Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mozilla Announces Enterprise User Working Group

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the i-was-hoping-they-were-starting-work-on-lcars dept.

Firefox 156

Lennie sends this quote from an announcement at the Mozilla blog: "Recently there has been a lot of discussion about enterprises and rapid releases. Online life is evolving faster than ever and it's imperative that Mozilla deliver improvements to the Web and to Firefox more quickly to reflect this. This has created challenges for IT departments that have to deliver lots of mission-critical applications through Firefox. Mozilla is fundamentally about people and we care about our users wherever they are. To this end, we are re-establishing a Mozilla Enterprise User Working Group as a place for enterprise developers, IT staff and Firefox developers to discuss the challenges, ideas and best practices for deploying Firefox in the enterprise."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

LOL (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36835480)

Re:LOL (2)

instagib (879544) | more than 3 years ago | (#36835520)

> we care about our users
And he forgot to say: "The fact that we break your add-ons every few months is in your best interest!"

Re:LOL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36835726)

What was the only thing missing from the last Million Man March? Three miles of chain and an auctioneer.

oh yeah here's a real life joke. white people didn't take slaves from africa. maybe you want to read that again. it was far too dangerous. instead, black people from africa captured their own brothers and sisters and sold them to white men. isn't it so strange how we never hear about this during Black History Month? i mean it's historical fact and it concerns blacks, sounds like a good fit to me.

Re:LOL (0)

bbecker23 (1917560) | more than 3 years ago | (#36835836)

You seem lost. This is slashdot. The Faux News forums are over there.

Re:LOL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36835918)

You seem lost. This is slashdot. The Faux News forums are over there.

i hoped maybe here i could actually get a real answer to the question. i am sorry their own people betrayed them for some wealth. but why do we pretend this never happened? it is historical and it concerns blacks. why isn't it front and center of black history month in the USA? why do we even have a black history month?

from Faux News all i expect is 4-5 people talking over each other and playing a game of who can talk the loudest and fastest, or another game of who can mute whose microphone. no real answer to be found there.

Re:LOL (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36836308)

i hoped maybe here i could actually get a real answer to the question.

Here's a serious answer. Statistically, blacks suffer from an inherent intellectual disadvantage so we as a civilized nation have to look after them the same way you look after drunks and old people. Blacks are naturally violent and stupid. Our options in managing them include some kind of apartheid style segregation (including jail) but that would only serve to make us international pariahs so that's obviously not happening. Our other option is to deal with them as best we can taking into account their own limitations and our limited resources. The answer society has come to is to blow as much smoke up their asses as possible to placate their self-esteem, make sure they can subsist on at least some minimal level enough to afford liquor and marijuana, and lastly, make sure they can afford a house in the projects, a big screen TV, and a fridge full of hamhocks to keep them from roaming the streets robbing us and breaking into our houses.

tl;dr: we give them just enough crumbs to keep them in line.

Re:LOL (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36836320)

Can you elaborate some on that statement? I've been a long time firefox user and have never had an add-on broken except when transitioning between major releases. And even then, it was because the pluin author simply hadn't ported it yet.

For an enterprise, this is all standard operating procedure. Meaning, validation that everything is available and supported on a new release should happen every time. If it doesn't, someone either isn't doing their job of they don't understand what, "enterprise", means.

Re:LOL (1)

kevinmenzel (1403457) | more than 3 years ago | (#36836356)

I think the reference might be to the current race to the next major version number borking plugins even when the plug-in API remains stable.

Stability (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 3 years ago | (#36836560)

"have never had an add-on broken except when transitioning between major releases."

Thats fine and all when 'major releases' happen once a year or so. Nowdays its about once a fortnight or so.
Can you imagine Scotty and Spock having to upgrade the ships software every other episode (or Geordi and Data if you prefer TNG)

For myself I will probably continue using FF5.x for a while while I try out the competition. I certainly won't be upgrading Thunderbird .

Re:LOL (4, Insightful)

jojoba_oil (1071932) | more than 3 years ago | (#36835656)

I wonder if that guy is still the community coordinator for marketing...

Re:LOL (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36836490)

Of course they do. Nothing's actually going to change, this is just a token effort by the non-Dotzler camp to try and reel back in the business users that he alienated. They have no intention of removing him from his post, or addressing any of the issues that enterprises face in rolling out Firefox. And you know what? That's just fine with us. Firefox is no longer the be-all-end-all of "alternative" browsers, if they think we're not important then we'll just abandon the Mozilla Foundation like they've abandoned us.

