<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_09_0052232</id>
	<title>Mozilla To Launch "Build Your Own Browser"</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1244562360000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/" rel="nofollow">angry tapir</a> sends in a piece from Down Under which begins <i>"Mozilla is readying a program that will <a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/article/306685/mozilla\_let\_enterprises\_build\_custom\_firefox\_browsers">allow companies to build their own customized browsers</a> based on the next version of Firefox, which will be out in a few weeks. ... Through the Build Your Own Browser program, which will start sometime soon after Firefox 3.5 is released at the end of June, companies can use a Web application provided by Mozilla to specify certain customizations for the browser, such as bookmarks to certain sites or corporate intranets or portals. ... The bulk of enterprises still use Internet Explorer if they mandate a browser for company use, because Microsoft provides provisioning and installation software for IE that makes it easy for enterprises to control browser settings and install across all corporate desktops, said Forrester analyst Sheri McLeish. Mozilla has not historically done this, but something like the Build Your Own Browser program is a good start to encourage enterprises to use Firefox over IE."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>angry tapir sends in a piece from Down Under which begins " Mozilla is readying a program that will allow companies to build their own customized browsers based on the next version of Firefox , which will be out in a few weeks .
... Through the Build Your Own Browser program , which will start sometime soon after Firefox 3.5 is released at the end of June , companies can use a Web application provided by Mozilla to specify certain customizations for the browser , such as bookmarks to certain sites or corporate intranets or portals .
... The bulk of enterprises still use Internet Explorer if they mandate a browser for company use , because Microsoft provides provisioning and installation software for IE that makes it easy for enterprises to control browser settings and install across all corporate desktops , said Forrester analyst Sheri McLeish .
Mozilla has not historically done this , but something like the Build Your Own Browser program is a good start to encourage enterprises to use Firefox over IE .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>angry tapir sends in a piece from Down Under which begins "Mozilla is readying a program that will allow companies to build their own customized browsers based on the next version of Firefox, which will be out in a few weeks.
... Through the Build Your Own Browser program, which will start sometime soon after Firefox 3.5 is released at the end of June, companies can use a Web application provided by Mozilla to specify certain customizations for the browser, such as bookmarks to certain sites or corporate intranets or portals.
... The bulk of enterprises still use Internet Explorer if they mandate a browser for company use, because Microsoft provides provisioning and installation software for IE that makes it easy for enterprises to control browser settings and install across all corporate desktops, said Forrester analyst Sheri McLeish.
Mozilla has not historically done this, but something like the Build Your Own Browser program is a good start to encourage enterprises to use Firefox over IE.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28264567</id>
	<title>Re:Not for us</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1244557440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>lack of support (you already pay MS for support so thats 'free'),</p> </div><p>You make some valid points on resistance to change, etc., but really when was the last time MS fixed an IE rendering bug for you?</p><p>IEtab I imagine just wraps the MSIE DLL into firefox. I bet it's open source too.</p><p>Why are you paying "serious $$$" for an app that requires a specific browser to run? Why not include in the NSR that the web front-end must validate against the testing requirements on (say) any 2 of the top 5 browser programs.</p><p>Do you also insist that your electrical chords are all moulded proprietary shapes that only fit a specific companies socket? Haven't MS got you over a barrel?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>lack of support ( you already pay MS for support so thats 'free ' ) , You make some valid points on resistance to change , etc. , but really when was the last time MS fixed an IE rendering bug for you ? IEtab I imagine just wraps the MSIE DLL into firefox .
I bet it 's open source too.Why are you paying " serious $ $ $ " for an app that requires a specific browser to run ?
Why not include in the NSR that the web front-end must validate against the testing requirements on ( say ) any 2 of the top 5 browser programs.Do you also insist that your electrical chords are all moulded proprietary shapes that only fit a specific companies socket ?
Have n't MS got you over a barrel ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lack of support (you already pay MS for support so thats 'free'), You make some valid points on resistance to change, etc., but really when was the last time MS fixed an IE rendering bug for you?IEtab I imagine just wraps the MSIE DLL into firefox.
I bet it's open source too.Why are you paying "serious $$$" for an app that requires a specific browser to run?
Why not include in the NSR that the web front-end must validate against the testing requirements on (say) any 2 of the top 5 browser programs.Do you also insist that your electrical chords are all moulded proprietary shapes that only fit a specific companies socket?
Haven't MS got you over a barrel?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28262539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261643</id>
	<title>I do this already</title>
	<author>andytrevino</author>
	<datestamp>1244483520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At <a href="http://www.uwm.edu/" title="uwm.edu">UW-Milwaukee</a> [uwm.edu]'s dorms, I used <a href="http://firefox.dbltree.com/" title="dbltree.com">FFDeploy</a> [dbltree.com] to do just this: create a silent Firefox installer for student and faculty machines with some built-in bookmark buttons for our student service websites, e-mail system and so on.</p><p>Doing this saves time and installs FF with a nice student-friendly UI right off the bat -- very useful in converting otherwise IE-centric students who don't care what browser they're using to Firefox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At UW-Milwaukee [ uwm.edu ] 's dorms , I used FFDeploy [ dbltree.com ] to do just this : create a silent Firefox installer for student and faculty machines with some built-in bookmark buttons for our student service websites , e-mail system and so on.Doing this saves time and installs FF with a nice student-friendly UI right off the bat -- very useful in converting otherwise IE-centric students who do n't care what browser they 're using to Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At UW-Milwaukee [uwm.edu]'s dorms, I used FFDeploy [dbltree.com] to do just this: create a silent Firefox installer for student and faculty machines with some built-in bookmark buttons for our student service websites, e-mail system and so on.Doing this saves time and installs FF with a nice student-friendly UI right off the bat -- very useful in converting otherwise IE-centric students who don't care what browser they're using to Firefox.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261463</id>
	<title>You might not be focusing on the right target...</title>
	<author>Bill\_Royle</author>
	<datestamp>1244481600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext> The problem isn't that companies can't deploy Firefox - it's that most vendors are IE-centric.  It's easy to put together a default Firefox profile with the requisite bookmarks and customizations, but tougher to get the same "experience" when it comes to things like Sharepoint and SAP, among others.  Once you can get some of those vendors (ok, maybe not MS) to play more nicely, the rest will take care of itself.<br> <br>I'm not saying it's all Mozilla's fault - in fact most of it isn't.  But some corporate evangelism would go a long way towards getting traction within the enterprise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is n't that companies ca n't deploy Firefox - it 's that most vendors are IE-centric .
It 's easy to put together a default Firefox profile with the requisite bookmarks and customizations , but tougher to get the same " experience " when it comes to things like Sharepoint and SAP , among others .
Once you can get some of those vendors ( ok , maybe not MS ) to play more nicely , the rest will take care of itself .
I 'm not saying it 's all Mozilla 's fault - in fact most of it is n't .
But some corporate evangelism would go a long way towards getting traction within the enterprise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The problem isn't that companies can't deploy Firefox - it's that most vendors are IE-centric.
It's easy to put together a default Firefox profile with the requisite bookmarks and customizations, but tougher to get the same "experience" when it comes to things like Sharepoint and SAP, among others.
Once you can get some of those vendors (ok, maybe not MS) to play more nicely, the rest will take care of itself.
I'm not saying it's all Mozilla's fault - in fact most of it isn't.
