Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla To Launch "Build Your Own Browser"

Posted by kdawson on from the have-it-your-way dept.

angry tapir sends in a piece from Down Under which begins "Mozilla is readying a program that will allow companies to build their own customized browsers based on the next version of Firefox, which will be out in a few weeks. ... Through the Build Your Own Browser program, which will start sometime soon after Firefox 3.5 is released at the end of June, companies can use a Web application provided by Mozilla to specify certain customizations for the browser, such as bookmarks to certain sites or corporate intranets or portals. ... The bulk of enterprises still use Internet Explorer if they mandate a browser for company use, because Microsoft provides provisioning and installation software for IE that makes it easy for enterprises to control browser settings and install across all corporate desktops, said Forrester analyst Sheri McLeish. Mozilla has not historically done this, but something like the Build Your Own Browser program is a good start to encourage enterprises to use Firefox over IE."

25 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. Opera did this too by nacturation · · Score: 5, Informative

    At least they used to. Starting with Opera 7 you could import a set of bookmarks, setup the home page, etc. and then distribute your own customized version of Opera. Good to see Firefox starting to consider this as well.

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    1. Re:Opera did this too by nacturation · · Score: 4, Informative

      Out of curiosity, when chronologically was this?

      Actually, it was back in Opera 5 days. The URL http://composer.opera.com/ seems to date back to June 30, 2001:

      http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://composer.opera.com

      Checking the main Opera site as of that date shows Opera 5.12 was released for Windows.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  2. Not for us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I dunno, I work for a Fortune 100 company and we use IE because all the crappy "enterprise" software we run requires stupid ActiveX or JavaScript or whatever that only runs on IE6. Good luck to FireFox, but customizations ain't got nothing to do with it where I work.

    1. Re:Not for us by Photo_Nut · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I dunno, I work for a Fortune 100 company and we use IE because all the crappy "enterprise" software we run requires stupid ActiveX or JavaScript or whatever that only runs on IE6. Good luck to FireFox, but customizations ain't got nothing to do with it where I work.

      There's even more to it than that. The WebBrowser COM/.NET control is the IE control. Even if you manage to supplant IE as the browser of choice, all code which embeds the COM or .NET wrapped COM control depends on it. So for example, the Windows Shell and the help system, and Windows Update, Windows Media Player, third party apps integrating the system WebBrowser such as WinAmp, etc.

      The Internet Explorer browser itself is really just a light weight set of UIs wrapped around the standard WebBrowser COM/ActiveX control. It's actually pretty fun to write .NET code that interacts with the WebBrowser. You can add some interesting features like web page scrapers, etc.

    2. Re:Not for us by supernova_hq · · Score: 5, Informative

      Blaming enterprise software for your inability to install FireFox is nothing but a cop-out. The solution to this problem is so simple, I can't believe people even see it as a problem anymore.

      Install Firefox, then install ieTab. ieTab can be set to do nothing until you browse to a any of a list of domains. Once you enter a domain, ieTab takes over and runs that tab inside a native IE browser. IE is seamlessly embedded inside the tab, and the user won't even notice.

      The best part is that once a lot of companies do this, the enterprise software companies can start developing their software to standards, since most companies will already be using FireFox. Using IE for every website, just because of one domain (usually local network) requiring IE is just stupid

      This whole "We can't use FireFox because of enterprise app X" is bullshit. People need to learn how to properly manage corporate computer systems without coming up with these pathetic excuses for not doing their jobs properly.

    3. Re:Not for us by jonaskoelker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can add some interesting features like web page scrapers, etc.

      ... security holes, 90's UI paradigms, Active X controls, proprietary extensions, ...

      Yeah, I can see the appeal ;-)

    4. Re:Not for us by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ieTab doesn't work in Linux because there's no IE to load in the tab in Linux. That's all ieTab does...

    5. Re:Not for us by wintermute000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Er, IE tab doesn't always work seamlessly esp. if said stupid enterprise software relies on a lot of popups, it starts behaving funny. Have you tested it against all the crappy .net custom apps out there?

      Heck at work the all bling new BMC Remedy system they brought in, the web facing frontend doesn't work properly in firefox. Thats a serious $$$ app. IEtab? I refer you to my popup issues.

      Also IETab is not a fully supported product, if something doesn't work well with it, tough.

      "This whole "We can't use FireFox because of enterprise app X" is bullshit. People need to learn how to properly manage corporate computer systems without coming up with these pathetic excuses for not doing their jobs properly."

      With that kind of attitude, I take it you don't run large enterprise environments (no, medium business with some branches or shops and one or two big sites doesn't count, where you get to be the grand wizard techie who overrules all).

      Technical arguments aside there are plenty of practical reasons. Just resistance to change, lack of tangible benefits, lack of support (you already pay MS for support so thats 'free'), user inertia / retraining (yes every call to the helpdesk where they explain clicking on the orange icon not the blue E icon costs $$$). We're techies and we like our own browsers and love sh1tting on MS but that's not how management looks at it. What is the bottom line gain YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE to the company? zero, and don't start talking about security, the you can demonstrate bit is the most important bit.

  3. ActiveX by Green+Light · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Enterprises support IE because it runs ActiveX controls. Until FF does this, it will not appear in desktop builds for the majority of Corporate America.

    --
    "Send an Instant Karma to me" - Yes
    1. Re:ActiveX by Jason+Earl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Other than the fact that relying on ActiveX ties to you to Internet Explorer. In many cases it even ties you to an obsolete and insecure version of Internet Explorer. Microsoft has essentially pulled the plug on ActiveX. It wants you to move to new technologies (and when you do migrate it will pull the plug on those technologies and force you to migrate again).

