure a user's browser works well with Yahoo! or MSN Groups or even Slashdot. They are tasked to ensure the user's browser works with the myriad of applications that the managers expect the users to use throughout his/her work day.
When faced with internal corporate applications, there are still some that do not work well with Firefox. Through no fault of the browser, the corporate web application could be designed specifically with IE in mind and, hence, doesn't work as well with Firefox. In order for Firefox to obtain a larger marketplace within corporate infrastructures, there needs to be significant uptake by the companies designing internal corporate web applications.
I've been a Firefox user since version 0.8, right after it (AFAIK) switched from being Phoenix/Firebird. At the time, I was a corporate IT staff using an unlicensed browser in an IE-Only world. I had long previous even given up using Netscape, simply because it was slower and not as nice as IE 5 or IE 6. In fact, the lack of a good browser was one hindrance to my personal adoption of Linux and later advocacy at the office.
Now, four years later (just about), I'm a solid Firefox user and only use IE through the IE tab function (when on Wintendo) and Wine/VMWare (under Linux). IE 7 doesn't even work as well as firefox, IMO, in most circumstances.
Yet, the corporate adoption problem still remains. I am now a division manager over IT development and deployment for a 1,200-person department in a large County organization. Our official policy is "IE-Only." Do I run Firefox? Yes. Do I have staff which runs firefox? Yes. Are they officially allowed to run Firefox from the CIO? No. The problem is - Firefox doesn't come bundled with Windows XP/Vista and therefore isn't even on the minds of most non-IT folks in my organization. As it is, recent applications I've overseen are more Firefox-compliant, but still run "better" with IE or at least the IE-tab.
You can forget about running Linux on the desktop where I work. The CIO thinks Linux is a four-letter-word. (They freak out whenever I trot out my new HP laptop which had Vista and was upgraded to openSUSE.)
In any case, the article has some good points - no Mozilla-developed.msi file for rapid deployment, no central support function from Mozilla(yes, we do yell at Steve B. once in a while), and no corporate push from Mozilla.
One thing it doesn't mention - the CIO's of the world which I know are generally not that tech-savvy. They've been out of the trenches for so long that they tend to lose sight of the "latest and greatest" while paying attention to those who have the most marketing dollars.
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
That is never going to happen though - nothing pushes corporate developers to work with the standards.
Dev: "So, what browser are we going to use?"
Corp: "Well, we run Windows on the desktop, so Internet Explorer is already installed. Plus all our other in-house uses IE"
Dev: "Have you considered Firefox? We can make it standards compliant, then you can use any browser!"
Corp: "You were outbid, the low bidder is only testing against the platform we use, IE."
Where I work at the moment, there is an official policy of supporting only IE - using anything else is 'a sackable offence'. Still looking around, most people use Firefox. I think there is a huge difference between what the CIO and his minions define as IE usage based on policy, and actual usage.
There are of course the usual technical neandertals who boast that IE is a much better tool for them to use, and Firefox is too complicated - even though (a) they've never used it and (b) IE7 has ripped most of the features off already. They're sticking with the 'proper' browser.
They are completely right of course: I wouldn't let a 5 year old play doctors with a scalpel. Remember, Microsoft is to computers what Fisher Price is to surgery.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
At my previous employer (one of the top IT telecom software cos. worldwide) I was called in by the CTO and questioned for almost 2 hours for reasons such as using a Bookmark syncing Addon with FF and having links to a few email and social networking sites on my FF Bookmarks Toolbar! The morons just don't want a cent's worth of bandwidth being used for something not directly related to the official work. Apart from the update issue, its the power that FF with all its addons, security and other razmataz, gives to its users, which is unbearable by the IT guys.
Yeah, Seriously. Do you really need paid support for a web browser? Corporations really need to get away from this attitude. Stop paying through the nose for every piece of software. How often do you really call up the company who made your software and ask for support. Sure sometimes, but I be that most of the time, your in house IT staff fixes the problem before calling up support. You want support with IE, here it is. $CAD 59 for each request during business hours. Over $500 for after hours support. This is why you have in-house IT support staff. To fix your problems. If you were going to call up Microsoft every time you had a problem, your company would go belly-up pretty fast. Also, it's not like you can make MS release bug fixes, or security patches, even when you know there are problems.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I agree. I might switch all my users to FF if I could manage all the settings from Active Directory (such as not adding plug ins, security settings, etc), but I'm not aware of any way to do this right now. And as you said, we already lock down the Internet, so why bother (we are also a MS shop, although I'm installing a Fedora server right now.)?
"Can firefox be locked down so users cannot add plug ins? As the article mentioned there isn't support for risk adverse let alone push services."
That's the real problem for me. I can't put FF on the list of products approved for general distribution out of fear that some dolt will blithely install a malevolent extension. Which is really a shame because FF + NoScript is awesome. As it is, I approve use of FF on a case by case basis, limiting it to people who have a history of following instructions...
I'm told that that there *is* a way to block installation of extensions and plug-ins, but it's labor intensive, and I frankly don't have the authority to obtain the labor required. So if that could be made easier, well, I think this could take off in a big way.