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36835922)

I'd say he had it right.

I don't know, of the Star Trek series, it was probably the worst.

Re:LOL (1)

andydread (758754) | more than 3 years ago | (#36836718)

looks like some backpedaling on the part of Mozilla. lol

Re:LOL (2)

Shining Celebi (853093) | more than 3 years ago | (#36837298)

The anti-enterprise position was never the official view of Mozilla; it was something expressed by a few employees of Mozilla. There are certainly plenty of others who feel quite differently about it, as you can see from reading Planet Mozilla. I don't think Mozilla has expressed a position on any of this.

For example, here's a counterpoint view. [wordpress.com] There's some good points there. The main point: major Firefox releases that include important bugfixes were taking more than a year to come out. This was very bad for many groups of people. Point releases took 6-8 to come out, but without too many major changes (the idea that Firefox point releases never included new functionality is false - out-of-process plugins came in a point release.) Mozilla has now simply merged the two: the only releases will come out every 6-8 weeks and will include whatever's ready, like Chrome.

There is, in fact, a stable extension API called Jetpack. The problem is that Firefox extensions can literally do anything at all to Firefox, access internal APIs and do whatever else they want. An external API like Jetpack is no good for that. There's a tradeoff. AMO bumps compatibility on most extensions automatically, but not all. So some extensions will be temporarily incompatible (personally, I didn't have any issues - about 15 extensions). On the other hand, users will get, for example, the massive memory improvements coming in Firefox 7 in a month or two rather than sometime in 2013.

participants? (3, Funny)

rbrausse (1319883) | more than 3 years ago | (#36835490)

is Asa Dotzler part of this workgroup?

Re:participants? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36835942)

If they had any brains, they'd fire his worthless ass.

Re:participants? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36836186)

Ass Dotzler's Worthless Ass Fired, News at 11

In other words (4, Insightful)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36835504)

To this end, we are re-establishing a Mozilla Enterprise User Working Group as a place for enterprise developers, IT staff and Firefox developers to discuss the challenges, ideas and best practices for deploying Firefox in the enterprise.

In true Mozilla fashion, I'm sure that will mean "We'll pretend to listen while we continue to do whatever we want"

Re:In other words (4, Funny)

Bacon Bits (926911) | more than 3 years ago | (#36835598)

In true Mozilla fashion, I'm sure that will mean "We'll pretend to listen while we continue to do whatever we want"

See? FOSS software really is just as good as commercial closed-source software!

Re:In other words (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 3 years ago | (#36835880)

Just popular FOSS is as good as commecial closed source software. That is probably why it becomes popular at the first place. (And no, Apache doesn't cut it. It is just popular in a ninche that is "people who run web servers". An important ninche, but still small in numbers.)

What makes me wonder... I have really no idea on what goes on most people heads.

Re:In other words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36836210)

What's a ninche?

Re:In other words (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 3 years ago | (#36836552)

Apache doesn't cut it. It is just popular in a ninche that is "people who run web servers".

Web server software doesn't cut it because it's not popular with people who aren't running web servers? Hanh?

Also, "niche".

Re:In other words (0)

JMJimmy (2036122) | more than 3 years ago | (#36835734)

Pretty much. Mozilla stopped being about the user with the crapsome bar.

Re:In other words (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36835764)

You mean despite the fact that it works better than the previous URL bar and was a logical addition to the database that's now being used for bookmarks.

I see a lot of hate for the awesome bar, but really, it beats the crap out of the previous URL bar.

Re:In other words (2)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#36835792)

Don't feed the "the fate of the entire organization hinges on the one (mis)feature I care about" troll. Especially one who can't set maxRichResults in about:config.

Re:In other words (2)

instagib (879544) | more than 3 years ago | (#36835884)

Or just

browser.urlbar.autocomplete.enabled = false

Re:In other words (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#36836458)

You realize that those options were added after the fact and were met with resistance from the devs? They wanted no way for end users to disable the awesome bar. Hiding the option in about:config was their belated compromise (and even then it didn't restore the exact URL bar functionality, thus the oldbar extension).

Re:In other words (1)

womprat (154589) | more than 3 years ago | (#36836792)

So? I think most new features, good or bad, are going to be met with resistance from devs.

Besides, I remember being able to turn it off in the first full release that had the awesomebar. Maybe not the betas, but do you really expect every feature to be complete in a beta?

