Microsoft Update Slips In a Firefox Extension

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Update Slips In a Firefox Extension

Posted by kdawson on Sunday February 1, 2009 @03:45PM from the hitch-hiker dept.

An anonymous reader writes "While doing a weekly scrub of my Windows systems, which includes checking for driver updates and running virus scans, I found Firefox notifying me of a new add-on. It's labelled 'Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant,' and it 'Adds ClickOnce support and the ability to report installed .NET versions to the web server.' The add-on could not be uninstalled in the usual way. A little Net searching turned up a number of sites offering advice on getting rid of the unrequested add-on." The unasked-for extension has been hitchhiking along with updates to Visual Studio, and perhaps other products that depend on .NET, since August. It appears to have gone wider recently, coming in with updates to XP SP3.

803 comments

malware.... by gchesney0001 · 2009-02-01 15:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

Remember Sony?

--
Bite me
1. Re:malware.... by ScrewMaster · 2009-02-01 15:49 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Remember Sony?
  Yes. Trying not to.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
2. Re:malware.... by houstonbofh · 2009-02-01 15:50 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Remember Sony?
  Unfortunately, for most people the answer is no... For me it is which time? The CD-ROM Trojan, or the secure thumb drive Trojan?
3. Re:malware.... by eebra82 · 2009-02-01 16:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I wouldn't class Sony's rootkit 'malware' as much as it was a security risk. This is not even remotely close to how stupid Sony's decision was.
  
  Having said that, I wonder if this update is stated anywhere in the ToA.
  
  --
  Full Tilt
4. Re:malware.... by __aaclcg7560 · 2009-02-01 16:05 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  No, no, no. The grandparent meant the original Sony Walkman. :P
5. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 16:22 · Score: 0
  
  That woman hiding out in the abandoned building across town maybe ugly, fat, mentally challenged, have rotting teeth, and covered in sores but she is still a female. In the same respect SONY rootkit is still malware. Her and those associated with the developement and distribution of the SONY rootkit should change places in life as they are more deserving of her problems then she likely is.
6. Re:malware.... by Lendrick · 2009-02-01 16:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Who's to say this thing isn't a security risk? Microsoft?
  Of course, we don't *know* that this software is bad, but my policy with my own machine is that if I don't know what something does, it doesn't run on my computer, which is why my computer still runs smoothly even though I haven't reinstalled Windows for several years.
  For those of you who are assuming it's probably safe (and admittedly, you're probably right), there's another good reason to get rid of it. Microsoft changing your browser string to indicate that this piece of software is installed in your browser. The purpose of this, most likely, is to increase the installed base for this software, and use that as an argument to ush whatever new web technology they're pushing. Now that non-IE browsers account for 30% of the total browsers on the internet, Microsoft is losing their stranglehold on web "standards", and they're pulling this crap to get it back.
  Don't be a part of it. Remove this plugin, then go into about:config and change your browser string back so it doesn't falsely advertise that you have it installed.
  Oh, and as far as Firefox goes... why is the uninstall button grayed out? This feels like a UI issue to me; principals of user-friendliness dictate that I ought to be in control of whether or not I can uninstall an add-on. Even having code in the browser that allows someone to take that freedom away from me is a bad thing. (Of course, is it really Firefox's fault? Is there a technical reason that Firefox *can't* uninstall the plugin?)
7. Re:malware.... by mR.bRiGhTsId3 · 2009-02-01 16:46 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Firefox cannot uninstall plugins that are installed to "sensitive" areas, like the actual Program Files folder. Skype does this also. It shouldn't prevent you from disabling the add-on though.
8. Re:malware.... by Thinboy00 · 2009-02-01 16:52 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  If you install something (e.g. an extension) via apt or (I assume) rpm on Linux, Firefox can't uninstall it since it isn't running as root. In that scenario, the button is grayed out with no explanation. But, of course, you can always ask apt/rpm to remove the offending software, or not install it in the first place...
  
  --
  $ make available
9. Re:malware.... by Lendrick · 2009-02-01 16:56 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Interesting... Would it be possible to change Firefox in such a way that it refuses to recognize those plugins that it can't install?
10. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 16:57 · Score: 0
  
  Are you sure he didn't mean "Sonny" ? That's what my grandparents always mean.
11. Re:malware.... by digitalchinky · 2009-02-01 16:59 · Score: 0
  
  I wish I could forget but that's all grandma will talk about if you mention computers.
  -- comment shamelessly stolen from someone else.
12. Re:malware.... by BZ · 2009-02-01 17:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You could, but that would basically mean the system administrator can't make extensions available system-wide. A tradeoff, of course, and assumes that you trust your system administrator somewhat...
13. Re:malware.... by dmomo · 2009-02-01 17:16 · Score: 1
  
  Seeing as "Sony Walkman" only rings a bell to your grandparents... that comment was quite fitting :)
14. Re:malware.... by whoever57 · 2009-02-01 17:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Firefox cannot uninstall plugins that are installed to "sensitive" areas, like the actual Program Files folder.
  
  So why didn't MS enable removal through the "add or remove programs" mechanism?
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
15. Re:malware.... by ildon · 2009-02-01 17:46 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't know the Walkman installed DRM/malware.
16. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 17:46 · Score: 0
  
  10$ says this is an antitrust violation, and gets called out by the EU.
17. Re:malware.... by StuartHankins · 2009-02-01 17:46 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The fact that this unwanted addon is NOT visible in Add/Remove Programs, and this was done to a 3rd party program smells like an attempt at sabotage.
  
  I'm not aware of any other Windows updates targeting 3rd party software.
18. Re:malware.... by Culture20 · 2009-02-01 17:55 · Score: 1
  
  Even when FF is running under an admin account? There should never be a grayed-out uninstall button in FF. Let the filesystem determine security on the files. If the uninstall fails because the user doesn't have permission, then an error message should be displayed.
19. Re:malware.... by ozphx · 2009-02-01 17:55 · Score: 1
  
  Because its an update? Check the damn 'show updates' box.
  
  --
  3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
20. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 18:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "if I don't know what something does, it doesn't run on my computer" ...but you use a closed operating system?
21. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 18:16 · Score: 0
  
  but my policy with my own machine is that if I don't know what something does, it doesn't run on my computer
  That's bullshit and you know it. That's just something those who believe they know more than they really know say. I guarantee you don't know what every dll or every binary is doing in your favorite OS. Not to mention that I know you don't know what's really going on in all those drivers, etc. There's every bit as much reason to believe there is no malware in this add-on as there is to believe there's no malware in every other DLL Microsoft provides. Anything less is biased.
22. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 18:16 · Score: 0
  
  10$ says you will end up 20$ shorter.
  All this does is extend some functionality of a program into a program that was previously incompatible. If anything, the EU will applaud it because it reduces a reliance on MS IE- A goal they have been working on for a while now.
23. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 18:17 · Score: 0
  
  Could Firefox cryptographically sign its plugins, therefore making Windows add-on installations a circumvention device.
24. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 18:30 · Score: 0
  
  I'll take you up on that bet, since no one has taken me up on the first!
25. Re:malware.... by Arker · 2009-02-01 18:33 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  So why didn't MS enable removal through the "add or remove programs" mechanism?
  For the same reason they went to so much trouble to wire IE too deeply into the system to remove it.
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
26. Re:malware.... by johannesg · 2009-02-01 18:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  there's another good reason to get rid of it. Microsoft changing your browser string to indicate that this piece of software is installed in your browser. The purpose of this, most likely, is to increase the installed base for this software, and use that as an argument to ush whatever new web technology they're pushing. Now that non-IE browsers account for 30% of the total browsers on the internet, Microsoft is losing their stranglehold on web "standards", and they're pulling this crap to get it back.
  This. It doesn't very often happen that a point is so important that I feel the need to quote it entirely and just add a "me too", but this is one of those very rare occasions.
  They have just hijacked every Firefox install out there, and are using it to advertise their own product. The only appropriate response would be for Mozilla to automatically refuse it from Firefox with the next Firefox update.
27. Re:malware.... by Workaphobia · 2009-02-01 18:47 · Score: 1
  
  Firefox likes to be retarded that way. Certain configuration keys can be changed via the about:config GUI but only reverted by text editing.
  
  --
  Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
28. Re:malware.... by Antony-Kyre · 2009-02-01 18:51 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Is there any difference between Microsoft doing that to Firefox, and Microsoft doing that popup blocker with Internet Explorer when someone does the SP2 update? Or how they force a firewall on you?
  You see, Microsoft is akin to a proctologist. Sticking things where they don't belong.
29. Re:malware.... by Lendrick · 2009-02-01 18:53 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Touche.
  A touch of vulgar honesty for you: I don't give two shits if my policy is "biased". I don't do it out of a sense of fairness; I do it to keep my computer running smoothly, and here in the real world, my strategy works, even if it's not ideologically perfect.
  I'm not a huge fan of Microsoft, but my choice is either to run their OS or give up a lot of software that, quite frankly, I enjoy using (mostly games). I use Linux when I can, but unfortunately that's not all the time.
30. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 18:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The true question here is not how to uninstall it. The question everyone should be asking is: is it messing with other settings in firefox, reporting back to MS what other extensions I use, monitoring my web traffic, going to break my browser, new security holes? Maybe I don't want my f'ing browser to report what other software is installed on my computer.
  How about this one: Ok Microsoft, you are making automatic changes to software written by other companies without permission or request of the user. I don't care if you say it's just an extension, you didn't ask me! My trust just went right down the toilet.
  Note: I noticed this extension the other night on a system in VMWare but I haven't had a chance to look into it yet.
  In all fairness I think Microsoft should be forced to open source things they want to add on to NON MS applications. That way people can go take a look... Especially when you don't ask the user permission.
  Are there any legality issues with what they just did here?
31. Re:malware.... by aussie_a · 2009-02-01 19:15 · Score: 1
  
  Your computer might be secure, but it also sounds like you've got no life if you have read the source code to every single program installed on your computer.
  Although I'd love to know where you legally got the source code for Internet Explorer (as you admit to using a Microsoft OS).
32. Re:malware.... by westyvw · 2009-02-01 19:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  There is a lesson there somewhere.....
  
  I would give up Microsoft Windows....but I like playing games.....
33. Re:malware.... by Amazing+Quantum+Man · 2009-02-01 19:27 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I did. I can't find "Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant" anywhere.
  
  --
  Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
34. Re:malware.... by iminplaya · 2009-02-01 20:07 · Score: 1
  
  Who?
  
  --
  What?
35. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 20:11 · Score: 0
  
  Are there any legality issues with what they just did here?
  Depends on whether shrink-wrap EULAs are considered valid or not. If so, then no, they didn't do anything illegal, you agreed in the Windows EULA that your machine basically belongs to Microsoft. If not, then yes, it's illegal.
36. Re:malware.... by Drinking+Bleach · 2009-02-01 20:14 · Score: 1
  
  No, because then you'd defeat the whole purpose of the add-on system.
37. Re:malware.... by Thiez · 2009-02-01 20:20 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Be honest. Have you read the source code of EVERY program you run, and of your operating system? Did you understand all of it? If you have read it all and understand it all, you're either running very few programs and a tiny, simple OS, or you have way too much free time. 'Knowing what someting does' is not a black-and-white thing. To get a good analogy: I can use a car and understand most of its parts without fully understanding the atoms it's made of, or how the car was made. Odds are GP is someone who knowns what all processes on his computer do, even if he doesn't know precisely how they do it. You create a false dichotomy by suggesting it is only possible to know what your programs do when you run an open source operating system.
38. Re:malware.... by iminplaya · 2009-02-01 20:22 · Score: 1
  
  You see, Microsoft is akin to a proctologist. Sticking things where they don't belong.
  Well, in the case of the proctologist, that could be in your ear.
  
  --
  What?
39. Re:malware.... by stephanruby · 2009-02-01 20:23 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I'm kind of torn on this. On one hand, it's Microsoft, but on the other hand they seem to be competing directly with Amazon's one-click button technology.
40. Re:malware.... by mpeskett · 2009-02-01 20:32 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Which of those was the good thing?
41. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 21:23 · Score: 0
  
  Great tip. I've gone into about:config and changed the infected UA string to something MS hadn't anticipated.
42. Re:malware.... by AnonChef · 2009-02-01 21:37 · Score: 1
  
  There is a lesson there somewhere.....
  I would give up Microsoft Windows....but I like playing games.....
  Sigh.. Me to.
43. Re:malware.... by Yvanhoe · 2009-02-01 21:44 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Because malware usually disable this feature.
  
  --
  The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
44. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 21:49 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You trusted MS?
  I don't trust even Google, that swears by their company they won't 'be evil'.
45. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 21:53 · Score: 0
  
  If your systems administrator is evil, you are toast, no matter what you do :-)
46. Re:malware.... by gbjbaanb · 2009-02-01 21:57 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  they don't want you to accidentally buy a Zune, or Windows 7. ClickOnce is a deployment techno... oh, hang on.. suddenly I'm not sure I got the first bit right.
47. Re:malware.... by Arslan+ibn+Da'ud · 2009-02-01 22:01 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  How about this one: Ok Microsoft, you are making automatic changes to software written by other companies without permission or request of the user. I don't care if you say it's just an extension, you didn't ask me! My trust just went right down the toilet.
  Don't worry, just flush. You'll have some more trust in about 20-30 hours.
  (I'm only half-joking)
  
  --
  Practice Kind Randomness and Beautiful Acts of Nonsense.
48. Re:malware.... by gbjbaanb · 2009-02-01 22:02 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  For those of you who are assuming it's probably safe (and admittedly, you're probably right)
  the problem isn't this software in itself (though its pretty bad that the OP got it installed without realising), the software works as a deployment technology - from wikipedia "ClickOnce enables the user to install and run a Windows application by just clicking a link in a web page."
  So, once you have this software, its an open-door to installing thin-client .NET applications with just a single click. And we all know how well that'll work out!
49. Re:malware.... by L4t3r4lu5 · 2009-02-01 22:04 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Yeah, it's rape.
  
  They violated my open FireFox with their dirty corporate extension.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
50. Re:malware.... by Linker3000 · 2009-02-01 22:21 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I AM my system administrator, you insensitive clod.
  Oh, and no, I don't trust myself!
  
  --
  AT&ROFLMAO
51. Re:malware.... by pr100 · 2009-02-01 22:37 · Score: 1
  
  ... but my policy with my own machine is that if I don't know what something does, it doesn't run on my computer ...
  So... you know exactly what windows does then?
52. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 22:42 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  The only appropriate response would be for Mozilla to automatically refuse it from Firefox with the next Firefox update.
  I have a better idea, let Firefox add an "extension" to Microsoft Office that improves its usability by downloading and starting OpenOffice when the user starts MS Office.
53. Re:malware.... by Ed+Avis · 2009-02-01 23:07 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  is it messing with other settings in firefox, reporting back to MS what other extensions I use, monitoring my web traffic, going to break my browser, new security holes?
  If they wanted to do that, they wouldn't be so stupid as to make it an extension that's clearly visible in the Firefox preferences. Since Microsoft control the operating system and can push out updates for it, any trojan they wanted to install would be much more stealthy.
  If you run Microsoft Windows then you accept that you run whatever software Microsoft chooses to put on your machine, and without source code you have little hope of finding out exactly what it's doing. If you do not trust Microsoft, I suggest you uninstall Windows from your computer right now.
  
  --
  -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
54. Re:malware.... by hairyfeet · 2009-02-01 23:10 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  How so? I mean pretty much everybody hosts their plugins on Mozilla's servers anyway. They get seen more there, and it is trivial to update through the Mozilla extension updater if they are hosted on Mozilla's servers. And I haven't seen Mozilla pull an extension unless it was malware. I mean they had an Abe Vigoda plugin, so pretty much anything goes. So all they would have to do is sign the plugins after the developers upload them to their servers. But by signing them they could set some ground rules on extension installation, like always asking for permission and always having a functional uninstaller. So how would this be a bad idea? Because I'm just not seeing the downside here.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
55. Re:malware.... by kitgerrits · 2009-02-01 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  I check all my running processes, startup programs and enabled services on a regular basis.
  There's only a few of those that I don't know what they 'do for me'.
  Slimming down that list takes a serious amount of research, so as not to break something you might actually use
  (Try tracking down why uPnP starts even though it is set to manual, SOMETHING requested its services)
  
  --
  "I was in love with a beautiful blonde once, dear. She drove me to drink. It's the one thing I am indebted to her for."
56. Re:malware.... by nazsco · 2009-02-01 23:35 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Mod parent up. That's the whole point. You install binary crap from a provider you don't trust. So, don't complain. It's not like at this day and age there's still a gun pointed to you to use Windows (in the past i may recognize there were, but not today)
57. Re:malware.... by nazsco · 2009-02-01 23:40 · Score: 0
  
  agree. if an extension is not there, with public comments. then something is wrong.
58. Re:malware.... by nazsco · 2009-02-01 23:44 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  oh man, why do you post anonymously? I'd befriend you for your analogy capabilities and finesse. Like an ugly, fat, mentally challenged, not so full of rotting teeth woman rapping a rootkit author in a dark alley during a rainy night.
59. Re:malware.... by nazsco · 2009-02-01 23:47 · Score: 1
  
  just make next firefox update check the exact checksum of this extension and remove it. simply as that. that would be a 3 line patch.
60. Re:malware.... by PReDiToR · 2009-02-01 23:55 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Walkmans installed Madonna, and we still haven't gotten rid of her.
  
  If you like Madonna then feel free to read this joke with Michael Jackson in it instead.
  
  --
  
  Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
61. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 00:09 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  As an added thought - if MS feels free to do this to other Software, how does that impact their EULA - which is written to specifically prevent this sort of behaviour.
  Does this mean that years of piracy/hacking/cracking cases should now be reviewed?
62. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 00:10 · Score: 0
  
  Huh? The Skype extension for Firefox can be uninstalled just fine - at least, I can (I just checked).
  Of course, personally, I prefer to disable it rather than uninstall it, since otherwise, it'll just be back next time I update Skype. But the uninstall button is there, it's not greyed out, and as far as I can tell, it works.
63. Re:malware.... by jonadab · 2009-02-02 00:14 · Score: 1
  
  > My trust just went right down the toilet.
  
  Trust? Dude, this is Microsoft we're talking about.
  
  --
  Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
64. Re:malware.... by squidinkcalligraphy · 2009-02-02 00:15 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  In the case of firefox extensions in apt-based distros, true you can't uninstall the extensions through the browser, but you can disable them.
  
  --
  "I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
65. Re:malware.... by Bert64 · 2009-02-02 00:17 · Score: 1
  
  A popup blocker was a useful feature, and IE was horrendously behind the times not having one...
  And a firewall (ie packet filter) is a standard part of every other os out there (usually built in to the kernel), so again ms were horrendously behind the times by not having one.
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
66. Re:malware.... by epine · 2009-02-02 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention that having the source code doesn't exactly prove anything.
  http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html
  But our geek cred is a little dented around here, so our marionettes content themselves with shouting down the minions of Mordor.
  To the sage wit who suggested uninstalling Microsoft, I suggest also having a go at your BIOS and your Intel microcode CPU update. Then I suggest working through the 10^500 vacuum states of string theory with pencil and paper to ensure we're really as secure as we think we are.
  Concerning this abusive patch, it strikes me that Microsoft has finally turned the corner from fearsome to pathetic.
67. Re:malware.... by FishWithAHammer · 2009-02-02 00:34 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  This add-on enables the XBAP and ClickOnce functionality to work through Firefox instead of just IE. The "M$ SUX LOLOLOLOLOL" crowd should be happy that they rolled it out because it further reduces reliance on IE.
  I imagine they grayed it out because they're trying to make ClickOnce core to the OS without inviting more antitrust horseshit (and rightly, because it's a handy idea that helps address the lack of a package manager for Windows, though adoption has sucked). Calling this a "hijacking" is pretty retarded of you.
  
