The Enterprise Is Wrong, Not Mozilla

There's been a lot of noise about Mozilla's new rapid release leading to conflict with Enterprise users. Kethinov found an Ars article that points out that "Now that Mozilla has released Firefox 5, version 4, just three months old, is no longer supported. Enterprise customers aren't very pleased with this decision, and are claiming it makes their testing burden impossible. We're not convinced: we think Mozilla's decision is the right one for the Web itself.'"

Comments

Think of it as 4.0.2

[jonescb]

If the version number were 4.0.2 instead of 5.0 Enterprises wouldn't be getting their panties in a bunch over this.

Re:Think of it as 4.0.2

[Lunix Nutcase]

Except it's not just enterprises. Tons of average users are getting headaches over this as well when suddenly an unjustified version jump is making it so their plugins get disabled.

Re:Think of it as 4.0.2

[phantomfive]

Right, as the article points out, the changelist for Firefox 5 is not much more expansive than the changelist for Firefox 3.6.

Some enterprise users have internal apps that they need to test, and some of them are upset about such a 'big' change. In reality they shouldn't be looking at version numbers, they should be looking at a list of potential impacts, to make their testing easier.

If Mozilla wants to handle this PR challenge well, it might help announce that from now on they are going to support they enterprise better (everyone likes to know they are being thought of), then from now on point people to the changelist, or add a 'potential impacts' section to the list. Simple enough, and lets people know they are considered.

Re:Think of it as 4.0.2

[Beelzebud]

I use AdBlock Plus, and it worked with Firefox 5 just fine, from the moment I upgraded. So again, what plugins don't work? The only one I have not working is one that is a beta version, and it will have a v5 release in days. It's certainly not the end of the world.

Re:Think of it as 4.0.2

[Normal Dan]

I say, to really mess with people, they should swap around their version numbers. So the first number is for minor update and the middle number is for major updates (but this number should go down instead of us). So, if you're at 1.4.0 and a small bug fix comes in, it'll be 2.4.0. Then a major release you're at 2.3.0.

Surely this is a great way to avoid any confusion.

Re:Think of it as 4.0.2

[creat3d]

you actually don't use NoScript and AdBlock Plus? sucks to be you.

Both worked for me just fine as soon as I upgraded to version 5.

Re:Think of it as 4.0.2

[Dunega]

It's not about the version number, it's the "not-supported" part that's the issue.

Re:Think of it as 4.0.2

[tlhIngan]

The problem was the crap that is Firefox development.

Going from 3.5 to 3.6 broke a number of plugins - sure there are replacements, but damn it was a pain for a supposed update.

Going from 3.6 to 4 introduced a bunch of crappy UI mods (no status bar, really? Must Firefox emulate Chrome?), requiring more plugins to get a browser that at least resembles what I had before.

Going from 4 to 5 broke what now? Oh, it broke the tab bar behavior to emulate Chrome again (great if you read tabs left-to-right, but if you go right-to-left, it's an annoying pain, and this time I can't find the option to disable it).

Oh yeah, it also means Google Apps lose support very quickly. Google said they're supported the last 3 major versions. Until 5 came out, that was 3.5, 3.6 and 4. Now with 5, it'll be 3.6, 4 and 5, despite 4 being dead.

Notice that 3.6 still receivs updates from Mozilla. Hell, even Ubuntu still keeps an LTS release every couple of years, good for 3 years since release.

Perhaps it wouldn't be such a pain if Mozilla quits screwing around with the UI so much. 3.5 to 3.6? Well, 3.6 should be 4, really since it broke a bunch of stuff (a number of plugins broke and I had to find new ones that did equivalent). Then 4 could be called 5 and we'd be at 5.0.2 or something because of the new UI.

Some of us like reasonable expectations of when plugins and such might break - going from 2 to 3 is obvious, as owuld 3 to 4 and the like. 3.5 to 3.6? I'd have expected all my plugins to work.

Hell, it's enough to drive me to IE 9 with all the UI messing around. Saving an extra 16 pixels just means I see an extra half a line of text.

Re:Think of it as 4.0.2

[phantomfive]

Uh, you didn't really give a good reason for not writing applications meant to run in a web browser. Apps written in a browser are no less secure than apps written in a 'real' language (I'm not talking about Active X). I mean, do you REALLY think that by writing something in C++, it somehow becomes secure?

Furthermore, and you may not like this, with the advent of competing mobile technologies (ie, Android is incompatible with iPhone), businesses are moving towards building their internal mobile apps in HTML 5 so they are cross-compatible. It may be ugly, but it saves money, so that's what will happen.

Re:Think of it as 4.0.2

[BitZtream]

Sure it will, be honest about what you're doing.

The next version of firefox released will be version 59.

Now, you've won the retard version war, and you can get back to being sain and useful.

Of course, this article title pretty accurately reflects the ignorance and stupidity that makes up the Mozilla Foundation. Its hard to believe they can be as ignorant and really, just so fucking arrogant ... you'd think after their first company failed miserably the idiots would have gotten a clue. Nope, they didn't Mozilla will follow Netscape into the dirty because the people running the company think they know whats better for their consumers than their consumers do.

There may be some company where thats true, but Netscape has never been that company, they are just a bunch of developers with no leadership, everyone does whatever they want and has no concept of a long term plan. Yes, I know they claim to 'have a long term plan' that this versioning change is part of ... the problem is, in 2 months, they'll have a whole new long term plan, JetPack2, or some new skinning system thats going to revolutionize browsing by making it even more obnoxious ... or something else so retarded I can't possibly come up with the idea myself.

This is an example of why using Firefox is a bad idea, its clear the developers don't actually know what they are doing. While there may be SOME developers with a clue (obviously, since firefox made it to where it is today) but you're taking a big risk with Mozilla than you are with Microsoft. Firefox may be open source, but with all the bitching about various Firefox changes, I've yet to see a fork that matter to anyone, so clearly the open source aspect is irrelevant.

