<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Deploying Firefox 2 within the Enterprise: Answering Some Questions</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mike.kaply.com/2007/03/19/deploying-firefox-2-within-the-enterprise-answering-some-questions/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mike.kaply.com/2007/03/19/deploying-firefox-2-within-the-enterprise-answering-some-questions/</link>
	<description>Mozilla, money, microformats and more</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 05:27:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: mkaply</title>
		<link>http://mike.kaply.com/2007/03/19/deploying-firefox-2-within-the-enterprise-answering-some-questions/#comment-233</link>
		<dc:creator>mkaply</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:34:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kaply.com/weblog/2007/03/19/deploying-firefox-2-within-the-enterprise-answering-some-questions/#comment-233</guid>
		<description>&gt; I see your point regarding custom fixes, but would it not have been better to
&gt; solve the root cause of the problem (the printer driver) rather than work
&gt; around it in Firefox anyway.

Unfortunately it was much harder to get the print team to create a fix and deploy it. As a matter of fact, to this day, I still don&#039;t think it is deployed. And unfortunately, that buggy driver was replicated to Dell printers, Lexmark printers, etc. so people outside IBM were seeing it as well.

In the end, because we had a much better distribution mechanism (and less users to upgrade inside of IBM), it made sense to put the &quot;fix&quot; in Firefox.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt; I see your point regarding custom fixes, but would it not have been better to<br />
&gt; solve the root cause of the problem (the printer driver) rather than work<br />
&gt; around it in Firefox anyway.</p>
<p>Unfortunately it was much harder to get the print team to create a fix and deploy it. As a matter of fact, to this day, I still don&#8217;t think it is deployed. And unfortunately, that buggy driver was replicated to Dell printers, Lexmark printers, etc. so people outside IBM were seeing it as well.</p>
<p>In the end, because we had a much better distribution mechanism (and less users to upgrade inside of IBM), it made sense to put the &#8220;fix&#8221; in Firefox.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian Thomas</title>
		<link>http://mike.kaply.com/2007/03/19/deploying-firefox-2-within-the-enterprise-answering-some-questions/#comment-232</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian Thomas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:10:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kaply.com/weblog/2007/03/19/deploying-firefox-2-within-the-enterprise-answering-some-questions/#comment-232</guid>
		<description>I see your point regarding custom fixes, but would it not have been better to solve the root cause of the problem (the printer driver) rather than work around it in Firefox anyway.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I see your point regarding custom fixes, but would it not have been better to solve the root cause of the problem (the printer driver) rather than work around it in Firefox anyway.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- This Quick Cache file was built for (  mike.kaply.com/2007/03/19/deploying-firefox-2-within-the-enterprise-answering-some-questions/feed/ ) in 0.31826 seconds, on May 16th, 2012 at 11:27 pm UTC. -->
<!-- This Quick Cache file will automatically expire ( and be re-built automatically ) on May 17th, 2012 at 12:27 am UTC -->
