Microsoft attacks Firefox over lack of corporate support

Apparently the cake was a lie. After hearing that Firefox 4 was no longer going to be receiving security updates, Microsoft was quick to pounce on the opportunity to improve their market penetration within the corporate world. Computer World reports that Ari Bixhorn, director of Internet Explorer, made a post on his blog in response to an open letter from IBM’s John Walicki. While IBM was lamenting the fact that they spent months testing their applications with Firefox 4 only to find out that security updates for the browser are no longer going to be available, Microsoft stepped in and reminded everyone that IE9 will be supported through January 2020.

Although this is simply another example of a company posturing itself to increase market share, Mozilla’s response is the part that’s perplexing. Asa Dotzler, director of Firefox, posted a response to the enterprise question, stating:

Enterprise has never been (and I’ll argue, shouldn’t be) a focus of ours. Until we run out of people who don’t have sysadmins and enterprise deployment teams looking out for them, I can’t imagine why we’d focus at all on the kinds of environments you care so much about.

Years ago, we didn’t have the resources. Today, I argue, we shouldn’t care even if we do have the resources because of the cost benefit trade. A minute spent making a corporate user happy can better be spent making many regular users happy. I’d much rather Mozilla spending its limited resources looking out for the billions of users that don’t have enterprise support systems already taking care of them.

You rarely hear a company state that they are not interested in a particular market segment, but Dotzler’s comments do make a certain amount of sense. The company has no paid support system and therefore will not risk losing revenue if IBM chooses Internet Explorer in the future. On the other hand, does the world need a new major revision of a web browser every six weeks as Dotzler suggests? Wouldn’t a corporation using your browser increase the chances that individuals will use that browser at home? Regardless, the war of words between the two companies is interesting and shows no signs of slowing down.

Image courtesy of Gizmofusion.com

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Nokia CEO: MeeGo is gone even if N9 phone sells well

Next Story

Microsoft has four of top 10 most visited web sites in 2011

97 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

It could have been better worded or presented by Dotzler, But...

Who hasn't come across someone that could put more effort into actually doing their job? How many feel that every one of their co-workers always pulls their own weight? Add that while most of us have some empathy for others, that doesn't mean we automatically pity anyone when something is a part of their job -- when I was running auto service not one customer ever washed the underside of their car so the tech wouldn't get dirty working on it.

So it is with corp IT, as viewed outside of corp IT. Microsoft obviously has an interest in promoting IT good will -- you can't imagine SnapOn bad mouthing mechanics any more than you'd expect Home Depot to diss the DIY crowd, & MS not playing nice with IT would be the same thing. The Firefox crew isn't Microsoft, doesn't have to play those games. If Microsoft abandoned all focus on IT, putting all their resources behind Windows, we'd have better Windows. While it would be silly, perhaps even insane for Microsoft to do that, when you develop a browser, with no expensive products to pay the bills, being careful where you spend your resources is not just wise, it may be the only way to ensure survival.

After all, if corp IT wants/needs an alternative to Internet Explorer, they can & should feel free to pay for it, the same way so many pay for all their other Microsoft products, or if it's a *nix shop, the same way they pay for support, in-house or not. If you don't want to pay you take what you can get -- there's always Chrome & Opera.

An excellent point was made...what people use at the office is often what they will use at home. (Why learn two ways of doing the same thing?) Mozilla really shot themselves in the foot with FF 4, and what appears to be their ongoing corporate policy.

How about actually coding those web apps properly in the first place? Nothing we have done has broken while moving from Firefox 3 to 4 to 5 or IE 6->9. Ultimately the thing that is holding companies from keeping up to date is not browsers but web apps that were made for a non-standard browser like IE6.

Mozilla has a bad way of coding : they first code without looking at all the bugs they create, and then fix the bugs.
Fixing a thousand bugs in three months is not something you can be proud of.

Are not major version releases the NEW security up date for browser like Chrome and Firfox?? It is becoming incremental updates. These major realses are no different than externam release vs internal release versioning. It probably would be best if browsers stablized how they render content, because that is the majory point where development is a concern. As for security fixes... you get those with new relelases. I think the IT market needs to adapt. MS is now the only browser with significant marketshare and of course investment in IT that needs to pay attention to legacy support. I don't see any thing wrong with Firefox making this decision... also, it could be a benefit to offer additional support via contract. Let the IT market pay for additional support if they need it. Microsoft was smart in getting in a jab. Wh would not point out things like that if you offer service that your competition is not?

