Asa Dotzler, the community coordinator at the Mozilla Foundation, said Tuesday that he hopes to attract many corporate Windows 2000 users to the Firefox browser, since they will be unable to take advantage of the improvements in IE 7.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-06
microsoft NEEDS everyone to keep upgrading their versions of windows to the latest editions, therefore, it will only release updates to important software like IE if it only runs on the latest versions.
microsoft cannot afford to keep the vast majority of its users on old software versions, they are a corporation, and the primary concern of a corporation is to make profit. This cannot be done without making sales.
Update your windows and update your ie and stop moaning, you all know the score.
Member since:2005-07-06
It's not sound reasoning. There are many ways of bringing in revenue vs. the upgrade treadmill.
The value proposition of Windows is getting more and more nebulous as the complexity increases with every "upgrade". Every "upgrade" and the more you are locked into Microsoft. It is becoming a corporate nightmare.
Microsoft *does* force people to upgrade but this is only because Microsoft is stupid, uninventive, and lacks the imagination to create additional business opportunities for itself. Microsoft must rely on other companies and individuals to do the invention and then they swoop in and steal what they like.
The forced upgrade treadmill is also what you get from a monopoly. For a monopoly knows that you will upgrade. And thus there is no incentive to develop additional customer value that would provide alternative revenue streams.
This is all the long way of saying that every time Microsoft abuses the customer, they will lose market share. It may not be apparent right away, but the seed is there. When there is a viable alternative, that customer is gone.
Member since:---
Member since:
---
It is not just the "update threadmill" alone. The old Internet Explorer has not seen an update in ages, and there are already rumors that MSIE 7.0 will be just a minor improvement. MS has no plans to fix MSIE's bugs and to improve CSS support. SVG? Forget it! Moreover, MSIE runs on only one platform, and on only one OS on that platform (Windows XP). MS leaves not only the Widows 2000 users out in the cold, but Mac users as well. Apple understood that MSIE for Mac was dead and launched Safari. It is time the corporations undertstand that MS does not deliver. They should stay with Windows 2000 and roll out Firefox instead of buying microsoft leaky flagship Windows XP.
Member since:
---
Dhtml popup floating ads are everywhere now and will increase. I would like FF developers to add some code to cutoff dhtml or the code that spawns these popups. don't forget 'flash' popups.
This will give firefox another advantage and a reason to download.
Evidence ? Go search 'popup blockers' on google. Look at how many charge money .
Member since:---
Member since:---
http://www.antssoft.com/wisepopup/
adblock doesn't work here.
neither does flash.
It's unblockable.
Member since:2005-07-06
adblock doesn't work here.
neither does flash.
It's unblockable.
I thought they were going to disable such javascript optionally in the next FF. And yeah, those are annoying as hell. Instead of closing the window by pressing the cross they might as well wire it to redirect to a porn site, although I haven't seen such so far thankfully.
Member since:---
Member since:---
Member since:---
Member since:
2005-07-12
Let's go off on M$ for this... Sure.
There's a rule of thumb - the older an OS is the more code you have to add to bring it 'up' to a level it can run what the newest OS can...
Now, Microsoft does this really nutty thing, and it may be so alien to the open source types as to be shocking... they... PAY THEIR PROGRAMMERS.
I know that some of you might have problems with this, let me re-emphasize that... they... PAY THEIR PROGRAMMERS. It is actually possible to make money writing a program and selling it, instead of writing a program and giving it away so some large company can slap their name on it and charge to support it.
I still say Open Source has the potential to be the DEATH of programming as a marketable skill.
I also always note it's most always the same faces always bitching about Security this, security that, then saying "they should update the older insecure version"... Whatever.
Could be worse, they could CHARGE for service packs or release new versions you have to pay a hundred bucks for every 6-8 months like SOME companies. How many times since 2001 have Apple users been expected to pay to jump a minor revision of OSX again, amounting to little more than a service pack that's been known to break things JUST AS BAD as on the M$ side? Do we even want to go into how 'smooth' software version upgrades in *nix is?