Re:In other words (1)

Isaac Remuant (1891806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36836048)

Thanks for being the voice of reason. Thank you. If I had mod points I'd spend them gladly.

The key concept is customization.

Re:In other words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36835916)

We're all missing the point here. Why does a web browser need to run a database for its bookmarks?

Re:In other words (1)

Seyedkevin (1633117) | more than 3 years ago | (#36836122)

We're all missing the point here. Why does a web browser need to run a database for its bookmarks?

Uh, what? It has to store data somewhere.

You make it sound like firefox comes bundled with a full-on SQL server when in reality it just reads and writes to a SQLite database and some XML files. SQLite is basically just an indexed version of flatfile storage.

Although, it'd be kind of cool if firefox could save its config in a centrally maintained SQL database like KDE.

Re:In other words (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#36836250)

You make it sound like firefox comes bundled with a full-on SQL server when in reality it just reads and writes to a SQLite database and some XML files.

And SQLite has horrible write performance and Firefox keeps writing crap to the database that I don't care about, like the last time I visited a bookmark. If I remember correclty SQLite will call sync() three times every time it updates an entry.

That does ensure that you don't lose all your bookmarks when Windows crashes anymore, but only at the cost of reduced performance all the time.

Re:In other words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36836368)

And yet bookmark operations are still instant for me. You're whining about a performance problem that doesn't exist. And if it does - submit patches.

Re:In other words (2)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#36836576)

You're whining about a performance problem that doesn't exist.

O rly? [mozilla.com] They even have knowledge base articles about issues related to performance and corruption of hte SQLite file that stores bookmarks. So, no, he was not whining about something that didn't exist as a simple Google search would show you more examples.

Re:In other words (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#36836614)

And yet bookmark operations are still instant for me.

It's not bookmark operations, it's general sluggish performance when Firefox decides it wants to write lots of data to the database. It's particularly horrible on filesystems like ext3 where fsync translates into 'write all pending data to the disk'.

You're whining about a performance problem that doesn't exist. And if it does - submit patches.

Sure:

Patch - remove all SQLite code.

Done.

Re:In other words (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#36837100)

It's particularly horrible on filesystems like ext3 where fsync translates into 'write all pending data to the disk'.

Basically you mean file systems that aren't broken.

I've started dealing with ZFS and learned real fucking quick how BAD apps are about this sort of thing that I never noticed before because most filesystems don't actually sync when told to on desktops.

Modern FSes will sync to the point of stable journaled recovery, but not actually get all the data on disk by the end of the sync.

When you put shitty apps that think sync is free on top of these filesystems, all of the sudden you get completely asstastic performance.

I never noticed this when using the standard ufs in FreeBSD because apparently ... sync doesn't actually sync by default, it ensures soft updates consistency but thats it, so all of the sudden what was a perfectly acceptable NFS server for virtual machines ... when switched to ZFS which actually DOES sync and not return until the sync is completed ... well, now NFS performance has become completely unusable. Want to make it usable? Just tell ZFS not to ignore sync requests that it doesn't generate itself internally ... oh look, right back to where we were pre-ZFS ... So much for a cheap NAS server, had to throw in a bunch of expensive battery backed controllers to make sync not suck ass.

Sigh ...

Re:In other words (4, Insightful)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 3 years ago | (#36835850)

How long have people been begging for an MSI based installer, and some Group Policy support that is "official".. sure there are scripts that can hack GPO support in, and 3rd party builds of the MSI installer.. but people have been asking since Firefox 2...

Re:In other words (2)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#36836564)

How long have people been begging for an MSI based installer, and some Group Policy support that is "official".. sure there are scripts that can hack GPO support in, and 3rd party builds of the MSI installer.. but people have been asking since Firefox 2...

People have been asking officially since at least 2000.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52052 [mozilla.org]
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=231062 [mozilla.org]

Re:In other words (2, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36835858)

Yup. Why should an open source project be constrained to the demands of corporations that aren't involved or contributing to their effort? After all, the Linux kernel doesn't wait for anyone, but that doesn't seem to be a huge problem for corporations (well, except those wanting to deliver closed source drivers.)

Now if they want to take those concerns into consideration (like it seems they're doing) then more power to them.

Re:In other words (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36836132)

For the same reasons they should listen to users who are neither involved or contributing to their effort. The whole point is to have a good product used by as many people as possible. Corporate users are still users. If you can add features that they want and get a larger distribution for your product, why would you ignore them?