Corporate support really? Just the other day, it was in the news that 60% of corporate desktop is still XP. Which browser doesn't really support corporate desktop?

4.x is a security update BT x.0 is not?

Who cares if firefox "4.0" doesn't get a point update , instead "Firefox" gets an update...

To azure.sapphire
"Second, I grow real tired to network admin talking down to the "lower echelon" of their company. I think they really need to get over their god mode and realize that the so-called average jane doe or joe employee is not as feeble-minded and technophobic as we make them out to be."

Are you kidding me, do you work on a corporate support desk or I.T. department? I doubt it. More that half of the end yours in corporateland, have no !@#$ clue. These are people who refer to popular websites like "face page", these are people who click on links because someone they know sent it to them (ha ha) so that "They can see who is stalking them". I could keep going....
I'm more than will to let you spend 8 hours at my corp. desk. I suspect you woundnt last 1.

To everyone else -
Updating your software every 6 weeks, every week or every hours is fine and dandy in the internet world. There is 1 BIG difference you CAN NOT apply the rules that are used in the internet world to the intranet world. Thats why it has a different name. It may be a pain, bureaucratic, and "keeping technology stalled" but thats the way it is.

TechGuyPA said,
To azure.sapphire
"Second, I grow real tired to network admin talking down to the "lower echelon" of their company. I think they really need to get over their god mode and realize that the so-called average jane doe or joe employee is not as feeble-minded and technophobic as we make them out to be."

Are you kidding me, do you work on a corporate support desk or I.T. department? I doubt it. More that half of the end yours in corporateland, have no !@#$ clue. These are people who refer to popular websites like "face page", these are people who click on links because someone they know sent it to them (ha ha) so that "They can see who is stalking them". I could keep going....
I'm more than will to let you spend 8 hours at my corp. desk. I suspect you woundnt last 1.

Are you sure, from where you responded to my comment it looks as though using a browser might be out of your league. I kid. Yes, I worked in IT as an admin. Where I had the trouble is that it was so boring... The same thing over and over again.

To me, they got the concept of clicking buttons within programs and visiting websites. My big issue was having to correct issue with people who did not understand folder hierarchy. I just never though of them as dumb***** who didn't get it, but rather people who had a different job to do. Sure, they were annoying, but we had our share of fun end users to.

There were a number of users that simply disregarded network policy. I was actually pretty amused at some of the attempt they went to getting around our different safeguards/authenticating and logging methods.

I guess maybe I just had a different work experience than you did. I worked in a university where we had a lot of undergraduate and graduate students in CS and later, in a hospital/clinic setting. The second was actually more enjoyable then the first.

azure.sapphire said,

Are you sure, from where you responded to my comment it looks as though using a browser might be out of your league. I kid. Yes, I worked in IT as an admin. Where I had the trouble is that it was so boring... The same thing over and over again.

To me, they got the concept of clicking buttons within programs and visiting websites. My big issue was having to correct issue with people who did not understand folder hierarchy. I just never though of them as dumb***** who didn't get it, but rather people who had a different job to do. Sure, they were annoying, but we had our share of fun end users to.

There were a number of users that simply disregarded network policy. I was actually pretty amused at some of the attempt they went to getting around our different safeguards/authenticating and logging methods.

I guess maybe I just had a different work experience than you did. I worked in a university where we had a lot of undergraduate and graduate students in CS and later, in a hospital/clinic setting. The second was actually more enjoyable then the first.

1st - I would like to apologize azure. If I came off the wrong way, it wasnt intended, I just get really upset seeing all these people who can work their home pc's and expect that if they can do it on their home pc's why cant the rest of the world do it to. In addition, to you not seeing the clueless nature of end users, consider yourself lucky. I am assuming because you worked in a higher education environment and a hospital environment your end users werent so bad. I deal with small to medium business and also sports and entertainment venues. Your end users probably got paid $10 to $15 / hr or more (for the most part). My end users get minimum wage and for many of them they will probably always get minimum wage (I'm not trying to be mean with that comment, just looking at reality).

