The need for a more activist, integrated Mozilla

Mozilla writes and helps foster communities that assist in writing some of the best open-source code on the planet. Where Mozilla fails is as an activist voice, trumpeting to the world just how exceptional the products it builds can be. I'm not sure if this is a fault with the Mozilla Corporation or the Mozilla Foundation, but we need a more vocal Mozilla.

We also need a Mozilla that integrates much better with the existing software world. Read: the proprietary software world.

BusinessWeek notes that Mozilla is making efforts to improve upon its 2% market share in China. It's starting campus programs, among other things, to boost awareness of Firefox. But according to the article, most Chinese simply want their browser pre-bundled and pre-configured with a wide range of options. Microsoft and those companies building browsers based on the IE kernel are doing that. Mozilla? Not so much.

Back in the West, Linux Insider notes that Mozilla's biggest problem is its lack of corporate outreach:

Mozilla has thus far neglected to develop tools to help IT departments deploy and manage Firefox, and it doesn't offer paid technical support services to risk-averse corporate users. "The enterprise is looking for a neck to choke, and that is absolutely what is missing from Firefox," said Ebron, a former product manager for Firefox and its predecessor, Netscape Navigator.

Somewhat surprisingly, Mozilla apparently has little interest in catering to enterprise needs, needs that include integration with proprietary technology like Active Directory, as pooh-poohed by Mozilla's Chris Hoffman.

He dismissed Active Directory as a "proprietary technology" that would hurt rather than help Firefox administrators. "Multiple levels of permissions applied across different groups adds a lot of complexity," he said. "If you look at the track record for that feature, it's resulted in less security for IE."

Maybe, maybe not. The point is that so long as Mozilla remains committed to burrowing into its safe little bunker with little appreciation for the needs of real users, it will cram itself into the role of perennial also-ran. One need not give up the ideals of open source to integrate with the rest of the world.

I use Firefox, though I used to swear by Safari. (I've long despised IE as slow, clunky, and a security trap.) I started using it for only one reason: CNET requires it for its blogging tool. Over time (and once I had skinned it to look just like Safari and optimized it to run almost as fast as Safari), I've come to appreciate its adaptability and pluggability. But it took a forward-looking organization to force me into the change.

Most organizations don't have this attribute. They're conservative. For such, it's important to introduce a Firefox that appreciates and respects the old world while pulling users into the new world. Mozilla doesn't do this well.

But even if it did, we'd never know, since Mozilla isn't good about talking publicly about all the good it's doing. I hope it finds an executive director of the Mozilla Foundation who will bring the corporate perspective to bear on the organization. Not to drown out its existing voices, but to augment and amplify them.

[chustar]

(I've long despised IE as slow, clunky, and a security trap.)
Jeez, man. Cool down. You don't want to turn into another macelope, do you?

[Matt Asay]

Lol. I think I'm already there. I really have disliked IE for a Very Long Time. I didn't start out intending to dislike Microsoft technology. It just happened (except for Office and Outlook, both of which I still like).

[gkanai]

Preface: I work for Mozilla in the Tokyo office.

Matt, please let me comment on some of your statements.

"Where Mozilla fails is as an activist voice, trumpeting to the world just how exceptional the products it builds can be."

I appreciate the sentiment, but I think characterizing Mozilla with "fails as an activist voice" is inaccurate. 150 million active users worldwide, over 30% of Firefox built by our community, every localization (40+) except the US-English one built by our community, in the face of what is a de facto monopoly of the PC desktop and browser, speaks to how active our community is and how hard we all work to make Firefox a success. That doesn't mean that we can't do better- we can and we will.

"most Chinese simply want their browser pre-bundled and pre-configured with a wide range of options. Microsoft and those companies building browsers based on the IE kernel are doing that. Mozilla? Not so much."

Would Mozilla like to be pre-bundled on computers? Of course, but it isn't free. We have done so in the past (see Packard-Bell) but it is a pay-to-pre-bundle situation and to date we have largely chosen not to use our resources in that manner.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nitot/381859841/

"Somewhat surprisingly, Mozilla apparently has little interest in catering to enterprise needs"

Mozilla's focus on the consumer computer user (i.e. not the enterprise) is a considered and strategic decision from the very origins of the organization. I think it is safe to say that Mozilla would not have been as successful as we are today if we had to cater to both the consumer as well as the enterprise, two very different sets of users. You may be familiar with Mozilla's manifesto, which outlines our core principles that guide our actions.
http://www.mozilla.org/about/mozilla-manifesto.html

While Mozilla is firmly focused on the consumer, that does not preclude others from using Firefox in the enterprise and building on top of Firefox to cater to the enterprise. Mike Kaply and others are working in this area at the Mozilla Enterprise Working Group.
http://wiki.mozilla.org/Enterprise

As you know well, the beauty of OSS is that Mozilla can be focused on the consumer and if a business wants to build support for X or Y or Z open standard or protocol, they can do that via an add-on, or a custom build, or even submit it into the trunk. That said, historically Mozilla looks very critically upon any patch that would add support for a proprietary standard or protocol (e.g. Active Directory.)

"The point is that so long as Mozilla remains committed to burrowing into its safe little bunker with little appreciation for the needs of real users, it will cram itself into the role of perennial also-ran."

Again, I'd say that 150 million active users worldwide, well over 40 community-contributed localizations and more on the way, over 30% of the code base contributed by the community, and over 3000 community-contributed add-ons shows more than a, "little appreciation for the needs of real users." Are enterprise users the only "real users" of the Internet? I think many would disagree with that description.

"But even if it did, we'd never know, since Mozilla isn't good about talking publicly about all the good it's doing."

As I said earlier, we can do better than we are doing, and we are actively making changes from the the top of our organization in order to better promote our successes. John Lilly moving to be CEO of Mozilla Corporation will allow Mitchell Baker to do more promotion and activism around Mozilla and Firefox. That said, more than anything else, we need to have a great browser, a supportive and active community, and users who have selected Firefox for it's merits. We are working on that first and foremost and appreciate your support.

[Matt Asay]

All good points, but the fact that Mozilla has a great community (no argument there) doesn't respond to my core arguments:

1. Mozilla is not very good at articulating just how good it is and why people should use it and
2. In conjunction with #1, Mozilla needs to respond to enterprise concerns.

Ultimately, your consumer users also work for enterprises, or many of them. What good does it do Mozilla or open source if it's only the toy one uses at home but the real work at the office is done with IE? People like me will use Firefox because we prefer it and don't care with IT thinks. But most people will take the browser given to them.

With your 150 million users, you should be beating on the doors of Dell, HP, etc. to be prebundled. Get them to see beyond the initial prebundling fee to how much of their software businesses they're ceding to Microsoft because they're allowing Microsoft to lock out competition at the browser-gateway. I'm not naive - I know this is hard work. But if you don't open up the browser for the enterprise, who will? And if you don't, we'll be stuck with IE which gives Microsoft the privileged position on the enterprise application battlefield going forward.

now that I've been rambling on, I'm starting to see that it's not just Mozilla's job to carry the torch, but also application vendors like myself. But it would help if we had more interaction with Mozilla so that we carry the torch together, rather than separately.

Anyway, thanks for commenting.