Big Blue adopts FFox
in [Freeware]
|
Prev: Naked proof that PC Magazine's editor is a Microsoftwhore.
Next: Oh, we're bound to Mother Carey where she feeds her chicks at sea!"
From: »Q« on 4 Jul 2010 18:59 In <news:i0pfd8$g90$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Craig <netburgher(a)REMOVEgmail.com> wrote: > Subject: [OT] Big Blue adopts FFox This is alt.comp.freeware. Freeware posts are welcome. :-) > Another interpretation might be that Mozilla is less threatening than > Chrome's Google and further from Apple's orbit than webkit. > Regardless, it looks like Mozilla found a new patron just in the nick > of time... > > > A recent change to IBM's internal IT policy has made Firefox the > > company's default Web browser. The move is a major endorsement of > > the browser's suitability in large-scale enterprise environments. > > IBM plans to roll it out to employees on new computers and will > > encourage its staff of 400,000 to use it on their existing systems. > > > > Bob Sutor, IBM's vice president of Linux and open source software, > > discussed the company's motives for adopting Firefox in a blog entry > > published this morning. He says that its transparent development > > model, strong security, and robust support for Web standards and > > extensibility have made it the "gold standard" for open source Web > > browsers. > > <http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/07/ibm-embraces-firefox-adopts-it-internally.ars> That's amazing. Firefox's model focused on appeal to individual users, which makes for a pretty good browser, but little attention[1] has been paid to mass deployment of it and its updates in a way that suits IT departments. I don't think Google (or rather, enough people within Google) yet understand how much more valuable real open development is to a project than merely making the source available and slapping the "open source" label on it. Maybe IBM can use some of the work that's gone into both the client and server parts of mozilla.com's update service. Whether or not they can, I can't see a way around them coming up with a solution, and hopefully they'd be decent enough to free that solution. Without it, I don't think Firefox could compete in the upcoming feature "Browser Wars III: the Battle to Bring Choice to Enterprise". [1] There have been some projects focused on mass deployment, e.g., the Kaply's CCK (mentioned in the article) and FrontMotion's MSI installer.
From: Craig on 4 Jul 2010 23:51 On 07/04/2010 03:59 PM, �Q� wrote: > Maybe IBM can use some of the work that's gone into both the client and > server parts of mozilla.com's update service. Whether or not they can, > I can't see a way around them coming up with a solution, and hopefully > they'd be decent enough to free that solution. Without it, I don't > think Firefox could compete in the upcoming feature "Browser Wars III: > the Battle to Bring Choice to Enterprise". IBM has got to be doing this for more than a pretty browser. They want Firefox in a lot more organizations than just their own. Anything to blunt & stave off Chrome & IE. So I'm betting they'll release whatever they come up with for enterprise distribution: they're bringing it in-house to show the world that FFox is good enough for everyone else too. At least, that's my guess... -- -Craig
From: »Q« on 6 Jul 2010 00:10 In <news:i0rks0$7u8$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Craig <netburgher(a)REMOVEgmail.com> wrote: > On 07/04/2010 03:59 PM, »Q« wrote: > > Maybe IBM can use some of the work that's gone into both the client > > and server parts of mozilla.com's update service. Whether or not > > they can, I can't see a way around them coming up with a solution, > > and hopefully they'd be decent enough to free that solution. > > Without it, I don't think Firefox could compete in the upcoming > > feature "Browser Wars III: the Battle to Bring Choice to > > Enterprise". > > IBM has got to be doing this for more than a pretty browser. They > want Firefox in a lot more organizations than just their own. > Anything to blunt & stave off Chrome & IE. > > So I'm betting they'll release whatever they come up with for > enterprise distribution: they're bringing it in-house to show the > world that FFox is good enough for everyone else too. > > At least, that's my guess... I think that's right. IMO, the pressure from Chrome is a Good Thing, because otherwise I don't think much would have been done by IBM or anybody to help make Fx an option. IE still has about 50% of the overall market -- I wonder how much of that is on enterprise desktops.
From: Craig on 6 Jul 2010 02:03
On 07/05/2010 09:10 PM, »Q« wrote: > IE still has about 50% of the > overall market -- I wonder how much of that is on enterprise desktops. I'm sure that stat lives out there somewhere <grin> but I'll wager... 80%. I thought that it was otherwise until we started dealing with utilities in California, *gov sites and int'l NGO's. -- -Craig |