Re:Think of it as 4.0.2

[DarkOx]

They should have just kept doing point release like normal and skipped some versions to get up to the industry numbers. IE do what Slackware did and just jump a few major versions next time they are ready to jump a major version.

When it comes to certain software packages like browsers, Linux Distributions. The major version is more a Technology Generation indicator

Re:Think of it as 4.0.2

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

I dunno', my favorite was probably NCC-1701, but NCC-1701-D holds a special place because I was kid then.

Re:Think of it as 4.0.2

[Antimatter3009]

But the idea is to speed up the release cycle into what is almost a "rolling release" style. And, in fact, this is exactly what the Ars article is arguing is a good thing (which I agree with). I think if they're going to follow Chrome's release style, though, they need to get the rest of what makes it work for Chrome. By that I mean automatic, almost silent updates and an almost total disregard for the version number. Chrome still has versions, but they don't really mean anything significant. Firefox needs to stop calling this Firefox 5 and start calling it just Firefox. The version is no longer important. Similarly, extension support needs to stop being based on the version number and go to some other system. My initial thought would be to assume all extensions will work and allow the community of users to report broken extensions which can be automatically tallied and turned into a warning of some sort when you install. Think something like: "This extension has been reported to be incompatible with Firefox since dd/mm/yyyy."

Re:Think of it as 4.0.2

[gstoddart]

If the version number were 4.0.2 instead of 5.0 Enterprises wouldn't be getting their panties in a bunch over this.

Not if 4.0.2 caused 4.0.0 to have support dropped for it three months after you installed it.

Corporations typically end up deploying this kind of software on a much longer cycle ... I'm working on a project now which will be deploying software to the users in several months. There's extensive testing which needs to happen before it can be deployed.

I've seen vendors who seem to release a new version of their software every week or two, and if you have an issue, and aren't running the latest and greatest, they won't listen to you until you upgrade. The problem is, we're talking about production servers with a fair bit of testing and paperwork to have an outage for ... it's just not practical to upgrade every week, every month, or often every three months. It takes us longer to promote it through the environments to verify it than it takes them to release a new build with generally pretty minor changes.

Software which is end-of-life after three months is pretty useless from a corporate perspective. It's unusable, and it's agile development gone horribly wrong. On my home machine, sure, I guess I'd be willing up do an upgrade of Firefox every couple of months. But, if I had thousands of desktop users running in a complex environment ... a three month cycle before what you just installed is EOL'd isn't nearly long enough.

If this is what Mozilla is doing with Firefox, then I think a lot of organizations will simply need to take a second look at this ... because I don't think they'd be able to keep up. In some places, the desktop image is expected to be stable for rather a long time. I think anybody just saying the enterprise is wrong and Mozilla is right likely hasn't worked in industry in a while. Because I can't see how we could keep up with this either.

Re:Think of it as 4.0.2

[Volante3192]

http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/2011/05/21/firefox-5-compatibility-bump/

Re:Think of it as 4.0.2

[Fantom42]

Right, as the article points out, the changelist for Firefox 5 is not much more expansive than the changelist for Firefox 3.6.

This may be true for this particular instance, but Firefox certainly isn't guaranteeing that going forward. What happens with Firefox 9 is released with a feature that breaks their enterprise, and Firefox 8 is suddenly no longer supported?

This whole attitude I hear parroted that "release numbers are irrelevant because they are just numbers" ignores a whole bunch of realities regarding how new features are introduced and developed to different classes of users. And in the case of Firefox, this new strategy sends a disturbing message to enterprise customers that new and potentially disruptive features will be introduced "when they are ready" and support for previous versions will be immediately dropped.

Re:Think of it as 4.0.2

[gstoddart]

So why doesn't the cheapass and lazy corporations support it themselves. The code is there for them to continue to use it as they want.

Because the corporations aren't willing to exert the effort and resources to maintain a browser, because it's a complete waste of money for something which is now treated as infrastructure.

This is pretty much what happens when you hear about people asking Linux questions and being told "RTFM n00b". If the beauty of open source is that when it breaks you get to keep all of the pieces ... well, nobody wants a web browser in a kit.

Now, Mozilla might not actually care if corporations stop using their product ... which is fine. But, if you've been trying to grow your market share, not making it impossible for corporations to keep using your product is a good start.

A three month cycle before a release is marked as end-of-life and no longer supported is simply not going to work for corporations. This will work for end users on their own machines, but I can't see it working in a corporate IT environment. In all but a few places I've ever worked, this just couldn't be made to work.

Re:Think of it as 4.0.2

[phantomfive]

You have just made a strong argument for web standards, and for coding to them.

Re:Think of it as 4.0.2

[badran]

The problem is that there is no check to see if your plugins will work with the updated version before an update.

Re:Think of it as 4.0.2

[marnues]

Hate much?

Re:Think of it as 4.0.2

[jellomizer]

No the real problem is knowing when it is a major change and when it is a minor one. It is Mozilla who is wrong and the Enterprise is right.

For example Solaris, It use to have a version numbers like 2.5.1 after realizing that every time they update the tens spot customers had to do a lot of work to check for compatibility so they changed version numbers to Solaris 6,7,8,9,10... Because they need to notify their customer base if there is architectural upgrade vs. a fix or a patch.

Mozilla is not letting us know if there is an architectural upgrade (where plugins may fail, or the bit of code will no longer be supported) or just an update to prevent it from crashing or run 10% faster. Heck I also like the middle digit as it should say new features were added but these features didn't break anything old.

