Firefox's biggest obstacle is lazy programming

The biggest obstacle facing widespread adoption of the Firefox browser is lazy programming - not from the Mozilla Foundation but from corporates that have not tested their applications with anything but IE.

Peter Tippett, chief technologist at security risk management firm Cybertrust, said Firefox will probably gain market share with home and small business users but will struggle in the enterprise because corporate applications have not been built to work with anything but IE.

"An individual can easily switch to Firefox. But doing that on a corporate level is a disaster. All kinds of internal applications are dependent on IE. They never tested them against Firefox or Mozilla because they never thought about it and now they are kind of hooked - that was Microsoft's plan," said Tippett.

Peter Menadue, national business manager for application integration at Dimension Data, agreed. He said that corporations have only just woken up to the fact that there is more than one browser on the market.

"Up until reasonably recently the main question was 'which versions of IE shall we test against?' That is about as deep as the discussion went. Any thoughts of testing against Netscape went away a long time ago," said Menadue.

According to Menadue, when enterprises deploy software they try and keep their testing costs as low as possible so standardising on IE was a 'no brainer'.

"Just like anything in the enterprise - when it comes to deploying software, doing nothing is easier. If you roll out XP or have a desktop it already has IE. To do anything but continue to use IE means you have to roll out something else," said Menadue.

Menadue said that even though more than 95 percent of Web pages will be identical on both browsers, the fact that a few will not render correctly means that administrators will not want to roll out the open source browser - despite security concerns about IE.

"Companies know their internal application will work with their standard browser, which is IE. If the users don't like IE -- and for some reason have Firefox on their desktop - it is tough luck. The motivation is to try and keep the support costs down by avoiding the issues of including Firefox in the test matrix," said Menadue.

Foad Fadaghi, senior industry analyst at Frost & Sullivan Australia, said that commercial programmers became complacent after IE won the first browser war.

"No one can deny that Microsoft owns the desktop. In the business world, this drives partnerships and alliances between Microsoft and enterprise application vendors that consequently standardise on IE. You cannot really blame them because standardisation reduces development time and has the potential to reduce development costs," said Fadaghi.

However, Dimension Data's Menadue warned that now Firefox is making its mark on the industry, enterprises will have to take it more seriously - and it could prompt swift action from Microsoft to improve IE.

"Any browser that has more than a couple of percentage points of market share can potentially cause some support issues. Watch what happens in the way Microsoft reacts. There is a general sense that the sleeping giant will reawaken," added Menadue.

Advertisement

Talkback 19 comments

    OK, We have been a Linux/Debia ...Anonymous -- 03/12/04

    OK, We have been a Linux/Debian/Redhat and MS shop for several years now, and find this ridiculous. Firefox has more than lazy programmers to worry about. We tested FF 1.0 for system wide roll-out and it failed miserably. It has no support for restrictions or group policies. You cant shut off or lock down features and that makes it useless for businesses with any kind of user restrictions. Also we found it has huge memory leaks and causes low virtual memory errors frequently, even on newly formatted machines. Yes the tab browsing and google bar is nice but the install is problematic and add ons can be a nightmare if they have bugs.

    Overall my personal experience of FF is OK. Its a heck of a lot better than earlier version of Mozilla or Nautilus. But sorry guys 5% of the market it not worth paying programmers overtime to develop for multiple browsers. The following is just not there. IE is tightly nit with MS Servers, integrates nicely with .Net and utilizes GPO based security.

    Sorry but we have no plans to program or cater to FF in our shop, standards or not; it simply does not make financial sense. Its a "Walmart world" and we are just trying to compete, you simply cant expect programmers to cater to such a small market. Its not about laziness its about common sense and the almighty dollar.

    It is indeed true, that the co ...Anonymous -- 03/12/04

    It is indeed true, that the corporate support for FireFox / Mozilla is an important part of furthering FireFox. That said, the cost of moving the legacy applications to work with FireFox is non-trivial. With most of the corporate intranet apps (portals) relying heavily on VBScript (+ ActiveX), it virtually seals the option of moving over. Even if the sites were using JavaScript (and not Jscript), the differences in the implementation means that the functionality, more than the display would be affected.
    I don't think that there is nothing much that can be done now about it, rather than live with the status quo. Unless and until the cost of using IE sky rockets, I don't think the corporates would give FireFox the attention due.