  --
  "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
68. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 01:01 · Score: 0
  
  Of course, we don't *know* that this software is bad, but my policy with my own machine is that if I don't know what something does, it doesn't run on my computer, which is why my computer still runs smoothly even though I haven't reinstalled Windows for several years.
  You are running Windows. You have much bigger bases of code running your computer of which you don't know what they do.
69. Re:malware.... by coats · 2009-02-02 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  5-10% CPU degradation certainly qualifies as malware in my book. Sony should have been prosecuted for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse statute -- there should be Sony execs doing multiple 5-year sentences in the Federal slammer. If DoJ had made a big deal of it, it would have served strongly to discourage other malware vendors...
  FWIW
  
  --
  "My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
70. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 01:07 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Get rid of that font, man
71. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 01:19 · Score: 0
  
  Looking for my lynx binary...
72. Re:malware.... by nine-times · 2009-02-02 01:25 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  If they wanted to do that, they wouldn't be so stupid as to make it an extension that's clearly visible in the Firefox preferences.
  After some recent events, I'm starting to suspect that Microsoft may indeed be stupid.
73. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 01:33 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Microsoft should be forced to open source things they want to add on to NON MS applications
  You'll be pleased to know that Firefox extensions are written in plaintext javascript/XUL. If you want to 'view the source', just open the .jar in your favourite archiver and browse away.
74. Re:malware.... by windsurfer619 · 2009-02-02 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  On a related note, has anyone ever added software through add/remove ?
75. Re:malware.... by Golddess · 2009-02-02 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed, and to add a little more to what you said, if Mozilla ever did start kicking out non-malware plugins, Firefox could always be forked to remove the limitation of only getting plugins from Mozilla's servers.
  
  Actually.. could a plugin be written to only allow plugins to be installed from Mozilla's servers? If so, does such a plugin already exist?
  
  --
  "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
76. Re:malware.... by ikkonoishi · 2009-02-02 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  Because it isn't a program they consider it a new windows feature.
77. Re:malware.... by Chaos+Incarnate · 2009-02-02 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  "Automatic changes"? This isn't something the OS is installing via a back door, this is part and parcel of other Windows updates. Either the user chose to install it, or they chose to blindly install all Windows updates. Either way, they got what they asked for.
  
  --
  Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
78. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 01:49 · Score: 0
  
  man, you are naive. you trusted M$?
  bad move, space cadet.
79. Re:malware.... by commodore64_love · 2009-02-02 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  >>>Ok Microsoft, you are making automatic changes to software written by other companies
  This is the part I don't understand. Why the HELL does Microsoft think it's okay to modify *other* people's software? I expect MS to randomly upgrade Internet Exploder since it's their product, but why are they fucking with a Mozilla product????? Reminds me of something a virus programmer would do.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
80. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 01:59 · Score: 0
  
  There is a lesson there somewhere.....
  I would give up Microsoft Windows....but I like playing games.....
  sad but true :s
81. Re:malware.... by Ihmhi · 2009-02-02 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  How about this one: Ok Microsoft, you are making automatic changes to software written by other companies without permission or request of the user. I don't care if you say it's just an extension, you didn't ask me! My trust just went right down the toilet.
  You trust Microsoft? You're either very generous or incredibly ignorant of their business practices as a whole.
  I checked through my plugins and extensions, and while I don't have this one in there - yet -I apparently have something called Microsoft DRM Netscape Network Object. This is just stuff for Windows Media Player.
  The only reason - the ONLY reason - I used Windows XP is because I play a lot of games on the PC. Yes, you can get games to work on Linux, and Mac has *some* games, but the majority of them are on the WIndows platform.
  When you have three or four games, no big deal right? Dual boot or whatever. But when you have over a hundred of them (most of which won't work on Mac), you're already heavily invested in Windows.
  I wish there was an Adblock for Windows that kept out stupid Microsoft updates. How long before we see the a WPA Kill style tool to get rid of this?
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
82. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 01:59 · Score: 0
  
  The lesson is: for gamming buy a Wii or a PlayStation, like everybody else.
83. Re:malware.... by commodore64_love · 2009-02-02 01:59 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  >>>they wouldn't be so stupid as to make it an extension that's clearly visible in the Firefox preferences
  Irrelevant. The relevant question is: Why the HELL does Microsoft think it's okay to modify *other* people's software? I expect MS to randomly upgrade Internet Exploder since it's their product, but why are they fucking with a Mozilla product????? Reminds me of something a virus programmer would do.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
84. Re:malware.... by riegel · 2009-02-02 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  Be honest. Have you read the source code of EVERY program you run, and of your operating system?
  No. But I don't read EULA's either. That doesn't mean that EULA should be secret and trusted. I remember a few years back when Apple tried to do something fishy with its EULA for .mac and in less than 24 hours it was being reported widely so I did become aware of even though I probably wouldn't have read it.
  Also remember when the Zune just stopped working on December 31st of this year. The problem was found and corrected within just a few days. Why? Was it because the source to the offending driver was a secret and the company that made it had big hearts and decided to "help" find that pesky bug? No its because the bug was in software that was available for public scrutiny. And the bug was found.
  
  --
  http://p8ste.com - Web based Clipboard
85. Re:malware.... by Ed+Avis · 2009-02-02 02:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I dunno, you could equally well say this shows that Microsoft is starting to accept a multi-browser world and distribute software that works with Firefox and not just IE. If there were no Firefox extension available and you had to use Internet Explorer instead to get this thing to work, there would equally be complaints on Slashdot...
  Remember that the whole point of an extension mechanism is to let third parties modify Firefox. Linux distributions routinely ship patches and modifications to Firefox (and many other applications). And it's not as if no third party software ever installs extensions to Windows...
  
  --
  -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
86. Re:malware.... by Lendrick · 2009-02-02 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't decrease reliance on IE, it increases reliance on Microsoft, because they're pushing this Windows-only application service through a browser that should be cross-platform.
  I don't *want* the ability to run Windows applications over the net, because I don't want to increase the install base of this particular product. There are already several cross-platform ways of distributing applications over the web (Java, Flash, and AJAX, to name a few). We don't need another one, particularly one that locks out non-Microsoft operating systems.
87. Re:malware.... by Culture20 · 2009-02-02 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  Hyperterminal, once
88. Re:malware.... by RiotingPacifist · 2009-02-02 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  add in an about:config override for developers ofc, so if people can choose to accept 3rd party keys.
  
  --
  IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
89. Re:malware.... by DisKurzion · 2009-02-02 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it reduces reliance on IE.
  It also increases reliance on Windows, and .NET in particular.
90. Re:malware.... by poot_rootbeer · 2009-02-02 02:46 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  If they wanted to do [a bunch of Bad Stuff], they wouldn't be so stupid as to make it an extension that's clearly visible in the Firefox preferences.
  What kind of argument is this? "See, Microsoft is totally upfront about what they're secretly installing! All you have to do is open Firefox, go to Tools -> Add-ons -> Extensions -> Local Planning Office -> Dark Basement -> Locked File Cabinet..."
  If you run Microsoft Windows then you accept that you run whatever software Microsoft chooses to put on your machine
  That's not true according to the Windows EULA, nor in a pragmatic sense. The precedent has already been established that the OS can be configured to require the local administrator to give explicit permission for each patch to be applied; the outrage here is that this time, that choice was not offered, and the affected software was neither part of the operating system nor even a Microsoft product.
  There's enough FUD surrounding Microsoft Windows without your contributions to it.
91. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 02:49 · Score: 0
  
  This seems like an antitrust issue. Microsoft is using the fact that they have a large OS market-share to install support for a program which competes with Amazons click-once architecture.
92. Re:malware.... by XcepticZP · 2009-02-02 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  There are literally thousands if not hundreds of thousands of pieces of software that I want to run and guess what, the majority, if not all of them, run only on windows. And as long as the majority of useless crap little apps and games and whatever I bloody choose aren't being developed for Linux, I'll be sticking with windows. I don't want to browse the web, see a cool new app and try install it only to be told that it can only run on another OS. That kind of thing almost never happens to windows.
  
  And your insinuation that Windows users are kids or immature is just plain childish and makes you a hypocrite.
  
  Great going Slashdot for modding the parent +4 Insightful! Not. I should have known better than to expect a Microsoft bashing comment to be modded troll or flamebait.
93. Re:malware.... by Brad+Mace · 2009-02-02 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  If they had asked the user before installing, and not disabled the normal removal, I'd be inclined to agree with you and give them credit for supporting other browsers. But when they sabotage the removal mechanism, I have to suspect the installation is for their benefit more than the user's.
94. Re:malware.... by XcepticZP · 2009-02-02 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  Disable Automatic Windows Updates.
  
  Either you are very dumb, very ignorant, or you've been drinking too much coffee before writing your post. I'm not the type to resort to insults, but come on. You don't know that you can disable Automatic Updates? Every Linux user (except you) knows that; even the ones that don't use Windows.
95. Re:malware.... by rgviza · 2009-02-02 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  Sony who?
  
  --
  Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
96. Re:malware.... by Ed+Avis · 2009-02-02 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  The precedent has already been established that the OS can be configured to require the local administrator to give explicit permission for each patch to be applied; the outrage here is that this time, that choice was not offered,
  Well exactly. Microsoft installed whatever they wanted to install. Like I said, if you run Windows, you have to accept that Microsoft can push updates to your machine and there's very little you can do about it. I don't say that they *should* do it, or that the EULA allows for it; but undeniably they *can*.
  It comes down to trust. Do you trust that Microsoft will not abuse this power? If you do not trust them then you should not run Windows.
  (FWIW, I spotted the same extension on my Windows box last night, as soon as I started Firefox after getting updates - Firefox popped up a box listing the extensions installed. I wouldn't say it was hidden or secret in any way.)
  
  --
  -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
97. Re:malware.... by hesiod · 2009-02-02 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  agree.
  if an extension is not there, with public comments. then something is wrong.
  Correct. Just like no one could possibly be opposed to Apple doing something similar with their App store, making iPhone programs only available in one place...
98. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 03:36 · Score: 0
  
  Microsoft can dick around with their own software all they like, but forcing their extensions into software that doesn't belong to them is rape.
99. Re:malware.... by mckyj57 · 2009-02-02 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  My trust just went right down the toilet.
  It wasn't there already?
100. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 03:38 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, but at least Firefox lets you know where the big bad Microsoft touched it.
101. Re:malware.... by BZ · 2009-02-02 03:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They didn't "sabotage" anything. They simply installed a system-wide extension. If it's not installed in the Firefox profile, Firefox can't very well remove it (especially if the user it's running as is not privileged).
  Note that the "Disable" button works just fine, as it should. Had they really wanted to prevent this thing being disabled, they could have done that too, you know.
102. Re:malware.... by hesiod · 2009-02-02 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  On a related note, has anyone ever added software through add/remove ?
  When installing software on Windows Terminal Server (2000, at least) you have to use that control panel.
103. Re:malware.... by hairyfeet · 2009-02-02 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  You wouldn't even have to go THAT far. Simply have a button under "Tools/Options/Advanced" that said something like "third party extensions unsigned" and have it pop up a little dialog box that explained the risks of running unsigned extensions. This way if the user wants it they can have simply by unchecking one box and hitting okay on the pop up, whereas those of us that would like to not have extensions installed without our permission are protected.
  Because honestly I find this VERY troubling. How many other companies are watching this and waiting to see if MSFT gets busted or not? We have already seen in the past Apple push iTunes as an "update" to Safari or Quicktime, what if they were to decide to add an "extension" that sent you to iTunes whenever you looked for a song in Google? How many other companies would like to get away with an "extension" like this?
  Mozilla needs to take the lead in this, by either calling out MSFT and having a fit in the press or what I believe would be a better decision, signing extensions so they could enforce a basic conduct code. Because for myself and for my customers and those I have talked to online Mozilla's extension framework is THE "killer app" for Firefox and is what keeps us coming back to it over other browsers like Chrome. If the Mozilla extension framework ends up a haven for malware such as this, where folks end up having to spend more and more time hacking their Firefox install to remove rogue BHOs, then it is going to run off their users and seriously damage their reputation. With Firefox usage increasing this is the LAST thing that they need right now. So IMHO Mozilla needs to get in front of this thing and treat it just as you would any other rogue BHO and get on top of this. Because they can ill afford to have their "killer app" turned into a cesspool by companies installing BHOs without the users permission.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
104. Re:malware.... by SenFo · 2009-02-02 03:45 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  ClickOnce is in no way limited to the Windows platform because it's little more than an installation mechanism that is usually hosted on a web server. There is no reason that a Linux system running Mono couldn't install something via ClickOnce. Furthermore, ClickOnce is targeted towards desktop applications. The fact that you mention AJAX implies (to me) that you have the wrong idea about ClickOnce functionality.
  
  --
  My lame blog.
105. Re:malware.... by deroby · 2009-02-02 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Keeping out Microsoft Updates isn't all that difficult, simply turn it off. It will show a warning in your systray, but that's it.
  Sadly, judging by the tone of your entry, I'm assuming you're one of those 'ms-anti-fanboys' who will complain about virtually ANYTHING Microsoft does, or doesn't do. As such I expect the following scenario to happen : You'll switch off Automatic Updates, your system won't get patched any more and you'll turn out to be vulnerable to, well, quite a lot of the nastiness out there. After a while your machine will slow down, you'll go digging and find out that your gaming machine spends half it's CPU time being part of a botnet.
  Not that I care, but by all means, don't come complaining then how "windows is so bloody easily hacked" and "that it's all MS's fault for not being able to write a proper OS".
  Sigh.
  Sure, Windows *isn't* perfect, but I'm seeing just as much of security updates in Ubunto too, haven't heard too many complaints there yet.
  That aside, Microsoft *is* a company and companies tend to care only about their *own* interests, nothing new there. If you'd prefer things to be different then give up your job (or studies) and start your own company that will be the lighting example for the rest off the world. I'm sure the rest of the world will recognize your genius and follow your example and soon the whole of humanity will throw greed and selfness and stuff overboard and we'll all live happily ever-after...
  I'm assuming that with WPA you mean WGA, and frankly, what's wrong with the that piece of software? Judging by the wikipedia entry, it's not quite flawless, BUT I'm having the distinct feeling here that most people complaining about it are in fact running a pirated copy of Windows (aka "hey, I've already paid a four-figures amount for my gfx card, I'm not going to shell out another $99 for an OS!") but do consider themselves 100% eligible to complain about every aspect of given OS.
  Sorry if I got carried away, but the amount of ms-bashing here is way out of proportion vs the amount of "evilness" pointed out by the article. I agree they should have at least offered you the option, but that's not quite how Windows Updates works, and I'm guessing they choose this option to make life easier for the administrators of (largish) networks. On the other hand, removing it will probably break the functionality of some sites, maybe few today, but probably more in the future, and then who will be the first again to start complaining MS does not support open source browsers like eg. Firefox ????
  
  --
  If there is one thing to be learned on slashdot, it has to be sarcasm.
106. Re:malware.... by arekusu_ou · 2009-02-02 04:03 · Score: 0
  
  Probably because this update isn't an update for Firefox. It's an update for .Net framework which I assume you DO have a add/remove.
  They are updating an MS software, .Net that you installed on your own volition. It had a flaw, an incompatibility with Firefox. Due to policy of being more open than they were previously, they decided to address that incompatibility by adding an update for people with .Net.
  Java, Shockwave, and Flash is the same. You don't install 2 different software, one for IE and one for Firefox. You install one, that can either effect both or either. Only caveat is when you install for example Java with IE installed, and then install Firefox, Firefox doesn't have Java installed for it. So you need to reinstall it.
  Hating MS is chic, but lets not all jump to bad conclusions, even if it does seem likely.
107. Re:malware.... by drinkypoo · 2009-02-02 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  100% agreemsg. A signature just proves who signed it, which would be a trillion times better than what we have now. And since Firefox already has a scheme for allowing untrusted certificates for web pages it should be (relatively) trivial to extend the same mechanism to handle signatures on XPIs.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
108. Re:malware.... by Atrox666 · 2009-02-02 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  Sony didn't take a big hit after it commited a criminal act.
  It was allowed to keep making money.
  Microsoft was allowed to keep making money after it pulled this kind crap with Netscape.
  The message to these corporations must be that if you act in this way then sooner or later it will cost money not make money. We are now sending the message that by breaking the law and getting away with it most of the time you will make more money than those who play by the rules.
  The one way we can keep these crooked companies straight is by taking money away. If shareholders aren't making money investing in sleazy companies then the free market will sort them out.
109. Re:malware.... by Ilgaz · 2009-02-02 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Why should one disable automatic windows updates unless he/she is completely suicidal? Do you know the risk of doing it under a production use XP/Vista? Just look to "downandup", it could be prevented by 2 MB of update from Microsoft.
  If you speak about "WGA" etc, it is too late, everyone already got infected by that junk already.
  Stop suggesting people they can disable automatic updates. No, they can't. They use Windows and it is what happens when you use windows. It is not an option anymore.
110. Re:malware.... by Ilgaz · 2009-02-02 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  DRM is part of Windows Media Plugin architecture. It is included even on OS X edition which is completely outdated. If it wasn't included, none of the Wmedia DRM sites would work under Firefox and they would suggest you to use IE instead. That time, many people would flame MS for not supporting Firefox.
  The .NET auto update junk is completely stupid though. There are still people who thinks MS had some sort of revolution and defends their junk, wannabe framework on OSS land but it is another matter.
111. Re:malware.... by furby076 · 2009-02-02 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  In all fairness I think Microsoft should be forced to open source things they want to add on to NON MS applications. That way people can go take a look... Especially when you don't ask the user permission.
  Actually, that is not fair. Fair would be: MS should ask, and only ask once, for your permission. If you say no then it should not install it. Many companies have add-ons from their software to other software without it being open source. It's not unreasonable. As long as you have the option to install it then it is OK.
  
  --
  
  I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
112. Re:malware.... by mysticgoat · 2009-02-02 04:42 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  This is a good point.
  Since copyright infringement is now routinely elevated to the violent robbery of "piracy", then it makes sense that we start calling the insertion of unwanted extensions into our applications "rape".
  The charge is "You have inserted your extension into my application without my consent". Yeah, that's rape.
113. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 04:47 · Score: 0
  
  Do remember that you can't unview it. Proceed at your own risk.
114. Re:malware.... by jafac · 2009-02-02 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  They've not hijacked every firefox installs.
  Just the firefox installs on WINDOWS boxes.
  Not Firefox/Linux, and not Firefox/MacOSX.
  And also, not every Windows Firefox install either. Some of us don't install ALL recommended updates.
  
  --
  
  These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
115. Re:malware.... by plague3106 · 2009-02-02 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm.. Java does the same thing with you install Java. I think it may prompt, if you go through advanced configuration settings.. which most don't.
116. Re:malware.... by XcepticZP · 2009-02-02 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  In a production environment, your systems administrator will be the only one that can install updates. In such a case Automatic Update is disabled and all updates are first checked by the sys admin and then deployed to all the pc's.
  
  Just because you didn't bother to read the description for the WGA update, doesn't mean it was avoidable, because it was. I did read it, and I declined that update and told it never to bother me with it again. Problem solved, and I never got "infected" by it as you so bluntly put it.
  
  If, however, you are talking about the "average Joe", well then Joe has two options. He either disables automatic updates, or he enables it. He doesn't have a third option because he knows very little about computers. And seeing as disabling it completely is a bad idea, then yes, "average Joe" loses one option and is forced to keep it on automatic.
  
  But "average Joe" really wouldn't give a flying donkey's butt about a Firefox add-on. He sees things working, perhaps even better than before, and he stays completely oblivious to the presence of this add-on.
117. Re:malware.... by Risen888 · 2009-02-02 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  I keep a WinXP install around to play Civ4. Yes, I could do something in VirtualBox, but the installation's already there, the game's there, why bother?
  Anyway, what I did (making the very big and probably incorrect assumption that you're not playing games that use the network) is removed all the network services (I was not familiar with the process for doing this before, but found a very handy guide here). Basically cut its balls off, and it's been smooth sailing ever since. Hell, the first time I've had a Windows install last more than two years without slowdowns, still boots up in like 40 seconds, I'm up and playing Civ before I'm done with a cigarette. I can't play multiplayer, but /shrug.
  
  --
  Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
118. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 05:41 · Score: 0
  
  Kudos for honesty.
119. Re:malware.... by Risen888 · 2009-02-02 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, wonderful. Another way to automatically install and run Windows executables over a network, except now it's in Firefox. Great idea, guys. I'm sure that'll work out beautifully for everyone.
  
  --
  Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
120. Re:malware.... by powerlord · 2009-02-02 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  I would give up Microsoft Windows....but I like playing games.....
  That was one of the main reasons I got a PS3.
  My current Windows machine is ~3 years old (and I haven't had to reinstall Windows on it).
  Its chugging along just fine, and I've got a fair amount of older apps and a few games I use on it.
  For most of my gaming needs I prefer the PS3. The plus side has been gaming in front of the TV (which is bigger than my computer monitor), being able to host multiple players (which most of the PC games don't), and being able to sit on the couch/floor, which is much more relaxing sometimes than a chair. :)
  The downside is having to share the TV with my wife, who isn't as much of a gamer.
  
  --
  This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
121. Re:malware.... by repvik · 2009-02-02 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  And what right do they have to change the functionality of my 3rd-party browser without my knowledge and consent?
  What if this has a conflict with a plugin that I have installed previously? What if this plugin makes my browser slower?
  If I switched to FF to get away from the great fucking hole that is IE, why do you think I'd trust MS to make a secure plugin for my browser?
  If they want the plugin available, fine. They can provide the plugin the same way all other FF plugins are provided.
122. Re:malware.... by coolsnowmen · 2009-02-02 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  I think thats a good point. It is [another] reason this is unacceptable; if we said it was ok, desktop software development will devolve into a turf war.
  Or everyone might start installing firefox extensions to gear search results to favor their 'partner' companies products.
123. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 06:16 · Score: 0
  
  List some of this amazing, valuable software that you need in Windows. Because if you're running a thousand super cool apps, your Windows install will be more virus than Microsoft.
124. Re:malware.... by BZ · 2009-02-02 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't say what they're doing is right. I just pointed out that the great-grandparent poster mis-characterizes what they did.
125. Re:malware.... by DrVomact · 2009-02-02 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  The part when the fur starts flying as MS and Amazon take the One Button Click patent to court.
  
  --
  Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
126. Re:malware.... by DrVomact · 2009-02-02 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  Could you (or some kind person) please tell me what ClickOnce is?
  
  --
  Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
127. Re:malware.... by gentlemen_loser · 2009-02-02 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft, huh? So its pretty easy to use?
128. Re:malware.... by Lifthrasir · 2009-02-02 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  Or open a command prompt and type chgusr /install.
  
  --
  No beer, no TV make Lifthrasir something something
129. Re:malware.... by encoderer · 2009-02-02 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Uhh.. FF Extensions are written entirely in JavaScript and XML. It is "open source" even if it's not licensed openly.
  No doubt a many a JS/AS coders have already popped open those files and you'd be hearing about it all over if this was some MS spyware attempt.
130. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 09:05 · Score: 0
  
  What do you mean your trust just went right down the toilet? Surely your trust went that way a long time ago?
131. Re:malware.... by Ihmhi · 2009-02-02 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  Keeping out Microsoft Updates isn't all that difficult, simply turn it off. It will show a warning in your systray, but that's it.
  You can disable the Security Center service in Administrative Tools. You won't have to hear about any of that updates stuff, but you won't know if your antivirus or firewall have been disabled either (not a huge deal unless you use Windows Firewall).
  
  Sadly, judging by the tone of your entry, I'm assuming you're one of those 'ms-anti-fanboys' who will complain about virtually ANYTHING Microsoft does, or doesn't do.
  Nope! You're wrong there. Microsoft does do some smart stuff occasionally. Xbox Live is a well-designed system that is largely worth the $50 a year. Buying up Rare and Bungie can definitely be considered good purchases now a few years down the line. The thing is, more often than not they just are so behind with the times (see the recent DRM Zune debacle) and it's frustrating to see a company that used to actually do pretty well and come out with some pretty cool shit reduced to catering to special interests in their operating system. It's like a corrupt government except it's that much harder to have a revolution.
  
  As such I expect the following scenario to happen : You'll switch off Automatic Updates,
  Nope, it's still on.
  
  your system won't get patched any more and you'll turn out to be vulnerable to, well, quite a lot of the nastiness out there.
  My system could still be patched and there's probably a dozen vulnerabilities that have malware authors drooling. I'm safer than a good lot of Windows users because I don't employ shit that's popular and has huge, gaping exploitable holes like Outlook.
  
  After a while your machine will slow down, you'll go digging and find out that your gaming machine spends half it's CPU time being part of a botnet.
  Actually, my gaming machine (which is pretty much my only machine alongside a 500 MHz Celeron junker that I'm putting together for fun) runs fine. Some of my parts are breaking down though.
  
  Not that I care, but by all means, don't come complaining then how "windows is so bloody easily hacked" and "that it's all MS's fault for not being able to write a proper OS".
  It is, though. Vista was essentially promised to be a brand new OS, when of course it wasn't. It was just Windows 95 Service Pack 14 or whatever.
  When Mac OSX came out, Apple bit the bullet and basically killed legacy apps by changing a lot of the core functionality of OSX. They made their OS more secure by sacrificing legacy support. MS certainly can afford to pay people to write a new OS from scratch and *secure* in a reasonable amount of time, yet they just keep rolling out shitty desktop gloss without any real security improvements. Well, there are security improvements, but it's not security for us - stupid shit like UAC, DRM, etc.
  
  Sure, Windows *isn't* perfect, but I'm seeing just as much of security updates in Ubunto too, haven't heard too many complaints there yet.
  Nope, it sure as hell isn't perfect. It just frustrates me to see someone so completely naive about Microsoft (referring to the grandparent post here). As business practices go this is par for the course for MS.
  
  If you'd prefer things to be different then give up your job (or studies) and start your own company that will be the lighting example for the rest off the world. I'm sure the rest of the world will recognize your genius and follow your example and soon the whole of humanity will throw greed and selfness and stuff overboard and we'll all live happily ever-after...
  Sorry, I don't have much of a response to the "Well, why don't you just do it yourself?" argument. My inability to write a secure OS in no way makes my criticisms of Microsoft's stupid/selfish/panders-to-huge-corporation busine
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
132. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 09:25 · Score: 0
  
  What about this for a proposed change to Firefox...
  When installing Firefox (or configurable thereafter) one should be given the option to choose an (optional) admin password. This password, if set, would allow administrative control of the browser environment for whatever the admin chooses to control. For example, there could be an option to lock down add-ons, that, if set, would, every time a new add-on was detected, warn the user and ask for their approval. To approve the user would have to provide the admin password, which, if correct, would, depending on the user's choice, allow the add-on or disable it (this last one would be the default option for when the supplied admin password does not match). Approved add-ons could have their digital signatures stored in a file locked down against the admin password.
  OK, I know, it sounds very much like UAC, but this would be UAC written by users for users.
  -Andreas Toth
133. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 09:47 · Score: 0
  
  I'm gay, you insensitive clod!
134. Re:malware.... by AmberBlackCat · 2009-02-02 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  I have more questions. How is Microsoft making a Firefox extension any different from Firefox having an ActiveX extension or IE Tabs? Are only certain people allowed to make Firefox extensions? Is there no choice to exclude the extension in the "custom install"?
135. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 10:11 · Score: 0
  
  If you like Madonna then feel free to read this joke with Michael Jackson in it instead.
  I like them both you insensitive clod.
136. Re:malware.... by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-02-02 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  And to consider that the poor application isn't even 18 years old ... in fact, not even 12... oh dear!
137. Re:malware.... by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-02-02 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  And you can disable this one on Windows as well.
  Really, I think that the only real issue here is that it got slipped as a "high priority update" (which means auto-install for the default Windows Update configuration on XP/Vista).
138. Re:malware.... by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · 2009-02-02 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  Remember that the whole point of an extension mechanism is to let third parties modify Firefox.
  No. It's about YOU modifying YOUR Firefox by installing a third party plugin if YOU wish to do so.
139. Re:malware.... by ScrewMaster · 2009-02-02 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  My trust just went right down the toilet.
  What's surprising to me is that you had any to begin with. But yeah, this is pretty raw even for Microsoft.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
140. Re:malware.... by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-02-02 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  It's not a single click. It asks for confirmation as well, essentially the same dialog as what you get when you run any downloaded executable on Windows. There's a screenshot of that in action on the Wikipedia article.
  Furthermore, ClickOnce apps really cannot screw up your system. They run in a very restricted sandbox (e.g. they cannot run "unsafe" code - i.e. no random memory access; they can't access files outside a few sandboxed folders within user home directory etc). All in all, this is very similar to Java Web Start, with essentially the same UI, security restrictions, and overall idea.
141. Re:malware.... by HiThere · 2009-02-02 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  How do you know?
  More particularly, that is almost certainly a false statement, as it's quite difficult to only do one thing. But in a more general sense, rather than in an extremely precise sense, how do you know what this program does, and on what basis do you trust that "knowledge"?
  It is my presumption that you are taking the word of a PR flack...and that HE doesn't know what it does. I'm rather certain that you've neither studied the code nor talked with someone who has. So you're taking someone's word. And the information that can't be seen by direct observation probably comes from a company which appears to me to lie more frequently that it is truthful.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
142. Re:malware.... by foxylad · 2009-02-02 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  > My trust just went right down the toilet.
  You had some trust in Microsoft left? Quick, get out of here before you get ridiculed mercilessly!
  
  --
  Do as you would be done to.
143. Re:malware.... by pimpimpim · 2009-02-02 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. Running Ubuntu now, every now and then I get the update list, but it's not like I'll select only part of the updates. Not sure if that is even practically possible. So also there, you either decide not to update (or do it manually for everything, but then you might as well switch to gentoo, as far as the amount of work is concerned), or to automatically update everything.
  
  --
  molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
144. Re:malware.... by Hucko · 2009-02-02 13:21 · Score: 1
  
  Software years are faster than human years though, their whole lifetime is just 3 years.
  
  --
  Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
145. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 13:42 · Score: 0
  
  Are there any legality issues with what they just did here?
  Of course, but Microsoft is so big they know nothing will be done to them. Anti-hacking laws are almost NEVER pursued against corporations.
146. Re:malware.... by LordThyGod · 2009-02-02 13:50 · Score: 1
  
  As much as I love you guys, I don't get the outrage and angst. This is MS and there is nothing new here. They have thrived and spread their infection by being underhanded and surreptitious. Its their stock in trade. Its how they got where they are and how they hold on to their position. Just say no. Use something else. They've been a criminal organization since .... well since a very long time. Now you know who you are dancing with. If the ethics bother you (and they should), change partners. If not, you are an enabler.
147. Re:malware.... by Johnno74 · 2009-02-02 14:20 · Score: 1
  
  Its a method of deploying .Net applications, mainly from a website.
  On the web server you have a ClickOnce package, which contains a bunch of files including one with the extension ".application". Visual studio generates a basic HTML page for you which you can customise, which has a hyperlink to this .application file. A user visits this page, clicks on the link to the .application file, the browser downloads it and passes it to the .Net runtime which parses the file, downloads the binaries referenced in it, verifies signatures etc and starts the app. Unfortunately this isn't quite as simple as a file association, IE handles the magic for you, and this extension is just a bit of glue to enable Firefox to do the same. Nothing special happens on the server, you could host a ClickOnce app on apache on linux if you wanted. All you need is .Net on the client machine, and all this browser extension is doing is providing a little bit of glue between the .application file, and the .net runtime on your PC.
  ClickOnce apps are normally installed into an obscure folder somewhere in your profile, not into c:\program files or anywhere, so they are PER USER and not per machine. Its actually a damn good way of installing .net apps, they can be sandboxed and all the files are hashed to prevent any tampering with the package.
148. Re:malware.... by Wolfrider · 2009-02-02 14:58 · Score: 1
  
  -Not quite "every" Firefox install out there -- I usually run mine on Linux. ;-)
  
  --
  .
  == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
149. Re:malware.... by darkpixel2k · 2009-02-02 15:50 · Score: 1
  
  Mod parent up. That's the whole point. You install binary crap from a provider you don't trust. So, don't complain. It's not like at this day and age there's still a gun pointed to you to use Windows (in the past i may recognize there were, but not today)
  
  Yeah--but seriously. How many people actually look at the debs they download from Ubuntu/Canonical, or the source code they compile? I'm sure it would be somewhat easy to slip some code into a huge security-critical piece of linux code that maybe weakens OpenSSL certificates or something--and it would go unnoticed for a long time...
  
  --
  There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
150. Re:malware.... by darkpixel2k · 2009-02-02 15:55 · Score: 1
  
  Irrelevant. The relevant question is: Why the HELL does Microsoft think it's okay to modify *other* people's software? I expect MS to randomly upgrade Internet Exploder since it's their product, but why are they fucking with a Mozilla product????? Reminds me of something a virus programmer would do.
  Fuckin'-A right, doggie! I mean those fucking shitcocks. How dare they make an extension for firefox and install it. I mean look at those fuckers that produce the adblock extension--and let's not forget mouse gestures and the web developer toolbar. FUCK! Anyone who posts something on addons.mozilla.org should BURN IN HELL COMMIE BASTARDS! HOW DARE THEY MODIFY MOZILLA CODE. TEHY SHOULD BURN IN HELL!
  
  Ok--ignore the above paragraph.
  
  Seriously--why is this a huge deal? I'll admit it's a bit slimy to install a firefox extension without asking, but why are we calling for the death of MS for 'modifying' Mozilla's code?
  
  How is this any different than me writing an Excel macro or a .NET app that calls a Windows DLL? That's all a firefox extension does.
  
  --
  There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
151. Re:malware.... by darkpixel2k · 2009-02-02 15:59 · Score: 1
  
  The precedent has already been established that the OS can be configured to require the local administrator to give explicit permission for each patch to be applied; the outrage here is that this time, that choice was not offered
  Uuh..then how did the extension get installed? Answer: You approved an update (probably the new .NET install) which contained the plugin.
  
  And before you whine that they didn't ask about installing the plugin, well--they probably didn't ask about installing the windows.forms library or the system.net.io library--it's all part of the package which you approved.
  
  (On a side note, don't slam me if I don't have those libraries right--I haven't touched .NET since the RC before 1.0 was released, and I don't want to every again--if I can help it.)
  
  --
  There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
152. Re:malware.... by DrVomact · 2009-02-02 16:31 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks, that's a good explanation!
  I'm afraid I'd have to pay you to answer yet more questions that I could, after all, look up myself...for example: is there any way to prevent malicious sites from using ClickOnce to create what look like ordinary link buttons, but that cause the download of something I really don't want running on my computer?
  By "sandboxed" you probably mean "locked safely away from doing any harm". The problem with this is that for software to do useful and interesting things, it has to be given some latitude. It may have to modify files, do a little registry poking, modify the odd permission bit here or there...well, you get my drift—the more latitude you give the downloaded app, the greater the risk. The original intent of JavaScript was to be completely safe by preventing it from changing just about anything on our computers. I think that's why Microsoft gave us ActiveX, right?
  
  --
  Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
153. Re:malware.... by Antony-Kyre · 2009-02-02 16:45 · Score: 1
  
  It's not whether or not they were behind the times. It is about choice. Users should be able to choose between adding the popup blocker or not. They did NOT need to bundle it with an operating system update. Especially if Internet Explorer is suppose to be seperate from Windows.
154. Re:malware.... by i.kazmi · 2009-02-02 23:02 · Score: 1
  
  stop cryin...dont use windows if u dun trust ms...no ones forcin u. i aint an ms fan and i havent used windows for the past 2 years on my personal computer or laptop but this just appears lyk they're tryin to deal with the ppl who use ff instead of ie which kinda equals to ms acknowledgin that theres this other browser which a lot of ppl r usin n they'd b stupid to alienate those ppl.
155. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-03 01:19 · Score: 0
  
  I would imagine they are covered by their EULA, remember those thingies?
156. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-03 06:14 · Score: 0
  
  I think we're all on that boat, windows would disappear over night if it wasn't for the fact that I enjoy my video games.
157. Re:malware.... by davidsyes · 2009-02-03 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  "The only appropriate response would be for Mozilla to automatically refuse it from Firefox with the next Firefox update."
  I'd say "The ONLY appropriate response is to create a tech site for this kind of SHIT, and make the new administration a delegate to the site."
  Microsoft (and other companies doing this...
  Um, let me restructure that sentence...
  Companies such as microsoft (lower-casing/deprecation intentional/perpetual) doing this shit need to have their collective and single asses KICKED. It should be seen as fraud, and their board should be put on notice that their expectation of profits WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO INCLUDE condoning this kind of rat-ass behavior.
  
  --
  Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
158. Re:malware.... by supernova_hq · 2009-02-03 09:29 · Score: 1
  I dissagree. I am not a Mozilla Developer, but other companies have done similar things in much, much nicer ways. I installed the new version of AVG a while ago, and bundled with it is an AVG alert toolbar. But there are a few key differences:
  
  It asked me if I wanted it,
  It told me what it does
  It installed to every use, *individually*
  I can remove it whenever I want
  Contrary to what MS would like you to think, this can be done in a MUCH better way. Installing something in a stupid way is no excuse for removing a user's ability to undo a change you made to another company's program!
  Note: When I say "user", I mean a typical user who uses extensions, not a Slashdot reader to edits the registry!!
159. Re:malware.... by supernova_hq · 2009-02-03 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  Is there any difference between Microsoft doing that to Firefox, and Microsoft doing that popup blocker with Internet Explorer when someone does the SP2 update? Or how they force a firewall on you?
  You see, Microsoft is akin to a proctologist. Sticking things where they don't belong.
  I hate to side with MS on this, but IE pop-blockers and Windows firewalls are all modifications made to MICROSOFT products. Updating Firefox is making modifications to ANOTHER COMPANY's product. BIG DIFFERENCE!
  If you take your car in for a tune-up, they list the changes they will make (new oil, spark plug adjustments, fuel injection cleaning, etc.) Now if he were to also replace the sub-woofer in your back seat without telling you, I'm pretty sure you'd be pissed.
160. Re:malware.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-03 11:26 · Score: 0
  
  No, I haven't read every line of OSS code. BUT I KNOW SOMEBODY WHO HAS. And that, dear troll, is the point.
161. Re:malware.... by Johnno74 · 2009-02-03 17:58 · Score: 1
  
  The sandboxing of .Net apps is actually quite well done. Microsoft put a lot of effort into this, they really really didn't want to get burnt.
  AFAIK there has only ever been one security hole in the .Net VM that allowed code to escape its sandbox, this was way back in the .net 1.1 days and was fixed by MS in double quick time.
  There have been numerous JVM vulnerabilities, a webpage with an applet that runs and breaks out of its sandbox using one of these holes is a very common way to get infected with malware.
  When you write a ClickOnce app you specify what level of sandboxing you need. If you specify the app is a "full trust" application then the user is warned before the application install and it runs with no restrictions (except any restrictions placed on the user's account of course) and runs just like any other desktop app.
  If your app settings say you need no "insecure" capibilities, like reading or writing files (outside the sandbox), read/write the registry, ANY win32 API calls, etc etc, and your app binary is signed by a trusted certification authority then I believe when you click on the .application file it will be immediately launched, without a warning but I've never done that. If an app tries to do anything that violates its policy then the runtime will kill the app.
  So, to answer your question, no its not possible to create what looks like an ordinary link button that launches a clickonce app that will do something bad. The .net runtime on your pc will either ask you if you trust the application you are about to install, or it will run the app in a pretty tight sandbox.
  ActiveX this is not...
162. Re:malware.... by Antony-Kyre · 2009-02-03 20:00 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree. Just because said products came from their company, doesn't mean they have a right to modify it when modifying another one of their products.
  Imagine buying a car. The car comes with a radio, from the car company. Let's say it's a nice satellite radio. One day, you go back to get a free tune-up they offer as part of your purchase. Oil change, tire rotations, etc.
  But, they notice you still have a satellite radio in your car. (You haven't swapped it out or anything.) They decide to "upgrade it", in accordance with the tune up. Maybe the upgrade is to automatically turn off the radio when the car isn't in motion, or perhaps autodampening the audio when it gets too loud, etc.
  What I am saying is this. Stick to what needs to be done. For the car analogy, just the basic tune-up. For Windows, just patching the OS. Offer the popup blocker as a seperate download. Offer the firewall as a seperate download. Don't bundle.
163. Re:malware.... by L4t3r4lu5 · 2009-02-04 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  But the patent lasts forever.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
164. Re:malware.... by joefish_only_one · 2009-02-04 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  How about this one: Ok Microsoft, you are making automatic changes to software written by other companies without permission or request of the user.
  Except they didn't. Because when you installed Windows, you agreed with the EULA that said they could update your software at any time!
165. Re:malware.... by jesterzog · 2009-02-04 15:27 · Score: 1
  
  That or it's just a lazily written installer. Not every part of Microsoft talks to every other part.
  If Microsoft were good at following the same recommendations it makes for everyone else, all its apps would be written in DotNet using Windows Presentation Foundation and take 30-40 seconds to start up. (This would be okay though, because as recommended by Microsoft, they'd have splash screens to distract the user from the amount of time they were taking to load.)
166. Re:malware.... by supernova_hq · 2009-02-06 05:24 · Score: 1
  Sorry, my point was not about bundling.
  
  If your update is for
  
  the same program: no problem (just ask)
  another program (yours): seperate and make obvious
  another program (not yours): Fuck off, if you think you can make someone elses program better (especially an open source one), submit it to the devs like everyone else!!!
167. Re:malware.... by Antony-Kyre · 2009-02-11 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  Each product needs to be seen separately. An update for the operating system shouldn't mean being forced to update other products the company has made. If anything, the company can make separate updates for each product. Their in a sense bundling updates, and I just see that as wrong, and I'd think others would too.
Re:First by UngodAus · 2009-02-01 15:48 · Score: 0, Offtopic

!First. Fail!
Huh! by ScrewMaster · 2009-02-01 15:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

This definitely goes into the "WTF?" category.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
1. Re:Huh! by carlzum · 2009-02-01 16:37 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Exactly, this could have been touted as proof that MS was serious about .NET interoperability. Instead they chose to install it silently and make it difficult to remove, making the update a nuisance to FF users.
2. Re:Huh! by Gr8Apes · 2009-02-01 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't bother me at all.... Of course, I run FF on Linux and OSX....
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
3. Re:Huh! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 17:18 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, definitely. Who knew that windows needed a weekly 'scrub'. I certainly didn't. I guess it's been a while since I really used it.
4. Re:Huh! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 18:02 · Score: 0
  
  Of course, I run FF on Linux and OSX....
  Me too, but it still bothers me. Of course, I also run FF on Windows...
5. Re:Huh! by obarthelemy · 2009-02-01 19:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This is probably actionnable under whatever covenant MS signed to get out of the antitrust lawsuits against them: they're using the OS (windows update) to modify a competitor's software (FF), in order to give an unfair advantage to one of their technologies/product.
  If that behaviour can be proven, someone stands to make a lot of money. Several someones: the states, the competitors...
  
  --
  The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
6. Re:Huh! by FishWithAHammer · 2009-02-02 00:36 · Score: 1
  
  How exactly is it a nuisance if you wouldn't notice it without Slashdot's hair-shirting bullshit?
  
  --
  "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
7. Re:Huh! by XcepticZP · 2009-02-02 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  They would notice more and more .net-based websites working, that's how they'd tell.
  
  I personally hate it when a website just plain won't run properly on Firefox, no matter what I do. It bothers me to no end when I have to copy that url and open it in IE.
  
  I for one welcome Microsoft for doing this to help us Firefox users access more websites. And I applaud them for doing it silently. If, however, we find that this "add on" causes any errors then it will be a different story and they should be held accountable. But until then, why don't we all take a minute to relax instead of shouting "hijacker" and "malware".
Allowed scope of updates by Statecraftsman · 2009-02-01 15:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

Microsoft gives us updates all the time and we trust them to fix bugs and security holes. Firefox not coming with their extension is not in the scope of bugs and security holes they should fix. When they overstep their bounds like this ON TOP of an application(esp. a free software application) what might they be doing in their proprietary code under the application? Whatâ(TM)s next, an OpenOffice extension to make sure Microsoft never has an $ where their s is?
1. Re:Allowed scope of updates by schon · 2009-02-01 15:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Microsoft gives us updates all the time and we trust them to fix bugs and security holes.
  What you mean "we", Kemosabe?
2. Re:Allowed scope of updates by zobier · 2009-02-01 16:08 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  It is totally unacceptable for Microsoft to interfere with any of the 3rd party software I have installed on my computer whether via their update mechanism or otherwise. If I ever find any of these shenanigans going on I will raise a formal complaint with the appropriate government competition bureau, I encourage others to do the same.
  
  --
  Me lost me cookie at the disco.
3. Re:Allowed scope of updates by TheSeer2 · 2009-02-01 16:22 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  There is an option that you have to check to allow updates to things other than Windows.
4. Re:Allowed scope of updates by Shelled · 2009-02-01 16:30 · Score: 1
  
  Not only do you force feed users a Microsoft extension, you piss them off about a third party & competitive application. Two business cases with one stone. I think it's brilliant.
5. Re:Allowed scope of updates by bit01 · 2009-02-01 16:42 · Score: 1
  When they overstep their bounds like this ON TOP of an application(esp. a free software application) what might they be doing in their proprietary code under the application?
  No, that's probably not the problem this time (though it is true that vendors get up to all sorts of shenanigans). The problems are:
  
  Not informing the user/developer precisely what the addon does, and does not, do so the user can make an informed choice about whether to install it.
  Not giving the user an obvious means of avoiding the firefox addon if they don't want it.
  Not using the standard install/uninstall mechanism so the user can uninstall it in the obvious way if they decide they don't want it after testing.
  Software packages interact in different ways all the time eg. shared default file types/extensions cause endless mischief. That's unfortunately common and no vendor should be blamed for it directly however the user must be given the information and the tools to make and effect informed choices.
  ---
  Adopt an astroturfer. Make their life hell.
6. Re:Allowed scope of updates by whoever57 · 2009-02-01 16:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  There is an option that you have to check to allow updates to things other than Windows.
  Which most people assume means things like MS Office and other MS components that are not part of a bare Windows install. I can't imagine anyone thinking this means 3rd party software.
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
7. Re:Allowed scope of updates by Tablizer · 2009-02-01 16:50 · Score: 1
  
  [whats] next, an OpenOffice extension to make sure Microsoft never has an $ where their s is?
  
  Time to kick Microsoft in the S.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
8. Re:Allowed scope of updates by Thinboy00 · 2009-02-01 16:55 · Score: 1
  
  Well, just to play devil's advocate, my box running Ubuntu periodically prompts me for updates on all sorts of 3rd party software (some sort of outgrowth of synaptic/apt AFAICT). (Obviously Canonical Ltd. != M$)
  
  --
  $ make available
9. Re:Allowed scope of updates by Thinboy00 · 2009-02-01 16:56 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I hope someone, preferably the U.S. or E.U., sues them for anticompetitive practices (again).
  
  --
  $ make available
10. Re:Allowed scope of updates by Suddenly_Dead · 2009-02-01 16:58 · Score: 1
  
  The feature that lets you pull down application updates is called Microsoft Update. In Windows 7, the description above the checkbox is:
  "How to get updates for other Microsoft products"
11. Re:Allowed scope of updates by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 17:01 · Score: 0
  
  I can't imagine anyone thinking this means 3rd party software.
  Coming from Linux, I can't imagine that it doesn't include third-party software.
12. Re:Allowed scope of updates by mabhatter654 · 2009-02-01 17:04 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  that's because:
  a) most apps in Ubuntu come from the ubuntu servers, not their native homes and are compiled by canonical to work nicely with ubuntu
  b) Other apps are hosted in repositories. Some by the program writer, some by other people. But Apt/synamptic manages all the repositories in one place for you! And you can turn them on and off at will. What a concept!! This is what people have been requesting from Microsoft update for the better part of a decade.
13. Re:Allowed scope of updates by malevolentjelly · 2009-02-01 17:06 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  You authorized it when you installed SP1. The extension is clearly described in the ClickOnce section of the SP1 feature list. We all read feature lists, changelogs and release notes very carefully whenever we install something this significant, right?
  Technically, Microsoft didn't modify a single bit of Firefox. It just dropped the extension where Firefox could find it.
  http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/421171-NET-Framework-Assistant/?CommentID=421225
  Copied from Channel 9. Yes, you authorized this. You also authorized this by enabling Microsoft Update IN ADDITION to Windows Update. It does not do this by default.
  Basically, if you didn't want this, it's your own fault for blindly allowing things to be installed on the server. It sounds like its there to aid Visual Studio in prototyping web apps with firefox (for those who use firefox) and other general junks.. it's not exactly a trojan. Calm down, morons. Go sue your pillow for a while.
14. Re:Allowed scope of updates by rcw-home · 2009-02-01 17:09 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Which most people assume means things like MS Office and other MS components that are not part of a bare Windows install.
  Probably because it's labelled "Microsoft Update" - implying that it updates anything from Microsoft on the computer.
  If Microsoft wants everyone to use a new "Computer Update" service, then they better call it that and see how many people they can get to click on it.
15. Re:Allowed scope of updates by Gerzel · 2009-02-01 17:17 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah but the problem is that in a court of law it WILL be taken as fair consent to update 3rd party stuff.
  MS has enough $$$ and IS the computer industry to most folks.
16. Re:Allowed scope of updates by Gerzel · 2009-02-01 17:20 · Score: 1
  
  Most people will. Microsoft is a big and well trusted company to most people.
17. Re:Allowed scope of updates by Rockoon · 2009-02-01 17:40 · Score: 1
  
  You realize that Microsoft interferes with a lot of 3rd party programs FOR YOUR BENEFIT, right?
  
  I guess not.
  
  They have a LOT of application compatability shims in their OS's so that older applications continue to work on an operating system they werent designed for. Vista is FILLED with this stuff, even going so far as to virtualize disk access completely rerouting read and write operations to new locations.
  
  I didn't hear you complain about it before. I wonder why. Could it be... HATE?
  
  Did you really want a migration back to IE because grandma's shit didnt work under firefox? You should be thanking microsoft for being so fucking magnanimous.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
18. Re:Allowed scope of updates by Venim · 2009-02-01 17:45 · Score: 1
  
  b) Other apps are hosted in repositories. Some by the program writer, some by other people. But Apt/synamptic manages all the repositories in one place for you! And you can turn them on and off at will. What a concept!! This is what people have been requesting from Microsoft update for the better part of a decade.
  installing some addon to a 3rd party program for microsoft to try and increase its market share through some .NET BS is not what people have been requesting at all.
19. Re:Allowed scope of updates by no1home · 2009-02-01 17:54 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, all kinds of things are installed when an update is performed on our various favorite distros. However, unlike this install from Microsoft, the update window displays everything that's being installed before you permit the action (in my experience so far).
  
  --
  I hope this comment is well received... I could have moderated instead!
  
  Persecutors will be violated!
20. Re:Allowed scope of updates by zobier · 2009-02-01 18:07 · Score: 1
  
  Those "shims" are in the API which is their property, it's OK for them to issue updates to that. It's an application developers responsibility to maintain compatibility with the API. Microsoft keeping their API reasonably backwards compatible is just good business sense.
  tl;dr Your point has nothing to do with my original post.
  
  --
  Me lost me cookie at the disco.
21. Re:Allowed scope of updates by _Sprocket_ · 2009-02-01 18:18 · Score: 1
  
  I've yet to have apt install a completely new piece of software. The closest I've had is when dependencies have shifted to new libraries or different packaging and I need to remove the old to replace the new.
  I've also had apt cheerfully recommend new software that I might consider installing along with my choices. But the big difference here is that its recommended and allowed me to say "why yes - that sounds great, I'll take that too, please."
22. Re:Allowed scope of updates by Dolda2000 · 2009-02-01 18:46 · Score: 0
  
  I don't mean to be trolling, but I don't really think that anyone has a right to be surprised or hardly even angry anymore. Microsoft has been doing things of equal or far greater magnitude of evil for as long as they have existed. If you let an operating system from Microsoft run your computer, then, honestly, I think you just have to reap what you sow.
  Why anyone is letting Microsoft run their computers, especially in a business or, even worse, in government, is beyond me. I mean, the people at MSFT clearly do not grasp the concept that people might want to own their own computers. Aside from free software, I can't even think of a single proprietary vendor that has the same track record of evil on their shoulders. Apple may be able to claim to be a competitor, but they don't match up to Microsoft.
  I might get modded down for this, but I really don't mean to troll. I don't really think I've said anything but the truth.
23. Re:Allowed scope of updates by Workaphobia · 2009-02-01 18:50 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Of course and as always, the word "trust" is used in its technical capacity to indicate a relationship characterized by uneasy vulnerability, rather than an actual commitment of faith.
  
  --
  Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
24. Re:Allowed scope of updates by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 19:19 · Score: 0
  
  And it would not surprise me if there was a little piece of code in this extension that slows down Firefox and speeds up IE. It would not surprise me one bit!
  Microsoft will never lose it habits...
25. Re:Allowed scope of updates by aussie_a · 2009-02-01 19:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Microsoft Update sure sounds like it will update Microsoft products. Given that Firefox is not a microsoft product, how the hell was I to know they would update it?
26. Re:Allowed scope of updates by Rockoon · 2009-02-01 20:06 · Score: 1
  
  Your post went on about how it is unacceptable for microsoft to interfere with how 3rd party programs work. If you did not mean that, when why didnt you say what you meant? Could it have been... HATE?
  
  Installing the plugin allows Firefox to work with ClickOnce software. Thats all. It *IS* a compatability shim, and compatability with ClickOnce is a GOOD THING, since ClickOnce offers a much better (safer) alternative to downloading naked binary installers. This is something *EVERY* windows browser should support.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
27. Re:Allowed scope of updates by Morlark · 2009-02-01 21:24 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Yes, that's right. Dammit, I HATE them Micro$oft soooo much, how dare they. Why if I hated them any more I would've... wait, I've got Windows installed. You're claiming that Windows users hate Microsoft. If that isn't proof that you're a retard, what is it? Could it be... TROLLING?
  
  --
  Santa's suicide mission go!
28. Re:Allowed scope of updates by xouumalperxe · 2009-02-01 21:38 · Score: 1
  
  There are two major differences here. First, apt and its shells are meant to do that. That's your expectation when you run it. In Microsoft's case, it's Windows Update you use, not a full-distro updater. Plus, historically, it hasn't really accumulated all that many updates for 3rd party software, so this really doesn't go with your reasonable expectations of what it does.
  The second issue is transparency. You can read manifests and perform dry runs of apt installs to verify what it is you're installing. Windows update doesn't quite give you that possibility, afaik.
29. Re:Allowed scope of updates by jez9999 · 2009-02-01 22:11 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Whatâ(TM)s next, an OpenOffice extension to make sure Microsoft never has an $ where their s is?
  Hah, MS are never gonna stop me from saying MS - there's no way they can do that. MS MS MS - see?
  
  --
  == Jez ==
  Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
30. Re:Allowed scope of updates by pdusen · 2009-02-01 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  This.
31. Re:Allowed scope of updates by gbjbaanb · 2009-02-02 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  It sounds like its there to aid Visual Studio in prototyping web apps with firefox (for those who use firefox) and other general junks.. it's not exactly a trojan
  Well, if you don't know what it is, surely its ok.... I think that's called security-through-obscurity (or ignorance?) :)
  ClickOnce is a technology that allows .NET applications to be downloaded and run on the user's PC with a single click. Its MS's way of getting a "rich user interface" in your browser without having to worry about pesky things like security dialogs (you have to buy a certificate from MS for a year in order to allow this though - see they have thought long and hard about it). Unfortunately, it also allows these .NET apps to be downloaded and run as non-browser, offline, applications.
  They say its secure, but I'm not that convinced. Especially as the application can be mandated to be updated by the publisher without further notification to the end-user.
32. Re:Allowed scope of updates by Culture20 · 2009-02-02 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  Unless it was installed silently throughout the enterprise.
33. Re:Allowed scope of updates by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 03:00 · Score: 0
  
  The Malicious Software Removal tool affects 3rd party software. So, they have already overstepped this bound in the past.
34. Re:Allowed scope of updates by zoips · 2009-02-02 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  I would think it would be anticompetitive to not provide Firefox a way to handle ClickOnce apps. This seems to be the opposite...
35. Re:Allowed scope of updates by malevolentjelly · 2009-02-02 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft Update sure sounds like it will update Microsoft products. Given that Firefox is not a microsoft product, how the hell was I to know they would update it?
  The point is that you have no legal recourse, so RTFM next time.
  If you would rather keep your Firefox platform separate from the Windows platform, then just hack it out.
36. Re:Allowed scope of updates by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 09:29 · Score: 0
  
  He already told you how you would have known: BY READING THE PATCH NOTES. I've even passed the relevant lines a few times on my way down the page.
37. Re:Allowed scope of updates by aussie_a · 2009-02-03 18:58 · Score: 1
  
  Are these patch notes readable before you accept the update? Because I haven't noticed any such patch notes with my updates for years now. Then again, I also didn't get this add-on installed onto my computer.
Amazing by kcbanner · 2009-02-01 15:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

Classic move. People noticed. Two steps forward 10 steps back, eh?

--
Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
1. Re:Amazing by Thinboy00 · 2009-02-01 16:58 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Classic move. People noticed. Two steps forward 10 steps back, eh? [emphasis added]
  I can't tell if that's binary or decimal or what.
  
  --
  $ make available
2. Re:Amazing by RoFLKOPTr · 2009-02-01 17:17 · Score: 1
  
  Classic move. People noticed. Two steps forward 10 steps back, eh? [emphasis added]
  I can't tell if that's binary or decimal or what.
  Given the choice, I'd say it's hexadecimal.
  Seriously... look at my /. profile and you'll notice that I approve of Microsoft more often than not, but what they're doing here is utter bullshit. I don't want them fucking with things they have no business fucking with. Even though this extension is most likely harmless... they still shouldn't be installing it without one's express permission (checking the box that says "download and install all Windows updates automatically" != "fuck with firefox whenever you want, please").
3. Re:Amazing by nitehawk214 · 2009-02-01 17:46 · Score: 1
  
  Classic move. People noticed. Two steps forward 10 steps back, eh? [emphasis added]
  I can't tell if that's binary or decimal or what.
  It's hex.
  If you, me and DEAD people know hex, how many people know hex?
  DEAF people.
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
4. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 18:12 · Score: 0
  
  It's clearly ternary.
5. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 18:16 · Score: 0
  
  DEAF
  Rotate right 4 bits, and you'll get what I say everytime I smoke up.
6. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 18:18 · Score: 0
  
  It was binary before Vista, decimal after.
7. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 21:32 · Score: 0
  
  Then how about "two steps forward, a steps back"?
8. Re:Amazing by N1AK · 2009-02-01 21:49 · Score: 1
  
  As with Parent I think the majority of MS bashing on /. is pretty stupid. This however is a clear case of unacceptable behavior by an OS vendor. Even if you take the view that companies don't need to fully explain changes to their own programs, making alterations to other peoples programs is completely different.
  
  The last thing we need is for software vendors to declare open season and alter each others programs automatically and without explanation, whether their reasons are altruistic or not.
9. Re:Amazing by roman_mir · 2009-02-01 23:58 · Score: 1
  
  I can't tell if that's binary or decimal or what.
  - there is an FF extension for that ;]
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
10. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 00:42 · Score: 0
  
  Octal. *ducks*
11. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 01:10 · Score: 0
  
  It could be trinary.
12. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 01:33 · Score: 0
  
  It's not 10b, it's not 10h, and it's not 010. So, it's decimal.
  Not funny.
13. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 07:13 · Score: 0
  
  He used "two", so it at least needs to be trinary.
14. Re:Amazing by clone53421 · 2009-02-02 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, why not? Two == two. 10 == ??, depending on the base system.
  "10" is a sequence of digits that represents a number – the number it represents depends on the radix. "Two" is a word given to a specific number, represented by the digit 2 in most base systems but by the digits 10 in the base-2 system.
  "Two" is base-insensitive, just as "Ten" is base-insensitive. It is incorrect to say "ten in binary is two" – you should say "one-zero in binary is two".
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
15. Re:Amazing by clone53421 · 2009-02-02 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  Ok... what's your int size? FDEA, or is it F0000DEA?
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
16. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 14:43 · Score: 0
  
  -1 ID10T
NOT Unsuspecting... by eWarz · 2009-02-01 15:50 · Score: 4, Informative

The add-on is automatically installed when you install the latest version of the .net framework. Microsoft Update does NOT automatically install this add-on. In order for it to be installed you had to explicitly choose to install the .net framework.
1. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by flydpnkrtn · 2009-02-01 15:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It most definitely IS unexpected, because I was never notified anywhere that a MICROSOFT update would entail installing an addon to a completely NON-Microsoft product.
  
  Just because I installed the .NET framework, I'm subject to whatever else MS wants to do to my computer? Nay, sir, nay.
  
  --
  Here's to the crazy ones
2. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by Culture20 · 2009-02-01 16:02 · Score: 1
  
  Which has -- and should have -- _nothing_ to do with non-Microsoft software.
3. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by nemesisrocks · 2009-02-01 16:09 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I was never notified that an ADOBE product would entail installing an addin to a completely NON-Adobe product. Get with the times. Companies install addons to "complementary" products (web browsers, office suites, etc).
4. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by flydpnkrtn · 2009-02-01 16:14 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I'm pretty sure that during the install for Adobe Reader you're given the option to install the browser plugin or not (maybe the most you have to do is go into "Custom install)... with the .NET addon all that happened as far as I can see is that I installed pending updates, rebooted, and bam the addon was there
  
  Do you see how that's a different situation than installing an app that adds a browser plugin?
  
  --
  Here's to the crazy ones
5. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by gmuslera · 2009-02-01 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  Is a Microsoft update, they own the operating system so think that have the right over anything running there. Their release notes should include "turn back and bend over while we install this" somewhere.
6. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by at_slashdot · 2009-02-01 16:36 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Why are you so amazed? Your control over your computer is illusory when you use closed-source programs -- especially ones that call back home and install "updates"
  
  --
  "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
7. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by Omniscientist · 2009-02-01 16:42 · Score: 1
  
  First of all, no one is forced to install the .NET framework. Most of the larger commercial applications, if not all of them, have no .NET dependencies, including Office.
  Second of all, why is this so horrible when installing Adobe Reader (post-Firefox install) does the same thing?
  Firefox certainly doesn't rely on .NET, but that's the whole point of a "plugin". You see, you can extend a product to support additional technologies if it has a pluggable framework. There is .NET content for the web, and the same update we're talking about (which addresses ClickOnce) also adds functionality for XBAP's.
  However, I do think that the Firefox extension should be a separate feature in the .NET 3.5 setup; one that we can switch off either during install time or afterward, like any MSI feature.
8. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by renegadesx · 2009-02-01 16:50 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  [root@localhost ~]# apt-get update apt-get: ET phone home
  
  Yeah, damn those closed source OS's
  
  --
  Make SELinux enforcing again!
9. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by at_slashdot · 2009-02-01 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  # apt-get update apt-get: ET phone home
  E: The update command takes no arguments :P
  
  --
  "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
10. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by Thinboy00 · 2009-02-01 17:01 · Score: 1
  
  The scary thing is that in Vista they do "have the right over anything running there": They can kill any process if they decide that they want to call it malware AFAIK.
  
  --
  $ make available
11. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by Thinboy00 · 2009-02-01 17:03 · Score: 1
  
  AFAICT this isn't a plugin, it's an extension, which has much more power over the browser than anything Adobe installs automagically. For example: Greasemonkey is an extension. NoScript is an extension. Adobe Reader is a plugin, which means it only does anything AFAIK when you view a PDF etc.
  
  --
  $ make available
12. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by mabhatter654 · 2009-02-01 17:13 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  the adobe products are SPECIFICALLY browser helpers... that's the point of Flash or Acrobat Reader to be plugged in to your browser. There's even a spot in the browser for them to do this.
  Microsoft is trying to "fix" Firefox compatibility with .Net tools, that's the big problem people have. On one hand they are adding in the tools needed for Firefox to function properly on Microsoft web pages like any other browser plug-in vendor would. On the other hand Microsoft is doing this without announcing it, and the manor in which they slipped this in is of questionable motive. Remember they had a motto years ago..."DOS ain't done till Lotus won't run" Firefox and others had/have no such intentions.
13. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by Locutus · 2009-02-01 17:36 · Score: 1
  
  the EULA does say something like that IIRC.
  LoB
  
  --
  "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
14. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by ozphx · 2009-02-01 18:15 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Jeeze and when I installed the Java framework, boy was I surprised to get a plugin* for my browser! Golly gee whilikers, what a humdinger!
  Looks like the Java framework supports some kinda browser integration, and those bastards over at Sun decided that by installing Java that I would like this feature to work!
  So yes. You installed the .Net framework. The .Net framework put the appropriate hooks into the appropriate places, including your browser of choice. Fucking deal with it.
  
  --
  3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
15. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by sumdumass · 2009-02-01 18:36 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Well, Yes, MS does automatically install this program. The dotnet update 3.5 SP1 was listed as a critical security update, I have this on two servers that IE can't even access the web on. Firefox is only on it to check an internal website and monitor/access the web interfaces to routers and switches. The update installed the thing as it wasn't there before and yes, I check quite often. It also hasn't attempted to do anything on the internet yet because I monitor port access and nothing out of the ordinary has came up.
  So if you had automatic updates on, it would have been installed without you choosing to install it. If you manually install automatic updates, there is no warning of it being installed. Critical updates shouldn't be adding new features or changing the way other software works unless it's specifically to address a security problem. Adding functionality to Firefox isn't a security fix.
  Now it doesn't matter if you get this with any DotNet install now because you didn't in the past. Up until this month, it didn't even exist as far as I know. And just because it installs with dotnet now doesn't mean I agreed to installing it a year ago when I installed the last dotnet package to suppose a program we are using.
16. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by esocid · 2009-02-01 18:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  [root@localhost ~]# apt-get update apt-get: ET phone home
  You forgot one thing though
  # su -
  When's the last time any packets installed without your consent?
  
  --
  Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
17. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by sumdumass · 2009-02-01 18:45 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is for most of these people, that MS didn't install it when they installed the frame work. It was installed with a security update that shouldn't be adding functionality or anything. Dotnet framework 3.5 SP1 installed this and if you have automatic updates on, your hit because they bundled it with some fix that allows them to list it as critical.
  If this was something as simple as installing a frame work and it being there, half of the people wouldn't be pissed because they knew about before hand. But imagine adobe reader installing the google toolbar and destop search BS without ever telling you during the install, and even hid that by popping up a notice that a security update is availible. Do you ever wonder why the Real player ever lost it's place? It's because it did that same shit, started installing spyware with updates and pushing popups that you couldn't figure out how to stop. This is the same thing.
18. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by sumdumass · 2009-02-01 18:48 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, no, a critical update to the dotnet framework installed it on my computer. If it was as simple as you say, I could agree, but this was included in the dotnet 3.5 SP1 that was just listed as critical and you heard nothing about the thing installing this until people started asking what the fuck was going on?
19. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by Workaphobia · 2009-02-01 18:54 · Score: 1
  
  That's the kind of comment that feels like it's a propagandish troll, yet is completely accurate in its substance.
  And even ignoring the fact that Free Software gives you total control over the programs you use, at least Linux is modular enough that you can put together a distribution that leaves out any misbehaving components.
  
  --
  Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
20. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by renegadesx · 2009-02-01 19:37 · Score: 1
  
  # su -
  That makes no sense
  
  $ su -
  That does
  
  [root@localhost ~]# apt-get update
  apt-get: ET phone home
  
  Fixed it for myself
  
  --
  Make SELinux enforcing again!
21. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 20:26 · Score: 0
  
  It's installed without asking the owners of the computers. People don't want it on their computers. Fucking deal with it.
22. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by jamesmcm · 2009-02-01 20:43 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, that's what I find strange with these comments, people are happy to hit Next>Accept>Next>Next and sign all the EULA's and restrictions of the proprietary software and then are surprised when they actually restrict the user's rights.
  
  I suppose it serves as a nice reminder as to who really controls your computer if you use proprietary software.
23. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by Insanity+Defense · 2009-02-02 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  The scary thing is that in Vista they do "have the right over anything running there": They can kill any process if they decide that they want to call it malware AFAIK.
  Claiming the right and actually having the right are two different things. I can claim the right to kill anyone I find annoying but I doubt that very many people would agree I actually have the right.
24. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by wbo · 2009-02-02 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  It is true that the brief description of the update as displayed within Microsoft Update does not mention the plugin. However, to be fair the full release notes for .NET 3.5 do mention that .NET WPF applications are now supported within Firefox. They even mention that a plug-in for Firefox is included.
25. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by mythosaz · 2009-02-02 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Correction: If you had automatic updates on, you DID CHOOSE to install this; as you made that choice when choosing to allow automatic updating of your machine.
26. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by sumdumass · 2009-02-02 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  No, you did not. If you had automatic updates on, you agreed to install critical security updates, not functional addons designed to further MS's goals. Further more, there is no listing of this even when doing a manual update and specificaly seeing it in the Critical security updates section.
  This for the most part was installed by pure deception on a lot of computers. Well, unless you can find something with security that this thing deals with that also falls within the lines of Microsoft's own classification of critical security updates.
27. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by clone53421 · 2009-02-02 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  during the install for Adobe Reader you're given the option to install the browser plugin or not (maybe the most you have to do is go into "Custom install)...
  Don't even have to choose "custom", I'm pretty sure that even the "default" install will ask you explicitly if you want to install the bundled software. The checkbox is checked by default, but we don't blindly click "Next" here, do we? Oh no...
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
28. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by clone53421 · 2009-02-02 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, this is another reason why I don't like .NET. Too many fucking things require it to run. When I installed MSN messenger (or any other of a million non-browser-related applications), did I intend to agree to let Microsoft put their ClickOnce crap in my browser? Hardly, but apparently they thought so.
  ClickOnce seems like re-inventing the wheel, anyway. I can't see any real benefit of using ClickOnce as opposed to just distributing a setup.exe.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
29. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-02-02 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  ClickOnce seems like re-inventing the wheel, anyway. I can't see any real benefit of using ClickOnce as opposed to just distributing a setup.exe.
  ClickOnce apps are sandboxed. They are installed in your user folder (and so you don't need admin privileges to install), and they can only read and write files within the folder they are installed in (they can access files outside of it, but only with explicit permission from the user via a confirmation dialog - never silently). Also, there's ability to download parts of application on the fly - if it's split into several assemblies, then those assemblies are loaded over the Net only when the class loader requires them, so for componentized apps it can seriously cut down on the download size if you don't use specific parts of the app. It also has a standardized auto-updater for all ClickOnce apps.
  In short, it's a pretty good way of deploying thick clients on a corporate Intranet, and keeping them updated easily. On the Internet, I'm not so sure - the benefits are quite uncertain, which is probably why you won't see many ClickOnce apps in the wild (though isn't Google Chrome distributed via ClickOnce if you download it using IE?).
30. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by clone53421 · 2009-02-02 13:30 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks, I had never heard of them before. That being said, there's still no reason for Firefox to support them; most corporate intranets don't build for Firefox anyway. There's no reason for your average user to have this, and forcing it with a silent update is an underhanded tactic.
  On a related note, I suspect it would be possible to configure IE Tab to automatically catch ClickOnce links.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
31. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-02-02 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks, I had never heard of them before. That being said, there's still no reason for Firefox to support them; most corporate intranets don't build for Firefox anyway. There's no reason for your average user to have this, and forcing it with a silent update is an underhanded tactic.
  Well, MS sees it more as a general-purpose distribution facility for Windows desktop apps, it just doesn't work out in practice. The fact that it's installed with .NET is also not surprising, as the very similar Java Web Start is similarly installed (including browser plugins for IE and Netscape-compatible browsers) with the Java runtime.
  The only nasty part about all this, IMO, is that .NET is pushed as a recommended update, which means it (and the ClickOnce plugin) gets auto-installed on default settings.
32. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by scientus · 2009-02-03 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  adobe plugin is very differnt, NPAPI is a general plug, when adob einstals it for firefox it is instaled identically for ie to. the plugin is in a shared folder i believe and is not firefox specific, and adobe gives the user a option (i believe)
  what microsoft did was specifically create a patch for a non-microsoft product without authorization or warning, this exactally what a virus or spy-ware does. Microsoft is trying to extend software they have no right to extend. clearly anti-compeditive practice that goes against the Micsoft v US settlement
33. Re:NOT Unsuspecting... by haruchai · 2009-02-03 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  Which idiot modded this "Insightful"?
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Dodgy Pool by UngodAus · 2009-02-01 15:52 · Score: 1

Honestly, had they mandated silverlight, and included this in the silverlight install, I think they may have gotten it to most of the users that they would need to have it anyway, and pissed less people off in the process. Welcome to the new (steve) microsoft, same as the old (bill) microsoft.
The Microsoft icon. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 15:52 · Score: 1, Funny

Ya know, since Bill is long gone, I think the Microsoft icon could use an upgrade. I have an idea. It has to do with a chair, Steve Ballmer, and his ass.
1. Re:The Microsoft icon. by MrNaz · 2009-02-01 16:11 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see how a picture of Steve Ballmer standing on a chair and mooning all PC users would be relevant.
  On second thoughts, it'd clearly show us how much he values our custom.
  
  --
  I hate printers.
Laughing behind our fscking backs. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 15:52 · Score: 0

This is unequivocal proof of a conspiracy to deliberately install unrequested code on computers. Note that there is no intent beyond this. In other words, the unrequested add-ons are not being installed as an means to reach some other end, and they do not do anything questionable with respect to privacy, security, or any other issue. Rather the end is simply to put unrequested code on computers, just so that the conspirators can laugh behind everyone's backs knowing that they have put unrequested code.
Intelligence gathering by madcat2c · 2009-02-01 15:53 · Score: 5, Funny

They are gathering intelligence on how to build on of these "web browsers".
1. Re:Intelligence gathering by noidentity · 2009-02-02 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  They are gathering intelligence on how to build on of these "web browsers".
  So it's like the Mars probes. I guess previous probes have crashed and burned, and this was the first to touch down unscathed, only the Martians have noticed.
2. Re:Intelligence gathering by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 02:56 · Score: 0
  
  Hahaha! :D
Equal Opportunity Offender... by __aaclcg7560 · 2009-02-01 15:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yea, more spyware. Now on FireFox instead of Internet Explorer. :P
1. Re:Equal Opportunity Offender... by symbolset · 2009-02-01 16:02 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry. IE has so many holes they're no longer news-worthy.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
2. Re:Equal Opportunity Offender... by Spy+der+Mann · 2009-02-01 16:33 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Don't worry. IE has so many holes they're no longer news-worthy.
  Wait. You mean IE has non-hole parts?
3. Re:Equal Opportunity Offender... by symbolset · 2009-02-01 16:51 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't mean to imply that. Sorry. I don't know of any non-hole parts of IE. Maybe somebody else can help you there.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
4. Re:Equal Opportunity Offender... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2009-02-01 17:17 · Score: 1
  
  Are you saying that IE is a Sierpinski browser?
5. Re:Equal Opportunity Offender... by powerlord · 2009-02-02 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry. IE has so many holes they're no longer news-worthy.
  Wait. You mean IE has non-hole parts?
  The Icon is usually pretty stable.
  
  --
  This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
YES Unsuspecting... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 15:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

The .NET framework is not required for Firefox to run. Why would any sane person assume installing a totally unrelated framework would scribble all over Firefox?
1. Re:YES Unsuspecting... by D4MO · 2009-02-01 21:52 · Score: 1
  
  Because people who install .Net framework may want to be able to run click-once apps and not have to use IE.
  
  --
  
  Rocket science is easy. Neurosurgery, now *that's* difficult.
2. Re:YES Unsuspecting... by rbanffy · 2009-02-02 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  A sane person working for Microsoft?
  
  --
  http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
3. Re:YES Unsuspecting... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 04:00 · Score: 0
  
  Neither is Java, nor Adobe Acrobat, both of which automatically install plug-ins into Firefox.
  This is normal, you're just pissed that Microsoft is doing it.
4. Re:YES Unsuspecting... by blueZ3 · 2009-02-02 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  Sane?
  You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
  
  --
  Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
5. Re:YES Unsuspecting... by rbanffy · 2009-02-02 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  "Sane" is not the opposite of "evil".
  