The phrase people in glass houses comes to mind.
Member since:2005-07-06
Why not releasing the source code of old Os uch as Windows 2000 if Microsoft does not maintain it anymore?
I know that some of you might have problems with this, let me re-emphasize that... they... PAY THEIR PROGRAMMERS. It is actually possible to make money writing a program and selling it,
So do Open-source based companies.
I still say Open Source has the potential to be the DEATH of programming as a marketable skill.
Try to tell that to Novell and Red Hat. The fact that you can transfert skill from let say Fedora to Red Hat Enterprise nullifies your point.
Member since:---
--
Why not releasing the source code of old Os uch as Windows 2000 if Microsoft does not maintain it anymore?
--
That's never gonna happen, it would be like commiting suicide - think, oss community gets their hands on windows 2000, which still in pretty good shape, and start to improve it (perhaps at lighting speeds 
). So there would be a free windows alternative available, perhaps even more secure than current incarnations... how many corporations would then still want to upgrade to that next better version?
iges.
Member since:2005-07-06
I still say Open Source has the potential to be the DEATH of programming as a marketable skill.
Most programming does not take place in big software houses such as Microsoft or Adobe. It takes place as in house developmnent often in companies whos products are not related to software, and the in house programming is made to streamline the sales of such products. This means that the programmers are still paid.
If such companies start out their programming projects using free software the entry cost will be lower. This means that there likely will be more such projects, so I don't see any risk of unemployed programmers.
If I sold schrink wrapped software I would be worried though. As it not customized to fit a specific customer I would almost certainly have to move my business to some low wage country where you can get a few lines of code for a bowl of rice.
Member since:---
open source does not mean that the developers work for free. there lots of good programmers well paid for working full time on open source projects.
this kind of thing such as "Open Source has the potential to be the DEATH of programming as a marketable skill." is lack of open source understanding.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-13
I know that some of you might have problems with this, let me re-emphasize that... they... PAY THEIR PROGRAMMERS. It is actually possible to make money writing a program and selling it, instead of writing a program and giving it away so some large company can slap their name on it and charge to support it.
I still say Open Source has the potential to be the DEATH of programming as a marketable skill.
Boo hoo. The good programmers will always have marketable skills one way or another. The really good ones will also have the vision to see where those opportunities lie in the face of change.
The bad ones will continue to sit at home all day bitching on OSNews about how evil OSS is and equating linux to communism.
The way I see it, OSS will cull the herd. Survival of the fittest, evolution, and a market democracy. Good stuff all around.
Member since:2005-06-29
Your argument would seem shocking if it weren't for one thing: Most programmers don't write shrinkwrap software.
Not to mention, there are a lot of paid OSS programmers out there; I believe the guy who made these statements is one of them.
The free market is an incredible thing in this sense. Trades which are useless, or valueless at least, tend to dissappear. Factory line work drops constantly, some jobs dissappear altogether once someone designs a machine to do it. Of course, it's not perfect: We still have managers and union reps and CEO's and day traders and waaaay too many lawyers.
Free software doesn't try to replace commercial software, it's always tried to infect it: Turn commercial software free with hopes of actually improving it. Now, the method of improvement is fairly simple: If you don't have to rewrite things then less time is wasted. That means one of two things: As much code being put out by less people, or more useful code by the same people. Most likely, a middle ground is going to be found.
Next, Apple releases every year or more and continues to support their old OS's for quite a while. And since each release has been at least 10% faster by benchmark I'd say that the upgrades were well worth it! Not to mention the features.
That said: Apple's a shitty company and I wouldn't trust them past the ends of their noses. I would trust Microsoft much farther....
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
Is auto update for Windows only? I am not sure how you would do this on Linux---unless it is a home directory install.
In my case, though, I easily upgrade Firefox (and all other packages) using apt or yum on Linux. It's terrific to update all programs using a simple command (or in a cron job).
