Mozilla To Launch "Build Your Own Browser" 171
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."
Re:Opera did this too (Score:3, Interesting)
Out of curiosity, when chronologically was this? I know I was building customized Internet Explorer 4 browsers using an NT 4 IEAK back in '98.
I'm sort of vaguely remembering a comparable feature involving Netscape about then, also?
By the way. I still think IE4 didn't suck in comparison to the competition when it came out. As a matter of fact, I would say that about Microsoft in general up until mid/late 2000. They got really squirrelly about then.
Evil and monopolistic, sure. but in a useful way.
Re:Not for us (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
There's even more to it than that. The WebBrowser COM/.NET control is the IE control. Even if you manage to supplant IE as the browser of choice, all code which embeds the COM or .NET wrapped COM control depends on it. So for example, the Windows Shell and the help system, and Windows Update, Windows Media Player, third party apps integrating the system WebBrowser such as WinAmp, etc.
The Internet Explorer browser itself is really just a light weight set of UIs wrapped around the standard WebBrowser COM/ActiveX control. It's actually pretty fun to write .NET code that interacts with the WebBrowser. You can add some interesting features like web page scrapers, etc.
Nice idea... but I already know how this will end (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Of course it's open source... (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
I do this already (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:You might not be focusing on the right target.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Clearly it can be done - I'm betting that Hong Jen Yee would be up for a nice paycheck for this kind of work.
Re:You might not be focusing on the right target.. (Score:3, Interesting)
I prefer the "Best of Both Worlds" approach. Free to deploy our browser of choice and no fighting with vendors that will state that IEx is a requirement so bad luck.
It will also make pathways towards using more cross platform software, anything that can break the dependencies is a "Good Thing".
Re:Not for us (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not for us (Score:1, Interesting)
ieTab doesn't work in Linux because there's no IE to load in the tab in Linux.
My Linux/Wine/IE6 install says otherwise.
(Used once every few months to check that some site that doesn't work in Firefox etc. is also broken in IE)
Re:Why don't Distros do this? (Score:1, Interesting)
You can do this via Gentoo's catalysis.
Re:Not for us (Score:3, Interesting)
IMO, IEtab for Linux is actually a great idea. Currently people use IEs4linux or just plain WINE or a virtualisation environment - having an IEtab for linux that can seamlessly hook into a virtualised / WINE version of IE could be useful for those migrating from a Microsoft OS to a Linux distro or those doing testing with IE.
Bonus marks if it virtualises IE6/IE7/IE8 and allows compatibility modes too and only shows as a tab in FF none of the virtualisation env being revealed.
Currently I use dual-boot and virtualbox (for web design compat. testing), which I'd need to keep on with but an IEtab4linux could aid brief testing.
Re:Flash (Score:1, Interesting)
They all do that. Most call it by a euphamism like "dinner and a movie" and others are more honest about what they are doing. But just about all women want the money up-front, preferably in cash.
You got trolled, nothing more, nothing less. If you were gay and the troll knew it, he'd talk about faggots. If you were black and the troll knew it, he'd talk about niggers. If you were religious and the troll knew it, he'd bash your religion. You're a female and the troll knew it, so he talked what he talked about because IT WAS EFFECTIVE ON YOU. It worked. It got that knee-jerk emotional "I'm going to tell him off" reaction that the troll badly wanted. You played right into his hands. Good job. This is why women can't get their shit together online; they are their own worst enemies, just like they are offline. Offline they are their own worst enemies by dating "bad boy" types and then complaining when those badasses turn out to be abusive (who'd have thunk it? a biker with a long violent criminal record, abusive? what a shock!). Online, they are their own worst enemies by taking everything so goddamned personally, something no one who knows anything about online forums is going to do.
Thank you for showing that offline or online, women still haven't gotten over themselves. Trolls exist. Trolls are willing to troll anyone and everyone, you are not some exception or unheard-of case, though you might be a bigger target now that you have proven you will react and get all upset... now get over it and most of all get over yourself and that sense of entitlement that you have. You know, that sense of entitlement you get when you're at least a little attractive and everyone is extra-nice to you all of your life because of it? Yeah, that. It has no place here. You're better off without it anyway, it only stunts the character growth (which is why so many beautiful women are immature) and makes you think that the purpose of a relationship is to make you an object of worship. Women think that's so much better than being a sex object. An object of worship is still just an object, meaning you can never relate in a healthy way so long as you believe in it.