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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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.