      I would be that, in most enterprises, if you added up the costs of continuing to support IE6 it would become clear that relying on ActiveX was a very poor bargain. The advantages of using ActiveX over other competing technologies was relatively small, and the cost of choosing ActiveX has been quite high.

    2. Re:ActiveX by Phroggy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Microsoft will stop releasing security patches for Windows XP in five years. If your business relies on something that only works in IE6, you have until 2014 to figure out a new solution, or continue running an unsupported operating system with no security updates available.

      However, you may have difficulty before then, if new PCs start shipping with hardware that isn't supported by WinXP. Of course this assumes you have an existing site license that covers the use of WinXP on new PCs; Microsoft has stopped selling WinXP, so when OEMs and retailers run out of copies, you won't be able to buy it - and the option to downgrade from Vista to XP will end in less than two months.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    3. Re:ActiveX by KingMotley · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, in every web based application I've developed, the driving reason was so to avoid the installation problems and support. It's easy to tell users to go to this or that URL to use a new application, a heck of a lot easier than rolling out apps everywhere. Independance from a specific operating system or browser has NEVER EVER come up.

    4. Re:ActiveX by silanea · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, of course established companies never release flawed software, right? Their ActiveX control does not have to be malicious in itself, it is sufficient if it tears holes into your defense for others to abuse. ActiveX needs to die a very quick death already. And can we please club that idea that a browser, JavaScript and a bit of fairy-dust can fully replace any local application regardless of specific implications out of people's heads?

      --
      Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
  4. And in the Linux world ... by pseudonomous · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder if this will spawn a trend where every single distro ships with thier own branded firefox version. Meaning that in distro reviews, we'll have the mandatory screenshot of the login screen art, the defualt desktop background, and the firefox branding. Great.

    I would welcome this for Arch, though, we have to rebuild firefox from source or we're stuck with the ugly "built from source code" icons.

  5. Nice idea... but I already know how this will end by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Even more than before, ISPs will push "their" own flavor of a browser that comes bundled with those godforsaken coasters that unsuspecting victims dump into their machines, only to end up with an IE (or FF from now on, too) that blatantly advertises the ISP, rehijacks the "favorite browser" position every time you rip it from him and stuff all kind of browser addons into it that you strangely cannot get rid of anymore due to miraculously missing deinstall routines.

    I like the idea. No really, I do. But this is what it will be (ab)used for.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. Spinning an outstanding deficiency by phoebe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So instead of offering one browser that can be configured by Group Policy in an Enterprise IT deployment they offer a web service to generate hard-coded branded browser installers? Sounds like a lot of work to avoid implementing what IT managers really want.

    1. Re:Spinning an outstanding deficiency by zonky · · Score: 3, Informative

      Firefox Community Edition already supports group policy. http://www.frontmotion.com/Firefox/fmfirefox.htm

    2. Re:Spinning an outstanding deficiency by prandal · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's FirefoxADM: http://ick2.wordpress.com/

      This stuff really needs to be in the core of Firefox for it to gain corporate users.

    3. Re:Spinning an outstanding deficiency by Nimey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Great, but that's not an official package from Mozilla, and hence it can't be trusted by us more paranoid types.

      Can someone at Mozilla tell us why you haven't started distributing your own MSI and ADM files yet?

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  7. You might not be focusing on the right target... by Bill_Royle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem isn't that companies can't deploy Firefox - it's that most vendors are IE-centric. It's easy to put together a default Firefox profile with the requisite bookmarks and customizations, but tougher to get the same "experience" when it comes to things like Sharepoint and SAP, among others. Once you can get some of those vendors (ok, maybe not MS) to play more nicely, the rest will take care of itself.

    I'm not saying it's all Mozilla's fault - in fact most of it isn't. But some corporate evangelism would go a long way towards getting traction within the enterprise.

  8. I do this already by andytrevino · · Score: 3, Interesting

    At UW-Milwaukee's dorms, I used FFDeploy to do just this: create a silent Firefox installer for student and faculty machines with some built-in bookmark buttons for our student service websites, e-mail system and so on.

    Doing this saves time and installs FF with a nice student-friendly UI right off the bat -- very useful in converting otherwise IE-centric students who don't care what browser they're using to Firefox.

  9. Striking while the iron is hot by carlzum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Firefox has earned a lot of goodwill among the general population, but it's probably nearing a plateau in terms of brand recognition and new users. MS is starting to close the gap in features and security perception, so now is the time for FF to make some inroads in the enterprise software market. Users migrated to FF because they were dissatisfied with IE. If Modzilla solves shortcomings in IE for businesses and organizations they'll make some traction. If everyone's generally happy with IE, I don't see any new features that will compel them to invest in the change.

    I do see a lot of companies using login scripts to control IE settings, and Active Directory's group policies tend to be an all-or-none (no plug-ins or all plug-ins, can't change homepage or can change it to anything, etc.) so there may be a few things Mozilla can improve on.

  10. Fine, but... by c_g_hills · · Score: 3, Informative

    What would be more useful to enterprises who want to distribute Firefox is an MSI package and a group policy template - like the version distributed by FrontMotion (Firefox Community Edition).

  11. Re:SSL CA certs! by GaryOlson · · Score: 3, Informative

    OK, for those who don't read the discussion, let's repeat the obvious
    The latest version of FirefoxADMrelease notes specifically list the feature Added: Ability to replace certificates for all user profiles.

    --
    Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
  12. Re:Flash by geminidomino · · Score: 3, Funny

    Thank you very much for proving us women absolutely correct when we complain about the abusive, sexist hostility we receive on male-dominated sites like this.

    Oh please. Everyone gets abused here.

    If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

    (Oh, the irony!)