    I think you mostly have to be ...Anonymous -- 04/12/04

    I think you mostly have to be patient...there's a lot of truth to what you say but with time, more companies will wean away from their MS "addiction." Probably will be some chapters of MS Anonymous cropping up.

    "Just like anything in th ...Anonymous -- 04/12/04

    "Just like anything in the enterprise – when it comes to deploying software, doing nothing is easier. If you roll out XP or have a desktop it already has IE. To do anything but continue to use IE means you have to roll out something else,” said Menadue."

    Deploing IE usually means that your users have a hight risk of unknowingly deploy various kinds of malware and all of a sudden your doing nothing turns out to be doing quite a lot to clean up your systems.

    The biggest obstacle is lazy p ...Anonymous -- 04/12/04

    The biggest obstacle is lazy programming in majorty of open source projects. In general, an open source project only programs speedy the fixs of the bugs, but programs slowly the feature request code. One reason is the lazy of the programmers of that project.

    Talk in the mailing that that you want that "nautilus support tabs", "gnome-terminal support toolbar", "firefox toolbar have a "find" icon for find a text in this page", ... and the programmers will say you: "yes, it's interesting but this thing could be done by this way" that is a way to say "I'm lazy to program that"

    So the open source projects are richt of bugs-free software but poor of features.

    The people are lazy, but the programmers of a project should not to be lazy if they want to "serve" to the community.

    What would MS do if China and ...Anonymous -- 05/12/04

    What would MS do if China and the other Asian countries adoped FireFox because of FFs better security? I am surprised that it hasn't happened.

    Firefox is by far a superior b ...Anonymous -- 05/12/04

    Firefox is by far a superior browser to IE, but that means nothing, especially since Microsoft has been crushing "superior" products for years.

    It is predictable that nothing will change, microsoft will continue to have the broadest installed base, people will simply give Firefox a try, and will miss most features and return to IE.

    We will see many dueal browser installed base and that poses No threat to Microsoft or it's IE obquitosity plans.

    Just lazy corporate IT people ...Anonymous -- 05/12/04

    Just lazy corporate IT people

    How hard is it to have 2 browsers mounted on someone's desktop? Tell them to use Firefox for everything they can..and then pull up IE only when needed. Duh....hello brain surgeon!

    I find it ironic that increasi ...Anonymous -- 06/12/04

    I find it ironic that increasing the font size of this page in Firefox produces several ugly artifacts.

    Firefox is displaying this sit ...Anonymous -- 06/12/04

    Firefox is displaying this site just fine for me. I think firefox needs to work on their group policy features and mass deployment features eventually. Version 1.0 was meant for individual consumers and not businesses however, Mozilla v.1.7.x is meant for corporate and business users for now until they enhance Firefox's features for version 2.0.

    95% of web sites should render ...Anonymous -- 06/12/04

    95% of web sites should render correctly? While I would question where this figure comes from from my own personal experience I've had very little problem with any web sites whatsoever. Firefox almost 100% of the time renders web sites as they ought to be and even perhaps a little better then you might see in Internet Explorer. What businesses need to strongly consider is not the measely 5% of web sites that suspossidly won't render correctly, but instead the savings they will reap from using a more secure browser. Consider the security holes in Internet Explorer and Outlook Express and the money, time and effort businesses have had to put in to fix the issues. Every time there is a new email viruses it ravages the Internet and businsses are the hardest hit. By switching to Firefox and Thunderbird businesses would not only be using better software but would also save money they would otherwise be spent on security issues.

    Re: I find it ironic that incr ...Anonymous -- 06/12/04

    Re: I find it ironic that increasing the font size of this page in Firefox produces several ugly artifacts.

    Artifacts? The only thing I see is that they web site design gets out of whack because this site is poorly designed.