Re:Think of it as 4.0.2

[nevermore94]

I am a die hard Mozilla/Firefox lover, but even I have been pissed off by broken Extensions. Some may say it is the fault of the authors for not keeping them up-to-date, but I think there should be some sort of feature checking going on, not just a simple number check.
I had 2 Extensions disabled going from 4 to 5:
Bookmark Duplicate Detector
IE Tab +
I also had at least 6 disabled when going from 3 to 4:
FEBE
FoxTab
Linkification
Locate in Bookmark Folders
PageStyle2Tab
Tab Effect 2

Re:Think of it as 4.0.2

[Bacon Bits]

Some enterprise users have internal apps that they need to test, and some of them are upset about such a 'big' change. In reality they shouldn't be looking at version numbers, they should be looking at a list of potential impacts, to make their testing easier.

The point is that most every enterprise IT department treats incrementing the major version number more seriously than minor version numbers, and much more seriously than revision numbers. The de facto standard for version numbers is that major version increments mean major changes which require major testing. That's how everybody else -- short of Google Chrome -- operates. Corporate policies are built around these de facto standards. Abandoning them with no justifiable reason is obnoxious and frustrating.

As far as Google Chrome, they've always operated like this. So it's nothing new. They've always had rolling releases with the major version number representing the stable/beta/dev branches more than anything. Additionally, the software is already corporate-unfriendly due to the fact that it allows non-admins to install so nobody in enterprise IT supports it. It's essentially already carrying a sign that says "NOT FOR BUSINESS". It's getting much better (and appears to have better support than Firefox now) but there hasn't been much press around Chrome for the Enterprise. It's just not on anybody's radar like Firefox is (yet).

Re:Think of it as 4.0.2

[BitZtream]

Yes, the Frozen API ... which is stable ... until the next release where they depreciate the methods you're using because they've replaced them with new methods.

The whole @frozen API is a joke. The only things frozen are so old they've been forgotten. Everything you actually want to use isn't frozen because they can't design software, they just throw it together and see how it works, fucking with it until it works pretty good ... then they mark it as frozen .... 7 years later, when they've replaced it with a new API anyway.

I'm forced to maintain a firefox and thunderbird extension I created to integrate with our products, so I know just a little bit about how their API lives its life. I also was the poor sap who had to attempt to embed gecko into our applications for HTML previewing, so I learned far far more about the internals of Gecko than I ever wanted to know.

Their problems are systemic, and it shows in the code. No leadership and developer anarchy will be the Mozilla Foundations downfall, as we're already witnessing.

Re:Think of it as 4.0.2

[Goaway]

Or they could not expose the internals of the application to plugins, and therefore not force them to be upgraded for every browser upgrade.

Re:Think of it as 4.0.2

[smooth wombat]

its clear the developers don't actually know what they are doing.

This is precisely why one of my 3 inviolate rules for IT is:

Never let a programmer program your applications.

By that I mean, you need to be very specific in what you want done. You must not leave wiggle room for the programmer to interpret what you mean. Do not allow them to do "shiny" for the sake of "shiny". To do so invites what is happening to Firefox.

I know the programmers out there are going to be up in arms, ranting about how controlling my statements are, and I don't deny that, but having seen and been forced to work with the huge amount of bad software* out there, brutal tactics must be employed to counter the cruft being shoved out.

*Bad software meaning horrible install procedures, horrible interfaces, outright bugs in final releases, games with blatant cheating for the AI, software which does not do what you tell it to do, etc.

Re:Think of it as 4.0.2

[bloodhawk]

I can't understand how everyone here is completely missing the point, for the enterprise the version number change is minor. It really doesn't matter, it is the fact of the previous version becoming officially UNSUPPORTED. Firefox is effectively removing themselves from the list of enterprise products as with long testing and release cycles for many enteprises the concept of something being unsupported so fast is completely unacceptable for an enterprise piece of software.

No, they aren't.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they aren't. EOLing something after 4 months and breaking tons of user plugins for no reason is not good for users or the Web itself. It's needlessly churn to rapidly inflate version numbers for no gain for anyone.

Mozillacide

[denis-The-menace]

We are witnessing "Mozillacide"

Damn "ordinary users", they don't need plugins that work.
Damn the enterprise, they are not the target market.

The version number is now Mozilla's priority.

Re:Mozillacide

[Sylak]

Kind of like how they killed of Seamonkey with FireFox, only this time they're killing FireFox with FireFox?

Re:Mozillacide

[kangsterizer]

FF4 add ons are compatible with FF5 by default. Almost no plugin or addon could have been broken.
They are compatible because Mozilla marked them all compatible by default (except a very few that they knew would need update)

Consequently anyone arguing that Mozilla broke addons/plugins has no clue what he's talking about.

Damn trolls, they don't do their homework.

Re:Mozillacide

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Well, the version number and slavish adoration of everything Chrome, followed by desperate attempts to mimic every last feature of it, no matter how idiotic, cumbersome or buggy.

Bonus points for their belligerent defense of their deeply emotional Chrome fetish which they then attempt to dress up as "innovation" and "serving ordinary users" (as if "ordinary users" clamored to have everything change on them every two weeks).

What they missed, apparently, is that Google, with its few billion bucks to spare, can afford to fool around with minor experiments like Chrome and even alienate its users while doing so because in the end if Chrome turns out to be a total dud abandoned by everyone, Google will just release Titanium or Aluminum or some such, or just cancel the whole thing in favour of some other experiment.

Mozilla on the other hand cannot afford pissing off its user base because its user base is all it has.

Re:Mozillacide

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Translation: "Stupid users want to keep their stupid plugins! Ha! What do these idiots know?! We the developers, not some moron users, just know better what users really want! Didn't we tell them that all of their stuff is optional (to us)?! Well, we will just shove our choices down their throats and they will like it! Or else! ... Wait, what happened?! They all left! What's going on?!"

Re:Mozillacide

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Except there are still piles of addons that did not make it from 3.6 to 4, never you mind 5. More so if you are on OS X.

As to 4 to 5, there are about 256 or so addons that broke, according to Mozilla team themselves.

Damn trolls, they don't do their homework.

You just outed yourself as a homework-avoiding troll. Well done, Sir.