Adobe Acrobat Reader 7 does automatic updates on Windows, but I haven't even got a notice on Linux. Being non-free software, Fedora can't provide updates for Acrobat Reader.
Member since:
---
Do we even want to go into how 'smooth' software version upgrades in *nix is?
Sure, why not? I have done an upgrade install from Mandrake 8.1 to 8.2 to 9.0 to 9.1 to 9.2 to 10.0 to 10.1 to Mandriva 2005. All without having to uninstall the previous version. Everyone being an upgrade from the previous one. And everytime resulting in a fully stable and useable system.
Now compare that to Windows. I have never once seem a stable system result from an upgrade from one version of Windows to the next. One a clean install works.
So what was that about "'smooth' software version upgrades in *nix" again?
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-11
jayson.knight: I'm surprised no one has mentioned ActiveX yet; many corporations rely on IE's support of ActiveX for in house applications, so Firefox simply can't be used as a replacement in those scenarios
You are 100% correct; but in addition to this firefox neither supports Active Directory, and cannot be configured with AD group policy objects which means that it is has poor deployment options and poor manageability for anything expect trivial networks.
Member since:2005-07-11
firefox neither supports Active Directory, and cannot be configured with AD group policy objects which means that it is has poor deployment options and poor manageability for anything expect trivial networks.
Uhm yeah, because, after all, AD is the only solution for deployment and management, huh? Not to mention that since logon scripts can be set as part of a user GPO, it's relatively trivial to deploy/manage firefox using AD. If you absolutely must have a pointy-clicky control wrapped around it, I'm pretty sure you can hire someone to build an MMC snap-in and schema update package for you
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
Member since:
2005-07-06
In addition to ActiveX, most companies of any reasonable size also have an investment in Group Policy for their users over IE. The more I think about the statements in this article, the more I start to realize that this is very much wishful thinking...I don't think this guy really thought this through.
Member since:
2005-07-18
Keep in mind that one doesn't necessarily have to browse the internet with IE to succomb to security vulnerabilities therein. Internet Explorer and other similar components are deeply embedded into the platform. If one person brings a new worm onto the LAN, it'll spread like wildfire...regardless if any number of employees have firefox installed.
As much as I love Firefox, it can't protect everyone.
Many corporations have unlimited licensing agreements with Microsoft. My old company upgraded its systems to XP on a more passive schedule. Basically, if a PC required reimaging, the XP image was deployed on that machine.
The lack of push to XP usually tends to fall in one of the following reasons:
1) 2000 works w/ our current application sets, so we're not going to mess with it.
2) A lack of distinction; 2000 does the job on par with XP in the corporate environment... there's really no incentive to make the push if workstations have 2000 installed.
3) IT Departments are unmotivated, since MS still provides critical fixes for 2000
It makes sense if you think about it... especially the last reason. As long as MS makes security patches for Windows2000, there is little reason for them to migrate to XP.
Member since:
---
Member since:2005-07-06
Even if this is true (which I doubt), there would be absolutely no compelling reason for a corporation to roll out FF w/ ActiveX...all apps using ActiveX would have to be tested against FF($$$), FF would have to be deployed ($$$) and users retrained for FF ($$$). Even as home user (and I use FF soley) an ActiveX extension would only be of marginal use (WinUpdate), there are virtually no external sites besides WinUpdate that use ActiveX due to it's inherent security issues.
The only businesses that could benefit from a switch to FF are small companies who don't reign in their employees surfing habits or don't have an internal IT department. Outside of this scenario, I don't see FF making any inroads into corps whatsoever.
Member since:---
Member since:2005-07-13
Interestingly in the news recently IBM has started supporting internal use of Firefox, they control deployment, it works with most (not all) internal applications, the exceptions are few and mostly 3rd party provided online apps.
So it seems Large Organisations can "switch". AD is a problem if the corporation has moved to it. I know a lot of large companies still using NT Domains and/or Novell.