But some corporate evangelism would go a long way towards getting traction within the enterprise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28264525</id>
	<title>Re:ActiveX</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244557320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/plugin.htm" title="www.iol.ie" rel="nofollow">http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/plugin.htm</a> [www.iol.ie]</p><p>Here, now fuck off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.iol.ie/ ~ locka/mozilla/plugin.htm [ www.iol.ie ] Here , now fuck off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/plugin.htm [www.iol.ie]Here, now fuck off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28270531</id>
	<title>Re:You might not be focusing on the right target..</title>
	<author>iGoMogul</author>
	<datestamp>1244580360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not saying it's all Mozilla's fault - in fact most of it isn't.  But some corporate evangelism would go a long way towards getting traction within the enterprise.</p></div><p>Good post -- this is the exact cause of IE's domination in the browser market. Most third-party software has been developed far too long to work directly with IE components. When vendors begin to take the plunge and try to cater a bit more to Firefox, we're sure to see a major change in its usage (especially in the enterprise world).<br> <br>

Of course, the issue remains that many of these distributors work closely with Microsoft, or have been developing applications for IE for years. Convincing an entire company to switch a major component of their business is no simple task. This is especially true when they aren't used to something, even if the change is for the better.
<br> <br>
-Kevin @ iGoMogul</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not saying it 's all Mozilla 's fault - in fact most of it is n't .
But some corporate evangelism would go a long way towards getting traction within the enterprise.Good post -- this is the exact cause of IE 's domination in the browser market .
Most third-party software has been developed far too long to work directly with IE components .
When vendors begin to take the plunge and try to cater a bit more to Firefox , we 're sure to see a major change in its usage ( especially in the enterprise world ) .
Of course , the issue remains that many of these distributors work closely with Microsoft , or have been developing applications for IE for years .
Convincing an entire company to switch a major component of their business is no simple task .
This is especially true when they are n't used to something , even if the change is for the better .
-Kevin @ iGoMogul</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not saying it's all Mozilla's fault - in fact most of it isn't.
But some corporate evangelism would go a long way towards getting traction within the enterprise.Good post -- this is the exact cause of IE's domination in the browser market.
Most third-party software has been developed far too long to work directly with IE components.
When vendors begin to take the plunge and try to cater a bit more to Firefox, we're sure to see a major change in its usage (especially in the enterprise world).
Of course, the issue remains that many of these distributors work closely with Microsoft, or have been developing applications for IE for years.
Convincing an entire company to switch a major component of their business is no simple task.
This is especially true when they aren't used to something, even if the change is for the better.
-Kevin @ iGoMogul
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28262539</id>
	<title>Re:Not for us</title>
	<author>wintermute000</author>
	<datestamp>1244579940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Er, IE tab doesn't always work seamlessly esp. if said stupid enterprise software relies on a lot of popups, it starts behaving funny. Have you tested it against all the crappy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net custom apps out there?</p><p>Heck at work the all bling new BMC Remedy system they brought in, the web facing frontend doesn't work properly in firefox. Thats a serious $$$ app. IEtab? I refer you to my popup issues.</p><p>Also IETab is not a fully supported product, if something doesn't work well with it, tough.</p><p>"This whole "We can't use FireFox because of enterprise app X" is bullshit. People need to learn how to properly manage corporate computer systems without coming up with these pathetic excuses for not doing their jobs properly."</p><p>With that kind of attitude, I take it you don't run large enterprise environments (no, medium business with some branches or shops and one or two big sites doesn't count, where you get to be the grand wizard techie who overrules all).</p><p>Technical arguments aside there are plenty of practical reasons. Just resistance to change, lack of tangible benefits, lack of support (you already pay MS for support so thats 'free'), user inertia / retraining (yes every call to the helpdesk where they explain clicking on the orange icon not the blue E icon costs $$$). We're techies and we like our own browsers and love sh1tting on MS but that's not how management looks at it. What is the bottom line gain YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE to the company? zero, and don't start talking about security, the you can demonstrate bit is the most important bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Er , IE tab does n't always work seamlessly esp .
if said stupid enterprise software relies on a lot of popups , it starts behaving funny .
Have you tested it against all the crappy .net custom apps out there ? Heck at work the all bling new BMC Remedy system they brought in , the web facing frontend does n't work properly in firefox .
Thats a serious $ $ $ app .
IEtab ? I refer you to my popup issues.Also IETab is not a fully supported product , if something does n't work well with it , tough .
" This whole " We ca n't use FireFox because of enterprise app X " is bullshit .
People need to learn how to properly manage corporate computer systems without coming up with these pathetic excuses for not doing their jobs properly .
" With that kind of attitude , I take it you do n't run large enterprise environments ( no , medium business with some branches or shops and one or two big sites does n't count , where you get to be the grand wizard techie who overrules all ) .Technical arguments aside there are plenty of practical reasons .
Just resistance to change , lack of tangible benefits , lack of support ( you already pay MS for support so thats 'free ' ) , user inertia / retraining ( yes every call to the helpdesk where they explain clicking on the orange icon not the blue E icon costs $ $ $ ) .
We 're techies and we like our own browsers and love sh1tting on MS but that 's not how management looks at it .
What is the bottom line gain YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE to the company ?
zero , and do n't start talking about security , the you can demonstrate bit is the most important bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Er, IE tab doesn't always work seamlessly esp.
if said stupid enterprise software relies on a lot of popups, it starts behaving funny.
Have you tested it against all the crappy .net custom apps out there?Heck at work the all bling new BMC Remedy system they brought in, the web facing frontend doesn't work properly in firefox.
Thats a serious $$$ app.
IEtab? I refer you to my popup issues.Also IETab is not a fully supported product, if something doesn't work well with it, tough.
"This whole "We can't use FireFox because of enterprise app X" is bullshit.
People need to learn how to properly manage corporate computer systems without coming up with these pathetic excuses for not doing their jobs properly.
"With that kind of attitude, I take it you don't run large enterprise environments (no, medium business with some branches or shops and one or two big sites doesn't count, where you get to be the grand wizard techie who overrules all).Technical arguments aside there are plenty of practical reasons.
Just resistance to change, lack of tangible benefits, lack of support (you already pay MS for support so thats 'free'), user inertia / retraining (yes every call to the helpdesk where they explain clicking on the orange icon not the blue E icon costs $$$).
We're techies and we like our own browsers and love sh1tting on MS but that's not how management looks at it.
What is the bottom line gain YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE to the company?
zero, and don't start talking about security, the you can demonstrate bit is the most important bit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28262069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263883</id>
	<title>Re:Not for us</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244553060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sorry - I have to jump in here. I think what is probably stupid is installing Firefox when you KNOW you have to use IE for most of your enterprise applications like SAP Portal, SharePoint, etc.and then having to deploy SECURITY UPDATES for firefox for no real reason (since you didn't need firefox anyway!). Oh, and it would be nice if there were a way to actually DEPLOY security patches for Firefox without just having to send out a package that consists of an entire install. At least with IE you can run a patch and not a full install. So now, again - WHY would you run firefox with IE Tab and then have to patch two browsers? Makes no sense at all in a corporate environment. If you can get to the point where your apps all work on Firefox, and can policy-disable IE - sure, go for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry - I have to jump in here .
I think what is probably stupid is installing Firefox when you KNOW you have to use IE for most of your enterprise applications like SAP Portal , SharePoint , etc.and then having to deploy SECURITY UPDATES for firefox for no real reason ( since you did n't need firefox anyway ! ) .
Oh , and it would be nice if there were a way to actually DEPLOY security patches for Firefox without just having to send out a package that consists of an entire install .
At least with IE you can run a patch and not a full install .
So now , again - WHY would you run firefox with IE Tab and then have to patch two browsers ?
Makes no sense at all in a corporate environment .
If you can get to the point where your apps all work on Firefox , and can policy-disable IE - sure , go for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry - I have to jump in here.