Re:Mozillacide

[IgnoramusMaximus]

pretty obviously if its just a few in the vast majority there's no issue

Particularly if you are using one of those "minority" choices. Hell, if 3000+ sports and celebrity-related themes work (all counted amongst the "addons"), who cares about the "minority" complicated stuff that is likely to break with wanton changes?! Everyone knows that "regular users" just want pretty and shiny things and cool version numbers! In fact they apparently all want Chrome too, so Mozilla is adoringly porting all the features of Chrome, irrespective of their quality, into Firefox! Oh and every "regular user" wants the UI to change every two weeks. Sooner and more completely if possible! Not to mention that all changes must involve "minimalism", i.e. removing something useful! Otherwise it doesn't count.

As long as the Lady Gaga Fantasy Football Theme and the Facebook integration does not break its a new major version two days after new Chrome release, at the latest, from now on!

No?

Re:Mozillacide

[Risen888]

Maybe testing FooBarPlugin against a new version of Firefox every other fucking week isn't what Joe Plugin Developer thought he was signing up for.

A release every 6 weeks is really stupid

[Animats]

It's a browser, Firefox people. It doesn't need many new features. One new release every year or two is enough.

If so many new releases are needed for bug fixes, have longer betas. If the problem is security, beef up the sandbox design so that less of the code is security critical.

Re:A release every 6 weeks is really stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Its a browser, slashgoon person. It needs many new features. One new release every year or two is not nearly enough.

If so many new releases are required to add such features, have shorter betas. If the problem is security, aggressively add new security technologies to stay ahead of the curve.

I'm really, really sick of people badmouthing firefox for what it's not. This is the browser that beat IE (Yes, it did). This is the browser that saved the web from stagnation. This is the browser that forced Microsoft to clean up their act after they killed Netscape. It thrives on new features and new technologies to enable developers to create whole new applications you haven't' even begun to imagine. They can't do this if the feature set never changes.

Fire fox is not fucking IE6.

It's not some stable interface for your shitty in-house 10 year old intranet application. Maybe, just maybe, using a general purpose browser that one would use to go on the wild internet is not the same thing they should be using for their legacy web apps. Ever considered that?

Download, install run. Enjoy. Embrace change or get shoved aside.

Re:A release every 6 weeks is really stupid

[the_raptor]

This is exactly my thinking. I don't care about the version numbers, as version systems are entirely arbitrary, but just the drive by Mozilla to subject us to new "features" (like removing established UI elements) constantly.

Browsers are old tech. Browsers are utilitarian. Non-technical people don't want a constantly evolving piece of basic software.

Mainstream browsers are not the place for "cool and cutting edge" development. I want a browser that focuses on security and standards compliance. New features outside that should be addons/plugins until they are so widely adopted, or self-evidently useful, that they get moved into the core of the browser. I call this the Blizzard model because that is the method they follow for World of Warcraft.

Mozilla seem to have adopted We-are-graphic-designers-and-so-know-better-than-you-plebs model that turned "Web 2.0" into a steaming pile of shit.

Re:A release every 6 weeks is really stupid

[Kjella]

Yes and no. Releases are fine, as long as they add features in a backwards-compatible matter. This is 4.0, all plugin interfaces are stable for the 4.x series. The thing is that with major version numbers, you can't tell because there's nothing bigger. What's the interface for version 5-6-7 going to be like? They could break *everything*, so no plugin is guaranteed compatible. You have to either force them on and pray, or hope the maintainer is on top of the game every few months. Chrome doesn't care because they don't need to care, It also tends to bring a little responsibility to developers if they have to support their bloopers for a while, then you start making sure what you have is really what you want not just a WIP.

Re:A release every 6 weeks is really stupid

[Toonol]

Nobody is upset when Firefox improves it's adherence to web standards or improve it's performance.

It's the status bar. It's killing plugins. It's the damnable 'awesomebar'. Those aren't 'keeping up with a changing web'... that's mucking around with UI. That's what happens when a development teams decides to begin competing based on nonessentials. Changing an existing versioning scheme purely for marketing purposes is a sad demonstration of how Mozilla has taken its eye off the ball.

Dear Mozilla

[JamesP]

This is the reason IE continues to stay strong in enterprise.

Yes, corporate users are small-minded, and you're incurring in the same error.

Fix, stabilize, make a 'corporate version'. You don't need many resources for that.

Basically, sell a way for them to use Mozilla.

You're making IT people that root for you look bad. And making the dolts that only know IE look good.

Re:Dear Mozilla

[Volante3192]

This is the reason IE 6 continues to stay strong in enterprise.

Don't think your argument has the intended effect you want it to...

Re:Dear Mozilla

[ElVee]

This move just crushed any chance of Firefox being approved as an 'alternate' browser at the large faceless corporation I toil for, and I'm one of those Firefox 'fanbois' that was pushing for this, and I'm going to look like an idiot now. I'm not real happy with Mozilla right now.

I'm guessing somebody at Mozilla just doesn't understand the size of the testing effort that was underway to get Firefox 4 approved for enterprise distribution. Let me scale it for you: 40,000 workstations in several dozen countries running several hundred 'critical' webapps. We have to certify exactly what works and what doesn't, in each and every language we support for each specific VERSION that is published. Testing is EXPENSIVE, and every dime we put into this effort is now wasted. That leaves Chrome as the only other "corporate-friendly" choice, and now management is going to ask "Well, what if Google decides to pull the same stunt?".

Microsoft gives us written guarantees as to how long they will support previous versions of IE. That means a lot to my corporate overlords. Mozilla might want to consider doing the same thing. It's called "being a reliable business partner".

Re:Dear Mozilla

[Volante3192]

Chrome updates regularly, and often transparently. IE gets patches every month usually.

Do you let those sit in limbo until your testing?

Re:Dear Mozilla

[ElVee]

Simple: FF4 is the version that finally got management's attention and thus the testing cycle was started. Even with FF5 coming out, the testing would have continued on FF4, but with the cessation of security patches, that effort has been cancelled. We'd have to start over from scratch, and, right now, I just don't see that happening. Mozilla is no longer 'trusted' by management.