    The real question is is why do ...Anonymous -- 07/12/04

    The real question is is why do you have to cutomise your website for different browsers? I do not think that you can call the corporates lazy, as if you look at the number of browsers people can use, how can you cost effectively be compatible with each one? It is the vendors that are actually lazy with not enforcing standards

    Come on guys. There is really ...Anonymous -- 30/12/04

    Come on guys. There is really no reason to make this an us versus them issue. wether you prefer IE or Firefox is not the issue. Firefox uses the Gecko rendering engine to display web pages the same as all other Mozilla based browsers. How the pages display is based mostly on that. Gecko is the most web standard compliant renderer at this time and has been proven as such through independent testing. With that said there really should be no extra cost invovled in making pages render properly in both IE and firefox at leat up to the point where you start to include IE only extensions to the page. Here is how I accomplised this in my most recent web appliction. I design my pages and test them in firefox because I know that they will then display correctly in IE. A quick test in IE always confirms this. Then I attempt to add advanced fuctionality using CSS and javascript again knowing that these will diplay correctly in both browsers almost always. If I find that needed functionaltiy can only be accomplished with IE only extensions (Very rare) I add them at this point knowing that Mozilla based browsers will load my pages correctly up to this point and only be missing the added functionality provided be the IE only code. A simple disclaimer describing the added functionality from using IE and maybe alternatives to get around it for Mozilla based users handles most situations without any extra costs on my part. A little extra effort on my part usually yeilds a web standards based method of providing the needed functionality anyway but for those times (mostly when my apps are run from an intranets based on windows) Where I might need to do things like allow authentication with a MS domain contoller and the like I simply add them last. If I then add an off the shelf web standard method as an optional method I have easily designed my application to be useable by just about any browser with very little additional effort and have dramatically improved the potential addoption of my app by a varied audience of potential users. If you view Mozilla based browsers as the most compliant (Due to the Gecko rendering engine.) and IE as mostly compliant with web standards but with its own propiertary extensions (and I believe this is an accurate ****essment) then it is clearly common sense to design this way. That is design to the most standards compliant browsers first and then add the proptiertary components only when you have no other chioce.

    RE:I find it ironic that incre ...Anonymous -- 12/01/05

    RE:I find it ironic that increasing the font size of this page in Firefox produces several ugly artifacts.

    I think it's ironic you said that when in IE you can't even resize the text, LOL. All you can do in IE is resize the title =P.

    RE:I find it ironic that incre ...Anonymous -- 12/01/05

    RE:I find it ironic that increasing the font size of this page in Firefox produces several ugly artifacts.

    I think it's ironic you said that when in IE you can't even resize the text, LOL. All you can do in IE is resize the title =P.

    I think if all browsers develo ...Anonymous -- 20/01/05

    I think if all browsers developers come together and think about creating one good browser which can support Tritent engine and Gecko thas will be nice.

    I think you should take your o ...Anonymous -- 21/06/05

    I think you should take your own advice.
    Your page

    http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/0,2000061733,39168780,00.htm

    continuously updates it's self in Firefox on windows 2000 because it is coded wrong.

    A true prophet Mike -- 28/02/07

    Interesting that this was written over 2 years ago now. I found this article searching for info about programming .NET to work as well in Firefox as in IE. It seems that the native controls in Visual Studio have bben optimized for IE and just don't work as well in FF.

    So, after 2 years, when FF has had a chance to prove itself, it isn't just the corporate application/browser problem. Unless it's the FF version I'm using, every web site I point it to where .NET is the obvious environment, there are minor to signifcant glitches that suggest a return to IE.

    It's obvious that M$ has mounted a subtle attack on the alternative browsers, and the industry is helping them win another war.

Add your opinion

Latest Videos

Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Blogs

  • Suzanne Tindal Love me, tender
    Considering how expensive and drawn-out tender processes can be to solve problems that might be very immediate, it's little wonder that the Victorian Police IT department tried to work the tender exemptions system.
  • Array 2009 funding drought rolls on
    For Australian start-ups looking for venture capital, 2009 was a very bad year. 2010 may be no better.
  • Array Can not-so-smart meters help the NBN?
    It was interesting to witness Conroy's recent enthusiasm to spruik the NBN's role in supporting the Smart Grid, Smart City initiative. What a pity that Conroy hadn't yet seen the damning report from the Victorian auditor-general about that state's smart-meter roll-out.
  • More blogs »

Tags

Back to top

Featured