Firefox has had little corporate use because they are missing vital components that most corporations need (an easy way to roll out the program, updates, and a way to centrally configure and control it). IE is still the primary corporate browser because it has these features. Why would they not want to make a stab at a huge section of the market that so far no browser, other than IE, has cracked?

Re:In other words (1)

BZ (40346) | more than 3 years ago | (#36836732)

The answer to your last question is, as always, opportunity cost.

That is, they could take such a stab by not doing something else instead. And then you have to decide whether the something else is more important.

Re:In other words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36836140)

The difference for Linux is that they don't really put out compiled versions. They just do source. In addition, the people in charge of running Linux have a much better idea of how to do it. In addition, the Linux kernel is configurable. If you want, you can strip out the options you don't like and change just about anything. You can also create scripts that contain the configurations you want for easier setup later. And they do not change the default settings as often.

With Firefox, not everything is configurable. In addition, many people who use it wouldn't know how to change many settings that are changeable. Firefox distributes compiled versions, that people just kind of install. Many people who use it cannot understand basic operating tasks. There is no way to do a centralized setup or configuration. Finally, they change the defaults on people all the time.

Linux and Firefox are not really comparable, next to the FOSS factor.

Re:In other words (2)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#36837124)

After all, the Linux kernel doesn't wait for anyone, but that doesn't seem to be a huge problem for corporations

Funny, if you look at who writes the code of the Linux kernel ... you'll find them ... working for big companies ... who use Linux.

So whats actually happening even though you can't see it is that ... the linux kernel gets the futures companies want because MOST of the kernel devs actually work on Linux FOR some big company.

You do know what Linus does to pay the bills, right?

Re:In other words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36837286)

What's funny is that nearly all the contributions to Mozilla come from corporations.. one corporation in fact.. one that has its own browser in development. Hmm.. uh-oh.

Why Mozilla should support non-paying corps (1)

markdowling (448297) | more than 3 years ago | (#36837388)

Because people are exposed to Firefox at work and are thus encouraged to use it at home, for instance with Firefox Sync.

Re:In other words (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36835938)

I couldn't blame them if they said: "if the enterprise want stable APIs and software, there is debian or any other distro oriented towards stability. We're going to help by caring about the api, documenting bugs and code, to make it easy to backport fixes".

I think debian stable is on iceweasel 3.6, while sid got 5.0

Anyway I missed the news about the other browser makers listening to their users. Like, IE adopting web standards without always trying to differentiate in details of the implementation, Chrome letting users browse in complete privacy with real equivalents to noscript....

Re:In other words (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 3 years ago | (#36836134)

I guess most of these enterprises are using Firefox on Windows. Also, see MSI installer request.

Re:In other words (4, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#36836228)

Yes, It sounds like their are doing a lot of crazy work where all they need to do is back track and go with a normal version numbers to fix the problem.

Mozilla JUST ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG! and go back to what was working before. Being wrong isn't a sin that is how we all learn, if you are going to bull headed and just make a lot of extra work just to cover your mistake, so you can save face, is plain stupid.

Re:In other words (1)

kangsterizer (1698322) | more than 3 years ago | (#36837310)

actually it means go yell in the UG what you want them to do

Don't bother (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36835568)

Mozilla lost this race long ago. Chrome has the tools I need (MSI packages, GPO templates, etc.) to deploy it properly throughout my organization. Mozilla can go back to making Super-Duper(tm) bookmarks or whatever.

Re:Don't bother (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 3 years ago | (#36836910)

I don't think it has lost. It's still ahead of Chrome in marketshare, and it's not like Chrome has a huge foothold in business.

That said, I don't think current management has a chance of doing what is necessary to win. They've taken their enormous lead in quality and squandered it with marketing stunts and foolish decisions. Forcing the awesomebar, crippling the status bar, database driven bookmarks, marketing-driven version numbers...

Are you on the same planet? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36835580)

Online life is evolving faster than ever

No, it's not evolving faster than ever. Everything works with IE7. All innovations beyond IE7 are just sugarcoating, most of them invisible on the deployed web. The slow players still decide which features are widely available. The other players are falling over their own feet trying to outrun each other and the users are getting annoyed by an ever changing environment that doesn't let them do their work, for no benefit at all. The browser is a tool, you tools!

Re:Are you on the same planet? (0, Troll)

wolrahnaes (632574) | more than 3 years ago | (#36835882)

The problem you describe is caused by exactly the thing they're trying to solve here. Corporate users are stupid and think that deployment strategies which worked 10 years ago still make sense. Anything that touches the internet needs to be able to be updated rapidly, so the corporate "this version is the version we use for the next five years" idea needs to go away.