I think what is probably stupid is installing Firefox when you KNOW you have to use IE for most of your enterprise applications like SAP Portal, SharePoint, etc.and then having to deploy SECURITY UPDATES for firefox for no real reason (since you didn't need firefox anyway!).
Oh, and it would be nice if there were a way to actually DEPLOY security patches for Firefox without just having to send out a package that consists of an entire install.
At least with IE you can run a patch and not a full install.
So now, again - WHY would you run firefox with IE Tab and then have to patch two browsers?
Makes no sense at all in a corporate environment.
If you can get to the point where your apps all work on Firefox, and can policy-disable IE - sure, go for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28262069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261263</id>
	<title>Flash</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244479860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Call me when I can watch the Red Sox games in Firefox using Flash on WinXP, or Firefox using Flash on OSX.  Until then I need IE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Call me when I can watch the Red Sox games in Firefox using Flash on WinXP , or Firefox using Flash on OSX .
Until then I need IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Call me when I can watch the Red Sox games in Firefox using Flash on WinXP, or Firefox using Flash on OSX.
Until then I need IE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28264879</id>
	<title>Re:ActiveX</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1244558880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1261543&amp;cid=28261931" title="slashdot.org">http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1261543&amp;cid=28261931</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>I think you should start thinking about it. You're going to have to move at some stage unless you fancy scavenging old hardware to patch up your systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1261543&amp;cid = 28261931 [ slashdot.org ] I think you should start thinking about it .
You 're going to have to move at some stage unless you fancy scavenging old hardware to patch up your systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1261543&amp;cid=28261931 [slashdot.org]I think you should start thinking about it.
You're going to have to move at some stage unless you fancy scavenging old hardware to patch up your systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28262069</id>
	<title>Re:Not for us</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244488200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blaming enterprise software for your inability to install FireFox is nothing but a cop-out. The solution to this problem is so simple, I can't believe people even see it as a problem anymore.</p><p>Install Firefox, then install ieTab. ieTab can be set to do nothing until you browse to a any of a list of domains. Once you enter a domain, ieTab takes over and runs that tab inside a native IE browser. IE is seamlessly embedded inside the tab, and the user won't even notice.</p><p>The best part is that once a lot of companies do this, the enterprise software companies can start developing their software to standards, since most companies will already be using FireFox. Using IE for every website, just because of one domain (usually local network) requiring IE is just stupid</p><p>This whole "We can't use FireFox because of enterprise app X" is bullshit. People need to learn how to properly manage corporate computer systems without coming up with these pathetic excuses for not doing their jobs properly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blaming enterprise software for your inability to install FireFox is nothing but a cop-out .
The solution to this problem is so simple , I ca n't believe people even see it as a problem anymore.Install Firefox , then install ieTab .
ieTab can be set to do nothing until you browse to a any of a list of domains .
Once you enter a domain , ieTab takes over and runs that tab inside a native IE browser .
IE is seamlessly embedded inside the tab , and the user wo n't even notice.The best part is that once a lot of companies do this , the enterprise software companies can start developing their software to standards , since most companies will already be using FireFox .
Using IE for every website , just because of one domain ( usually local network ) requiring IE is just stupidThis whole " We ca n't use FireFox because of enterprise app X " is bullshit .
People need to learn how to properly manage corporate computer systems without coming up with these pathetic excuses for not doing their jobs properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blaming enterprise software for your inability to install FireFox is nothing but a cop-out.
The solution to this problem is so simple, I can't believe people even see it as a problem anymore.Install Firefox, then install ieTab.
ieTab can be set to do nothing until you browse to a any of a list of domains.
Once you enter a domain, ieTab takes over and runs that tab inside a native IE browser.
IE is seamlessly embedded inside the tab, and the user won't even notice.The best part is that once a lot of companies do this, the enterprise software companies can start developing their software to standards, since most companies will already be using FireFox.
Using IE for every website, just because of one domain (usually local network) requiring IE is just stupidThis whole "We can't use FireFox because of enterprise app X" is bullshit.
People need to learn how to properly manage corporate computer systems without coming up with these pathetic excuses for not doing their jobs properly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261841</id>
	<title>Re:ActiveX</title>
	<author>afabbro</author>
	<datestamp>1244485560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Enterprises support IE because it runs ActiveX controls. Until FF does this, it will not appear in desktop builds for the majority of Corporate America.</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, what SHOULD happen is that companies need to stop using those old ActiveX controls. Otherwise eventually companies are going to find themselves in a situation where they run one browser and the rest of the world runs something else!</p></div><p>I don't think they'd care.  For most companies, the browser is just a UI into various enterprise apps.  E.g., instead of having to install a Peoplesoft Win32 executable client, Peoplesoft has a built-in web server and users access PeopleSoft through the intranet.  This is extremely common - in fact, it may be the most common way for users to interact with enterprise apps these days.  For most desktops, what the rest of the world runs is immaterial - it's whether the browser talks to application X, Y, and Z hosted internally.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Enterprises support IE because it runs ActiveX controls .
Until FF does this , it will not appear in desktop builds for the majority of Corporate America.Actually , what SHOULD happen is that companies need to stop using those old ActiveX controls .
Otherwise eventually companies are going to find themselves in a situation where they run one browser and the rest of the world runs something else ! I do n't think they 'd care .
For most companies , the browser is just a UI into various enterprise apps .
E.g. , instead of having to install a Peoplesoft Win32 executable client , Peoplesoft has a built-in web server and users access PeopleSoft through the intranet .
This is extremely common - in fact , it may be the most common way for users to interact with enterprise apps these days .
For most desktops , what the rest of the world runs is immaterial - it 's whether the browser talks to application X , Y , and Z hosted internally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enterprises support IE because it runs ActiveX controls.
Until FF does this, it will not appear in desktop builds for the majority of Corporate America.Actually, what SHOULD happen is that companies need to stop using those old ActiveX controls.
Otherwise eventually companies are going to find themselves in a situation where they run one browser and the rest of the world runs something else!I don't think they'd care.
For most companies, the browser is just a UI into various enterprise apps.
E.g., instead of having to install a Peoplesoft Win32 executable client, Peoplesoft has a built-in web server and users access PeopleSoft through the intranet.
This is extremely common - in fact, it may be the most common way for users to interact with enterprise apps these days.
For most desktops, what the rest of the world runs is immaterial - it's whether the browser talks to application X, Y, and Z hosted internally.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263053</id>
	<title>SSL CA certs!</title>
	<author>teridon</author>
	<datestamp>1244543040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bookmarks?  wheeeee...</p><p>What I really want is a way to distribute my organization's SSL CAs!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bookmarks ?
wheeeee...What I really want is a way to distribute my organization 's SSL CAs !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bookmarks?
wheeeee...What I really want is a way to distribute my organization's SSL CAs!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28262059</id>
	<title>Set Top Box Browser</title>
	<author>c0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1244488080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now this would have been super useful about 6 months ago for me, when we needed an embedded linux browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now this would have been super useful about 6 months ago for me , when we needed an embedded linux browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now this would have been super useful about 6 months ago for me, when we needed an embedded linux browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28262475</id>
	<title>Re:Spinning an outstanding deficiency</title>
	<author>prandal</author>
	<datestamp>1244579160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's FirefoxADM: <a href="http://ick2.wordpress.com/" title="wordpress.com">http://ick2.wordpress.com/</a> [wordpress.com]</p><p>This stuff really needs to be in the core of Firefox for it to gain corporate users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's FirefoxADM : http : //ick2.wordpress.com/ [ wordpress.com ] This stuff really needs to be in the core of Firefox for it to gain corporate users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's FirefoxADM: http://ick2.wordpress.com/ [wordpress.com]This stuff really needs to be in the core of Firefox for it to gain corporate users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263301</id>
	<title>Isn't this already available?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244546220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Firefox CCK (Client Customization Kit) wizard of course!</p><p><a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2553" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2553</a> [mozilla.org]</p><p>Also, Mozilla has offered the CCK for previous versions of Firefox.</p><p><a href="http://www.mozilla.org/projects/cck/firefox/" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.mozilla.org/projects/cck/firefox/</a> [mozilla.org]</p><p>So this sounds like no more than new name and an update? I don't consider this to be big news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Firefox CCK ( Client Customization Kit ) wizard of course ! https : //addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2553 [ mozilla.org ] Also , Mozilla has offered the CCK for previous versions of Firefox.http : //www.mozilla.org/projects/cck/firefox/ [ mozilla.org ] So this sounds like no more than new name and an update ?