Re:Dear Mozilla

[ElVee]

If M$ released Windows 8 and simultaneously dropped support for Windows 7, that's probably exactly what would happen.

Broken Plugins

[Aladrin]

When I used Firefox regularly, it bothered me that almost every update 'broke' a plugin that had specified a maximum version number that wasn't actually accurate. They would set the value thinking that they could update it later if it turned out to work.

Just the other day I was just reading a message posted by Linux Torvalds where he said that version numbers should be used for kludges that hack issue in old kernels, instead of trying to predict the future. In that post, his point was that if the kernel version number can't be read, it should be assumed that the normal way of doing things will just work, and to try it instead of explicitly denying things when you aren't sure.

I see this situation the same way. Until a plugin developer has tried the plugin and found it fails on a new version of the browser, the future should be wide-open.

Every time Firefox released a new version, the first thing I would do is force all my plugins enabled. And they almost always worked.

Re:Broken Plugins

[dzfoo]

>> Until a plugin developer has tried the plugin and found it fails on a new version of the browser, the future should be wide-open.

That assumes that any failures will be obvious and noticeable. This is not necessarily the case. What should a user do when his AdBlock program all of a sudden starts corrupting or removing elements, in a subtle way, from the output stream of, say, a banking application?

Mozilla (and all browser makers, for that matter) cannot expect to turn the Web into a reliable platform for all types of disciplines and commercial interests, while at the same time treat it as the ever-changing playground of their newest and coolest ideas.

It reminds me of companies that test new features in their production environment. There is never a problem, of course, until something breaks.
        -dZ.

Soon it may not even matter.

[blind biker]

Firefox's usage share has been slowly declining since quite some time. They introduced the rather universally hated moron-bar, and paid no attention to the feedback. Then they introduced the unwelcome changes in the UI with Firefox 4, and paid no attention to the feedback. Now they decided to piss off the plugin authors and enterprise customers. In the end, they may become a niche browser, and even Google could decide that their money is better spent elsewhere, than on a bunch of idiots.

Re:Soon it may not even matter.

[Pentium100]

Yea, old style FF interface wastes so much space it's barely usable on my 1600x1200 resolution. Oh wait, it doesn't. Also, I can chenge the resolution to 1920x1440 if I want more space (CRT user here).

That only applies to displays with very low resolution, 640x480 or 800x600 at most. However, most of the PCs that do not support higher resolutions cannot run current version of Firefox because they are too old and cannot run the operating systems that FF4 requires.

At least it is possible to change the interface back to how it was. I also like Opera for this feature and do not use Chrome because I hate the interface.

Re:I think it's the "No Security Updates for 4"

[Volante3192]

How do they handle Patch Tuesday then? Are they finally getting MS (read: IE) critical updates from March?

How about a car analogy...sure why not.

[geekmux]

"...claiming it makes their testing burden impossible. We're not convinced: we think Mozilla's decision is the right one for the Web itself.'"

Really? You think it's the right decision, huh?

Tell you what, how about I go around and change all unleaded gas over to leaded gas tomorrow, and YOU can work with your various manufacturers to figure out why YOUR make and model of car doesn't run right.

This is EXACTLY what Mozilla has done with their upgrade path (i.e. leaded gas). They've basically chosen to not give a shit about the very developers and coders(i.e. the car manufacturers) that have written thousands of plugins that helped put Firefox on the map and establish Mozilla.

Keep it up Mozilla. I don't care who you try and convince here, perception is reality, and right now the perception that your upgrade path WILL break the very features that make you rather unique in the browser world, will ultimately be your demise.

I've dealt with enough FF upgrades to know to research plugin compatibility before I upgrade, but it's still a pain in the ass even when I have to do it once every six months. I'll quit using FF altogether if that nightmare becomes a monthly battle.

Standards might help

[softWare3ngineer]

If you have correctly followed commonly agreed upon standards how much of your application is really going to break? and like everyone else has said previous, they are small incremental changes not akin to the old paradigm of huge versions. you could also use a test suite and automate those tests. just some thoughts.

Re:Dear enterprise users:

[Sylak]

It's exactly that attitude that keeps firefox from being accepted in the Enterprise to begin with, and as several active IT admins have commented already on the last firefox story, many of them are deploying Chrome because of firefox's new release schedule.

Enterprise is wrong.

[faedle]

If a web-browser change causes a "mission-critical web app" to break, one of the words in "mission-critical web app" is a lie.

Re:Enterprise is wrong.

[faedle]

For the record, I don't even use Firefox. But I am a "web developer."

If your mission-critical web app is not standards-compliant, it's not a "web app."
If your mission-critical web app has not been adequately tested to be standards-compliant, you need to rethink the words "mission-critical" and apply either the right resources or rethink whether or not the app is truly "mission criticial."

And your argument is a straw man. USBank, the bank I use, has a web banking service that works in any browser I've ever used it in. Yes, even Opera Mini and the browser on my Android phone. So it can be done.

Re:Enterprise is wrong.

[toriver]

No: If mission-critical web app works in browser X and breaks in browser Y, the users will switch to browser X so that they can use the app. Browser Y has then become a liability to those users. Firefox is not a girlfriend, it can be very easily dumped.

Re:AAT is golden

[lostmongoose]

How about they use better development practices such as not breaking plugins for people by bumping a version number for no reason?

Or how about plugin authors using the Beta or, better yet, the Aurora release to get their shit updated for the final release? God forbid the extension/plugin authors actually do anything to alleviate a problem with a simple solution. No, they'd rather bitch about having to update it instead.

Solution: Just ask the Enterprise to go away???

[mikery1]

From the article:

Corporate users who can't update their browsers because of some persnickety internal application they have to use, but who then go and use that same browser on the public Internet. By unleashing these obsolete browsers on the world at large, these corporate users make the Web worse for everyone. Web developers have to target the lowest common denominator, and the corporations are making that lowest common denominator that much lower.

