

Mozilla to enterprise customers: "Drop dead" - Garbage
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/mozilla-to-enterprise-customers-drop-dead/3497

======
makecheck
I've actually always hated this tendency for enterprises to require so much
time to accept changes. This isn't the damned Space Shuttle. And this kind of
over-caution means exactly one thing: "support" people who generally have _no
idea_ how to respond to a _real_ crisis, because they've had little experience
dealing with actual issues and spend all their time trying to avoid these
minor inconveniences.

When you take your car into the shop, sometimes you find things are a bit
worse than you thought and you need to adapt to a loaner for a couple of days.
It's not the end of the world, either way you have a car and you end up where
you want to be. People have been adapting to minor issues for a long time.
Computer users are not completely stupid: if the new version of Firefox breaks
something one morning, they can be told "okay, please use the old one for a
few more weeks" and they're on their merry way. In the meantime, with a side
copy someone can figure out exactly what's broken. It sure _doesn't_ require
weeks upon weeks of revalidating who knows what "just in case" there's a
problem.

~~~
teyc
No. If you called Sprint and the operator told you he/she can't update your
customer details because the latest version of FF was incompatible with the
CRM software they were using, you'd be rather unhappy. This is why I.T.
departments have to test and certify the platform as being compatible.

~~~
makecheck
Actually, what I'd expect is that they wouldn't tell me they even have a
problem; I'd expect them to take down my requested changes according to their
backup plan. (They do have one, right?)

For instance, there might be a form upon which an agent can _write down_
required customer changes, that is then filed so that the system can be
brought up to date later when it's back online.

If an operator "can't update" something, it is the fault of the company for
not having contingency plans. Suppose Firefox was upgraded without a hitch and
passed all their tests, but then there was a power outage in the server
room...why should the customer even care about the difference between these
two? Often _the same_ contingency plan applies to many different cases, it's
just a matter of actually having an organization with this kind of advance
preparation.

~~~
teyc
So, let's say FF27 was incompatible. Should an enterprise then run FF4 where
security patches are no longer provided? The correct conclusion would that
enterprises shouldn't run FF in the first place.

~~~
makecheck
At least compare it to running FF26, which is the overwhelmingly-likely backup
plan in such a case (i.e. they were probably using FF26 before, so they
continue to use it until they have time to fix things for FF27). Staying back
one version is not unreasonable. If the company has waited 23 versions to
upgrade, then it's basically their fault for being in that situation.

Security patches aren't always relevant; having a working browser (any
browser) trumps all. If in fact there is no patched Firefox that works, but
some other patched browser _does_ work, _then_ the more-patched browser wins.
But if the only working browser is missing a few patches, big deal; use it
anyway, and consider it added motivation to upgrade company infrastructure.
You're not going to shut down the company for 4 weeks because the browsers are
unpatched, I hope.

~~~
teyc
The actual practice in software houses is to certify their software against a
limited number of browser versions. Otherwise, the testing costs would be too
high. In addition, software couldn't be tested against unreleased versions, so
no matter what, the certified environments would always be out of date. This
is not a problem as long as security issues have been addressed.

You will not find any vendor who promises you that their software will work
against the next version of Firefox.

So, as the I.T. head, you need to make cautious choices so that the technology
mix will in fact work.

------
stock_toaster
Mozilla's position really makes sense to me.

Look how stagnant IE became/is, largely due to 'enterprise' fears of changing
pretty much..anything. Most enterprises still run windows XP, for that matter!

------
patrickaljord
Mozilla doesn't have any "enterprise customers", it's a free download, they're
users. Their customers are Google and all the companies paying to appear on
the search input.

------
teyc
Someone will have to give Mozilla due credit for being upfront with what it
is, instead of saying sweet nothings. The message from Mozilla is loud and
clear. They are a consumer product, and have no enterprise aspirations. In
contrast, compare this with the confusion Microsoft developers have in terms
of what technologies they should be building on.

------
rcfox
Enterprises want more support from Mozilla. Mozilla says they don't have the
resources to provide that.

I can't think of a group more able to provide funding for the resources that
would solve their problem.