I do n't consider this to be big news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Firefox CCK (Client Customization Kit) wizard of course!https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2553 [mozilla.org]Also, Mozilla has offered the CCK for previous versions of Firefox.http://www.mozilla.org/projects/cck/firefox/ [mozilla.org]So this sounds like no more than new name and an update?
I don't consider this to be big news.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263383</id>
	<title>Re:ActiveX</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244547240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Actually, what SHOULD happen is that companies need to stop using those old ActiveX controls</p></div></blockquote><p>Yeah, that'd be nice. Unfortunately for my employer, that would mean retraining about 80\% of our employees after spending several man-years and 7 figures upgrading or replacing some of our critical software, while the same people doing the upgrade/replacement are trying to support the old version. Except the "upgrade" option hasn't been released yet by the vendor, so we're kind of stuck there on timing anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , what SHOULD happen is that companies need to stop using those old ActiveX controlsYeah , that 'd be nice .
Unfortunately for my employer , that would mean retraining about 80 \ % of our employees after spending several man-years and 7 figures upgrading or replacing some of our critical software , while the same people doing the upgrade/replacement are trying to support the old version .
Except the " upgrade " option has n't been released yet by the vendor , so we 're kind of stuck there on timing anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, what SHOULD happen is that companies need to stop using those old ActiveX controlsYeah, that'd be nice.
Unfortunately for my employer, that would mean retraining about 80\% of our employees after spending several man-years and 7 figures upgrading or replacing some of our critical software, while the same people doing the upgrade/replacement are trying to support the old version.
Except the "upgrade" option hasn't been released yet by the vendor, so we're kind of stuck there on timing anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28265501</id>
	<title>FEBE</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1244561640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, it's a bit more work than a customized install, but you can already accomplish this pretty easily. Just distribute the FEBE<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xpi and a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.fbu backup of the profile as you want it. Fire up the fresh Firefox install, install the FEBE extension, and restore the profile from the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.fbu backup.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , it 's a bit more work than a customized install , but you can already accomplish this pretty easily .
Just distribute the FEBE .xpi and a .fbu backup of the profile as you want it .
Fire up the fresh Firefox install , install the FEBE extension , and restore the profile from the .fbu backup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, it's a bit more work than a customized install, but you can already accomplish this pretty easily.
Just distribute the FEBE .xpi and a .fbu backup of the profile as you want it.
Fire up the fresh Firefox install, install the FEBE extension, and restore the profile from the .fbu backup.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261767</id>
	<title>Didn't Netscape have this about 15 years ago?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244484960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't Netscape have this about 15 years ago?   I guess the difference is it was commercial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't Netscape have this about 15 years ago ?
I guess the difference is it was commercial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't Netscape have this about 15 years ago?
I guess the difference is it was commercial.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261717</id>
	<title>Striking while the iron is hot</title>
	<author>carlzum</author>
	<datestamp>1244484420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Firefox has earned a lot of goodwill among the general population, but it's probably nearing a plateau in terms of brand recognition and new users. MS is starting to close the gap in features and security perception, so now is the time for FF to make some inroads in the enterprise software market. Users migrated to FF because they were dissatisfied with IE. If Modzilla solves shortcomings in IE for businesses and organizations they'll make some traction. If everyone's generally happy with IE, I don't see any new features that will compel them to invest in the change.
<br> <br>
I do see a lot of companies using login scripts to control IE settings, and Active Directory's group policies tend to be an all-or-none (no plug-ins or all plug-ins, can't change homepage or can change it to anything, etc.) so there may be a few things Mozilla can improve on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox has earned a lot of goodwill among the general population , but it 's probably nearing a plateau in terms of brand recognition and new users .
MS is starting to close the gap in features and security perception , so now is the time for FF to make some inroads in the enterprise software market .
Users migrated to FF because they were dissatisfied with IE .
If Modzilla solves shortcomings in IE for businesses and organizations they 'll make some traction .
If everyone 's generally happy with IE , I do n't see any new features that will compel them to invest in the change .
I do see a lot of companies using login scripts to control IE settings , and Active Directory 's group policies tend to be an all-or-none ( no plug-ins or all plug-ins , ca n't change homepage or can change it to anything , etc .
) so there may be a few things Mozilla can improve on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox has earned a lot of goodwill among the general population, but it's probably nearing a plateau in terms of brand recognition and new users.
MS is starting to close the gap in features and security perception, so now is the time for FF to make some inroads in the enterprise software market.
Users migrated to FF because they were dissatisfied with IE.
If Modzilla solves shortcomings in IE for businesses and organizations they'll make some traction.
If everyone's generally happy with IE, I don't see any new features that will compel them to invest in the change.
I do see a lot of companies using login scripts to control IE settings, and Active Directory's group policies tend to be an all-or-none (no plug-ins or all plug-ins, can't change homepage or can change it to anything, etc.
) so there may be a few things Mozilla can improve on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28265529</id>
	<title>Corporate Software</title>
	<author>UnseenEnigma</author>
	<datestamp>1244561760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I write a web application for corporate environments and browser compatibility is sometimes a bitch.  With over half the browsers in corporate networks still using IE6 I am forced to develop code that works on IE6, IE7 , IE8, FF, Safari.  I have found that the other major browsers like opera, chrome and konqueror just plain work.  IE6 (and to a lesser degree IE7) is holding back the internet and tieing developers hands with insane CSS or javascript hacks.

I know everyone loves to slam IE but despite being slow IE8 has good enough standards support that it doesn't need hacks any more to work.

The problem with the current browser wars is that their are so many combinations.  If it takes QA an hour to test a change once - it will take them an entire day to test it on the top 8 browsers.  If we could mandate the client platform FF would be a great choice but whoever these vendors that only support IE6 are need to get off their asses because its giving me a headache every day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I write a web application for corporate environments and browser compatibility is sometimes a bitch .
With over half the browsers in corporate networks still using IE6 I am forced to develop code that works on IE6 , IE7 , IE8 , FF , Safari .
I have found that the other major browsers like opera , chrome and konqueror just plain work .
IE6 ( and to a lesser degree IE7 ) is holding back the internet and tieing developers hands with insane CSS or javascript hacks .
I know everyone loves to slam IE but despite being slow IE8 has good enough standards support that it does n't need hacks any more to work .
The problem with the current browser wars is that their are so many combinations .
If it takes QA an hour to test a change once - it will take them an entire day to test it on the top 8 browsers .
If we could mandate the client platform FF would be a great choice but whoever these vendors that only support IE6 are need to get off their asses because its giving me a headache every day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I write a web application for corporate environments and browser compatibility is sometimes a bitch.
With over half the browsers in corporate networks still using IE6 I am forced to develop code that works on IE6, IE7 , IE8, FF, Safari.