And the best way to resolve that is to alienate the enterprise even more . . .???

At least at the end of the article, the author discusses having enterprise releases and internal updates. But the kiddies running this show need to realize that the big boy adults (i.e. the enterprise) are going to be the ones that drive the significant majority of sites/work on the web. Just saying, "oh go away I don't want to deal with you" only leads us right back to supporting IE6.

Re:I wonder...

[edremy]

Using it. Right now I'm running pretty light- I only have 6 tabs open, but when I'm doing serious debugging it can easily be 20+. Some of them have video in them, others have google docs, etc. Right now it's "only" using 900MB, but it's not at all uncommon for FF to take up 2+ GB.

No, Mozilla is wrong.

[gamrillen]

I worked for a large corporation on a team that deployed software to ~50,000 desktops and ~10,000 servers. Whenever we wanted to deploy a new software package (Via Microsoft SCCM or Group Policies) it was a huge undertaking, even for the simpler applications. At minimum, it takes at least a month to develop a plan for and deploy an application, and that was just on our end. If it was something that involved websites, and/or browser plugins (Adobe Reader, Adobe Flash, etc) then it would take even longer because testing would have to be done on every internal web based application. That alone took several months and a dedicated project team. Once the software change was ready for deployment, it took a week to develop the scripting and deployment policies. After that, it was deployed to a pilot group for two weeks, and then a test group for a week. After that, it could be put into production. However, if there was the slightest hitch along the way, it could set us back several weeks. Enterprises move VERY slowly on their software deployments. If Mozilla is interested at all in keeping Firefox in the enterprise world, they're going to have to slow down, or at least release an "Enterprise" version so that deployment teams can keep up. Six week release cycles are just going to cause folks like me, who manage software deployments, to stop deploying it at all.

No, Mozilla's delusional

[Tridus]

This is not good for the Enterprise. It's not good for Firefox or Mozilla, which is already losing marketshare and isn't going to benefit from pissing off very large users. It's not even good for "the web" despite their nebulous and poorly supported claim that it is.

In reality this is some blowhards like Asa making poor decisions and then trying to defend them when people point out that it's a poor decision. Normal users don't particularly benefit from more big downloads that break things more often and will sometimes get a new gee-whiz HTML 5 feature out the door a bit sooner (which then won't be adopted by any websites until a couple of versions of FF later because of the lag time required to, you know, develop stuff). Enterprise users clearly suffer because keeping up with this requires throwing testing out the window and will effectively just reinforce the idea that you should stick with IE (where Microsoft actually wants your business and doesn't give you a middle finger).

If driving people away from Firefox is "good for the web", then I guess this is good for the web. But here in reality it's good for IE and Chrome.

Re:I wonder...

[jdgeorge]

I experience the memory footprint problem also. It may be the sites I'm using are very heavyweight and remain in the cache, but it would be great to see some kind of graph that shows what memory is being used by which tabs, or is unreasonably persisting in the cache.

Not sure what is so hard...

[MoldySpore]

Considering 5.0 is mostly just a newer revision of 4.0, how can testing be that hard? We have Firefox 4 deployed on all our computers (over 5000). We will test it in a lab environment and then push out the new version with our deployment software to all machines at once. What exactly is hard about that? I suppose it would be hard if you didn't have something like patchlink or an equivalent software to do mass deployments. But then again that isn't really a Firefox issue is it?

Re:Not sure what is so hard...

[ElVee]

I could press a button right now and have FF5 on 40k desktops by midnight. I'd lose my job, but I could do it.

Testing isn't hard, it just takes a lot of time and money. We have to CERTIFY exactly which of the several hundred internal and external webapps FireFox works with, and which it doesn't, and then create copious documentation in several languages for help desk and field personnel. We have to plan and manage GPO settings for dozens of different groups. If code changes have to be made on servers to support the new browser, that has to be coordinated across the enterprise.

There's more to it than browsing to a few websites and then letting the code fly.

Re:I wonder...

[Bryan3000000]

Firefox can easily eat close to 1GB with a couple of windows and a few tabs in each, after a little while. That's with all scripts blocked, plugins disallowed, etc. I'm left to wonder if the vast majority of websites themselves have become too bloated to keep in memory. Either way, Firefox does not score well on memory usage or idle cpu usage (whether scripts are allowed or not) compared with other browsers.

Re:AAT is golden

[CastrTroy]

How about they fix their plugin system so that determining whether or not plugin will work is not dependent on version numbers. This is equivalent to checking user agent strings to determine if your javascript will run. We discovered a long time ago that that was a bad practice. What we really need is a way for the browser to check which functionality the plugins are trying to use to determine whether or not it will run correctly And then just give the option to the user to run the plugin anyway. It's not like the plugins are compiled against specific version of Firefox anyway. They are just interpreted javascript code. The worst that should happen is that a warning should be displayed, letting the user know that the plugin hasn't been tested against the specific version. If the user decides it isn't working, they can disable the plugin if they want.

Re:maybe mozilla can pay for new software versions

[c0d3g33k]

there is a lot of *poorly written yet expensive* software that requires a specific web browser version. Cognos springs to mind. if you have a later browser it may not work and you have to buy a later version of the software which is very expensive. and companies use a lot of this type of software. cognos, web logic and lots of others.

There, fixed that for you. Given that the vast majority (ie. almost all of it) of web-based software, much of it quite sophisticated, does *not* require a specific browser, let alone a specific browser *version* and works just fine, this speaks volumes about the poor software engineering skills of the vendors in question. Not to mention the questionable judgment of the customers that pay for this expensive brittleware.