I hardly use Firefox anymore, it's a bloated pig. I use Chrome and IE9. Especially since I have multiple Gmail accounts I can have them both open in different browsers.

Windows XP, 2000, 98, ME...

I can go on, but I think you get the point Microsoft. See the trend? What? No continued support? Oh no! I think someone needs to bash you next.

Dimwits, even your own software has to expire and no longer support updates.

Amodin said,
Windows XP, 2000, 98, ME...

I can go on, but I think you get the point Microsoft. See the trend? What? No continued support? Oh no! I think someone needs to bash you next.

Dimwits, even your own software has to expire and no longer support updates.


After 6 months?
Windows XP support ended recently, about 10 years after it was released. IE6 was supported for the same amount of time too. Firefox 4 was supported for a mere 6 weeks.

n_K said,

After 6 months?
Windows XP support ended recently, about 10 years after it was released. IE6 was supported for the same amount of time too. Firefox 4 was supported for a mere 6 weeks.

Firefox 5 is still Firefox 4 but updated, thats why the support of FF4 dropped

AKLP said,
Firefox 5 is still Firefox 4 but updated, thats why the support of FF4 dropped

Doesn't change the fact that companies will have to test another version…

AKLP said,
Firefox 5 is still Firefox 4 but updated, thats why the support of FF4 dropped

Yes but in a corporate network, you don't get updates as they are released, you generally have LTS things, LTS being long-term-support, for example ubuntu has normal and LTS, LTS support goes twice as long as support and updates for normal release cycles, but new versions gets released at twice the lengthly intervals as the normal versions.

n_K said,

After 6 months?
Windows XP support ended recently, about 10 years after it was released. IE6 was supported for the same amount of time too. Firefox 4 was supported for a mere 6 weeks.

There is no reasoning with anti-MSFT fanatics. They will lie, cheat and steal.

I'll be honest I read a blog randomly on the net about this earlier from a few days ago where it gave the one-word official response from mozilla to enterprise customers which was basically telling them to '**** off' and that they only care about regular home users.
Shame, firefox really did used to look so promising.

Quite frankly, I find supporting Firefox in our environment at work to be annoying. There's no first-party MSI available, so you can't push it through Active Directory without using a third party MSI or making one yourself. Even more annoying is that it uses its own certificate store, so the internal SSL certificates we use don't even work in Firefox.

Joey H said,
Quite frankly, I find supporting Firefox in our environment at work to be annoying. There's no first-party MSI available, so you can't push it through Active Directory without using a third party MSI or making one yourself. Even more annoying is that it uses its own certificate store, so the internal SSL certificates we use don't even work in Firefox.
You can add to that if you try and do large scale deployment using its own installer through non-AD means, you can bet that 1 in 100 will completely bork up and wind up losing/corrupting user settings. I've been finding that consistently. Thunderbird has been worse with a 1 in 50 complete failure of the profile setting store (thankfully not email data).

Linux is a pretty big part of IBM and I'm not sure they want to rely on MS (Anti-Linux) software to sustain themselves.

Tpiom said,
Linux is a pretty big part of IBM and I'm not sure they want to rely on MS (Anti-Linux) software to sustain themselves.

What are their options anyway on Linux? Take a look a the major browsers:
Chrome & Firefox: Way too fast release cycles for them.
IE: not an option as it's no longer supported on Unix.
Safari: Yeah……NOT!
Opera: I'm not sure about their release cycle but they are the only one left…^^

MFH said,

What are their options anyway on Linux? Take a look a the major browsers:
Chrome & Firefox: Way too fast release cycles for them.
IE: not an option as it's no longer supported on Unix.
Safari: Yeah……NOT!
Opera: I'm not sure about their release cycle but they are the only one left…^^

LOL - how many consumers or even corporate employees use Linux? It's gonna be between Chrome and IE9 going forward...

KingCrimson said,
LOL - how many consumers or even corporate employees use Linux? It's gonna be between Chrome and IE9 going forward...

We are talking about IBM - you know the company that heavily invests into Linux. A company that actually still maintains an original UNIX and will likely at some point in the future transition to Linux.
And as I said: Chrome is no better than Firefox in terms of update policies…

Emil2k said,
Wouldnt the correct title be: Internet Explorer attacks Firefox, or Microsoft attacks Mozilla?

but that wouldn't be sensationalist

Emil2k said,
Wouldnt the correct title be: Internet Explorer attacks Firefox, or Microsoft attacks Mozilla?

