Slashdot Mirror
IBM Makes Firefox Its Corporate Browser
e9th writes "Ars Technica reports that IBM has adopted Firefox as its company-wide browser. Firefox will be installed on all new employee computers, and all 400,000 employees will be encouraged to use it. Speaking of encouraging Firefox use, IBM VP Bob Sutor blogs: 'We will continue to strongly encourage our vendors who have browser-based software to fully support Firefox.' I hope this means that if IBM can't navigate a vendor's site with Firefox, they'll just look elsewhere."
I hope this means that if IBM can't navigate a vendor's site with Firefox, they'll just look elsewhere.
Oh, I couldn't care less about that. Let me explain "What freedom means to me." My company has more than a few apps that kept us on IE6 for the longest time. Why did they select IE6? Well, at the time, Internet Exploder was the only browser that allowed them to maintain strict policies and security settings across the company. It's still one of their big selling points that they have "slipstream installation" and "Group policy enhancements (total of 1,500, with 140 new in Internet Explorer 8)." Well, now that IBM has developed the Client Customization Kit and maybe -- just maybe -- they can get it to a point where an administrator can control proxy and policy settings in Firefox from one central IT position. It's this. It's this concept that is the answer to my question why I'm still developing to support the browser from hell. And I know I'm not alone.
So I'm adding one marble to the 'like' side of the scales of IBM (which they'll need a lot more of to tilt it back to even). I hope to see some serious support come out of this for FF's CCK.
My work here is dung.
to go Blue itself.
And will they please release the management utilities via open source? K THX BYE
IBM plans to roll it out to employees on new computers and will encourage its staff of 400,000 to use it on their existing systems.
Sounds like this will be a slow adoption if they are only setting it as the default browser on new computer systems and simply "encouraging" their installed base to use it. It probably does make sense to go slow like this with it, but it doesn't make for a sensational headline to say "IBM to slowly roll out firefox as the default browser as they replace hardware; encourages existing users to use firefox too".
Anyway, hopefully this does result in more robust corporate deployment tools for firefox as IBM spends more on it. Because frankly the ability to deploy and manage it in a large corporate environment now pretty much sucks compared to Internet Explorer. That corporate manageability is really the only thing that has been missing from firefox.
This is bad news for banks and other big orgs that dodge supporting browsers other than IE giving the "cover story" that other browsers are wildcards in term of security.
People will ask if IBM can do it, why can't they.
I guess the admins of such orgs could always say
"Well, we do not have the resources of an IT company giant"
Yet, with all of those employees, going to all of those sites......
search?="site:lotusnotes.ibm.com,query=?something"
KTHXBAI.
- http://www.milkme.co.uk
Notice that IBM is not going with Chrome, though it is a faster and better browser for the moment.
IMHO that is partly because Google could become competition in other IT areas for IBM. Who wants the competitions browser, on their machines, possibly spying on them?
Even aside from that, though Google has been more responsive ( & apologetic ) than Facebook, they have been (rightfully) censured for making things public that people always felt would be private ( and without notice).
In that regards, they are in same category of trust as Facebook ( low trust ).
I asked a Chrome enthusiast coworker if Facebook made a web browser, would he use it.
His answer. "HELL NO!".
I think it would take a lot of big organizations and many regular people to trust Google to provide software on their desktop that doesn't snoop on them.
I'm a strong supporter of web standards (a real one, unlike Steve). But this?
I hope this means that if IBM can't navigate a vendor's site with Firefox, they'll just look elsewhere.
The fact that a company employed wrong web designers/programmers doesn't mean it's not good in what *it* does (save if what they do are websites, of course).
> I hope this means that if IBM can't navigate a vendor's site with Firefox,
> they'll just look elsewhere.
I hope this means that if IBM can't navigate a vendor's site with Firefox they'll tell the vendor why he is losing the sale.
Buyer: "I tried to check on your Web site as you suggested but it doesn't seem to work with Firefox." Salesman: "Oh, yes. We only support IE." Buyer: "Get back to me when you've fixed your site."
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
At the place in which I work everyone is supposed to use IE. It has all these policies, lock downs, etc. For example they disabled tabbed browsing (???) . So instead I use Firefox or Opera. I don't have adminstrative rights, so I installed them in my personal directory and run them from there.
What is the point of strict browser management? Shouldn't security be managed via the network?
Do they still produce IBM-branded personal computers?
IBM sold the PC business to Lenovo half a decade ago. So now most desktop and laptop PCs are "Lenovo compatible".
It is good news that IBM is doing this, No if they will just write their own applications to work on Firefox better, I will be really happy.
IBM offers a fully supported open client based on Linux. The Red Hat and Ubuntu versions are very mature, but there is also support for other distros. There is even a Mac client. While it isn't widely used yet, an IBMer can perform their job using it. Using Firefox and Symphony (IBM remix of OO.org) is just common sense, when you have 100K employees.
There's your problem...
What we are really seeing here IMHO is an internal political battle that has spilled outside the corporate structure. One exec has decided to stake his name on adopting Firefox and will blame the every development group that only supports IE when this fails.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
Education is a crusty old app that has way more problems than working only in IE, but what other products are you working with that won't work with FireFox? Surely there will be an exception for those who's customers require the use of non-FireFox compatible software.
Blar.
It would be bulletproof...
I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
Firefox is our company-wide browser as well. Well, at least on the the Linux machines the programmers use.
However, it is only Firefox 2.0.
Some are able to run 3.0. Firefox 3.5 and 3.6 won't run on any Linux machine installed here. Programmers do not have sufficient access to install the necessary libraries (e.g. libpangocairo) required by newer versions.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
If you had anything to do with this setup you should be shot, you've broken two fundamental rules for developers.
1. You've taken away their root access to their own boxes?
That's like taking away a construction worker's toolbox and handing them a hammer and a screw driver because it's "all they'll ever need". I'm a web developer, I need to test my stuff in upcoming betas, testing your web stuff AFTER the browser has launched is too late, because users willl already have it.
2. You're running a browser so f#$%ing old, it makes IE8 look good (or at least, not so bad).
That's great for testing, but for developing, you're either; evil, naive or both.
Inside IBM, the central configuration and policy setting that people always cite as a major reason why the use IE still doesn't matter.
Why?
Because at IBM we get the admin logon to our machines and are treated like adults (want to format and install Linux? Sure go ahead just make sure you can still do your job), consequently there is no reason to have Corporate HQ centrally force various settings down the employee's throats.
I strongly urge Firefox use here at work and most people use it, but the pres. of the company hates it so that's that...at least I got him on IE8, which he resisted for a long time...."I'd better not lose all my favorites when you do the upgrade..." My biggest peeve with Firefox is that every point release seemed to break all your extensions, although it does seem to be a little better about that lately.
if they will first remember to fix the various internal and third party sites that didn't work with Firefox (as late as mid 2009) this could be good. Even if they make firefox default, and install it in lots of places, it's moot if you still need to use IE for certain sites. My 'favorites' were ones which were actually just running javascript / java applets and nothing else which had absolutely no reason to be restricted to windows but had browser agent checks abound in them..
Yes you can change the browser agent you report... but if I do that, I'll start misrepresenting the browser usage internally now won't I? A fact whose impact makes me rather curious about results published about browser usage from many internet sites and on the web as a whole.
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor