I don't think 1.0 is yet at the "IT Table". It's at the "consumer table" really... IMHO a few things need to happen:

- msi for deployment on windows
- CCK, an easy way to customize things
- patch deployment tool (way to easily apply small things like a new search plugin, extension etc. without a full redeployment). A forced automatic install essentially.
- Ability to lock options (so they appear greyed out in prefs, regardless of profile). So companies can force intranet as homepage for example.
- Documentation!!!!
- Support (pretty much there now, but I think some may appreciate contract support, ie flat fee and have someone there whenever you need it, rather than per instance).

That's what companies want. Easy deployment, control, and information

Don't forget what developer's want: integration. XUL and the Mozilla platform as a whole are great. But there's dozens of great platforms and frameworks. And the only platform a developer cares about is the one he or she already knows.

Integrate with Mono/.Net and you'll get the next generation of programmers.
Integrate with Java and you'll get the enterprise developers.
And don't forget the toolkits: Quartz, QT, and GTK... good luck keeping all of them happy!

I guess the moral of the story is no open source solution can stand on its own. Except OpenOffice.org... but that's just because everyone was desperate for an Office bundle.

Just my 2 cents...

Dickerson's column is really more about the increasing usability of Linux and other non-MS alternatives than it is about Firefox. His main point is that for a long time, alternative operating systems simply lacked the kind of software needed to appeal to the mass market. Linux was only really useful to people who did systems administration for a living. Mac was for artists. Microsoft's strategies had the specific goal of making it the most widely used operating system in the world.

But now this is all on the verge of changing, and Firefox is the prototypical example -- powerful, extremely user friendly software that, most importantly, can be used on any platform. With so many different applications finally reaching a measure of cross-platform standardization (IM clients, Adobe, Word/Star, Firefox), it can only be good for IT. And again, Firefox leads the pack, largely due to its amazingly rapid rate of acceptance by the mass market.

Haven't read his column yet, but I think things will go as follows:

1. Firefox gets substantial market share.

2. Thanks to web standards being deployed more widely, the internet experience will become more streamlined across alternative OSs.

3. Linux and what-have-you OSs will gain marketshare, as will OpenOffice. (The former leading to the latter.)

4. It will become increasingly harder to charge fantazmogorical prices for proprietary software.

Summary: The internet revolutionizes the software industry.

Firefox is really just taking the browser back to usable basics, with some really cool new features in it. It doesn't push the envelope UI-wise, really, it just took all the garbage that AOL had put into Netscape out and made some IE usability changes to cater to IE users (which is natural).

I don't see Firefox as anything that's going to push open source into IT. If IT wants it, it'll likely be because of security more than for any other reason, and the only thing that really makes Firefox more secure is that Microsoft has totally dropped the ball on IE security as well as the fact that IE has such a high usage compared to Firefox's relatively low usage.

Unfortunately, it wouldn't take much to get Microsoft to kick into high gear and deal with the issue that IE is unsecure and stagnating features-wise, and they probably will kick into high gear if Firefox makes any significant inroads. Still, even that'd be a victory for Firefox in a way.

The browser is becoming more and more like a sidewalk. Everyone uses it and it's necessary, but almost no one notices it. It's the content that matters more than the window through which you view it.

Oh, and I don't like the Amiga reference. Opera never was what Amiga was. Amiga was the most powerful machine in its day; Opera was always an uncompelling alternative to IE and Netscape (my opinion) that they for some reason thought people would pay $30 for in a market where browsers were free. Amiga offered video editing in the 1980s, when Mac and PCs were still monochrome dinasaurs (Mac only got artists after Commodore croaked and before PCs could handle multimedia properly).

Opera was, to my knowledge, never really any more powerful than any other browser out there (excepting tabbed browsing, which it may even have had first); I think it was more a vestige of the Internet bubble than anything else, and for some reason it hasn't gone away yet.

Oh, one addition to my previous post: if Firefox has any real potential to change the world other than a marginal chance to help push standards-compliant browsers on PCs, it's on non-PC devices. That market is ripe for the kill, and it's there that the next and last "browser war" will be fought; that may be our last chance to stop Microsoft from owning the Web. Go Minimo!

Generally speaking, even if Firefox hits 50% share it will have just moderate influence on open-source software. Of course, if other software improves to have usability of Firefox, then it will have influence, but that's another story I guess. Even Thunderbird failed to learn from Firefox with its cluttered interface, that requires a lot adjustment to be fully usable.

It will have more influence on things Microsoft bundles with Windows as Media Player software, as people may recognize that they can get better software than they have.

I'd prefer to compare Opera to Mac OS. The Amiga metaphor has dark connotations. Opera is a quality application that appeals to a certain demographic and that's worth its premium price.

Yes, Opera had tabbed browsing first. It also had mouse gestures first, page-wide zoom first, automatic post-crash session restoration first, a UI alternate stylesheet switcher first, and a sensible three-state graphics toggle first.

It is still way easier to customize than Firefox. To move the tabbar to the left side of the screen, I just right-click on it and select Customize. In Firefox, I have to find whatever the right extension is this week, pray that it's stable, and wade through its third-party interface. Gah.

@James Russell:

For example, I paid for the best IMO, the most innovative browser (Opera). And I'm very satisfied with it. I also tried Firefox 2 times, for free, but I was dissapointed. K-meleon is much better.

So seems like Opera Software was right when they thought that some people will find Opera superiour and will pay for it. Try to sell Firefox, LOL.

Robert: I thought there was the ability to lock options. At least it's there with seamonkey and I would expect it in Fx too. It's just not documented at mozilla.org, but you can refer to http://www.opensourceschools.org/article.php?story=20030326162402253&mode=print for instance.

Asa: you suggest that Firefox will open the minds for cross-platformness. But even Netscape 1.0b was already cross-platform. Microsoft could blow away Netscape by just making their browser free of charge and establishing their own "standards".

Thus, while it is great that Firefox fills the gap that Netscape left, lots of the Firefox' success is due to the fact that there is no IE development since years. If MS would start investing power into new features of IE and at the same time find new ways to break standards, it would be a hard time for Firefox.

Opera is awesome! I love it! The best out there and the Suite of features is awesome!

The keyboard shortcuts, mouse gestures, voice commands, database mail client, etc….. wow!

39 minutes into the show … interview with Opera CEO: http://www.webtalkguys.com/mp3/webtalk-7-3-2004.mp3

Also,

http://tntluoma.com/opera/lover/7/
http://www.opera.com/features/
http://nontroppo.org/wiki/WhyOpera
http://www.gungfu.de/facts/archives/2004/11/22/why-i-love-opera/

Firefox needs to have more of the basic features that are present in Mozilla installed by default. At present, Firefox compares unfavorably with Mozilla for ease of use/ease of configuration "out of the box" which is the way the majority of users are most likely to use it.

It is a profound and fundamental mistake to target Firefox only at corporate IT personnel as appears to be the current policy.

Even Mozilla compares unfavorably to Internet Explorer in terms of the things it does for the typical user.

For all the time, money and effort which has been spent on the project the result is disappointing. It is little wonder that the corporate sponsors wanted out.