Or, "Microsoft question's Firefox's enterprise readiness"

IMO Chrome works the version number OK, it's a little silly but they don't make a big thing about it and it keeps itself updated continously. Something that NEEDS to happen for constant improvement of web standards/semantics etc with HTML, jQuery and the rest.

Firefox needs to follow the same process or it'll just get silly when we get to Firefox 14 after checking for updates. The end user doesn't want or care about the version, just know that the browser they're using will get the the internet safely.

Microsoft are doing no better, we'll only end up having another IE6 (though not as bad) disaster with IE9 in the next 5 years.

I think Chrome have got it right with keeping the browser updated for the end user and web developers. If only they would get that hidious UI right though.

SPARTdAN said,
IMO Chrome works the version number OK, it's a little silly but they don't make a big thing about it and it keeps itself updated continously. Something that NEEDS to happen for constant improvement of web standards/semantics etc with HTML, jQuery and the rest.

Firefox needs to follow the same process or it'll just get silly when we get to Firefox 14 after checking for updates. The end user doesn't want or care about the version, just know that the browser they're using will get the the internet safely.

Microsoft are doing no better, we'll only end up having another IE6 (though not as bad) disaster with IE9 in the next 5 years.

I think Chrome have got it right with keeping the browser updated for the end user and web developers. If only they would get that hidious UI right though.

Ypu obviously don't understand the corporate environment. You just don't push updates every other week to the users expecting everything will work and every user can cope with the changes or modifications.

ajua said,
Ypu obviously don't understand the corporate environment. You just don't push updates every other week to the users expecting everything will work and every user can cope with the changes or modifications.

I wasn't talking about the "corporate environment". From my experience I haven't known Chrome's updating method to give any user problems. If you're running a browser in a corporate environment it should be kept up to date by the admins of that network, they should make sure the company runs the most efficient browser in line with web standards etc.

SPARTdAN said,
If you're running a browser in a corporate environment it should be kept up to date by the admins of that network, they should make sure the company runs the most efficient browser in line with web standards etc.

Actually the admins don't care about web standards if the internal tools are broken by updating the browser…

SPARTdAN said,
Microsoft are doing no better, we'll only end up having another IE6 (though not as bad) disaster with IE9 in the next 5 years.

Unlikely. If anything, the IE version that sticks around will be IE8. Because that's the last version that will run on XP, and the in-built version in Windows 7. Also statistically speaking, the majority of those running IE9 are running Windows 7. By having that combination of OS and Browser, they have already demonstrated they like to be on the latest platform. With IE10 around the corner, IE9 won't last for very long at all.

ajua said,
Ypu obviously don't understand the corporate environment. You just don't push updates every other week to the users expecting everything will work and every user can cope with the changes or modifications.

It's a browser, not a truly complicated piece of software. Do you not upgrade to the latest version of Flash or Java (when talking about point upgrades) because it with effect the corporate infrastructure? If that is the case, you need a new game plan. The new age of software is about constant upgrades, all the time.

Second, I grow real tired to network admin talking down to the "lower echelon" of their company. I think they really need to get over their god mode and realize that the so-called average jane doe or joe employee is not as feeble-minded and technophobic as we make them out to be.

azure.sapphire said,
Do you not upgrade to the latest version of Flash or Java (when talking about point upgrades) because it with effect the corporate infrastructure?

Only that Flash and Java are developed by one company and are by definition totally different to a W3C recommendation that is implemented by browsers in different ways…

SPARTdAN said,

I wasn't talking about the "corporate environment". From my experience I haven't known Chrome's updating method to give any user problems. If you're running a browser in a corporate environment it should be kept up to date by the admins of that network, they should make sure the company runs the most efficient browser in line with web standards etc.

If your company runs web services or network applications that are broken by a browser update, it's a problem for the company and the guys running the IT area are responsible for that.

Its not as easy as to say that everyone should be using the latest and greatest version of a given piece of software. The people making the decisions don't understand that as well as many of us. That's why companies often are behind in terms of security, operative system and browser versions.