Enterprises aren't self-contained microverses

[rtobyr]

If my enterprise did not interact with other enterprises, then faster version numbers (be they major or minor changes) can be coped with. The problem is that we interact with other enterprises. My ADP timecard program still doesn't support Firefox 4. My Cisco Scan Safe proxy service *just* announced support for Firefox 4. My AT&T online trouble-ticket software is browser based, as is my internal Numara Track It trouble-ticket software. My customers (judges) are required by the state to use a browser based application for calculating child support rulings. All of these things have to work with my browser, and if one of my partners decides that Firefox 5 isn't supported while Mozilla isn't supporting Firefox 4, then I have a problem that drives me back to Internet Explorer.

Re:AAT is golden

[kangsterizer]

they did not break them actually. how about you get informed before you post aggressively then?
FF 4 addons (plugins do not need update ever btw) have been marked compatible with FF 5 by Mozilla before FF 5 was released, so, no, they could not break.

Re:AAT is golden

[kangsterizer]

That's incorrect.
Those plugins which aren't plugins but extensions in fact (or add ons) have complete access to Firefox and can modify anything. This is why they are so powerful on Firefox compared to Chrome, and why they require restart and version check.

Firefox also supports Chrome-like extensions, which are as you describe, and guess what, do not require checks or restarts.

Developers should however use them when their extension doesn't require extensive changes to Firefox.

Re:I wonder...

[Pentium100]

but as soon as the memory is required elsewhere its released and available.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I always thought that memory that was used by a process (for example Firefox) needs to be swapped to make more free memory that now can be used by another process (for example a game). Windows can free its disk read cache quickly, but how can it "know" which regions of memory that is marked as in use by Firefox (whether caching or something else) can be freed up without swapping safely and that it will not break FF? Or does Firefox detect that another process wants to use the memory and release it?

Re:I wonder...

[Americano]

I can second this. By way of comparison, quick benchmark I just ran right now on my laptop:

-- Opened chrome - no extensions but adblock/flashblock, opened 8 tabs - one to each of my bookmark bar sites, and 1 to youtube, where I played a random video from the front page. Memory usage: 162MB.

-- Opened firefox - no extensions but adblock/flashblock, opened the same 8 tabs and started the same video playing. Firefox.exe usage is 140 MB; plugin-container.exe takes up an additional 143MB to handle the video playback. Total usage: 283 MB.

That's a HUGE difference in memory utilization, and that's fairly "light" usage. Firefox is a bit of a pig when it comes to memory usage, and frankly its performance pales in comparison to Chrome, as well. I didn't like Chrome at first, I hated the way they handled tabs, and I thought I'd miss not having the file/edit/etc. menu visible... but the performance and stability have absolutely converted me... still get a little turned around with menu operations, but it's forced me to learn more of the keyboard shortcuts, and that's also a time saver in the long run.

What is the purpose of Mozilla?

[Kamiza Ikioi]

And who's call was it to change version numbers? And who was the asshole who told Enterprise users (paraphrasing) "We don't give a shit about you."

Mozilla went out of its way to pick a fight. And that one statement right there is all it takes. It's not what Mozilla changed. It's the fact that they dumped a codebase on its ass after 3 months. That's not credibility building. That's saying "We have no clue how to plan or beta test our products properly."

Putting those two things together is, in no way, "the right [decision] for the Web itself." It's fanboy smoke blowing up CIO asses. If it's so right, why is it that Opera, Safari, and Chrome are not on the hot seat? Chrome undergoes changes at a super-rapid pace automatically, but I hear nobody really screaming about it. Two reasons, really. First, it just works, which can be said of FF, but it is not an aura they present especially when they have to drop support after only 3 months of a major release. Second, Google has never said, "F#$% you, CIOs!" Google has made it clear that they want to be the one stop shop for cloud for business.

The question is, what the hell does Mozilla want? I don't see a vision. They're worse than UI devs who argue over who's system is better, forgetting what their goals actually are.

At Mozilla, all I see is mismanagement. They can't control their code. They can't control their staff. And they are continually lagging behind all competition, which is especially sad given their rock star performance not too long ago, with social buzz propelling a large install base.

They don't do anything news worthy anymore, except piss people off. MS learned how to change that, and most CIOs are excited about IE8/9 as a real evolution. Chrome continues to innovate and add support. Opera is continually pushing the mobile envelope.

Not only were they assholes, but the question quickly flies back into Mozilla's face, "What have you done for me lately?" That mobile app? It's a joke. Slow, bulky, and not appealing. It is not even comparable to other mobile browsers like Opera or Dolphin.

Nobody really cares about Mozilla anymore. And those that do are finding it harder to justify using it. This isn't about what's "right for the web", this is about a tech that's outlived its prime, by a team that's outlived its usefulness.

Re:What is the purpose of Mozilla?

[Billly Gates]

"And who was the asshole who told Enterprise users (paraphrasing) "We don't give a shit about you.""

That would be Asa. A little FYI he is not part of the PR department, nor is he authorised to speak for Mozilla in any way. If Mozilla has any sense they would fire this guy ASAP. He even posted on slashdot and ... paraphrased "Please go back to IE 8. I beg you too! ..." to someone whining how he convinced management to side with him to upgrade to Firefox, and Asa just put his job on the line.

Well F*** you too. To me the biggest blow is not the shoddy releases nor the promise to say corporate America you are shit out of the creek, but his attitude. It is one thing to question privately whether to support corporate users. It is another to bash them when many of its I.T. professionals are swinging their bat out of their way to get your product in.

I no longer use Firefox as a result of all of this and they are turning into irrevelence. They can't change the web for open standards unless corporate users use something besides IE. Well, there solution is to say fuck them. There reply will say screw you too. The webmasters will notice an increase in IE usage and ignore html 5. ... not very bright Asa.

Now if they fire Asa and apologize and offer an acitive directory tool and maybe an enteprise edition of Firefox that is updated every 6 months all would be forgiven. But, a lot of damage has been going on from this and Firefox itself is in trouble. Quality is very low and it is the bottom since Firefox 3.6.

Re:What is the purpose of Mozilla?