I have found that the other major browsers like opera, chrome and konqueror just plain work.
IE6 (and to a lesser degree IE7) is holding back the internet and tieing developers hands with insane CSS or javascript hacks.
I know everyone loves to slam IE but despite being slow IE8 has good enough standards support that it doesn't need hacks any more to work.
The problem with the current browser wars is that their are so many combinations.
If it takes QA an hour to test a change once - it will take them an entire day to test it on the top 8 browsers.
If we could mandate the client platform FF would be a great choice but whoever these vendors that only support IE6 are need to get off their asses because its giving me a headache every day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263275</id>
	<title>More browsers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244545680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So now when I buy a new Dell I will have DellFox?<br>When I buy HP I will have HewletFox?<br>When I buy IBM I will have IBMFox installed?</p><p>Great, can't wait to see mayham when every vendor will be releasing theirs own ff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So now when I buy a new Dell I will have DellFox ? When I buy HP I will have HewletFox ? When I buy IBM I will have IBMFox installed ? Great , ca n't wait to see mayham when every vendor will be releasing theirs own ff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So now when I buy a new Dell I will have DellFox?When I buy HP I will have HewletFox?When I buy IBM I will have IBMFox installed?Great, can't wait to see mayham when every vendor will be releasing theirs own ff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261363</id>
	<title>And in the Linux world ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244480760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if this will spawn a trend where every single distro ships with thier own branded firefox version.   Meaning that in distro reviews, we'll have the mandatory screenshot of the login screen art, the defualt desktop background, and the firefox branding.  Great.</p><p>I would welcome this for Arch, though, we have to rebuild firefox from source or we're stuck with the ugly "built from source code" icons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if this will spawn a trend where every single distro ships with thier own branded firefox version .
Meaning that in distro reviews , we 'll have the mandatory screenshot of the login screen art , the defualt desktop background , and the firefox branding .
Great.I would welcome this for Arch , though , we have to rebuild firefox from source or we 're stuck with the ugly " built from source code " icons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if this will spawn a trend where every single distro ships with thier own branded firefox version.
Meaning that in distro reviews, we'll have the mandatory screenshot of the login screen art, the defualt desktop background, and the firefox branding.
Great.I would welcome this for Arch, though, we have to rebuild firefox from source or we're stuck with the ugly "built from source code" icons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263961</id>
	<title>Re:Spinning an outstanding deficiency</title>
	<author>deadsquid</author>
	<datestamp>1244553720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The intent is to get to a place where we can do just that. The challenge is creating MSI's that can do that without relying on the registry for configuration changes (Firefox keeps all of its configuration directives - with the exception of some plugin registrations - in the appdir and user profile). It's a solvable problem that requires some concerted effort, and I'm always interested in hearing what kinds of configuration options the provisioning groups within an enterprise are looking for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The intent is to get to a place where we can do just that .
The challenge is creating MSI 's that can do that without relying on the registry for configuration changes ( Firefox keeps all of its configuration directives - with the exception of some plugin registrations - in the appdir and user profile ) .
It 's a solvable problem that requires some concerted effort , and I 'm always interested in hearing what kinds of configuration options the provisioning groups within an enterprise are looking for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The intent is to get to a place where we can do just that.
The challenge is creating MSI's that can do that without relying on the registry for configuration changes (Firefox keeps all of its configuration directives - with the exception of some plugin registrations - in the appdir and user profile).
It's a solvable problem that requires some concerted effort, and I'm always interested in hearing what kinds of configuration options the provisioning groups within an enterprise are looking for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261409</id>
	<title>Nice idea... but I already know how this will end</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1244481120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even more than before, ISPs will push "their" own flavor of a browser that comes bundled with those godforsaken coasters that unsuspecting victims dump into their machines, only to end up with an IE (or FF from now on, too) that blatantly advertises the ISP, rehijacks the "favorite browser" position every time you rip it from him and stuff all kind of browser addons into it that you strangely cannot get rid of anymore due to miraculously missing deinstall routines.</p><p>I like the idea. No really, I do. But this is what it will be (ab)used for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even more than before , ISPs will push " their " own flavor of a browser that comes bundled with those godforsaken coasters that unsuspecting victims dump into their machines , only to end up with an IE ( or FF from now on , too ) that blatantly advertises the ISP , rehijacks the " favorite browser " position every time you rip it from him and stuff all kind of browser addons into it that you strangely can not get rid of anymore due to miraculously missing deinstall routines.I like the idea .
No really , I do .
But this is what it will be ( ab ) used for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even more than before, ISPs will push "their" own flavor of a browser that comes bundled with those godforsaken coasters that unsuspecting victims dump into their machines, only to end up with an IE (or FF from now on, too) that blatantly advertises the ISP, rehijacks the "favorite browser" position every time you rip it from him and stuff all kind of browser addons into it that you strangely cannot get rid of anymore due to miraculously missing deinstall routines.I like the idea.
No really, I do.
But this is what it will be (ab)used for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261733</id>
	<title>Re:ActiveX</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244484660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Enterprises support IE because it runs ActiveX controls. Until FF does this, it will not appear in desktop builds for the majority of Corporate America.</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, what SHOULD happen is that companies need to stop using those old ActiveX controls. Otherwise eventually companies are going to find themselves in a situation where they run one browser and the rest of the world runs something else!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Enterprises support IE because it runs ActiveX controls .
Until FF does this , it will not appear in desktop builds for the majority of Corporate America.Actually , what SHOULD happen is that companies need to stop using those old ActiveX controls .
Otherwise eventually companies are going to find themselves in a situation where they run one browser and the rest of the world runs something else !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enterprises support IE because it runs ActiveX controls.
Until FF does this, it will not appear in desktop builds for the majority of Corporate America.Actually, what SHOULD happen is that companies need to stop using those old ActiveX controls.
Otherwise eventually companies are going to find themselves in a situation where they run one browser and the rest of the world runs something else!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263337</id>
	<title>Why don't Distros do this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244546580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe I'm missing something, but I've yet to see a "burn install CD with current configuration" button, or similar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I 'm missing something , but I 've yet to see a " burn install CD with current configuration " button , or similar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I'm missing something, but I've yet to see a "burn install CD with current configuration" button, or similar.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261671</id>
	<title>Re:Opera did this too</title>
	<author>samexner</author>
	<datestamp>1244483760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But Opera isn't open source. That's what makes Opera unappealing for some people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But Opera is n't open source .
That 's what makes Opera unappealing for some people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Opera isn't open source.
That's what makes Opera unappealing for some people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28270457</id>
	<title>Re:ActiveX</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1244580120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Enterprises support IE because it runs ActiveX controls. Until FF does this<br><br>It's not 1998 anymore, dude.  Everyone, including Microsoft, has finally caught on to the fact that if you're using a global public network like the internet, where you can't trust all the data the user's going to view, allowing stuff like ActiveX is doubleplusunwise.<br><br>Firefox isn't going to run ActiveX controls.  IE is going to *stop* running ActiveX controls.  They're phasing it out gradually through a long multi-version staged deprecation, but they *are* phasing it out.  Even IE6 no longer downloads and installs unsigned controls by default like IE used to do in the Completely Stupid Days (back when Outlook automatically executed attached code when you previewed the message, remember that?).  IE6 doesn't install them by default, and IE7 tightened things up further, and IE8 restricts ActiveX even more.  In another couple of versions, ActiveX will be totally completely unsupported.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Enterprises support IE because it runs ActiveX controls .
Until FF does thisIt 's not 1998 anymore , dude .