You can't upgrade to something that will break something you depend on, right? The same happens with admin guys. They can't upgrade if there's nothing that can be done about the breaking of a service or application they don't write or develop, or even worst, its discontinued and doesn't have support from anyone.

azure.sapphire said,

Second, I grow real tired to network admin talking down to the "lower echelon" of their company. I think they really need to get over their god mode and realize that the so-called average jane doe or joe employee is not as feeble-minded and technophobic as we make them out to be.
I will admit that there can be an element of that, however your statement is wrong. You accues some of us as seeing everyone else as technophoib and requireing hand holding, but at the same time suggest us treating absolutely everyone as if they are technically capable of adapting to changes in the same way that we are.

You cannot assume that everyone will be as happy or competant with adapting to change as you are. Again, generally speaking when you're dealing with 20 somethings in the work force what you say is fine. Yet in my role we have to deal with 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 even 80 and 90 somethings. Failing to provide the necessary time for notification of change and training is fast track to unproductivity, complaints against the IT department and in extreme cases could lead to industrial/tribunal action. If we start rendering people incapable to doing their jobs because we're keeping everyones machine up to date with Google's latest beta test and peoples performance evaluations start to reflect that, it isn't unrealistic to see that people will be upset enough to take remedial action.

ajua said,
If your company runs web services or network applications that are broken by a browser update, it's a problem for the company and the guys running the IT area are responsible for that.

Its not as easy as to say that everyone should be using the latest and greatest version of a given piece of software. The people making the decisions don't understand that as well as many of us. That's why companies often are behind in terms of security, operative system and browser versions.

You can't upgrade to something that will break something you depend on, right? The same happens with admin guys. They can't upgrade if there's nothing that can be done about the breaking of a service or application they don't write or develop, or even worst, its discontinued and doesn't have support from anyone.

Well there needs to be some thought put into keeping browsers up to date easily with web standards.

Network admins fall under the category of making sure the latest build of w/e browser they use works within the network, not being so lazy for some to still stick on IE6.

I don't understand what happens in networking a corporation but when i build websites for my clients I build them looking years ahead and how the technology is changing and to support and future browser upgrades as best I can. If I can supply support to my clients to update their sites when a new browser does break something, so can network admins.

SPARTdAN said,

Well there needs to be some thought put into keeping browsers up to date easily with web standards.

Network admins fall under the category of making sure the latest build of w/e browser they use works within the network, not being so lazy for some to still stick on IE6.

I don't understand what happens in networking a corporation but when i build websites for my clients I build them looking years ahead and how the technology is changing and to support and future browser upgrades as best I can. If I can supply support to my clients to update their sites when a new browser does break something, so can network admins.

The difference is that most large enterprises wouldn't let a network admin anywhere near the source code for a line of business application. You are therefore often looking at rediculous sums of money to fix problems in bespoke software. In that management take on the view that 'fixing it will probably break it' so why spend the money when we know it works anyway. The clash of heads and locking of horns thus begins.

MFH said,

Actually the admins don't care about web standards if the internal tools are broken by updating the browser…

Strange it's not that much of a problem for my cie. We are curently running FF4 and will be running FF5 by the end of july.

And while it's not a big cie it's not a small one either. IT dept alone is around 70 employees.

Yes dev cycle is a little quick right now but testing web app doesn't take as much time as you imply. We have a lot of internal and external web apps. In fact almost all our internal apps are web based. It takes around one day to test them when the update is minor like FF5 is.

2 years in between version is far worse. The change is bigger and testing require morw time as things might be broken.

Going from IE 6 to IE7 was a pain in the *** like going from IE7 to IE 8.

And please stop saying web standards are not important you obviously did not test web app made for IE 6 when updating to IE 7 to say that.

If a web app perfectly working under FF4 is broken under FF5 it's because devs did a very poor job and should be fired asap.

They didn't send a cake on shipping FF5, but a cupcake according to ZDnet, because it was a small update.

I don't think that this 6 week policy is good for free software, Google can get away with it because it's fine and you expect that as it is the way that it has always been, we wouldn't consider deploying it at client sites as it's an evolving product and it's about user choice.