  --
  http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
6. Re:YES Unsuspecting... by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-02-02 11:26 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The .NET framework is not required for Firefox to run. Why would any sane person assume installing a totally unrelated framework would scribble all over Firefox?
  It doesn't "Scribble all over Firefox", for God's sake! It installs a plugin which uses public and documented extensibility APIs of the browser.
  When you install Java, it similarly installs the browser plugin for viewing applets, and registers Java Web Start MIME type in the browser, as well. Yes, it does that for Firefox as well. This ClickOnce thing is functionally precisely equivalent to JWS. Does that mean it's time for Sun bashing? Maybe we should start calling Java "malware"?
7. Re:YES Unsuspecting... by scientus · 2009-02-03 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  yes, this is a plug-in not a add-on
  which step are we on????: extend
  this is classic example of embrace, extend extinguish
  however it is modifying the users software that Microsoft has no right to modify. Add-ons can do anything to firefox, Microsoft could install a generic plugin (NPAPI) if the user permitted them to, but they have no right to install a plug-in to software that is not theirs.
  This is clearly a monopolistic, anti-competitive, virus-like practice
XP SP3? by Malc · 2009-02-01 15:56 · Score: 3, Informative

Are you sure? Did you actually mean .Net 3.5 SP1? That's what just installed it on my machine. I've never seen XP SP3 install it.
1. Re:XP SP3? by Culture20 · 2009-02-01 16:13 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Updates for XP SP3. I got it installed with .Net 2.0 SP2
2. Re:XP SP3? by Malc · 2009-02-01 16:37 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  .Net 2.0 SP2 is an update to .Net 2.0, not XP SP3. It's the same installer binary for whatever version of Windows you have (64/32-bit differences aside)
3. Re:XP SP3? by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-02-02 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  It's all very confusing, but basically .NET 2.0 SP2 (and also .NET 3.0 SP2) is a part of .NET 3.5 SP1. I don't think there's even a standalone installer for .NET 2.0 SP2 available...
A good sign! by dclozier · 2009-02-01 15:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

Although it's not the best approach that could have been taken it is a good sign. If Microsoft can no longer ignore Firefox then all those sites that still require IE to function will begin to follow.
1. Re:A good sign! by markdavis · 2009-02-01 16:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yeah, well, so the sites will use some proprietary .NET stuff. I don't see such a plugin for non-MS operating systems. I would rather those sites that WERE ignoring Firefox code in something that not only works on all browsers but on all platforms as well.
2. Re:A good sign! by Firehed · 2009-02-01 16:15 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  All what sites? Aside from internal corporate web apps, has this been a real problem in the last five or so years? I remember having some issues back when Firefox was still having issues picking a proper name (pre-1.0 days), but I honestly don't think I've seen a public site with serious issues since around Firefox 1.0.
  There's still some stuff out there with wonky stylesheets, of course, but that almost never is SO bad that it causes a site to be unusable.
  
  --
  How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
3. Re:A good sign! by glwtta · 2009-02-01 16:44 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  If Microsoft can no longer ignore Firefox then all those sites that still require IE to function will begin to follow.
  
  Is that really still a problem, though? I'm pretty sure that particular knee-jerk needs to be updated a bit.
  
  I'm sure half a dozen people will jump in here with their favorite examples of IE-only sites, but chances are they will be quite obscure. I spend a fair amount of time online, and it hasn't really entered my mind in the last 2-3 years that I'm using some kind of "fringe" browser.
  
  Now, internal corporate apps are another matter entirely; then again, they only have a 50/50 chance of ever working in their "supported" environment to begin with (ahh fond memories of having to install a VM with some extremely specific, and extremely ancient java version just to sign the company "ethics pledge" or whatever).
  
  --
  sic transit gloria mundi
4. Re:A good sign! by cbiltcliffe · 2009-02-01 17:43 · Score: 1
  
  Yahoo radio.
  
  --
  "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
5. Re:A good sign! by troll8901 · 2009-02-01 18:27 · Score: 1
  
  hen Firefox was still having issues picking a proper name (pre-1.0 days)
  I had some friends who used to "ask" me to help them fix their computers - mostly spyware problems.
  At least when I installed pre-1.0 Firefox, I could be giving them "the bird".
6. Re:A good sign! by JohnBailey · 2009-02-01 18:36 · Score: 1
  
  Although it's not the best approach that could have been taken it is a good sign. If Microsoft can no longer ignore Firefox then all those sites that still require IE to function will begin to follow.
  True.. now that IE only has about 70% of the usr base, they have to extend Firefox as well as IE. Something sounds vaguely familiar.
  
  --
  It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
7. Re:A good sign! by lhunath · 2009-02-01 22:22 · Score: 1
  
  That's not nearly as much thanks to web designers and developers taking non-IE browsers into account as it is thanks to Mozilla taking IE behaviour into account and accomodating for that in their own software, AFAIK.
  And in truth, web designers with a clue still need to limit their options too much in order to remain IE-compatible. As soon as IE goes below 20%, at least we can finally justify not giving a crap about what our designs look like in IE, put up a warning message saying "Get a browser that supports web standards." and be done with it.
  
  --
  ``OK, so ten out of ten for style, but minus several million for good thinking, yeah?''
8. Re:A good sign! by glwtta · 2009-02-01 22:46 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  as it is thanks to Mozilla taking IE behaviour into account and accomodating for that in their own software, AFAIK.
  
  I'm not sure I agree with that, the Mozilla people have always been pretty adamant about not bending their standards implementations to accommodate IE "quirks" - Free Software developers take their ideological purity pretty seriously.
  
  It's a moot point anyway, nowadays almost no one would consider releasing an IE-only site - the "alternative" browsers claim 30% in some countries, but even if it was 10% or 5%, it still represents customers that you can't afford to just ignore (I think that attitude is the real change here - there's money to be made, and every user counts).
  
  And in truth, web designers with a clue still need to limit their options too much in order to remain IE-compatible.
  
  Certainly agree with that - it's even more fun when you have the corporate-mandated IE6 as your primary user-base!
  
  As soon as IE goes below 20%, at least we can finally justify not giving a crap about what our designs look like in IE, put up a warning message saying "Get a browser that supports web standards." and be done with it.
  
  Yeah, not so much - see above. At the very least, designers "with a clue" have their stuff degrade gracefully on legacy platforms.
  
  --
  sic transit gloria mundi
9. Re:A good sign! by Vahokif · 2009-02-02 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  spoiler: flash is proprietary too and .NET is both cross-platform and an open standard I'm still pissed they did this, it certainly doesn't help its reputation
10. Re:A good sign! by clone53421 · 2009-02-02 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  If Microsoft can no longer ignore Firefox then all those sites that still require IE to function will begin to follow.
  Um, not really. It's actually more like a step in the opposite direction.
  Instead of forcing webmasters to play by the rules and develop for cross-browser compatibility, Microsoft is forcing weird stuff into the other browsers to make them act more like IE. If this doesn't bother you, re-read the part about "make them act more like IE".
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
11. Re:A good sign! by clone53421 · 2009-02-02 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  I seem to remember Flickr's geotagging not working correctly with Firefox. Outlook Web Access doesn't work properly with Firefox either (it detects Firefox and loads a crippled version without a lot of the ease-of-use features).
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
12. Re:A good sign! by markdavis · 2009-02-02 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I know Flash is proprietary (I never implied otherwise)- but at least it has worked on most platforms for many years. .NET, on the other hand... well, wake me up when there there is platform parity. In any case, you are right that what they did further damages their tainted reputation.
13. Re:A good sign! by scientus · 2009-02-03 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  Its called embrace extend extinguish, however in this case microsoft never embraced anything, it just added itsself into someones elses software. This is simply wrong, and is identical to what viruses and spy-ware does. Microsoft is treading on others property like it is theirs. Now what? does firefox have to have self-defense from this virus?
sony by symbolset · 2009-02-01 15:57 · Score: 5, Funny

Never forget.
Forgetting is key to getting caught again. You can only catch a cat in the same trap once.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
1. Re:sony by MrNaz · 2009-02-01 16:07 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Unless that cat is the American public and the time since the last time you caught them is greater than the time since the last episode of American Idol.
  
  --
  I hate printers.
2. Re:sony by hairyfeet · 2009-02-01 22:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Well allow me to add that it is NOT, I repeat NOT just Visual Studio. I don't have Visual Studio installed and this "extension" was installed along with the latest patch for DotNET V3.5. So pretty much anyone who has FF and has the latest version and patches for dotNET is affected.
  How are they allowed to get away with this? Isn't installing BHOs that are not asked for and cannot be uninstalled without hacking pretty much the definition of malware? If some company like Gator or WhenU pulled this crap they would be busted. So why is MSFT allowed to pull this crap? And how do we know that this "extension" wouldn't cause problems or add bugs to FF? Seems like a great way to hamstring your competition to me. I just hope they get called to the mat for pulling this crap, because as far as I'm concerned this is the definition of malware. After all I didn't ask for it or give them permission to install it, they disabled the common way to remove it, and the only way to get rid of it was to hack both the reg and my prefs.js file. Sounds exactly like the kind of crap I deal with removing malware BHOs for customers.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
3. Re:sony by JamesP · 2009-02-01 23:42 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but really, if FF get infected by malware (whoever it is), it is _MUCH_EASIER_ to remove then in IE
  Worse case, reinstall does the trick
  Even then I don't think this is much of a deal, even though it is bad.
  
  --
  how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
4. Re:sony by ikkonoishi · 2009-02-02 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  I have personally seen a cat get caught in the same trap nearly 12 times. We were trying to catch a stray that hung out in our yard, but one of our cats would go into the cage, eat the bait food, and then whine piteously until someone would let him out. Why he wouldn't just come inside to eat the exact same food was beyond me.
5. Re:sony by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 01:43 · Score: 0
  
  Fool me once.......shame on....shame on you.............fool me you can't get fooled again.
6. Re:sony by ciderVisor · 2009-02-02 01:46 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Why he wouldn't just come inside to eat the exact same food was beyond me.
  Because, although you could only see it as two examples of the same food, your cat could appreciate the underlying symbolic differences.
  
  --
  Squirrel!
7. Re:sony by commodore64_love · 2009-02-02 02:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Not a big deal???
  Microsoft modified *another company's products*. What's next? MS is going to start adding updates to VLC player or Utorrent or OpenOffice or WordPerfect?!?!? They shouldn't be messing with non-microsoft products.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
8. Re:sony by slashdottedjoe · 2009-02-02 02:28 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I am disappointed that MS is pushing out .Net 3.5 as a high priority update to v2. The real reason can be found looking up .Net 3.5 on Google. Developers want this out there and hoped it would have been in XP SP3. I really do not care what developers want. It is my system and the Windows updates need to be for system maintenance and not for pushing an agenda from MS and its developers. I emailed MS and complained. I had not installed that update, so I had not seen the FF ext. Hearing this, I am even more alarmed over MS activities.
9. Re:sony by TitaniumDrew · 2009-02-02 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  I sure am glad that firefox notifies me when extensions were installed (even if it is a pain to uninstall). I know many (microsoft) programs that aren't so forthcoming.
10. Re:sony by Richy_T · 2009-02-02 02:40 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Isn't installing BHOs that are not asked for and cannot be uninstalled without hacking pretty much the definition of malware?
  Give the guy a chance, he's only been in for two weeks...
  Rich
11. Re:sony by ikkonoishi · 2009-02-02 02:49 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Ah I see he was performing a commentary on how we are all really prisoners to our appetites.
  Or he was a lazy fatass. I'm going with the second.
12. Re:sony by Battle_Ratt · 2009-02-02 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  The way I see it, they just gave this software, license free.
  That means no copyright, no protection of their supposed intellectual property associated with it. Basically if the code can be reverse engineered, viewed, uncompiled, or whatever it should be just fine and dandy for anyone to make and publish whatever they will with it.
  This should also include any software that they own that is required to run this little present.
  Its probably useless code anyway, but if companies that released stuff like this risked loosing rights to everything attached to the 'gifted' software in question this practice would stop.
13. Re:sony by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 04:05 · Score: 0
  
  Excellent Post. Very good point. I nominate this for 5 insightful!
14. Re:sony by Harald+Paulsen · 2009-02-02 04:51 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Yeah, the nerves of these software companies! I heard a company called Macromedia (well, Adobe now I guess) also installs updates to Internet Explorer and Firefox. Some kind of flash-thing. HOW DARE THEY?! ;-)
  
  --
  Harald
15. Re:sony by Machtyn · 2009-02-02 05:03 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The difference is you choose to install Flash. You knowingly (in most cases) go to Adobe, download the flash installer, agree to some sort of EULA, and install Flash with the understanding that it will be modifying third party software.
  
  Microsoft is doing this in an update without notifying its users (as far as has been reported) that this update will be modifying third party software with no easy way to prevent or uninstall the change.
  
  Given that, I am curious to know how this addon will improve my web experience in Firefox. Will it open security holes beyond what is already in Firefox and my other addons? Will it slow or decrease performance of FF? What benefit is it to FF (I thought .NET was already compatible with FF and other webbrowsers.)
16. Re:sony by plague3106 · 2009-02-02 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  All it does is pass the handling for .application to the .Net framework, so that ClickOnce applications can install.
17. Re:sony by el_chicano · 2009-02-02 05:14 · Score: 2, Informative
  It's funny how the fanboi mentality works (and not as a valid argument, mind you)
  
  MS creates a browser (and packages it w/ their OS)
  Everyone is up in arms. ZOMG monopoly!
  Microsoft did not just package IE with Windows, it illegally tied the it to Windows where the user had no choice about it being installed and they could not remove it easily. The US and EU governments have investigated and have accused Microsoft of being a monopoly, it is not just fanbois making that accusation.
  
  Sound more like an incessantly nagging spouse on a power trip please...
  You yourself are either a fanboi or an astroturfer. I mean come on, a content-free post complaining about other computer users complaining about the software installed on THEIR computers?
  If you are an astroturfer, does Microsoft pay well? If you are doing this for free why? Why do you feel compelled to defend a large faceless corporation like Microsoft? Especially given their past criminal behavior?
  Too bad you can't channel all that time and energy into some productive activities that benefit humankind instead...
  --
  A man who wants nothing is invincible
18. Re:sony by DrVomact · 2009-02-02 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  Well allow me to add that it is NOT, I repeat NOT just Visual Studio. ...this "extension" was installed along with the latest patch for DotNET V3.5.
  Great. I just installed a .NET "cumulative update" on my PC at home. So now I get to chase down malware tonight. Just wonderful.
  I was wondering whether I should install the update, because I haven't the faintest idea what uses .NETCRAP. It was a huge patch. Is there any way to tell what apps on my system depend on this? Or can I just uninstall .NETBLOAT and not worry?
  
  --
  Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
19. Re:sony by repvik · 2009-02-02 06:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Do you know what bugs me about this browser plugin? The fact that Microsofts knowledgebase article on the update didn't mention it.
  If they did it openly, it would have been recieved much better. But they go "stealth-mode", and install it without the user knowing.
20. Re:sony by MaggieL · 2009-02-02 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  BHO won the election. You have to put up with this for four years now.
  
  --
  -=Maggie Leber=-
21. Re:sony by DrVomact · 2009-02-02 06:16 · Score: 1
  Why he wouldn't just come inside to eat the exact same food was beyond me.
  Cats hate to pass up any chance to make a human open a door. Also, it may be that he thought you thought the food was special, because you were putting it in a special box outside just for him. Presentation is everything, as any chef will tell you.
  As for your stray cat problems, I highly recommend a method I once used to capture a nasty old tom that was terrorizing the neighborhood:
  
  Find female cat in heat.
  Obtain sturdy cardboard box large enough to contain the target.
  Fasten female cat by her collar to a handy fence post or other suitable anchor point.
  Stand beside female cat, holding box at the ready.
  At this point, it is only a matter of very little time. The tom cat must approach the female, even though he sees you, his deadly enemy standing beside her. His brain has been disordered by pheromones, and his higher cognitive functions have been overridden by lust.
  At a suitable moment, plop the box over the objective. Try not to capture the female in the same box, unless you want to get rid of her too.
  Obviously, this method only works for unaltered toms. The reverse might possibly work for capturing a female cat in heat...but their cognitive functions are harder to override, so I doubt it.
  --
  Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
22. Re:sony by daremonai · 2009-02-02 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  I've used an analogous technique to deal with teenage boys, and can testify that it is extremely effective.
23. Re:sony by commodore64_love · 2009-02-02 08:12 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yes.
  And if Microsoft had ASKED, I would have said, "No thanks; please leave my Mozilla browser alone." But they didn't even give me the choice. They used a Negative Option where they signed me up automatically, and if I want to get unsigned, I have to do it myself. Negative Options are generally considered illegal. See: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/negative_option.html
  
  "Today, with "negative option" marketing, commerce can be anything but simple, and consumers can end up being charged for products or services they never intended to purchase...... In 2001, the Federal Trade Commission cracked down on negative option abuses, suing nine companies for charging customers credit cards for products or services without gaining their express approval.
  "Negative option marketing is particularly troubling when marketers already have consumers' credit card or billing account information and can easily charge consumers' accounts without their permission or when marketers fail to disclose that consumers' credit card numbers will be transferred to another company and charged unless consumers call to cancel," the FTCs Elaine Kolish told Congress in November, 2001.
  
  Although in this case Microsoft did not charge for the upgrade, I still find it offensive that they are modifying OTHER companies' programs without my permission. Microsoft should not be practicing negative option upgrades to non-microsoft products.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
24. Re:sony by King+Gabey · 2009-02-02 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  you've obviously never met my cat
25. Re:sony by spectre_240sx · 2009-02-02 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  You know what the underlying theme is of everything you mentioned? Microsoft doing whatever they please without working with anyone else. This is far from beneficial in the long run.
26. Re:sony by LNX+Systems+Engineer · 2009-02-02 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Hrm, arbitrarily modifying a product without informing the upstream or the user? Reminds me of a little organization called Debian. /heavy dose of sarcasm
27. Re:sony by fel0niousmonk · 2009-02-02 09:29 · Score: 0
  
  you're right -- this was a pathetic waste of my time.
  
  I get the troll mod when everyone else is trolling around MS's balls, because they go out of their way to help all the IE bashers (myself included) run code with better interoperability.
  
  What you all should be doing instead of blindly bashing MS because you think it's cool -- is go troll around Mozilla and ask them why they don't do better to support software that runs on the VAST MAJORITY of all computers...
  
  Of course, this just goes back to the fanboi mentality lol...
28. Re:sony by fel0niousmonk · 2009-02-02 09:49 · Score: 0
  
  Just imagine all the whining everyone would've done if MS didn't package the browser with the OS - good luck getting Windows Update to work in Netscape.
  
  Of course, then you could simply blame them for not having a patched OS (Don't forget that it was your choice to uninstall* -- purely for idealogical reasons too), and then your system got rooted by some script kiddie in China and your machine was turned into an IRC bot.
  
  * As you pointed out (even though you contradicted yourself), you could uninstall, there just wasn't a Staples Easy Button, right? And, last time I checked IE still comes installed with Windows.
  
  http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1111907&cid=26699955
29. Re:sony by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-02-02 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  Given that, I am curious to know how this addon will improve my web experience in Firefox. Will it open security holes beyond what is already in Firefox and my other addons? Will it slow or decrease performance of FF? What benefit is it to FF (I thought .NET was already compatible with FF and other webbrowsers.)
  As far as I know, the only thing it really does is to allow you to install ClickOnce applications from Firefox. Previously, it was possible from IE only.
  Note that .NET installer had quietly installed a similar plugin for IE for ages now, so it's not really a new story. If you are annoyed by "malware", then it's 4 years too late (.NET 2.0 was released in 2005, and I think that was the first one that included ClickOnce).
30. Re:sony by HiThere · 2009-02-02 11:03 · Score: 1
  ...
  It's funny how the fanboi mentality works (and not as a valid argument, mind you)
  
  MS creates a browser (and packages it w/ their OS)
  Everyone is up in arms. ZOMG monopoly! (Lest you forget they want to create a browser that can function more effectively with their own OS without having to spend all the effort and overhead involved in working with a 3rd party competitor who does not want to work with them?)
  ...
  