Most of the so called evidence that this article points to are articles on computerworld.com too...
And all of your evidence is based on your log file. Hardly a scientific poll, so what's your point?
Bark less. Wag more.
As an IT director I had to make this decision for my 400 person company. Firefox may be more secure than IE but so many things bundle IE for rendering and presentation that one must still consider it from a security point of view. Therefore installing Firefox doesn't eliminate that problem.
When writing and deploying internal web apps we don't need to be spending the time (i.e. money) to make them work on multiple browsers and multiple versions. IE of some form is installed on all the desktops by default. This eliminated development time and saved the company money.
Firefox was installed on most desktops but there were always a few that didn't have it for some reason. IE is always there.
For security reasons most users are not given admin rights on their desktops (so they can't install every spyware and trojan loaded gizmo on their systems.) This means the firefox updates cannot be installed by them. While we certain could have come up with a solution to do this it really doesn't make sense to spend the time on it when IE is there and is automatically updated by WSUS giving us a consistent platform to work on.
My job was to give the users the ability to use the web and intranet at the lowest cost with the least IT overhead. IE was the way to go. Firefox is installed if they want to use it but it isn't the default nor will it be any time soon.
Capitalism: When it uses the carrot, it's called democracy. When it uses the stick, it's called fascism.
I'll tell you what the real reason is: Microsoft's plan has worked.
IT departments are overworked, understaffed and in the windos department, most of the so-called admins are young people, university drop-outs, MSCE holders and others that are somehow seen as "good enough" to run the corporate desktop infrastructure but that you wouldn't let near the important SAP, Unix servers or other "real" computers. Sorry if that sounds sarcastic, most of the boys aren't at fault, but that's what they are: Boys. Very few corporations pay for real (read: more expensive) windos admins.
So the result is a department that struggles daily to keep things running, often with more hacks than strategy, and where deploying any additional software will be fought tooth and nail because it adds to the already overwhelming workload (did I mention they are almost always understaffed?).
In comes MS and includes the browser in the OS. End of game for all other browsers, because the IT department now sees them as additional software, and unnecessary to boot because "there's already a browser on there".
I don't blame the windos admins. I blame the justice department for essentially dropping their case and the judge for not seeing through the full game. Despite their bundling being found illegal, MS still played and won the game.
And no matter how easy or automatic Mozilla makes it, how many tools they build or how much ads they run, Firefox will always be an additional piece of software that doesn't do anything that a built-in piece of software doesn't already do. And with that scenario, IT departments will be very reluctant to deploy it, no matter the support options, tools, whatever.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
What we need is a supported, cross-platform means of deploying those settings to 1,000+ browsers. I know Firefox ADM is out there but there's no guarantee that those ADM templates will work with future releases. Plus that only applies to Windows system management. If Mozilla wants corporate customers to use their browser they need to offer corporate customers the same management options IE has.
Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.
You've minimized the amount of testing you need to do for alternate browsers. Just make the applications work with IE and you've satisfied almost all of your users needs. Fewer browsers is actually a good thing for web developers--especially if they are targeting a limited niche of working in the real world of constrained budgets. The more browsers/configurations you need to develop and test for the more it will cost (or the less features you can include).
The reasons you give for the inertia in corporate environments are actually indicators of the stagnation in Microsoft's OS line (XP being around for so long, with no major updates except for the browser). If there is one good thing about Vista it is that it moves things forward for the MSFT platform as well as for interoperability. IE7 is proving to be as different a browser from IE6 as FF is in terms of compatibility. Since an effort has to be made to make it IE7 compatible might as well make it standards-compatible with pretty much the same effort.
.com bubble was near fully-inflated.
*no activeX
Many of my employer's web-based products followed a late-1990s design philosophy--they are absolutely infested with ActiveX garbage--mostly because they were quickly "webified" versions of early products that were not web-based but employed ActiveX components extensively. In the early days, MSFT did a good job of enticing software developers into IE lock-in by allowing Activex to be embedded into web pages, because if you were big into ActiveX/(D)COM/OLE in your client-server apps you could throw together some pseudo-HTML ActiveX wrapper around that crap and marketing could sell it as "web-enabled" right around the time the
However, IT departments weren't enamoured with ActiveX to the same degree as (lazy|pressured) developers, and whatever fondness they might have had wore off quickly. Even 3 or 4 years ago IT departments were cringing at the mess of ActiveX in those products. There's been heavy pressure to remove it and in the latest releases it's now completely gone. Internally, the web interfaces to our business systems are completely free of ActiveX--though they rely far too much on Java applets. In any case at present (and moving forward) not supporting ActiveX is a GOOD thing in IT department's eyes, because it actually is less work for IT (they don't have to worry about restricting ActiveX in FF the way they have to on IE).