Everyone , including Microsoft , has finally caught on to the fact that if you 're using a global public network like the internet , where you ca n't trust all the data the user 's going to view , allowing stuff like ActiveX is doubleplusunwise.Firefox is n't going to run ActiveX controls .
IE is going to * stop * running ActiveX controls .
They 're phasing it out gradually through a long multi-version staged deprecation , but they * are * phasing it out .
Even IE6 no longer downloads and installs unsigned controls by default like IE used to do in the Completely Stupid Days ( back when Outlook automatically executed attached code when you previewed the message , remember that ? ) .
IE6 does n't install them by default , and IE7 tightened things up further , and IE8 restricts ActiveX even more .
In another couple of versions , ActiveX will be totally completely unsupported .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Enterprises support IE because it runs ActiveX controls.
Until FF does thisIt's not 1998 anymore, dude.
Everyone, including Microsoft, has finally caught on to the fact that if you're using a global public network like the internet, where you can't trust all the data the user's going to view, allowing stuff like ActiveX is doubleplusunwise.Firefox isn't going to run ActiveX controls.
IE is going to *stop* running ActiveX controls.
They're phasing it out gradually through a long multi-version staged deprecation, but they *are* phasing it out.
Even IE6 no longer downloads and installs unsigned controls by default like IE used to do in the Completely Stupid Days (back when Outlook automatically executed attached code when you previewed the message, remember that?).
IE6 doesn't install them by default, and IE7 tightened things up further, and IE8 restricts ActiveX even more.
In another couple of versions, ActiveX will be totally completely unsupported.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28262789</id>
	<title>Re:Opera did this too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244539680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I prefer non-open source software when possible. Even closed source freeware generally has higher quality than anything open source. I do find it strange and I'm not sure why it is like this. Perhaps too many people with different ideas for how to code working on the same project is causing conflicts? Maybe open source developers just aren't as motivated or don't take as much pride as freeware developers? I honestly don't know.</p><p>Personally, I use Opera and could not see myself using anything else in the near future. It has a ton of built in features, all of which I like, in a small and fast package. I don't care if it's open source because it already does everything I want my browser to do. I've used Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome, Safari and none of them are quite as good or polished.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer non-open source software when possible .
Even closed source freeware generally has higher quality than anything open source .
I do find it strange and I 'm not sure why it is like this .
Perhaps too many people with different ideas for how to code working on the same project is causing conflicts ?
Maybe open source developers just are n't as motivated or do n't take as much pride as freeware developers ?
I honestly do n't know.Personally , I use Opera and could not see myself using anything else in the near future .
It has a ton of built in features , all of which I like , in a small and fast package .
I do n't care if it 's open source because it already does everything I want my browser to do .
I 've used Internet Explorer , Firefox , Chrome , Safari and none of them are quite as good or polished .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer non-open source software when possible.
Even closed source freeware generally has higher quality than anything open source.
I do find it strange and I'm not sure why it is like this.
Perhaps too many people with different ideas for how to code working on the same project is causing conflicts?
Maybe open source developers just aren't as motivated or don't take as much pride as freeware developers?
I honestly don't know.Personally, I use Opera and could not see myself using anything else in the near future.
It has a ton of built in features, all of which I like, in a small and fast package.
I don't care if it's open source because it already does everything I want my browser to do.
I've used Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome, Safari and none of them are quite as good or polished.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261955</id>
	<title>BBYOB</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244486940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the first B stands for "Bring Your Own Compiler"...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the first B stands for " Bring Your Own Compiler " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the first B stands for "Bring Your Own Compiler"...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261473</id>
	<title>Of course it's open source...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244481600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone can build their own browser based on Firefox, like I did with <a href="http://www.torfox.org/screenshots.php" title="torfox.org" rel="nofollow">Torfox</a> [torfox.org]. It's basically a mashup of Tor and Firefox with changes in the Firefox socket code to force it to always use Tor for DNS lookups and connections plus changes to the startup and shutdown code so it starts and stops Tor on a non-default socks port. Though, compiling Firefox can take hours so I wouldn't suggest it if you have a weak stomach. I'm still trying to upload the code to the SVN but TortoiseSVN keeps choking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone can build their own browser based on Firefox , like I did with Torfox [ torfox.org ] .
It 's basically a mashup of Tor and Firefox with changes in the Firefox socket code to force it to always use Tor for DNS lookups and connections plus changes to the startup and shutdown code so it starts and stops Tor on a non-default socks port .
Though , compiling Firefox can take hours so I would n't suggest it if you have a weak stomach .
I 'm still trying to upload the code to the SVN but TortoiseSVN keeps choking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone can build their own browser based on Firefox, like I did with Torfox [torfox.org].
It's basically a mashup of Tor and Firefox with changes in the Firefox socket code to force it to always use Tor for DNS lookups and connections plus changes to the startup and shutdown code so it starts and stops Tor on a non-default socks port.
Though, compiling Firefox can take hours so I wouldn't suggest it if you have a weak stomach.
I'm still trying to upload the code to the SVN but TortoiseSVN keeps choking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28262229</id>
	<title>Debian?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244489940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, so that's the real reason they stopped Debian redistributing firefox as firefox -- they were readying for this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , so that 's the real reason they stopped Debian redistributing firefox as firefox -- they were readying for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, so that's the real reason they stopped Debian redistributing firefox as firefox -- they were readying for this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261259</id>
	<title>Opera did this too</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1244479860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least they used to.  Starting with Opera 7 you could import a set of bookmarks, setup the home page, etc. and then distribute your own customized version of Opera.  Good to see Firefox starting to consider this as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least they used to .
Starting with Opera 7 you could import a set of bookmarks , setup the home page , etc .
and then distribute your own customized version of Opera .
Good to see Firefox starting to consider this as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least they used to.
Starting with Opera 7 you could import a set of bookmarks, setup the home page, etc.
and then distribute your own customized version of Opera.
Good to see Firefox starting to consider this as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261355</id>
	<title>ActiveX</title>
	<author>Green Light</author>
	<datestamp>1244480700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Enterprises support IE because it runs ActiveX controls. Until FF does this, it will not appear in desktop builds for the majority of Corporate America.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Enterprises support IE because it runs ActiveX controls .
Until FF does this , it will not appear in desktop builds for the majority of Corporate America .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enterprises support IE because it runs ActiveX controls.
Until FF does this, it will not appear in desktop builds for the majority of Corporate America.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261331</id>
	<title>Not for us</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244480400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dunno,  I work for a Fortune 100 company and we use IE because all the crappy "enterprise" software we run requires stupid ActiveX or JavaScript or whatever that only runs on IE6.  Good luck to FireFox, but customizations ain't got nothing to do with it where I work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno , I work for a Fortune 100 company and we use IE because all the crappy " enterprise " software we run requires stupid ActiveX or JavaScript or whatever that only runs on IE6 .
Good luck to FireFox , but customizations ai n't got nothing to do with it where I work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno,  I work for a Fortune 100 company and we use IE because all the crappy "enterprise" software we run requires stupid ActiveX or JavaScript or whatever that only runs on IE6.
Good luck to FireFox, but customizations ain't got nothing to do with it where I work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28265511</id>
	<title>Re:Not for us</title>
	<author>MrMunkey</author>
	<datestamp>1244561640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We have an enterprise app that requires IE.  I tried IE tab, but it crashes Firefox every time I try and load it.  It's riddled with ActiveX.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have an enterprise app that requires IE .
I tried IE tab , but it crashes Firefox every time I try and load it .
It 's riddled with ActiveX .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have an enterprise app that requires IE.
I tried IE tab, but it crashes Firefox every time I try and load it.