You don't have that in the enterprise, I'm not giving everyone admin rights so they can go off and install whatever browser they want and expect all legacy intranet applications to continue to work under that mantra. That may be an "antiquated" view, but that's how the world works, large enterprise can't be that agile - you have to test, no if's, no but's.

The main problem I see for Firefox here is that it will drive enterprise away, in fact I'll be having meetings where this is going to be raised next week (along with IE9) with some very large UK university clients. If we put aside testing for a minute, let me boil it down to my biggest problem for adademia and the enterprise: Not everyone working in companies is a 20 something techno-savvy who can adapt without any help to new concepts and new UI's. Moving academics from IE6 to IE8 has been hellish - moving them from Office 2003 to Office 2010 has been (and is) even more so. If Mozilla are going to incorporate rapid UI prototyping and evolution into their fast build cycle, many of the pepople who we deploy this too who want to avoid IE (for whatever reason - rightly or wrongly) simply will not be able to cope. Technical people shouldn't underestimate the fact that just because we find it easy and intuitive to use feature x,y z moved somewhere elase, does not mean that everyone else will.

That's the problem I have with this policy. In deploying Firefox, "we" didn't sign up to this. They have changed the rules of the game - fine, Mozilla obviously think this is the correct policy. I suspect however that the concensus will be to pull Firefox from standard desktop builds as a result of this... so Dotzler will get his wish.
One of my institutions has already decided to pull Thunderbird, so I guess the deployment team will be going Mozilla free next academic year.

But when it comes to Chrome's update the release version number is artificially inflated - many of the changes are very minor or have existed but simply turned on gradually. It really is a question of whether you release big updates once every so many years or you do piece by piece quick updates on a tight release schedule.

So much for the cupcake/cake from Microsoft. They feed you and then they slap it out of your mouth before you swallow it.

WAR-DOG said,
I know many companies that are still stuck with IE6
Any company who still has not (or refuses to) update their business systems to support IE8 deserves to get hacked if you ask me. The company I work for had several legacy systems, but we (the IT department) forced the business owners of those systems to push through updates to make them IE8 compatible. And now the whole company is finally running IE8. Hurrah!

TCLN Ryster said,
Any company who still has not (or refuses to) update their business systems to support IE8 deserves to get hacked if you ask me. The company I work for had several legacy systems, but we (the IT department) forced the business owners of those systems to push through updates to make them IE8 compatible. And now the whole company is finally running IE8. Hurrah!

In some cases it is still difficult because even if your business do want to upgrade you'll find that there is always one vendor who holds out - especially true if you're in a specialised area where there may be one one or two players (if there are two they are completely incompatible with each other). Microsoft may provide a tonne of security features and improvements but if third party's drag their feet then there is very little they can do.

I think it's good that they release firefox 5 quickly to patch a lot of things that were bad in firefox 4. I think they should release firefox 6 quickly as well making the browser really reliable with the new big changes. Then they should slow it down, not to much just something like two big updates a year.

Gaffney said,
I think it's good that they release firefox 5 quickly to patch a lot of things that were bad in firefox 4. I think they should release firefox 6 quickly as well making the browser really reliable with the new big changes. Then they should slow it down, not to much just something like two big updates a year.
Incrementing your version number by 1 doesn't magically fix all the problems in the previous version you know. As others have said, 5 is nothing more than a few minor updates to 4. No way did it need a major version increment, and they did so merely to grab the headlines.

wahoospa said,
What's the matter Microsoft, feel some real competition that's eating at you more and more every day?

Hardly. If Internet Explorer 9 s not out, them it may be an entire different matter, but IE9 is more than capable as browser.

day2die said,

Hardly. If Internet Explorer 9 s not out, them it may be an entire different matter, but IE9 is more than capable as browser.

I'll get back to you when I find someone I know that actually uses IE.

Jaybonaut said,

I'll get back to you when I find someone I know that actually uses IE.

You mean IE9, not IE, right? Because IE has the biggest marketshare. IE9 is relatively new so give it time.

Jaybonaut said,

I'll get back to you when I find someone I know that actually uses IE.


Which is an absolutely valid argument, since you and the amount of friends who might have mentioned which browser they used are the only people in the world.

Anooxy said,

You mean IE9, not IE, right? Because IE has the biggest marketshare. IE9 is relatively new so give it time.