[westlake]

The question is, what the hell does Mozilla want? I don't see a vision.

How can it have a vision of its own?

Mozilla remains, for all practical purposes, bound hand and foot to Google:

The receivable from this search engine provider represented 71% and 80% of the December 32, 2009 and outstanding receivables respectively.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements: Note 9 - Concentration of Risks

There were two zingers in this month's news from Net Applications:

The iPad has 0.92% share of all browsing. In other words, the iPad has 53 times the usage share of its nearest competitor.

When Microsoft decided not to support XP for Internet Explorer 9, they narrowed the front for the browser wars to Windows 7. We've been tracking this strategy ever since, and in May, Internet Explorer 9 on Windows 7 reached 12.2% worldwide (including custom editions). In the U.S., Internet Explorer 9 on Windows 7 averaged 17% usage share during the last three days of May.

Headlines

Firefox, all versions, all platforms: 22%
IE 6 10% IE 8: 31% IE 9: 4%
Chrome 11 10%

Firefox is the new legacy browser, the browser for platforms in decline.

Re:What is the purpose of Mozilla?

[mbrinkm]

At Mozilla, all I see is mismanagement. They can't control their code. They can't control their staff. And they are continually lagging behind all competition, which is especially sad given their rock star performance not too long ago, with social buzz propelling a large install base.

I agree with your observations whole heartily and it feels like a giant fuck you to me and I would assume to a lot of people that have been praising and endorsing Firefox for years.

Oh well; on to something else.

Re:I think it's the "No Security Updates for 4"

[jimicus]

Yeah, I have no sympathy for IT or their severely myopic BS testing cycles. I don't think FF5 vs FF4 even shows up on their radar.

There's an extremely good reason for this - business drives IT, not the other way around.

What do I mean by this? I mean the IT department only really gets a say in how money and time is spent where it can explain a genuine business benefit. Otherwise it's very much at the beck and call of others within the business, who aren't going to change how something works because it inconveniences someone else.

"System N is getting on a bit" is not a genuine business benefit, and as such will never be taken seriously by any self-respecting manager.

"System N is getting on a bit and as a result is causing problems A, B and C." is not necessarily a business benefit. It may sound like one, but it's really an IT benefit.

"System N is getting on a bit and as a result is (costing more money than it needs to|impacting productivity|exposing the business to great risk) (delete as necessary)" - is substantially better, but I've yet to meet a senior manager who wants to do everything for himself - usually, s/he would much rather you come to him with a couple of possible solutions.

"System N is getting on a bit and as a result is (costing more money than it needs to|impacting productivity|exposing the business to great risk). We can resolve these issues by upgrading to System P, it's going to cost us £X in the first year, £Y in subsequent years and will (save|improve productivity by|reduce risk by) £Z over its expected lifespan. The risks involved in such an upgrade are A, B and C." is perfect.

Re:I disagree strongly....

[dzfoo]

>> my impression is that there has been a backlog of "new web technologies" waiting to be implemented in browsers (legally-free media formats for and tags, css3 animations, websockets, webGL, etc.) but I suspect with a more rapid development pace for Firefox and Chrom(e|ium), the backlog will get cleared out fairly quickly and the pace of development will settle back down.

Fine, so where are those new web technologies? Not in Firefox 5, that's sure. What we get is tabs on bottom, then on top, then on the title bar; missing status bar; the moronic single input field for all commands; point-and-click to get anything done--oh, now we type keywords to get anywhere; ever-moving menus; ever-changing preferences pane; extensions and downloads in tabs, no wait--on a new window, now back on a tab again (did we catch up with the Chrome look and feel?); and of course, the all-important major-version release number increment.

Yes, it does look like the Mozilla development team is right on top of that backlog of new web technologies that developers have been clamoring for.

        -dZ.

Why can't the "enterprise"...

[John Hasler]

...pay someone (such as Mozilla...) for support? It's Free Software. They've got the source and the license.

Everyone should do this

[thetoadwarrior]

Fuck catering to lazy corporations. That sort of thing has damaged the internet enough as it is. Maybe they'll quit buying into rubbish technologies if they can't rely on keeping the same awful browser around for over a decade.

Re:AAT is golden

[Ant P.]

Either maintain it, or take it down

Or develop for Chrome, which doesn't have a completely fucking retarded extension system. My code hasn't needed updating in a year and five major version numbers, it just works. And will likely do so a year from now, because it's based on web standards and not brain damage like XPCOM.

Re:I think it's the "No Security Updates for 4"

[BitZtream]

Depends on the organization.

Some consider MS patches safe and just roll them out, it generally works, we're small enough that its not likely to be a problem for instance. They rarely break things without stating what things they are going to break in advance, for the most part, MS does a massive amount of testing before release. Even though its Microsoft, most people have very little worry about applying MS patches if they read the documentation on the patches.

Many don't follow patch tuesday as in a sane network its not really that needed to keep up. With proper network segmentation and firewalling, the chances of a remote exploit getting into the network are slim, and if it does, it'll be contained to a segment that can be dealt with in a manageable way. So you don't really have to keep up with patch tuesday because your network parameter keeps the bad stuff outside the walls, allowing you more leeway to bunch up several patches and release them to your network after they've ran the gambit of tests.

The last large organization I worked at did 3 month cycles for Windows updates, meaning all installed patches were generally +4 months old, and it wasn't a problem. This however would result in Firefox being removed from PCs, its not worth the headache. They can just use IE and a filtering proxy and not worry about security problems and following some idiotic schedule that Mozilla comes up with.

Re:AAT is golden

[BitZtream]

As a plugin author I'll tell you why.

I have better shit to do than keep up with testing against each new flavor of the day from Mozilla. I like to spend my time working on MY products and MY software, not retesting against someone elses interface constantly because they can't manage to write software in a way that it can maintain compatibility.

As of about 30 seconds ago, the decision was made by our company internally to drop support for Firefox until they pull their head out of their ass.