If you have a web app you consider critical, testing it against a browser version is fucking retarded. Test it against standards, or failing that at least test it in multiple current-generation browsers. If it's good in either of those cases, you can feel comfortable that it won't be broken by a browser update, which then means you won't be risking your data security and pissing off web developers by dragging around shitty old browsers.

As far as I'm concerned, IE8 is the oldest browser that anyone should care about. If you can't at least get to that, you are doing it wrong.

Re:Are you on the same planet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36836456)

I know, right? We should all test against standards, for example HTML5. Oops, that has become a moving target too, because the folks who make the browsers and the standards feel to constricted by having to make decisions that can be relied upon for a couple of years. Nevermind that testing against a standard is useless when there wasn't even one complete and correct implementation before they decided to abandon the concept of an actual web standard, least of all in currently deployed browsers.

This isn't to say that a web-facing program doesn't have to have an update mechanism, but there are bug fixes and there is featuritis. Not too keen on the latter.

Re:Are you on the same planet? (2)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#36836604)

Yeah, let's all be running continuously changed alpha quality code because only idiotic dinosaurs want to stick with stable, tested code instead. Oh and while we are at it let's rewrite all code that doesn't use a programming language that is older than 6 months. I mean jeez, if you aren't rewriting everything with the next latest toy language that is coming out you are just so dumb.

Re:Are you on the same planet? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#36836864)

The problem you describe is caused by exactly the thing they're trying to solve here. Corporate users are stupid and think that deployment strategies which worked 10 years ago still make sense. Anything that touches the internet needs to be able to be updated rapidly, so the corporate "this version is the version we use for the next five years" idea needs to go away.

You're misunderstanding corporate IT. They _want_ to update software that touches the Internet ASAP, mostly for security reasons. They don't want to allow end users to update software willy nilly however, and although you can update FF with some psexec fu, just a simple "update silently now" executable would do wonders for scheduled tasks, psexecs, or active directory updates ( without having to download a mar and map drives to copy directories).

Re:Are you on the same planet? (0)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#36837222)

Corporate users are stupid and think that deployment strategies which worked 10 years ago still make sense.

Says some random moron on slashdot.

You may think that its changed, but you clearly have no actual experience or business sense.

Your entire post acts as if businesses have 0 operational costs and docking around with browsers all the time for no reason is something they are required to do.

Old browser works on our stuff ... new browser might not ... why upgrade ... because a dude on slashdot says the old ways don't work anymore ...

So what company are you leading with all your wisdom and insight and clearly highly advanced way of thinking about this stuff? Perhaps your company can show us the way? Whats the name of the company you own again? Okay, whats the name of the company that you CTO for, and are following your direction in this respect? Whats that? You're unemployed and mom wants you out of the basement?

If you have a web app you consider critical, testing it against a browser version is fucking retarded. Test it against standards,

Show me ANY WEB BROWSER that follows ANY STANDARD to the letter. Okay, I'll make sure my web apps are standards compliant ... too bad there isn't a fucking browser that actually complies to the standards anywhere on the planet.

You're an ignorant idiot with no actual real world experience at all. I've seen high school kids with more knowledge about this than you seem to exhibit.

Re:Are you on the same planet? (2)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36835992)

No, it's not evolving faster than ever. Everything works with IE7. All innovations beyond IE7 are just sugarcoating, most of them invisible on the deployed web.

So what you're saying is that Microsoft's fat-ass is still holding the internet back?

Wait a minute... (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 3 years ago | (#36835594)

Didn't they just say, in so many words, that Business wasn't their focus? Is this doublespeak, or have they forgotten already?

Re:Wait a minute... (2)

Darth_brooks (180756) | more than 3 years ago | (#36835640)

No, one of the devs on one of the teams basically said "fuck enterprise", while several folks from the foundation showed up in the slashdot thread to say "He doesn't speak for all of us."

Re:Wait a minute... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36835794)

And yet Dotzler is in charge of just that, speaking for the Mozilla Foundation and marketing for Firefox. Dotzler has ruined many people's plans to roll out Firefox precisely because of his remarks and nothing's being done about it.

As usual, the Mozilla Foundation will pretend to listen to users and then do whatever the fuck they feel like doing because they know that for many Linux users the only other choice is Google Chrome, which doesn't have the same kind of great extensions that are available for Firefox (NoScript for example).