Ofc IE has the biggest market share. You know which share is it? Its the corps and the botnet pcs, not the regular users.

AKLP said,

Ofc IE has the biggest market share. You know which share is it? Its the corps and the botnet pcs, not the regular users.

Wow, seriously? Corporations and "botnets"(what lol) make up for more than half of the marketshare.

Where do you read this bs?

day2die said,

Hardly. If Internet Explorer 9 s not out, them it may be an entire different matter, but IE9 is more than capable as browser.

It is , but still FF4 leads over IE9 on Windows 7 PCs.

alexalex said,

It is , but still FF4 leads over IE9 on Windows 7 PCs.


What does that have to do with how well IE9 perform?

FF4 works on the ancient XP, but IE9 doesn't.

day2die said,

Hardly. If Internet Explorer 9 s not out, them it may be an entire different matter, but IE9 is more than capable as browser.

show me how you can add:
a good adblocker like ad block plus
an addon like stylish
an addon like showip
an addon like screen capture elite

and then we shall talk....

I.E.9 will be supported until 2020 only because it will take that long to iron out the bugs and patch the leaks.

AlanW said,
I.E.9 will be supported until 2020 only because it will take that long to iron out the bugs and patch the leaks.

Yeah, and Firefox 4 isn't getting updated because Mozilla sucks at security.

Anooxy said,

Yeah, and Firefox 4 isn't getting updated because Mozilla sucks at security.


Firefox 5 is the updated version of Firefox 4, so stop talking about stuff you dont know.
You could say Firefox 5 is Firefox 4.1

AKLP said,

Firefox 5 is the updated version of Firefox 4, so stop talking about stuff you dont know.
You could say Firefox 5 is Firefox 4.1

Firefox 5 breaks apps made for FF4 so no.

Max Norris said,

Such as?

That's just what versioning does... It doesn't mean they're "incompatible", it means that they're going to be disabled.

Abhinav Kumar said,
Versions do not matter in rapidly developed software products.

What a thoughtless comment! Did you even read the article? The point here is that enterprise-level software deployment (especially something as critical as a browser) requires extensive testing to ensure that nothing breaks when it is rolled out to users. Moreover, corporate IT departments need assurances of regular stability and security updates from software vendors. Mozilla's adoption of a rapid release cycle makes the organization's software ill-suited for this environment as Asa Dotzler made clear in his response. Companies with IT infrastructure agile enough to handle the rapid release cycle are more than welcome to use Firefox. For the rest, there is Internet Explorer 9 which is an extremely capable browser in its own right.

Siddharth Prabhu said,

What a thoughtless comment! Did you even read the article? The point here is that enterprise-level software deployment (especially something as critical as a browser) requires extensive testing to ensure that nothing breaks when it is rolled out to users. Moreover, corporate IT departments need assurances of regular stability and security updates from software vendors. Mozilla's adoption of a rapid release cycle makes the organization's software ill-suited for this environment as Asa Dotzler made clear in his response. Companies with IT infrastructure agile enough to handle the rapid release cycle are more than welcome to use Firefox. For the rest, there is Internet Explorer 9 which is an extremely capable browser in its own right.

Updating Firefox from 4.01 to 5 is no different from updating security updates to IE (6-9) , that were installed this month (and every month), as Firefox 5 is no more that security update for Firefox 4. That is why there won't be any updates to Firefox 4 . The testing procedure should be the same, unless your IT is stupid enough to check for browser version numbers in application.

alexalex said,

Updating Firefox from 4.01 to 5 is no different from updating security updates to IE (6-9) , that were installed this month (and every month), as Firefox 5 is no more that security update for Firefox 4. That is why there won't be any updates to Firefox 4 . The testing procedure should be the same, unless your IT is stupid enough to check for browser version numbers in application.


Except the extensions stop working because of a major version bump up even though it's just a minor update.

day2die said,

Except the extensions stop working because of a major version bump up even though it's just a minor update.

You don't install / use extensions in Enterprise , and if you do you don't check for version number in xpi file.

MFH said,
Yes you do…

A proper IT group within an organization would stop or limit extensions to ones which meet the approval process for security, etc.

My corporation reluctantly rolled out firefox do a limited number of users who work in web consoles that simply don't render in < IE8. We are currently deploying Win7, so hopefully that won't be much of an issue any longer.