It's riddled with ActiveX.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28262539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28262441</id>
	<title>Re:Opera did this too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244578740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good to see an 'Opera did this too ages ago' post that isn't followed by a complaint.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good to see an 'Opera did this too ages ago ' post that is n't followed by a complaint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good to see an 'Opera did this too ages ago' post that isn't followed by a complaint.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28274393</id>
	<title>Does this include patching/upgrading/managing?</title>
	<author>sys\_mast</author>
	<datestamp>1244561220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It says that it will be deployable, I can deploy any<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.EXE today. Is it going to ENFORCE company standards for those settings, or is this just a lame, change the defaults?</p><p>Will it support pushing minor patches? will it support major upgrades? or does that require a full re-install?</p><p>Will it support managing the settings of the application sort of like group policy can for IE? (even if it's not AD integrated)</p><p>-me</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It says that it will be deployable , I can deploy any .EXE today .
Is it going to ENFORCE company standards for those settings , or is this just a lame , change the defaults ? Will it support pushing minor patches ?
will it support major upgrades ?
or does that require a full re-install ? Will it support managing the settings of the application sort of like group policy can for IE ?
( even if it 's not AD integrated ) -me</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It says that it will be deployable, I can deploy any .EXE today.
Is it going to ENFORCE company standards for those settings, or is this just a lame, change the defaults?Will it support pushing minor patches?
will it support major upgrades?
or does that require a full re-install?Will it support managing the settings of the application sort of like group policy can for IE?
(even if it's not AD integrated)-me</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261669</id>
	<title>Re:Opera did this too</title>
	<author>Seumas</author>
	<datestamp>1244483760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Netscape did this over a decade ago with Mission Control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Netscape did this over a decade ago with Mission Control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Netscape did this over a decade ago with Mission Control.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263585</id>
	<title>Re:ActiveX</title>
	<author>jalefkowit</author>
	<datestamp>1244549760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Enterprises support IE because it runs ActiveX controls. Until FF does this, it will not appear in desktop builds for the majority of Corporate America.</p></div></blockquote><p>People make this argument -- "enterprises" won't use Firefox until it has feature X, or Y, or Z -- a lot, and it's just wrong.</p><p>"Enterprises" are lagging indicators because their IT staff are generally guided primarily by risk aversion. Even if Firefox was 100\% bug-compatible with IE, they wouldn't switch, because IE runs their crappy, poorly written "enterprise applications" well enough today. Why take a chance by switching?</p><p>No, the way new technologies get into the enterprise isn't by chasing features, it's by being <i>so insanely useful that the users start demanding it, no matter what the IT people want.</i> </p><p>Example: the PC didn't make its way into big business back in the 70s because Apple re-engineered the Apple II to play nicely with VAXes; it made its way in because users bought them on their own dime, brought them into work, dumped 'em on their desks and told the IT staff "I need this to get my work done. Deal with it."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Enterprises support IE because it runs ActiveX controls .
Until FF does this , it will not appear in desktop builds for the majority of Corporate America.People make this argument -- " enterprises " wo n't use Firefox until it has feature X , or Y , or Z -- a lot , and it 's just wrong .
" Enterprises " are lagging indicators because their IT staff are generally guided primarily by risk aversion .
Even if Firefox was 100 \ % bug-compatible with IE , they would n't switch , because IE runs their crappy , poorly written " enterprise applications " well enough today .
Why take a chance by switching ? No , the way new technologies get into the enterprise is n't by chasing features , it 's by being so insanely useful that the users start demanding it , no matter what the IT people want .
Example : the PC did n't make its way into big business back in the 70s because Apple re-engineered the Apple II to play nicely with VAXes ; it made its way in because users bought them on their own dime , brought them into work , dumped 'em on their desks and told the IT staff " I need this to get my work done .
Deal with it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enterprises support IE because it runs ActiveX controls.
Until FF does this, it will not appear in desktop builds for the majority of Corporate America.People make this argument -- "enterprises" won't use Firefox until it has feature X, or Y, or Z -- a lot, and it's just wrong.
"Enterprises" are lagging indicators because their IT staff are generally guided primarily by risk aversion.
Even if Firefox was 100\% bug-compatible with IE, they wouldn't switch, because IE runs their crappy, poorly written "enterprise applications" well enough today.
Why take a chance by switching?No, the way new technologies get into the enterprise isn't by chasing features, it's by being so insanely useful that the users start demanding it, no matter what the IT people want.
Example: the PC didn't make its way into big business back in the 70s because Apple re-engineered the Apple II to play nicely with VAXes; it made its way in because users bought them on their own dime, brought them into work, dumped 'em on their desks and told the IT staff "I need this to get my work done.
Deal with it.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261845</id>
	<title>Re:Opera did this too</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1244485620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And more appealing for other people.  Corporate management can be weird.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And more appealing for other people .
Corporate management can be weird .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And more appealing for other people.
Corporate management can be weird.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263967</id>
	<title>Re:Not for us</title>
	<author>pr0nbot</author>
	<datestamp>1244553780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's a bizarre thought... is it time for an open source IE6 clone?

1. Provide a drop-in replacement for enterprise IE6
2. Provide upgrades with strict backwards-compatibility but a managed way forwards
3. Converge with mainstream browsers</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a bizarre thought... is it time for an open source IE6 clone ?
1. Provide a drop-in replacement for enterprise IE6 2 .
Provide upgrades with strict backwards-compatibility but a managed way forwards 3 .
Converge with mainstream browsers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a bizarre thought... is it time for an open source IE6 clone?
1. Provide a drop-in replacement for enterprise IE6
2.
Provide upgrades with strict backwards-compatibility but a managed way forwards
3.
Converge with mainstream browsers</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263935</id>
	<title>Re:Not for us</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1244553480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would that be any different than just using IE? IETab runs a native session of IEXPLORE inside Firefox, so...

<br> <br>

In fact, this can actually be worse considering that IT departments will have to test Firefox working with their images and everything else...

<br> <br>

The real solution is to make intranet applications cross-browser compatible, which is much easier said than done.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would that be any different than just using IE ?
IETab runs a native session of IEXPLORE inside Firefox , so.. . In fact , this can actually be worse considering that IT departments will have to test Firefox working with their images and everything else.. . The real solution is to make intranet applications cross-browser compatible , which is much easier said than done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would that be any different than just using IE?
IETab runs a native session of IEXPLORE inside Firefox, so...

 

In fact, this can actually be worse considering that IT departments will have to test Firefox working with their images and everything else...

 

The real solution is to make intranet applications cross-browser compatible, which is much easier said than done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28262069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261639</id>
	<title>Re:And in the Linux world ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244483460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doesn't Debian already do this with Iceweasel..err I mean <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU\_IceCat" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">IceCat</a> [wikipedia.org]?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't Debian already do this with Iceweasel..err I mean IceCat [ wikipedia.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't Debian already do this with Iceweasel..err I mean IceCat [wikipedia.org]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261815</id>
	<title>Fine, but...</title>
	<author>c\_g\_hills</author>
	<datestamp>1244485380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>What would be more useful to enterprises who want to distribute Firefox is an MSI package and a group policy template - like the version distributed by FrontMotion (Firefox Community Edition).</htmltext>
<tokenext>What would be more useful to enterprises who want to distribute Firefox is an MSI package and a group policy template - like the version distributed by FrontMotion ( Firefox Community Edition ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would be more useful to enterprises who want to distribute Firefox is an MSI package and a group policy template - like the version distributed by FrontMotion (Firefox Community Edition).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263969</id>
	<title>Re:ActiveX</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244553780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Additionally, contrary to "popular" belief, Internet Explorer has actually been a decent product since version 7.0; web sites render quicker and more accurately, and security is actually acceptable, especially under Vista.