Re:Wait a minute... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36836402)

There is also opera...

Re:Wait a minute... (1)

BZ (40346) | more than 3 years ago | (#36836806)

Where did "Linux" come into this, if I might ask?

My general experience with Firefox on Linux is that Mozilla listens to the people who send them feedback (chiefly distros) too much. Unfortunately, these people are saying things that happen to be false (e.g. that Linux users really want Gnome theme integration more than, say, performance improvements; the two are mututally exclusive in many cases due to the way the Gnome theme system works).

Re:Wait a minute... (1)

Marc Madness (2205586) | more than 3 years ago | (#36835760)

I think they are acknowledging that enterprise is comprised of people. So they are not focusing on business as such, but the people involved therein (although how that's different from a practical stand-point is not apparently clear to me).

Re:Wait a minute... (1)

psyclone (187154) | more than 3 years ago | (#36835906)

They got a backlash of user feedback.

Here's hoping they change back to a sane versioning scheme so add-ons won't have to be upgraded so often.

Be sure to... (1)

dreemernj (859414) | more than 3 years ago | (#36835650)

...tune in next week for the continuing drama.

Starting Point (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36835662)

Don't release a buggy browser with new features only half implemented, and/or poorly tested just for the sake of a bigger version number.

My advice to everyone? Don't use firefox anymore.

Provide MSI and Support for Group Policy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36835694)

Our it department would be more than happy to roll out Firefox but the lack of msi and group policy support is just a plain no go for them in our field (banking it).

Re:Provide MSI and Support for Group Policy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36836638)

Your field is banking it?

Meanwhile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36835718)

MSI packages and Group Policy templates are available here: http://www.frontmotion.com/FMFirefoxCE/download_fmfirefoxce.htm

Re:Meanwhile (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 3 years ago | (#36836722)

Yes but until frontmotion==Mozilla corps will see it as a modified version of Firefox.

I say Mozilla has about 3-6month before what small Corporate street cred they have is gone.
After that it won't matter. This story will hit the trade magazines and the hype towards Chrome will be against them in Corps' minds.

The only card Mozilla will have left is that Chrome makes it easier to track its users. And if they play that card, Google will pull the plug on their cash flow.

Re:Meanwhile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36836802)

Who wants to open their IT infrastructure to some third party software company in Lubbock, Texas. If anything were to hit the fan and the powers that be find out you used a freepackager off the internet from a third party - kiss your job goodbye.

Frontmotion has been around for a while and is probably fine, but your opening yourself up to reprisal if anything goes up in smoke.

"Re-establishing" (3, Interesting)

dreemernj (859414) | more than 3 years ago | (#36835738)

This was the story in 2007 when they first tried this: New Mozilla working group aims to simplify enterprise Firefox deployment [arstechnica.com]

Re:"Re-establishing" (5, Informative)

rbrausse (1319883) | more than 3 years ago | (#36835812)

in total three "meetings" [mozilla.org] . and - history repeats itself - the same problems with Firefox in enterprise environments:

* Packaging (MSI)
* Settings Management (GPO)

And the blog with the meeting notes is deleted [blogspot.com] . as I expected: This was a _really_ important project for Mozilla...

Re:"Re-establishing" (5, Informative)

pspmikek (195542) | more than 3 years ago | (#36836018)

The previous EWG was my effort and yes I believe it it failed because of a lack of interest by Mozilla.

The old information is here:

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Enterprise/Old [mozilla.org]

And yeah, it is sad that the blog came down with the meeting notes.

It looks like the wayback machine caught my back though

http://web.archive.org/web/20080608175739/http://e2pt0.blogspot.com/2007/08/firefox-ewg-meeting-2.html [archive.org]

At least for some posts.

Hope 1 Expectations 0 (4, Insightful)

Darth_brooks (180756) | more than 3 years ago | (#36835772)

I'll follow and contribute as much as I can, hoping that something changes, but having the cold expectation that nothing will. On the windows side, FF essentially needs three things:

1. MSI for deployment.
2. GPO management.
3. Mozilla branding and support for the above, so I can automatically update the browser.

That's the peanut butter and jelly for enterprise. I can get the first two from other people, why not you guys? Why it has taken this long to get to this point is beyond me. Seriously, the 'battles' between chrome, opera, and firefox are like watching soccer moms fight to the death over the last tickle me elmo at a Walmart when there's a toy store next door with aisles full of the same toy, cheaper. Seriously, do you guys want to keep scratching with each other over grandma's machine, or do you guys want people like me to push your product to 50 machines at once, and let 50 people *see and use* your browser, learn for themselves that it's better, and take it home with them?