  ...
  You're forgetting a bit of history here. Netscape was trying to build a business around selling a browser. MS moves in and destroys the possibility. With a product where it promised the authors of the product that it would give them a percentage of the sales in return for the rights to the product...so then it starts giving the product away to destroy Netscape's market without paying Spyglass anything.
  One could argue that Netscape had no right to sell Netscape, but I *think* that the legal right is unquestionable, even if the morals were a bit dubious. (Netscape was based off of Open Source code which Netscape closed. But the license allowed this use.)
  What MS did was a monopoly in one area tying it to a product in an affiliated area to promote their monopoly and destroy another's business. This is illegal in most jurisdictions. (Caution: IANAL)
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
31. Re:sony by Cl1mh4224rd · 2009-02-02 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  Not a big deal???
  Microsoft modified *another company's products*. What's next? MS is going to start adding updates to VLC player or Utorrent or OpenOffice or WordPerfect?!?!? They shouldn't be messing with non-microsoft products.
  I'd just like to point out that both VMWare Server 2 and Sun's Java Runtime Environment install Firefox ad-ons without permission and neither one gives any kind of helpful information as to why.
  In the case of the JRE ad-on, it's reinstalled during every update...
  Not that this excuses Microsoft, of course. I only point it out to add a little perspective to the situation.
  
  --
  People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
32. Re:sony by ScrewMaster · 2009-02-02 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  You can only catch a cat in the same trap once.
  I used to think that. Now I don't have a cat.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
33. Re:sony by JamesP · 2009-02-02 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft modified *another company's products*
  Well, like, I dunno, any program you install on windows "modifies another company's product"
  And guess what, MS updates are not forced onto you, just turn it off or pick only the ones you want
  
  --
  how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
34. Re:sony by fel0niousmonk · 2009-02-02 12:41 · Score: 0
  
  I fully understand the monopoly/anti-trust suit ... And don't get me wrong, I've garnered my own hatred of the company in more ways than one in the past 12-15 years, but I also know that without MS, we would likely (almost certainly) not be in the same place we are today.
  
  I also never claimed that MS was correct during those times. However, I do believe that as an entity, Microsoft had equal right to create a competing product, and as it turned out, are still doing so. The distinction is that the entities merely had to be split up. wikipedia entry The browser was (and still is) packaged with the OS (for free), and yet non-IE adoption is still rising. And realistically, consumers (largely) weren't up in arms about the browser wars at the time.
  
  That wasn't even the point. The point is the (usually) baseless & manic subversion of truth and objectivity that ensues over anything Microsoft does, regardless of it's positive/negative impact.
  
  How many times over the years have you seen a Dev pull his hair out having to deal with browser interoperability? Not only that, but snobby users cry cry cry about how IE sucks. So MS makes a FF plugin to help in interoperability and users cry cry cry about how they installed it.
  
  It's one thing to be critical of what was done, it's another to make completely irrational claims about how MS is the devil. As much as the fanbois I'm referring to don't want to admit it -- Microsoft is a commercially viable corporation like any other. More importantly they supply software for the VAST MAJORITY of computers in existence. They're not trying to install something on your computer that will render FF useless so that you have to use IE. In fact it's QUITE THE OPPOSITE.
  
  It's time to move past the petty bs...
35. Re:sony by __NR_kill · 2009-02-02 14:28 · Score: 1
  
  This still didn't help me to run outlook web access in Firefox the way it runs in IE.
36. Re:sony by Averyge+Joe · 2009-02-02 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  Is it really caught if you don't observe the trap? If you observe the trap and the cat is not caught, can it be not caught again? Poor cat, I knew & didn't know it well...
37. Re:sony by plague3106 · 2009-02-03 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  Christ, get over yourself. If you hate and distrust MS so much, stop using their software.
  Although in this case Microsoft did not charge for the upgrade, I still find it offensive that they are modifying OTHER companies' programs without my permission. Microsoft should not be practicing negative option upgrades to non-microsoft products.
  Oh, like java embeds itself into your browsers? Or flash?
  Really, get over it. You just sound like a whinny bitch.. especially when ClickOnce was first introduced, /. complained that FF was once again a "second class citizen."
Scumware, eh? by dmomo · 2009-02-01 15:58 · Score: 5, Informative

One hint that this "extension" is unwanted garbage is that when you Google (google: Microsoft Framework Assistant) for it and the top links are pages about how to remove it. Then the first link from your site (microsoft.com) is also a forum that mentions getting rid of it...
Anyway, here's how to remove it.
http://www.robertnyman.com/2009/01/26/microsoft-force-installs-firefox-extension/
1. Re:Scumware, eh? by Dwedit · 2009-02-01 16:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That doesn't matter at all. Type in any .DLL file you can think of, and you will see all the "Remove Spyware Now!" type sites that catalog DLL files. Buried in the actual relevant content of the site, hidden beneath all the "Spyware is dangerous, you may have spyware" boilerplate content is a row in a table telling you that the DLL file you searched for is safe. You can't just trust results like that.
2. Re:Scumware, eh? by Kral_Blbec · 2009-02-01 16:22 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It does matter because the sites are different. The ones that come up for Microsoft Framework Assistant are forum postings, articles and blogs instead of autogenerated bull-honky.
3. Re:Scumware, eh? by Compholio · 2009-02-01 16:52 · Score: 1
  
  That doesn't matter at all. Type in any .DLL file you can think of, and you will see all the "Remove Spyware Now!" type sites that catalog DLL files.
  Usually I see a link to download it from dll-files.com ...
4. Re:Scumware, eh? by pcgabe · 2009-02-01 18:50 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  You have a problem with autogenerated bull-honky? This site may have the answer!
  
  --
  Don't put advice in your sig.
5. Re:Scumware, eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 05:03 · Score: 0
  
  Nice how that site's comments automatically change with the URL, too... wonder what happens if you submit a comment yourself?
6. Re:Scumware, eh? by Kral_Blbec · 2009-02-05 13:50 · Score: 1
  
  that is probably one of the single funniest comments ive seen on slashdot for a long time. nice
Microsoft will never learn by chrome · 2009-02-01 15:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

Microsoft just can't resist the urge to use it's position as the marketplace leader for desktop OSes to be a dick.
1. Re:Microsoft will never learn by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 17:11 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, they're so much of a dick for enabling ClickOnce functionality for Firefox users. I swear you idiots are the same ones who bitch about it being IE-only whenever someone brings it up.
2. Re:Microsoft will never learn by chrome · 2009-02-01 19:51 · Score: 1
  
  There wouldn't be a problem if they asked.
3. Re:Microsoft will never learn by jamesmcm · 2009-02-01 20:16 · Score: 0
  
  The fact that they encourage the use of proprietary, single-platform standards like .NET etc. is enough of a problem itself.
Server 2003 as well by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 16:01 · Score: 0

This showed up on my Server 2003 machine too.
but... by powerspike · 2009-02-01 16:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's Funny, i have had the same issue with apple update, i find it requesting to install updates for programs that weren't installed in the first place, seems like the same thing but different company...
1. Re:but... by spectecjr · 2009-02-01 16:28 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Except in Apple's case, it's somewhat worse... after all, why the fuck would they install MobileMe or Bonjour on my system when I install iTunes?
  Why the FUCK do they think I want their networking system along with their player?
  Bonjour
  Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Weak. At least the .NET extension is within the realms of making sense.
  
  --
  Coming soon - pyrogyra
2. Re:but... by guruevi · 2009-02-01 16:44 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Because some iTunes' features are built around those technologies. Eg. if you have wireless speakers or another library/machine/appliance you want to share your music with, Bonjour will auto-detect it and list it in iTunes. Here Microsoft is including spyware targeted at their competition (Firefox) in their own updates in order to make Firefox look bad. It's like Apple including an update to Microsoft Office so that information on every document gets sent to them or including an Internet Explorer extension to send out personal or system information to the pages they're visiting.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
3. Re:but... by EvilIdler · 2009-02-01 16:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I don't understand the hatred for Bonjour. It's a discovery protocol, used by Macs for ages. All it does is to make it possible to find other computers. Adobe seem to be using it in their latest products, so you'll be seeing it more. It's not as if Windows programs historically have been satisfied with just one version of a DLL, anyway ;)
4. Re:but... by Microlith · 2009-02-01 16:49 · Score: 1
  
  Such as?
  Really, all I've seen have been updates for Apple software (or software otherwise distributed by Apple.)
  Is this the Windows version of Software Update?
5. Re:but... by mR.bRiGhTsId3 · 2009-02-01 16:51 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Because Bonjour is a dependency for the correct functioning of an iTunes feature?
6. Re:but... by blincoln · 2009-02-01 17:02 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I don't understand the hatred for Bonjour. It's a discovery protocol, used by Macs for ages. All it does is to make it possible to find other computers.
  The only reason I have iTunes installed is because I couldn't find a Quicktime download that didn't come with it. The only reason I have Quicktime installed is because of people who only make their content available as Quicktime files for whatever reason.
  *Why* would I want Quicktime to be able to discover other devices on my network? Even if I did, why would I want a service running all of the time as opposed to once every few months when I go to play a Quicktime file?
  I can only speak for myself, but that's why *I* hate Bonjour. I wanted Apple's poorly-coded (for Windows at least) proprietary video player. In order to get it, I had to get a bunch of extra software I most definitely didn't want.
  I already tried Quicktime Alternative. It wasn't able to play the newest Quicktime variants.
  
  --
  "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
7. Re:but... by Urza9814 · 2009-02-01 17:03 · Score: 1
  
  Yea, I seem to recall iTunes refusing to update without also installing Safari.
8. Re:but... by spectecjr · 2009-02-01 17:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Because Bonjour is a dependency for the correct functioning of an iTunes feature? ... the same could be said for the correct functioning of a Microsoft .NET feature here.
  
  --
  Coming soon - pyrogyra
9. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 17:30 · Score: 0
  
  The Apple install was a breach of good behavior but at least you could uninstall. This thing isn't easily uninstallable.
  Add to that the fact it's a plug-in for a 3rd party program. It's as if Apple installed a plug-in for WMP. How would that go down?
10. Re:but... by EvilIdler · 2009-02-01 17:36 · Score: 1
  
  iTunes has this feature where it can play other computers' music collection, so I guess that is why it needs Bonjour.
  But yes, the Windows ports of iTunes and QuickTime are indeed *terrible*. I'd love it if they actually coded it over as a plugin-based architecture. No need to include the whole stack of protocols from Darwin.
  At least Bonjour is open source. Maybe you can code up a stub API which does nothing ;)
11. Re:but... by atraintocry · 2009-02-01 17:40 · Score: 1
  
  Wait, what? I wasn't happy when I noticed it either, but how do you figure that ClickOnce is supposed to make Firefox look bad? From what I can tell it just changes a MIME type so that you can launch .Net apps stored on the network from Firefox the way you already could from IE.
12. Re:but... by jaygridley · 2009-02-01 17:44 · Score: 1
  
  The only reason I have iTunes installed is because I couldn't find a Quicktime download that didn't come with it.
  Apparently you didnt look very hard because right on the QuickTime download page is "Quicktime with iTunes for Windows XP or Vista" with "Quicktime for Windows XP or Vista" right below it (the latter NOT including iTunes).
13. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 17:58 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  VLC should be able to handle pretty much any media, including Quicktime files.
14. Re:but... by ozphx · 2009-02-01 18:18 · Score: 1
  
  Or Sun, deciding that when I do a Java update that I really want the fucking Google toolbar installed.
  Thats only a small step from whoring my damn box out with malware.
  
  --
  3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
15. Re:but... by ozphx · 2009-02-01 18:20 · Score: 1
  
  I bloody wish they would. I long for the day that Apple release a damn DirectShow filter for all their QuickTime shit.
  
  --
  3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
16. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 18:32 · Score: 0
  
  A feature most Windows iTunes will never use. Given the unnecessary network traffic that comes with Bonjour, I think I prefer the .NET Firefox scenario.
  And if only it stopped at Bonjour. ASU for Windows is also trying to install Safari (WTF does Safari do that the browsers I already have can't?) and Mobile Me Control Panel (which is fantastic for all those people who don't use Mobile Me).
  I say this as a Mac-owning Mobile Me-subscribing iPod owner: ASU for Windows sucks. Installing Bonjour without explicit permission: dick move. Requiring Safari: On par with Microsoft/IE bundling. Trying to install Mobile Me: Blatant money grab and an insult.
17. Re:but... by Swizec · 2009-02-01 18:43 · Score: 1
  
  Question for you: if you SO hate quicktime. Why not just use VLC? It plays everything and their mother.
18. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 18:47 · Score: 0
  
  For the record.
  This link will allow you to download QT for Windows without iTunes. But only if your browser is IE or pretends to be IE.
  http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/
19. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 19:14 · Score: 0
  
  it doesn't play embedded QT or RMVB
20. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 19:22 · Score: 0
  
  www.videolan.org
  Just use VLC.
21. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 19:45 · Score: 0
  
  I figured out a better way how to play .mov files. I ignore them. It turned out to be less pain+loss, then installing apple's crapware. May sound a bit harsh at first, but you should try it, unless you have business reasons to play quicktime, say no.
22. Re:but... by hvdh · 2009-02-01 19:53 · Score: 1
  
  I wanted Apple's poorly-coded (for Windows at least) proprietary video player.
  Nah. You don't want the player, you just want the codec. (Google for Quicktime Alternative.)
23. Re:but... by TheLink · 2009-02-01 20:10 · Score: 1
  
  Lots of people run firefox because they do not want "that microsoft stuff" to run when they visit some webpage.
  
  If they want "that microsoft stuff" to run, they start up IE instead, which happens to be conveniently embedded in most Microsoft Windows installations.
  
  So this sneaky "update" is BAD.
  
  If you want a car analogy, this is like sending in your Microsoft car for servicing at Microsoft and having the Microsoft mechanic install an extension to your "Firefox" add-on car radio (which you installed yourself).
  
  An extension that allows you to listen to the New Microsoft Radio Stations, all without asking your permission first.
  
  Even though you already have that extension on your built-in Microsoft Car Radio - which Microsoft has conveniently embedded into your car and made unremovable, they still should not be installing it on your non-Microsoft Car Radios.
  
  It's different if they ask your permission first. But AFAIK they didn't and that makes it wrong and rude.
  
  Many people may consider it tantamount to trespass and disregard for private property.
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
24. Re:but... by ion.simon.c · 2009-02-01 20:11 · Score: 1
  
  TBH, I *REALLY* wish that the Avahi folks would get around to letting you announce IPv6 DNS servers on your lan.
  So then, we could have radvd for v6 autoconfigure, the avahi daemon rewriting resolv.conf (or whatever Windows uses), and do away with DHCPv6 servers!
  </off_topic>
25. Re:but... by ion.simon.c · 2009-02-01 20:13 · Score: 1
  
  Given the unnecessary network traffic that comes with Bonjour,
  What unnecessary traffic? Is it any worse than the SMB/CIFS/WINS broadcasts that samba and Windows boxes generate?
26. Re:but... by Corporate+Troll · 2009-02-01 20:39 · Score: 1
  
  I don't have hatred for it per-se, but I know that it has borked network connections beyond repair (Okay, I found the solution, but try that without a network connection....) No, it didn't happen to me, but to a good friend of mine who is technically savvy and likes music (he has a huge library and buys music online). So, he wants to buy an album and iTunes tells him to upgrade. Why it does that is beyond me, but I have seen it myself and it pisses me off too. So he downloads the latest iTunes, installs it, and it tells him to reboot. After the reboot his network card didn't want to connect anymore. That's how he described it to me, and I know he's knowledgable and trustworthy.
  It's in that situation that I got his machine, and it wasn't easy fixing.
  So, I don't hate Bonjour, but that is stuff that shouldn't happen... Ever!
27. Re:but... by Dhalka226 · 2009-02-01 20:59 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Oh. My. God.
  Spyware? Are you kidding now? Because it tells you what version of .NET is installed on a system and lets you launch a .NET program as easily as you would with IE?
  Well holy hell boys, you'd better all uninstall all of your web browsers. Do you know those damn things are spyware? They report what version of your browser and operating system you use! And your IP address, so that the evil hacker groups know where to find you.
  There are plenty of problems with what MS did and the way they did it. This is not one of them. This is hyperbolic bullshit, plain and simple.
28. Re:but... by sumdumass · 2009-02-01 21:06 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Depends on when he installed QuickTime. Apple pulled a stunt where is hid and changed the downloed to Quicktime without Itunes. There was a period of a couple of months where they even forgot to make the public page for the standalone download availible from the quicktime page. That means if you didn't follow a link in from a this party site, you wouldn't have found it.
  It's possible that both of you are right and neither of you are wrong or not looking very hard depending when he went after the QuickTime. Apple certainly didn't make it easy.
29. Re:but... by jaygridley · 2009-02-01 21:42 · Score: 1
  
  That's entirely possible. I just looked again before I posted to check but I don't check to see what the current version is regularly to know what the page looks like all the time.
  I'm not entirely impressed with the fact that I apparently can't uninstall iTunes from my college-issue computer without losing use of my DVD drive. Whether this is the fault of Apple or M$ I have not yet sorted out.
30. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 23:43 · Score: 0
  
  Are you joking? You can't find the Quicktime download without iTunes?
  Go to quicktime.com, click "free download" and choose the fucking option that does not include iTunes. It is not that difficult.
  Two options: 1 with iTunes, 1 without. The operating system is detected automatically, if that is what you thought the second option was.
31. Re:but... by hey! · 2009-02-01 23:58 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, it's just Apple's branding of it's implementation of Zeroconf. The common Linux implementation is called Avahi, and I think most modern distros install that by default (i.e. they didn't ask the user if he wanted it).
  If you don't ask, people complain. If you do ask, people complain about being bugged or being asked incomprehensible questions. Since people don't know what Bonjour is, how can they answer the question about whether they want it as part of the iTunes package? I think the fact that the software implements a non-proprietary standard makes a difference. There should be nothing hidden about what it does, and if there is a problem then a well informed person can handle it becaue there's nothing secret.
  If Avahi is OK as a default on Linux, why is Bonjour a problem with iTunes? What we are seeing here is the old Scott McNealy prediction coming true: "the network is the computer." He was just a little ahead of his time. iTunes has music player functions, but primarily it is middleware. It's job is to sit between the iTunes music story and iPods, or between the media collection on one device (say a PC) and the user interface on another (say an AppleTV). In a sense, iTunes is a kind of operating system for a set of activities and networked devices.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
32. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 00:23 · Score: 0
  
  The only reason I have iTunes installed is because I couldn't find a Quicktime download that didn't come with it.
  http://www.apple.com/au/quicktime/download/
33. Re:but... by c_forq · 2009-02-02 00:26 · Score: 1
  
  Probably because of the networking features in iTunes. When I was in college (before today's handy airport express or the iPod Touch/iPhone remote) the best way to have everyones music was iTunes - have one laptop hooked to the stereo and it can play music from any computer running iTunes on the network. Very handy for most people to keep their computers and iPods behind locked doors while still having great music for parties.
  