<br> <br>
With this in mind, IT departments or their overseers will probably lack the need to switch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Additionally , contrary to " popular " belief , Internet Explorer has actually been a decent product since version 7.0 ; web sites render quicker and more accurately , and security is actually acceptable , especially under Vista .
With this in mind , IT departments or their overseers will probably lack the need to switch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Additionally, contrary to "popular" belief, Internet Explorer has actually been a decent product since version 7.0; web sites render quicker and more accurately, and security is actually acceptable, especially under Vista.
With this in mind, IT departments or their overseers will probably lack the need to switch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263387</id>
	<title>Re:Not for us</title>
	<author>Wolfraider</author>
	<datestamp>1244547240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would absolutely love to run Firefox on all our pc's at work. The only problem is those few IE only website that wont work in ieTabs. One good example is Altiris Help Desk. The plugin they use to draw a grid view will not work in ieTab. I do know that there has been a bug report files with the developers of ieTab.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would absolutely love to run Firefox on all our pc 's at work .
The only problem is those few IE only website that wont work in ieTabs .
One good example is Altiris Help Desk .
The plugin they use to draw a grid view will not work in ieTab .
I do know that there has been a bug report files with the developers of ieTab .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would absolutely love to run Firefox on all our pc's at work.
The only problem is those few IE only website that wont work in ieTabs.
One good example is Altiris Help Desk.
The plugin they use to draw a grid view will not work in ieTab.
I do know that there has been a bug report files with the developers of ieTab.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28262069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261289</id>
	<title>code words</title>
	<author>Panzor</author>
	<datestamp>1244480100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BYOB = bring your own beer. Somehow the firefox party invites got out to the public...must be the new guy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BYOB = bring your own beer .
Somehow the firefox party invites got out to the public...must be the new guy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BYOB = bring your own beer.
Somehow the firefox party invites got out to the public...must be the new guy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261265</id>
	<title>haha</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244479860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>lol at "ohnoitskdawson" tag. definitely better than my kdawsonisatroll tag.</htmltext>
<tokenext>lol at " ohnoitskdawson " tag .
definitely better than my kdawsonisatroll tag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lol at "ohnoitskdawson" tag.
definitely better than my kdawsonisatroll tag.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263499</id>
	<title>Re:ActiveX</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244548860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not just activeX, it's policy that can be configured centrally and pushed onto laptops somehow. Like it or not a lot of corporations use Active Directory and the ability to configure IE enterprise wide, or for a particular group of users and have that policy updated when they logon is a godsend. Then there's the ability to whitelist or blacklist extensions by policy, provision certificates and root CAs by policy, support for kerberos and windows authentication in a seamless manner etc. etc. Saying it's all down to ActiveX is a lazy excuse, Firefox needs way more than that and a "build your own branded browser" is an ISP feature, not an enterprise feature</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just activeX , it 's policy that can be configured centrally and pushed onto laptops somehow .
Like it or not a lot of corporations use Active Directory and the ability to configure IE enterprise wide , or for a particular group of users and have that policy updated when they logon is a godsend .
Then there 's the ability to whitelist or blacklist extensions by policy , provision certificates and root CAs by policy , support for kerberos and windows authentication in a seamless manner etc .
etc. Saying it 's all down to ActiveX is a lazy excuse , Firefox needs way more than that and a " build your own branded browser " is an ISP feature , not an enterprise feature</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just activeX, it's policy that can be configured centrally and pushed onto laptops somehow.
Like it or not a lot of corporations use Active Directory and the ability to configure IE enterprise wide, or for a particular group of users and have that policy updated when they logon is a godsend.
Then there's the ability to whitelist or blacklist extensions by policy, provision certificates and root CAs by policy, support for kerberos and windows authentication in a seamless manner etc.
etc. Saying it's all down to ActiveX is a lazy excuse, Firefox needs way more than that and a "build your own branded browser" is an ISP feature, not an enterprise feature</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261437</id>
	<title>Spinning an outstanding deficiency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244481360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So instead of offering one browser that can be configured by Group Policy in an Enterprise IT deployment they offer a web service to generate hard-coded branded browser installers?  Sounds like a lot of work to avoid implementing what IT managers really want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So instead of offering one browser that can be configured by Group Policy in an Enterprise IT deployment they offer a web service to generate hard-coded branded browser installers ?
Sounds like a lot of work to avoid implementing what IT managers really want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So instead of offering one browser that can be configured by Group Policy in an Enterprise IT deployment they offer a web service to generate hard-coded branded browser installers?
Sounds like a lot of work to avoid implementing what IT managers really want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261653</id>
	<title>Re:ActiveX</title>
	<author>Techman83</author>
	<datestamp>1244483640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Enterprises support IE because it runs ActiveX controls. Until FF does this, it will not appear in desktop builds for the majority of Corporate America.</p></div><p>Then they need to find: <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1419" title="mozilla.org">IE TAB</a> [mozilla.org] <br> <br>Get the best of both worlds, pretty trivial to add sites to the list of IE sites and it all happens automatically. Been building a plan to migrate to FF completely in my spare time. Build your own browser will make a huge difference as currently I'm relying on some custom scripts to make the app deployable and maintainable. It works, but I hate to admit that it just aint as easy as using the registry or belting links into the favourites folder. Unfortunately all the native text processing tools in windows suck, so managing things the *nix way just doesn't work!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Enterprises support IE because it runs ActiveX controls .
Until FF does this , it will not appear in desktop builds for the majority of Corporate America.Then they need to find : IE TAB [ mozilla.org ] Get the best of both worlds , pretty trivial to add sites to the list of IE sites and it all happens automatically .
Been building a plan to migrate to FF completely in my spare time .
Build your own browser will make a huge difference as currently I 'm relying on some custom scripts to make the app deployable and maintainable .
It works , but I hate to admit that it just aint as easy as using the registry or belting links into the favourites folder .
Unfortunately all the native text processing tools in windows suck , so managing things the * nix way just does n't work !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enterprises support IE because it runs ActiveX controls.
Until FF does this, it will not appear in desktop builds for the majority of Corporate America.Then they need to find: IE TAB [mozilla.org]  Get the best of both worlds, pretty trivial to add sites to the list of IE sites and it all happens automatically.
Been building a plan to migrate to FF completely in my spare time.
Build your own browser will make a huge difference as currently I'm relying on some custom scripts to make the app deployable and maintainable.
It works, but I hate to admit that it just aint as easy as using the registry or belting links into the favourites folder.
Unfortunately all the native text processing tools in windows suck, so managing things the *nix way just doesn't work!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261355</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0052232_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28264879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0052232_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28270531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0052232_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28262069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0052232_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0052232_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28270457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0052232_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28262441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0052232_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0052232_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28262069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0052232_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0052232_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0052232_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28264567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28262539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28262069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0052232_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0052232_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28265511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28262539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28262069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0052232_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0052232_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0052232_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0052232_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0052232_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0052232_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28262475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0052232_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28262789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0052232_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28262069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0052232_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28264525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0052232.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261409
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0052232.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261463
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28270531
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0052232.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261639
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0052232.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28270457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28264525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261733
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261841
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263383
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28264879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263585
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0052232.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263337
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0052232.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28262475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263961
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0052232.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261717
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0052232.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261473
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0052232.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28262069
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263883
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28262539
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28264567
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28265511
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263387
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263967
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0052232.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28262441
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261671
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28262789
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261845
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0052232.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261643
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0052232.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28261263
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0052232.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0052232.28263053
</commentlist>
</conversation>
