5 ms·

Firefox: it's just too darned expensive

25 points by jgamman 17y ago

jsz0 17y ago
Testing, deploying, and supporting new software costs money. There's no way around it and it's not directly related to the expense of the software licenses required.
- JBiserkov 17y ago
  + IE can be managed via Group policy => tweak once, deploy to all. This could be possible with Firefox too(I don't know), but I would require a specific tool to be developed, tested (by Mozilla for example) and LEARNED by the admins. The tool itself needs to be deployed...
  - windsurfer 17y ago
    http://www.frontmotion.com/Firefox/fmfirefox.htm http://www.frontmotion.com/Firefox/fmfirefox.htm First result for "Group policy Firefox"
    - wyday 17y ago
      Right, and that's the entire point of the "expense questions" the reps are talking about. They now not only have to vet Firefox, they also have to find a 3rd party tool to vet & buy. Plus the cost of training IT people to install Firefox across thousands of computers (you didn't think they'd install it one-by-one did you?). Etc, etc.
    - karanbhangui 17y ago
      The university I attend uses frontmotion. It's great.
    - bradgessler 17y ago
      Awesome project; but the presentation of this as a solution to big organizations/companies is lacking, or to put it more bluntly, their website sucks. It would be great if the Mozilla Foundation would host this project and make it more presentable.
      - vdm 17y ago
        Agreed; Firefox needs to have this out of the box, for free, to compete with IE in corporate IT.
Goladus 17y ago
The guy doesn't even say it would be more expensive than IE. Just that adding IT support for a new browser is an expense question and hasn't been answered yet.
- jrockway 17y ago
  It's too bad that the people they pay to write web apps don't add "IE support" as a line-item. The project just goes over cost and becomes late instead, so they don't realize that "the expense question" actually comes out quite favorably for Firefox. (Your tax dollars at work.)
  - TomOfTTB 17y ago
    This doesn't make sense. If they are mandating IE for all their computers than their whole App is built solely for IE. For all it's faults, of which there are many, IE isn't harder to use or harder to develop for if you're just writing for IE. (With the notable exception of lacking the Canvas element. Seriously IE team what is up with that?) Look, I'm no fan of IE. But if Firefox advocates want to make headway in business and government arenas they need to stop making BS arguments and start looking at the facts. Saying there's no expense to switching to Firefox (on a mass level) or that IE development is a big money drain are both so easily discredited that they make the overall argument (that Firefox is better) look invalid. Because they make those making the argument look like they're just acting of irrational hatred of IE rather than actual facts.
    - jrockway 17y ago
      Maybe there is no reason to use Firefox for the business? IE actually saved me some time the other day. A client is using TinyMCE and wanted spell-check enabled. I thought this required a PHP script on the server (which is not going to happen, our infrastructure is not set up to run PHP), and that I was going to have to port that script to Perl. Turns out it can use IE's built-in spell-checker instead. Since the client only uses IE, the problem was solved. This does not make up for the thousands of hours I've spent on things that work great in Firefox, Safari, and Opera, but immediately kill all scripts in IE. (The error messages are crap, and the debugging tools don't work. Nice!)
dtf 17y ago
Does Firefox officially provide MSI packages yet? I seem to remember people saying there were a number of issues which made it painful to administrate (for a large corporation) compared to IE.
- rbanffy 17y ago
  Properly integrating with Windows management tools should be a priority for the organization. Many organizations won't even consider a switch unless it works with their tools. As many big organizations, the DoS is dependent on Windows. The harm (depending on a single vendor solution) has already been done and it will take some steps to undo. BTW, I would fire a developer who does a web app that only runs on IE, even if IE is the only browser mandated by the organization. Stupid rules are no excuse for employing incompetent people on public money.
  - eli 17y ago
    Would you also fire a developer for creating a Windows-only desktop app, even if Windows is the operating system mandated by the organization?
    - ekiru 17y ago
      That's a different question. It's similar, but the situations aren't really the same. Developing a desktop app that runs on multiple OSes either involves using something like Gtk and probably having a noticeably non-native app on at least some systems or writing separate user interface code for every platform. I don't have much experience in web development(or desktop development for that matter), but given that all commonly-used browsers share at least a certain subset of HTML, CSS, and Javascript, is it really as hard as creating a desktop app that looks native on every major platform? Since there's no such thing as a native look for web apps, it's not really something you have to worry about, so you just have to deal with the differing HTML/CSS/Javascript implementations across browsers. Besides, an organization is and far more likely to switch browsers than to switch OSes because changing browsers is a less dramatic change that is less disruptive to their old way of doing things.
edw519 17y ago
The initial expense of doing something is almost always greater than doing nothing. The long term expense of doing many things is often less than doing nothing. Otherwise, no one would ever do anything. A myopic bureaucrat? Naaa...
windsurfer 17y ago
I find it funny that the US is doing this, while here in Canada, the government still only officially supports Netscape, even though Netscape itself is no longer supported.
miracle 17y ago
IE is also free and more secure. Why would they want to switch?
- Goladus 17y ago
  As an organization, the question wasn't about switching the question was about allowing both. Individuals have numerous reasons to prefer one over the other.
  - pj 17y ago
    and if they allow both, they have to increase development costs for all web apps because we all know supporting multiple browsers costs more.