Member since:2005-07-06
Hmmm, somehow I missed those headlines. That is pretty interesting, but IBM is an edge case; they certainly have a lot of resposibility to the open source world due to their commitment to OSS, so it makes sense strategically for them to move (instill confidence in their customers, etc). That being said, I really couldn't see a company like, say...Merryl Lynch (or any financial company) making a shift, there just isn't really any compelling reason for them to do so.
It is interesting to see that IBM says they think they can lower their TCO by customizing Firefox...they mentioned a "small" investment...I doubt it's that small to customize it for their needs. Plus it could fragment the platform, and what if their tweaks don't play nice with newer versions of Firefox? It's a big risk IMO, so I'm anxious to see how it plays out for them.
Member since:2005-07-13
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
You'd be surprised at the amount of dimwitted employees that exist in the workplace. Besides, with most large companies, anytime a new version of a corporate wide application is released, training material/docmentation needs to be generated...even if it's just an hour long powerpoint presentation, that's then an hour lost from each employee for taking in the training...you see where I'm going with this.
Member since:2005-07-06
ActiveX in Firefox, hows that http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/plugin.htm
Amazing what google comes up with
Member since:
---
Member since:2005-07-20
Quote from Anonymous:
A button at the top of the browser for switching jscript on/off would be good also.
You could just do a little looking around for extensions for that feature, ya know. PrefButtons allows you to add lots of different checkboxes/buttons to turn on and off features in the browser.
You can download it here: http://www.extensionsmirror.nl/index.php?showtopic=86
Member since:
---
Member since:2005-07-20
NoScript - a javascript whitelisting extension
http://www.extensionsmirror.nl/index.php?showtopic=3444
Member since:---
This isn't coming officially until the Firefox 2.0 release. http://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox:2.0_PRD
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
---
How many times since 2001 have Apple users been expected to pay to jump a minor revision of OSX again, amounting to little more than a service pack that's been known to break things JUST AS BAD as on the M$ side?
Man I'm tired of this...and tearing apart everything you say (@darkshadow)... but that's another matter.
Did any of you actually pay any attention to the way unix developement works? Here's the basic idea: You start with a source tree (We'll call it FreeBSD-current), then you start making changes to it so it has all the features you want (we'll call it OSX 10.0), and at that point you branch the code to start working on new features (10.1), while also doing bug-fixes on the first code (10.0.3 for example). The small numbers are service packs, for those of you too stupid to grasp the concept.
At the point that they branch the 10.0 and 10.1 code (very early on) the two code trees stop trying to have anything in common with each other. 10.1 becomes a new tree worked on for a year by itself in order to add new features without having to worry about keeping things "stable", while bug fixes are added to the old tree.
Once they have enough new features they freeze the code changes and make a new tree (10.2), doing the same thing on it, and only doing bug fixes on the old code (10.1.5), again, service packs.
The things apple sells are not minor upgrades, they are a full year worth of additions to the code. Easily as many differences are included each time as are in each new version of windows (95 to 98, ME to XP, etc).
The reason Apple makes new versions faster than MS does is the way they work on the software. At Microsoft each new OS version has to be built on the old OS for compatibility purposes (looking at the 2000 sources there are places were they puposely added flaws because it added compatibility with a borland compiler), which means that each "bug fix" for an older system is then added to the newer systems as well, so that the source trees remain consistant. Then, if there is a new breakthrough someplace else, they scrap it all and start over (like the change from XP sources to 2003 sources for longhorn). They have to do it this way because they locked themselves into "backwards compatibility". Instead of people writing software for Windows, MS started writing windows for the software, which slows developement a great great deal.
Apple, obviously, has never had a problem with just abandoning old programs, what with all their random architecture changes and all... but their OS is stronger and developement is faster for that very reason.
Member since:
---
Is this the same Asa who wrote: "Why Linux isn't ready for desktops"
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Why_Linux_isn_t_ready_for...
which has the following at the top of the hosted page: "ZDNet.com.au Ticker brought to you by Microsoft: Register now for Microsoft TechEd 2005 - Click here" ??
If so, then allow me to throw up in my mouth a little.
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:
2005-07-06