Re:Hope 1 Expectations 0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36835924)

All your hopes and prayers have already been answered:

http://www.frontmotion.com/Firefox/

Re:Hope 1 Expectations 0 (1)

Darth_brooks (180756) | more than 3 years ago | (#36836242)

Read that list again:

"1. MSI for deployment.
2. GPO management.
3. Mozilla branding and support for the above, so I can automatically update the browser.

That's the peanut butter and jelly for enterprise. I can get the first two from other people"

Auto update of the browser does not work with FM for obvious reasons. I can re-push via GPO, but then I get the Frontmotion branding back (getting rid of icons is trivial, but it's still a pain in the ass. FM 3 required some reg hacks, 4 at least seems to be sane enough to just dump a shortcut in All Users.) Is it really that hard for mozilla to say "damn, these guys have their shit together. Maybe we should be doing exactly this."

Re:Hope 1 Expectations 0 (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36836594)

Seriously, do you guys want to keep scratching with each other over grandma's machine, or do you guys want people like me to push your product to 50 machines at once, and let 50 people *see and use* your browser, learn for themselves that it's better, and take it home with them?

Nah, we'll just make half-hearted attempts to quell unfounded "enterprise" FUD and let all the end users at home or in school enjoy our product's benefits, then take it to work with them -- You know, like BBSs, the Internet, Cellphones then Smartphones, etc, etc.

Active Directory Integration? (2)

BlueToast (1224550) | more than 3 years ago | (#36835784)

Does this finally mean that there will eventually be complete Active Directory integration or something similar of a sort? Having a centralized way to manage Firefox clients would be brilliant.

The real plan? (3, Insightful)

mrjatsun (543322) | more than 3 years ago | (#36835786)

o stop supporting enterprise deployments (by rapid release, no bug fixes only)
o start an enterprise working group
o profit! (charge for support)

Re:The real plan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36836408)

For similar reasons, I have been expecting a Chrome enterprise edition because of the rapid changes. Many places like to pay for support as an option, just to have that insurance in case of a problem. I mean, you can buy support for many otherwise free things, just look at Linux and IE.

Mozilla for the Enterprise (-1, Troll)

fagetroll (2401100) | more than 3 years ago | (#36835798)

Mozilla are a bunch of fagets and bestiality freaks. They like to faget-fuck little orange foxes like a bunch of fox-fucking fagets haha Fagets.

Re:Mozilla for the Enterprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36835854)

wtf is a faget anyway?

Re:Mozilla for the Enterprise (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36835856)

What the hell is a faget? Oh wait I found it [urbandictionary.com] :

This hideously misspelled derivation of 'faggot' is primarily used by uneducated rednecks who fail to see the irony of calling someone a derogatory name but having no idea how to say the word.

You don't need anything particularly fancy. (5, Insightful)

Millennium (2451) | more than 3 years ago | (#36835890)

1) Throw the MCSEs a bone: give them their MSIs and GPOs. Alternatively, bless FrontMotion's MSI and GPO projects as the "official" ways to get these things for businesses that need them.

2) From time to time (but no more frequently than once every two years), tag a release as Long-Term Support. This is exactly what it says on the tin: this release gets official support from Mozilla, including security fixes, until the next Long-Term Support release.

3) Support for a non-LTS release is not dropped until there have been at least two major releases since then. Under the current situation, that means FF5 support would not be dropped until the release of FF7, which in turn would not be dropped until the release of FF9.

I realize that long-term or even mid-term support is not sexy. Techies always want to live on the bleeding edge. But not every person or business is willing, or even able, to do that. They also need to be taken care of.

Re:You don't need anything particularly fancy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36836062)

FF5 support would not be dropped until the release of FF7, which in turn would not be dropped until the release of FF9.

So... support should be dropped sometime next week?

Re:You don't need anything particularly fancy. (1)

Lieutenant_Dan (583843) | more than 3 years ago | (#36836710)

Agree 100%. It's to their benefit, while many companies will most likely not contribute anything, there will be some that will do in order to provide functionality that they need or merely to address existing bugs/limitations.

I would add a 4th item though:
- Hire/assign an Enterprise Marketing Droid. I appreciate Mozilla is an open and free-thinking org, but some [slashdot.org] stuff [slashdot.org] that comes out of it sometimes freaks the hell out of risk-averse senior IT management. Call it "damage control".

