Story http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1592952/zero-day-flaw-firefox is coming up linked to the foot of this one. Are you standing by the story of a fatal flaw in Firefox 3.6 as originally published, or is it time to update the page and say, "Er, millions of Firefox PCs aren't being hacked, maybe it was a mistake"?

Today's captcha text is KAZAPY, which I find strangely joyful.

http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid39_gci1079515,00.html describes one consultant switching a corporate client from MSIE to Firefox when it was about brand new - talking about "last year" dated 2005, I think they mean 2004 (you see?)

Google has "about 15,200 results for {Firefox "corporate customers"}", but a lot of those are not actually reports of corporate customers of Firefox. But there are some, and they have particular needs.

What is this Mozzarella wiki page? Spell checker gone wild?

My ISP advises firefox and I noticed various DVD's included with hardware such as motherboards come with firefox too, so it seems main-stream enough now that even corporations got wind, so yes I see it as likely corporations even internally mandate and support FF.
And of course during the recent IE vulnerability panic various government advisory departments even advised firefox.

@ Amateur: What???? Support for 3.0 will end, but support for 3.6 the current version will continue as usual!

BTW...3.6 was released on January 21, 2010. So if you have not updated, now would be a good time to do so.

@ Robert Carnegie: Corporate Customers for Firefox? I did not know that Corporate Customers existed for Firefox!

Because as far as I can see, Firefox 3.6(.0) is the current version. I therefore assume that only older versions had the problem you refer to (perhaps 3.5 also?) and 3.6 doesn't need an update yet. Watch this space ;-)

3.5.* is still in use in some places perhaps mainly because 3.6 doesn't agree with some third party add-ins. 3.0.* I am not sure why, maybe because corporate users were promised a program with a long maintenance life with no major revisions - thus it survives alongside 3.5 and 3.6 releases? Or because on less popular platforms they only finished porting it the week before?

It's utterly appalling that any large company should discontinue support for version 3 of something before version 4 is even out.