*not backed by a huge company so perceived lack of support
This is really a non-issue for all but the most clueless PHBs. IE6 was a dead product--MSFT figured discrete web browsers were obsolete and that they could hijack the WWW and make it the vehicle to deploy distributed apps based on their own XML formats. There was no innovation and the most minimal support for IE6. Honestly, I've not heard once about a company that has had to make an urgent supoprt call about their web browser, not have I heard once about MSFT stepping up and making a critical fix to IE due to a request from a specific customer. IT people KNOW that there is probably more "community support" for Mozilla browsers than there is corporate support from MSFT for IE, and FF code is under more close scrutiny than IE by far.
*legacy web applications produced in ASP and older ASP.net that break horribly in firefox (and even latest IE7! yes ive seen it happen)
Not only do many ASP(X) apps break in IE7, they actually break WORSE in IE7 than they do in FF...quite embarrassing for MSFT actually. However that is the key point to note: There isn't a dependency on IE in general--it is on IE6 SPECIFICALLY, and the days are numbered for IE6, being Vista is equipped only with IE7. MSFT is sure to extend the 7-year promised lifespan of XP, but it won't do so indefinitely. I figure this year MSFT will draw a line in the sand and insist new computers NOT be available with XP pre-installed (probably this fall--end users will have to perform the downgrade--err, "upgrade to a more familiar experience", themselves).
As I said, with FF having a significant minority presence in the market and efforts required to make apps work in IE7 anyways, this provides a promising opportunity to make apps STANDARDS-compatible.
*it depertments are slow to change and adapt and are very conservative
Those sort of outfits are basically the ones that abdicate their strategic planning to their vendors--they're the same ones managed by the clue
I think the reason is even simpler than that: IE comes preinstalled on Windows boxes, while Firefox does not. Most corporate users are on Windows, and will use whatever default browser they're handed.
So...you're saying waving your twee little support contract at the mighty Redmond is sufficient for them to drop whatever they're working on, abandon any strategic assumptions that factor into their release schedules, and do a code drop for your specific benefit?
Bollocks. You're either incredibly powerful or unfathomably mental, and deeply disturbing to us mere mortals in either case. Although the image of someone standing outside the main door at Microsoft, waving a piece of paper and bellowing for satisfaction is rather amusing in a Python-esque way.
GP post is spot-on: support guarantees you nothing. Nothing at all, beyond someone picking the phone up and listening to you (hopefully politely) for a few moments. It should at least include a reasonable attempt to diagnose your problem, but even that seems dodgy these days. It certainly won't swerve a major vendor an whit off of any bigger plans, which do typically encompass release schedules for a product that helps ensure lock-in like IE does.
Guess it's time for a sit-down with your legal representation, let us know how your suit proceeds. In the meantime, someone please mod this down to something reflecting reality...it certainly isn't insightful.
You have to enable SPNEGO for proper kerberos (aes-256 etc) via http headers. NTLM is not used by anyone anymore really because of the problems with security and how it integrates with the rest of the centralized authentication setups. And yes, many environments opt for IE until Firefox does SPNEGO way better.
Even if Mozilla released administrative management and deployment tools for Firefox, I don't think you'd see a large shift to Firefox in the workplace. IE7 is leaps and bounds and bunnyhops ahead of IE6, and is just plain easier to manage in the workplace than Firefox ever could be.
1. It's a good, comparable browser.
2. It comes preinstalled on the OS.
3. Updates are delivered automatically through WSUS, which also allows me to audit my PCs and verify all have received the latest critical security fix
4. Group Policy settings are already there without need to manage ADM/ADMX extensions.
5. Everyone knows how to use it.
An irrational hatred for all things Microsoft simply doesn't justify switching to a browser with greater administrative overhead that 90% of the (not-so-tech-savvy) work force is unfamiliar with.
Amen. Up to and until I as an administrator can centrally configure settings--ideally via GPOs--Firefox will find corporate resistance.
Heck, I urge my users to use it and I have a coming headache where upper level management wants me to dictate our intranet site as the startup homepage. I can do it in five minutes on IE with a GPO. Firefox . . . well even if I go around and change it for everyone, how hard is it for them to change it to whatever they want?
Agreed. I think the GP post also shows narrowmindedness in calling a non-tech savvy CEO an "idiot."
My bosses don't understand a lot of what I do, but they obviously understand business enough to build a successful company. Leadership is not knowing everything, but finding people with the knowledge you need, and fitting them together into the "big picture."
My bosses have assigned me tasks that I thought were irrelevant to my job, only for me to find that, hey, this actually helps me improve at what I do.
There are more kinds of smarts than just tech smarts.
For instance, I'm using 3.0b2 right now, and there's a line in firefox.js: If you patch it to read or whatever, then I'm fairly sure that it will change the default.
If you want to lock users out of changing any settings, change the permissions on their personal prefs.js (this file will be in the same place in every users' home) so that they can't write to it; maybe change its ownership too. Admittedly, something more fine-grained than that will probably need some modifications to the Firefox code base. I assume that a second global settings file could be used, so that preferences are read in the order of (global default, user, global mandatory). I haven't had a look at the code, but while it's a non-trivial change, it is probably straightforward.
Still...
...sometimes you Windows admins, on the whole, are such unimaginative, uninquisitive weenies. Put it outside of point-and-click and all of a sudden it's not worth investigating or trying to do.