Re:You don't need anything particularly fancy. (1)

BZ (40346) | more than 3 years ago | (#36836766)

So your proposal #2 + #3 is basically that Mozilla spend a bunch more engineer time on support than they ever have, right?

Are you planning to provide those engineers, their management structure, training, etc?

Or are you hoping they'll magically appear? What do you suggest Mozilla _not_ work on to do that?

Re:You don't need anything particularly fancy. (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#36837260)

Well, they could cut exec salaries and easily hire more people.

But yes, people want Mozilla to do things they never have instead of continuing to be a shitty half baked OSS project which, impressive as it is, has always been 'not quite ready to release'.

Re:You don't need anything particularly fancy. (1)

Millennium (2451) | more than 3 years ago | (#36837338)

Currently they have enough resources to keep four versions in the air at once: Current, Beta, Aurora, and Nightly. This is actually up from the previous structure, where they had up to three versions in the air at once: current, one back, and (sometimes) Beta.

It's also worth noting that the people taking care of Current already have a lighter load than the other three teams, because their product has already gone through multiple rounds of QA and isn't getting any new features. My thought, therefore, is to augment the transform the Current team into a Maintenance team that handles one version back and the LTS. This will probably require some augmentation, but not nearly as much as two entirely new teams, and likely not even as much as one. There's also a number of large OSS projects out there which can be tapped for advice on how they maintain older products.

Bottom line: while it might require some augmentation, it is nowhere near "way more than it will ever have."

Re:You don't need anything particularly fancy. (1)

jalefkowit (101585) | more than 3 years ago | (#36837432)

Perhaps these "enterprises" that so dearly want these things could put some money together and give it to Mozilla to cover the added costs. That way the cost to any one company would be minimal, and they'd all get what they want. And "enterprises" are supposed to be huge businesses anyway, so the cost of a developer or two should be chicken feed to them.

Oh, who am I kidding? It's cheaper to just make demands.

Re:You don't need anything particularly fancy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36836884)

Where's the +7 save your business rating?

Re:You don't need anything particularly fancy. (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 3 years ago | (#36837028)

What's strange is that there is no doubt that you're exactly right. Your suggestions have been repeated by numerous other posters in this and other threads. There's nothing, really, to discuss. There's no issues for a user group to delve into. It simply is a case of waiting for the powers-that-be to commit to making those changes.

They aren't committing, which makes me suspect that this group is simply a bone thrown to divert criticism.

security additions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36836316)

Please discuss the security additions I hope the security interest additions

lock down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36836350)

user based add ons / extensions / plugins under their own profile directory is the #1 problem for deployments.

It is almost as bad as giving every user admin privileges on their machine.

Hey, that's great! (1, Insightful)

pionzypher (886253) | more than 3 years ago | (#36836540)

Too bad we dumped your sorry asses a few weeks ago. -An enterprise user.

Business Speak (1)

Akima (1998920) | more than 3 years ago | (#36836938)

"Enterprise". Hate that word! It feels like one of those [many] vague and esoteric business speak words that managerial-types throw around meeting rooms to try and look clever.

I thought I'd quickly check Wikipedia before posting this in-case there is some precise and useful meaning of the term and straight away I notice there is a section on the page titled "Definitions" not "Definition". The first sentence of that section is: "While there is no single, widely accepted list of enterprise software characteristics, this section is intended to summarize definitions from multiple sources"

So nice to be doing freelance programming now and not having to receive instructions from managers. I use the word "instructions" loosely.

Mozilla bleeding from the eyeballs? (1)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 3 years ago | (#36837292)

I just don't get it. When Firefox was known as mozilla 0.3, they were doing this sort of crap. For several years now though, they've _mostly_ got the development and release models right. Now over the last year, they've totally gone off the rails.
FF4 is buggy, clunky, and has new UI elements that apparently came from the mind of a blind and retarded monkey--and in some cases, no way to turn them off! FF5 is...mostly identical. Same UI, and still buggy.

But hey--FF4 isn't supported anymore, and presumably FF5 won't be in another ten weeks or so when FF6 comes out. GREAT!

Here's a clue for this newly (re)formed enterprise group which, if followed, will be invaluable for the regular users as well: Quick trying to reinvent the fucking wheel, and spend more time rounding off the edges. Fix the bugs. Streamline the existing code. Quit adding random new features, quit throwing away versions that are a quarter-year old, quit moving stuff around for the sake of it. In short, quit making every browser update a training exercise.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?