It's sad to see mozilla turning their backs on the enterprise. With all the talks of 'the consumerization of IT' you'd think they'd be scrambling to get more of the enterprise marketshare.

nub said,
This is stupid. Firefox 5 is pretty much firefox 4.2.

While I've certainly gathered that opinion as well from day-to-day usage, we in the enterprise see major releases (4.0.1 to 5.0) as a sign that something big has changed, and then we need to get our ducks in a row by testing all of our web applications that we use for daily business. This process can take months, by which time they will have released version 6. A lot of people see this as enterprise lag, but without this process, productivity can take a huge dive because things are broken. We were just getting ready to push 4, so thank goodness we had 3.6.18 as an option. This new release schedule is signaling to enterprise customers that Mozilla doesn't care about us, and we in return won't use their product, we'll use IE.

daPhoenix said,
I'm guessing you don't use Chrome then.

Good we don't have such.. antiquated views about software.


So you are working in a big company that rolls out untested updates? Name the company so I can stay away from it!

cslawren said,

While I've certainly gathered that opinion as well from day-to-day usage, we in the enterprise see major releases (4.0.1 to 5.0) as a sign that something big has changed, and then we need to get our ducks in a row by testing all of our web applications that we use for daily business. This process can take months, by which time they will have released version 6. A lot of people see this as enterprise lag, but without this process, productivity can take a huge dive because things are broken. We were just getting ready to push 4, so thank goodness we had 3.6.18 as an option. This new release schedule is signaling to enterprise customers that Mozilla doesn't care about us, and we in return won't use their product, we'll use IE.

Good for you,
Enjoy your IE9 till 2020, bye.

AKLP said,

Good for you,
Enjoy your IE9 till 2020, bye.


Good for you. Hope the IT department in your company breaks applications you need by upgrading without testing…

daPhoenix said,
I'm guessing you don't use Chrome then.

Good we don't have such.. antiquated views about software.

They are not antiquated views, they are procedures aka due diligence. The bigger the company, usually the less agile their infrastructure is. There are formal methods, change management, etc to take into account. One may call it bureaucracy, but it is what it is.

nub said,
This is stupid. Firefox 5 is pretty much firefox 4.2.

Firefox 5 has breaking changes in the rendering engine and the add-on APIs.

Aethec said,

Firefox 5 has breaking changes in the rendering engine and the add-on APIs.

Seriously? Is that worth a new version? Please list me the differences between Firefox 3 and 4 then..

dhan said,
"attacks"?
Its a sensationalist article title again. A company can promote its own product by talking about the advantages it has over its competitor. In this case, Mozilla's lack of support for older versions.

The content is well written, but to the author: "Regardless, the war of words between the two companies is interesting and shows no signs of slowing down." How is this a "war of words"?

ajua said,
Its a sensationalist article title again. A company can promote its own product by talking about the advantages it has over its competitor. In this case, Mozilla's lack of support for older versions.

The content is well written, but to the author: "Regardless, the war of words between the two companies is interesting and shows no signs of slowing down." How is this a "war of words"?

You guys forget this is the website "where unprofessional journalism looks better."

SoulEata said,

You guys forget this is the website "where unprofessional journalism looks better."

Oh, I know, but the last couple of months there's been a series of misleading or sensationalist titles unlike anything I've read here before. That's why I complained.

ajua said,
Its a sensationalist article title again. A company can promote its own product by talking about the advantages it has over its competitor. In this case, Mozilla's lack of support for older versions.

The content is well written, but to the author: "Regardless, the war of words between the two companies is interesting and shows no signs of slowing down." How is this a "war of words"?


Well, the Computer World title is, "Microsoft exploits uproar over Firefox 4's retirement to beat IE drum." Not all that much different than "attacks," is it?

It's a "war of words" with MS saying, "Come to us, we support the product forever," while Mozilla is saying, "We don't give a crap about those customers you want, they're a drop in the bucket!" And the battle was taking place in comments on a blog... How many times do you see companies argue back and forth via blog comments? Press releases and such, sure, but comments just like the ones you and I are doing? Not very common.

Is the headline a little sensational? Yeah, you're probably right in that it is -- but that's common in the industry. That said, I'll try to tone it down a tad in the future.