25 points by jgamman 17y ago

jsz0 17y ago

Testing, deploying, and supporting new software costs money. There's no way around it and it's not directly related to the expense of the software licenses required.

JBiserkov 17y ago
+ IE can be managed via Group policy => tweak once, deploy to all. This could be possible with Firefox too(I don't know), but I would require a specific tool to be developed, tested (by Mozilla for example) and LEARNED by the admins. The tool itself needs to be deployed...
- windsurfer 17y ago
  http://www.frontmotion.com/Firefox/fmfirefox.htm http://www.frontmotion.com/Firefox/fmfirefox.htm First result for "Group policy Firefox"
  - wyday 17y ago
    Right, and that's the entire point of the "expense questions" the reps are talking about. They now not only have to vet Firefox, they also have to find a 3rd party tool to vet & buy. Plus the cost of training IT people to install Firefox across thousands of computers (you didn't think they'd install it one-by-one did you?). Etc, etc.
  - karanbhangui 17y ago
    The university I attend uses frontmotion. It's great.
  - bradgessler 17y ago
    Awesome project; but the presentation of this as a solution to big organizations/companies is lacking, or to put it more bluntly, their website sucks. It would be great if the Mozilla Foundation would host this project and make it more presentable.
    - vdm 17y ago
      Agreed; Firefox needs to have this out of the box, for free, to compete with IE in corporate IT.

Goladus 17y ago

The guy doesn't even say it would be more expensive than IE. Just that adding IT support for a new browser is an expense question and hasn't been answered yet.

jrockway 17y ago
It's too bad that the people they pay to write web apps don't add "IE support" as a line-item. The project just goes over cost and becomes late instead, so they don't realize that "the expense question" actually comes out quite favorably for Firefox. (Your tax dollars at work.)
- TomOfTTB 17y ago
  This doesn't make sense. If they are mandating IE for all their computers than their whole App is built solely for IE. For all it's faults, of which there are many, IE isn't harder to use or harder to develop for if you're just writing for IE. (With the notable exception of lacking the Canvas element. Seriously IE team what is up with that?) Look, I'm no fan of IE. But if Firefox advocates want to make headway in business and government arenas they need to stop making BS arguments and start looking at the facts. Saying there's no expense to switching to Firefox (on a mass level) or that IE development is a big money drain are both so easily discredited that they make the overall argument (that Firefox is better) look invalid. Because they make those making the argument look like they're just acting of irrational hatred of IE rather than actual facts.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    Maybe there is no reason to use Firefox for the business? IE actually saved me some time the other day. A client is using TinyMCE and wanted spell-check enabled. I thought this required a PHP script on the server (which is not going to happen, our infrastructure is not set up to run PHP), and that I was going to have to port that script to Perl. Turns out it can use IE's built-in spell-checker instead. Since the client only uses IE, the problem was solved. This does not make up for the thousands of hours I've spent on things that work great in Firefox, Safari, and Opera, but immediately kill all scripts in IE. (The error messages are crap, and the debugging tools don't work. Nice!)

dtf 17y ago

Does Firefox officially provide MSI packages yet? I seem to remember people saying there were a number of issues which made it painful to administrate (for a large corporation) compared to IE.

rbanffy 17y ago
Properly integrating with Windows management tools should be a priority for the organization. Many organizations won't even consider a switch unless it works with their tools. As many big organizations, the DoS is dependent on Windows. The harm (depending on a single vendor solution) has already been done and it will take some steps to undo. BTW, I would fire a developer who does a web app that only runs on IE, even if IE is the only browser mandated by the organization. Stupid rules are no excuse for employing incompetent people on public money.
- eli 17y ago
  Would you also fire a developer for creating a Windows-only desktop app, even if Windows is the operating system mandated by the organization?
  - ekiru 17y ago
    That's a different question. It's similar, but the situations aren't really the same. Developing a desktop app that runs on multiple OSes either involves using something like Gtk and probably having a noticeably non-native app on at least some systems or writing separate user interface code for every platform. I don't have much experience in web development(or desktop development for that matter), but given that all commonly-used browsers share at least a certain subset of HTML, CSS, and Javascript, is it really as hard as creating a desktop app that looks native on every major platform? Since there's no such thing as a native look for web apps, it's not really something you have to worry about, so you just have to deal with the differing HTML/CSS/Javascript implementations across browsers. Besides, an organization is and far more likely to switch browsers than to switch OSes because changing browsers is a less dramatic change that is less disruptive to their old way of doing things.

edw519 17y ago

The initial expense of doing something is almost always greater than doing nothing. The long term expense of doing many things is often less than doing nothing. Otherwise, no one would ever do anything. A myopic bureaucrat? Naaa...

windsurfer 17y ago

I find it funny that the US is doing this, while here in Canada, the government still only officially supports Netscape, even though Netscape itself is no longer supported.

miracle 17y ago

IE is also free and more secure. Why would they want to switch?

Goladus 17y ago
As an organization, the question wasn't about switching the question was about allowing both. Individuals have numerous reasons to prefer one over the other.
- pj 17y ago
  and if they allow both, they have to increase development costs for all web apps because we all know supporting multiple browsers costs more.