  --
  Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
34. Re:but... by Jellybob · 2009-02-02 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  Why the FUCK do they think I want their networking system along with their player?
  Because auto-discovery of other iTunes libraries (or anything else compliant with DAAP) is a feature built into iTunes which requires Bonjour.
  Asking why they want to include Bonjour is a bit like asking why a web browser would include an HTTP stack.
35. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 00:45 · Score: 0
  
  The only reason I have iTunes installed is because I couldn't find a Quicktime download that didn't come with it.
  Then you obviously didn't look very hard. The download page has two options, Quicktime with iTunes or Quicktime without iTunes.
36. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 00:46 · Score: 0
  
  The only reason I have iTunes installed is because I couldn't find a Quicktime download that didn't come with it. The only reason I have Quicktime installed is because of people who only make their content available as Quicktime files for whatever reason.
  VLC player can play most quicktime content: http://www.videolan.org/vlc/
37. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 01:51 · Score: 0
  
  http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/
  There's an option to pick the one with iTunes or one without it. FYI. Feel free to get rid of the iTunes bloat.
38. Re:but... by pknoll · 2009-02-02 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  The only reason I have iTunes installed is because I couldn't find a Quicktime download that didn't come with it.
  Then you didn't look very hard. Go to the QuickTime download page and select option 2: QuickTime 7.6 for Windows XP or Vista.
  I understand not wanting to install software for one or another reason, but it *is* possible (and relatively easy) to get QT without iTunes.
  If you do install QT without iTunes, it doesn't install Bonjour.
39. Re:but... by Chrontius · 2009-02-02 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  On a tangent, now you know how us Mac users feel about Windows Media codecs.
40. Re:but... by Chrontius · 2009-02-02 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  Because the only thing you need for an iPhone to work right is iTunes, and therefore iTunes needs to come with all of the supporting infrastructure to make the iPhone work smoothly, seamlessly, and automagically.
  
  It's because of that the world's most pleasant-to-use cell phone is the way it is. Love it or hate it, at least now you should be able to understand it.
41. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  You're taking that out of context.
  The traffic is unnecessary because it is being put to no useful purpose for most Windows users, either because the network is being serviced by other protocols (e.g., CIFS) or because there is simply no need for the protocols at all.
  Put in this context your comparison is unnecessary. Useless SMB traffic is undesirable, too.
42. Re:but... by poot_rootbeer · 2009-02-02 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  Why the FUCK do they think I want their networking system along with their player?
  Moreover, why do they even run an update service at all when I install iTunes, when the account it's running under does not have Administrator privileges and cannot install software?
43. Re:but... by Battle_Ratt · 2009-02-02 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  It's because its a French word silly.
44. Re:but... by mk2mark · 2009-02-02 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  VLC player is your friend.
45. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 05:59 · Score: 0
  
  The only reason I have iTunes installed is because I couldn't find a Quicktime download that didn't come with it.
  
  Uhhh...
  http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/
  Choose the option that doesn't include iTunes. It's not that difficult to find. It's the first result in a Google search for 'quicktime for windows'. Bonjour isn't used by Quicktime. It's used by iTunes to find other iTunes libraries on the network.
46. Re:but... by repvik · 2009-02-02 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  It also changes the Firefox useragent, so Microsoft can claim that .NET marketshare is huge.
47. Re:but... by ion.simon.c · 2009-02-02 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  Okay. If they don't want to use Bonjour, then the traffic is unneeded. But, isn't this a tempest in a teapot? I'd be willing to bet that Bonjour is *far* less chatty than CIFS/SMB. Also, how many folks actually use CIFS? For the average Joe, it's a little tricky to turn that fucker off. :)
  WRT "network being serviced by other protocols":
  Bonjour is about arbitrary service discovery. CIFS just does file and printer sharing. As far as I know, there's *nothing* in the Windows world that provides the same services that Bonjour does.
48. Re:but... by Phroggy · 2009-02-02 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  I completely agree, Apple should not be pushing iTunes on people who just want to install QuickTime. In fact, they only do this for Windows users; if you go to the QuickTime Download page on a Mac, it does NOT offer a bundle with iTunes.
  By the way, if you weren't aware, you can disable iTunes' Bonjour features by unchecking the various "Look for..." checkboxes in Preferences.
  Personally, I like Bonjour for Windows because it makes it easier to set up a network printer.
  
  --
  $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
  $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
49. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 09:18 · Score: 0
  
  Or, you know, download Quicktime by itself:
  http://www.apple.com/quicktime
  http://www.letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=quicktime+windows+standalone
50. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 11:40 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, but if Microsoft pulled the same stunt, you know this place would be all riled up with fallacy-ridden, emotional rhetoric about how evil they are and how SupaTux912837 is going to protest by buying only Apple products.
51. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 12:33 · Score: 0
  
  Agreed. If it's Quicktime, and Quicktime Alternative and VLC can't play it then I just do without. Quicktime is simply too big of a pile of crap to put onto my computer. Same with Real.
52. Re:but... by atraintocry · 2009-02-02 18:54 · Score: 1
  
  Hadn't noticed that part. Sneaky sneaky. But I still don't see how someone could think MS did this to somehow tarnish Firefox's reputation. That's like beating someone up in order to gain sympathy. Look what he's making me do with my fists!
53. Re:but... by atraintocry · 2009-02-02 18:57 · Score: 1
  
  I'm still not getting how it makes Firefox look bad. It makes MS look bad, not Firefox. If Mozilla Corp installed an IE BHO without telling you, then they'd be the ones that look bad.
54. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 20:22 · Score: 0
  
  Try the latest build of VLC, it should work... (and probably with most codecs...)
  (unless, a more recent build of Quicktime comes up and makes files unreadable for VLC)
55. Re:but... by dhavleak · 2009-02-03 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  Try the CCCP codec pack - http://cccp-project.net/
  With CCCP, I'm able to play everything (including AAC, Div-X, indeo, quicktime, etc.) using just media player. I had to follow the FAQ to enable ffdshow or something like that for QuickTime -- I forget the details but it was pretty simple.
  The good thing about the CCCP pack is that they are pretty paranoid about the quality of the codecs, and not bundling malware etc. (unlike K-Lite). Just getting rid of quicktime is a pretty big win.
56. Re:but... by spectecjr · 2009-02-03 13:57 · Score: 1
  
  Because the only thing you need for an iPhone to work right is iTunes, and therefore iTunes needs to come with all of the supporting infrastructure to make the iPhone work smoothly, seamlessly, and automagically.
  It's because of that the world's most pleasant-to-use cell phone is the way it is. Love it or hate it, at least now you should be able to understand it.
  I don't own an iPhone... so all it is is bloat. And it occasionally spams my CPU.
  
  --
  Coming soon - pyrogyra
57. Re:but... by jms1 · 2009-02-08 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  That's kinda backwards- usually I hear people ask why they can't find a copy of iTunes which doesn't come with Quicktime. The reason for that is because the code which implements Apple's DRM mechanism is actually contained in the Quicktime libraries. They put it there so that Mac users will be able to play their protected files using players other than iTunes- on a Mac, any program which uses the Quicktime framework (i.e. shared library, much like a ".so" or ".dll" file) is able to play the protected files.
  The same is true on Windows- their Quicktime player is able to play protected files which were purchased through the iTunes store (provided your computer is "authorized" for the account which purchased the file, of course.) My understanding (I don't write code for Windows) is that any other Windows program which use the Quicktime library can also play them.
  The difference is that, on the Mac, the Quicktime framework is installed as a base part of the OS (much like IE on Windows) and therefore it's safe to assume it will always be there on a Mac. For Windows, it's not installed by default, and in fact can be removed by the user (after they uninstall iTunes, which won't work without it.)
  As for why it installs Bonjour... first of all, it's not a system for locating other computers, it's a system for finding SERVICES on other computers. iTunes uses it to implement their "sharing" feature, where if multiple machines are running iTunes on the same network, they can play music from each others' libraries.
  As for being able to install Quicktime without iTunes, I haven't tried in several years- my desktop and laptop machines are both Macs, and the only Windows machine I own anymore doesn't connect to the internet at all (I used it for ham radio, and install software using a USB stick) And because I'm using a Mac, Apple's web site only shows me the download links for the Mac, so I can't see what their offerings are for Windows.
  As for why people use Quicktime to encode their videos "for whatever reason"... If a Windows user makes a video and distributes it, chances are it will be a ".wmv" file. Why? Because "Windows Media" support is built into the operating system, just as Quicktime is built into Mac OS X. Most users don't know, or care, about video codecs, container formats, or anything like that- all they know is that when they hit "go", it makes a file which they can play by double-clicking on it. Mac users are just as human as Windows users, and have the same "laziness" factor. When a Mac user doesn't tell their software any different, they end up producing Quicktime files. However, most of the newer programs are starting to default to MP4 files, which can be played by just about anything- which cannot be said of ".wmv" files.
Java does this, too by RockMFR · 2009-02-01 16:05 · Score: 3, Informative

Some of the recent updates for Java SE have included "Java Quick Starter". And for those with Ubuntu, there are a number of things that show up in the Add-ons list that are not explained well.
1. Re:Java does this, too by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 16:14 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Sun offers steps to disable the Java Quick Starter, though. And those unexplained Ubuntu extensions can be removed by uninstalling the "ubufox" package (if I recall correctly; I haven't been using Ubuntu for a long time now.)
2. Re:Java does this, too by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · 2009-02-01 16:29 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  WTF? Do you understand why this is an issue?
  Some of the recent updates for Java SE have included "Java Quick Starter". And for those with Ubuntu, there are a number of things that show up in the Add-ons list that are not explained well.
  Neither of the examples you cite update an independently installed third party software without giving you an easy way of uninstalling.
  FFS.
  
  --
  There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
3. Re:Java does this, too by gparent · 2009-02-01 16:50 · Score: 1
  
  They still fuck around with stuff they shouldn't be fucking around with.
  
  At least the Microsoft update gives me functionality I actually desire (ClickOnce).
4. Re:Java does this, too by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · 2009-02-01 17:35 · Score: 1
  
  They still fuck around with stuff they shouldn't be fucking around with.
  You want to clarify that? Java update shouldn't fuck with.... Java? Riiiiiiiiiight....
  Or do you mean Ubuntu shouldn't include extensions in firefox for doing Ubuntu specific stuff? Riiiiiight.
  
  --
  There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
5. Re:Java does this, too by Mufasa245 · 2009-02-01 17:37 · Score: 1
  
  I'm confused... are you against or for the update?
  
  --
  Mufasa http://www.firetiger.net/
6. Re:Java does this, too by pcgabe · 2009-02-01 18:55 · Score: 1
  
  Do YOU understand the issue?
  Java installs the Java Quick Starter extension in Firefox. That's pretty much EXACTLY THIS SAME ISSUE. It can't be uninstalled like other extensions either.
  It is exactly an example of software updating an independently installed third party program without giving and easy way of uninstalling.
  
  --
  Don't put advice in your sig.
7. Re:Java does this, too by Corporate+Troll · 2009-02-01 21:11 · Score: 1
  
  Do YOU understand the issue?
  I'm a Java Code Monkey and as a matter of fact, I have Java installed on my machine. I just checked my firefox add-ons and there is no such thing as a "Java Quick Starter". Perhaps it was an option during the installation, and I unchecked it? Oh, yes, that must be it!
  I do have the "Microsoft .NET framework assistant" listed in my Firefox addons.... Hey?!? When did it install that... It never asked me....
  You see the difference now?
8. Re:Java does this, too by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 21:23 · Score: 0
  
  And for those with Ubuntu, there are a number of things that show up in the Add-ons list that are not explained well.
  FUD. The default Firefox 3.0.5 on Ubuntu 8.04 doesn't have anything like that.
  Perhaps you've added something that's confusing you? Name these problem 'things'. Better still, look them up to see if you have indeed given yourself some problems.
9. Re:Java does this, too by BikeHelmet · 2009-02-01 21:35 · Score: 1
  
  JQS is easy to turn off from the java control panel.
  And get this - you can do it without uninstalling java!
  Unfortunately, this .net thingy seems to require a painful uninstall process, or you have to toss .net
10. Re:Java does this, too by BikeHelmet · 2009-02-01 21:38 · Score: 1
  
  That thing is handy. :D Makes applets start up quite a bit quicker. It's easy to turn off too - look at the post below. (or maybe above)
  Honestly, if you want to pick a beef with Java, you should be calling it on the Automated Updates that keep re-enabling themselves. I had to set my firewall to block the damn thing!
  No, I DO NOT want you to check for updates! Don't remind me! Turn off! Spybot S&D - Kill it! - Die die die die!
11. Re:Java does this, too by gparent · 2009-02-02 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  Next time, try reading the comments you reply to.
  
  'They' refers to Sun. Java shouldn't fuck with Firefox. I have that stupid frakkin' Quick Starter and there's no way to uninstall it from the add-on pane either, similar to the MS add-on.
  
  At least the MS plugin does something useful other than attempting to "maek ur javaz run fasterr"
12. Re:Java does this, too by gparent · 2009-02-02 00:36 · Score: 1
  
  Both
  
  I'm against them updating Firefox without telling you.
  
  However, they're not exactly trying to 'force' much on you. It's not like they're installing Microsoft Bar.
  
  Sure, it's a bad move on their part, but the panic level we see on slashdot (Some users claim it's Microsoft sabotaging the rendering engine! WHAT?) is ridiculous.
13. Re:Java does this, too by KangKong · 2009-02-02 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  The difference being that I've actually chosen to install Java. I've never chosen to install dotnet, yet microsoft continues to push it to me and install extensions to 3rd party products.
14. Re:Java does this, too by Mufasa245 · 2009-02-02 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  See the other comments for this post that go into more detail. But basically, lots of software adds browser plugins without warning. PDF reader software, anti-virus software, etc. Its not uncommon.
  
  --
  Mufasa http://www.firetiger.net/
15. Re:Java does this, too by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · 2009-02-02 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  there's no way to uninstall it from the add-on pane either, similar to the MS add-on.
  No, it's not similar to the MS add-on you fucking numpty - there's no way to uninstall the MS addon at all & no way to deselect it during installation.
  At least the MS plugin does something useful other than attempting to "maek ur javaz run fasterr"
  Totally subjective numpty.
  
  --
  There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
16. Re:Java does this, too by gparent · 2009-02-02 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  there's no way to uninstall it from the add-on pane either, similar to the MS add-on.
  No, it's not similar to the MS add-on you fucking numpty - there's no way to uninstall the MS addon at all & no way to deselect it during installation.
  Hey, you fucking numpty, I wasn't prompt for the java bullshit either. Grow up, jesus.
17. Re:Java does this, too by gparent · 2009-02-02 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  Oh and congratulations, you're no better than the average anti-MS obsessed basher.
  
  Oh dear, Java does the exact same thing!
  
  Fresh VM, latest version of firefox, latest version of Java. Numpty.
18. Re:Java does this, too by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · 2009-02-02 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  I said: there's no way to uninstall the MS addon at all & no way to deselect it during installation.
  Notice the way I had uninstall bolded? You're quite right, Java sucks the same sort of sweaty donkey balls that MS does in that you can't deselect during installation.
  However, how do you uninstall the MS patch? You can uninstall JQS through the java control panel. You can't do that for the MS patch.
  Seeing the difference now numpty?
  
  --
  There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
19. Re:Java does this, too by gparent · 2009-02-02 13:58 · Score: 1
  
  No, I don't. Both are just as bad, you're just so stupid you fail to realize this and decide to call people smarter than you numpty to compensate. Your name suits you well.
  
  But hey, since it's MS, basic logic skills don't apply, right? MS SUCKZoskiasjkda!111!
20. Re:Java does this, too by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · 2009-02-02 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  No, I don't. Both are just as bad
  1) Installs (via Operating System automatic updates) a plugin to third party app without asking, offers a no method of uninstallation.
  2) Installs a plugin to third party app without asking, offers a non-standard method of uninstallation.
  Are both just as bad? Do you still not see the difference?
  But hey, since it's MS, basic logic skills don't apply, right?
  Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Waaaaaaaaaaah! No, since its a convicted predatory monopolist & they're pushing out an uninstallable plugin via automatic updates (in a market they monopolise), basic logic skills do apply & they're different.
  Your name suits you well.
  I could say the same for you. If you changed your nick to gnumpty.
  
  --
  There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
21. Re:Java does this, too by gparent · 2009-02-02 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  Point 1: Both are just as stupid, regardless of the difference involved. There's a way to remove it if you really want to disable ClickOnce which affects you in no way, unlike the Quick Start which preloads stuff I don't care about in memory.
  
  Point 2: Yeah, I get it. MS = Different, they're EVUL. Since they're EVUL we can ignore the fact that the add-on takes no resources whatsoever, adds functionality that has been bitched about openly on this very website because it wasn't compatible with Firefox, and claim that it's IM-POS-SI-BUELH! to remove it even though it's a single registry key. Maybe they found a way to remove basic logic and brain functions from the anti-MS "numpties" too.
  
  Point 3: It's fine, at least I don't bath in ignorance and stupidity like you do. Calling people who are smarter than you and proved you wrong numpty must be awesome, I'm sure :) Stick to your name, kid! It's working!
22. Re:Java does this, too by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · 2009-02-02 15:22 · Score: 1
  
  1) I'm not debating the merits of either plugin, just the fact that you can disable one & not the other.
  2) No, you don't get it. You voluntarily download one app, the other is thrust upon you by virtue of a monopoly in operating systems.
  3) If you believe you can judge your intelligence vs anyone else's from a few forum messages, then you truly are a numpty!
  4) I command you to write another frothy reply!
  
  --
  There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
23. Re:Java does this, too by gparent · 2009-02-02 15:59 · Score: 1
  
  1) Both can be easily disabled if you so desire. Which makes the common "Omg it saps my perfurmance" argument irrelevant. The uninstall is what makes most people angry, and it's a pain in the ass in for both plugins. So that argument fails too.
  
  2) Actually, that one is entirely wrong. Both downloads are voluntarily (you can disable Windows Updates and perform updates manually, just like you have to download the Java VM manuall). They also both include an unwanted side effect (installation of a firefox plugin grays out the uninstall button).
  
  3) You're the one who made the first assumption, so you truly are one indeed.
  
  4) I do this for my own amusement, at my own free will, thank you.
24. Re:Java does this, too by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · 2009-02-02 16:27 · Score: 1
  
  1) Both can be easily disabled if you so desire
  Bullshit. One's disabled through the control panel, the other's disabled through the registry, about which which MS itself states:
  
  Warning Serious problems might occur if you modify the registry incorrectly by using Registry Editor or by using another method. These problems might require that you reinstall the operating system. Microsoft cannot guarantee that these problems can be solved. Modify the registry at your own risk.
  
  Do you seriously not see the difference between the fucking control panel and a registry hack? WTF? Is this windows or gentoo?
  2) Both downloads are voluntarily (you can disable Windows Updates and perform updates manually, just like you have to download the Java VM manuall).
  One is opt in, one is opt out. Again. Can you not see the goddamn difference.
  3) You're the one who made the first assumption,
  Numpty has no connations about intelligence, just knowledge (and even then, it is generally around a misconception). So again, you're wrong.
  4) I do this for my own amusement, at my own free will, thank you.
  No, you do it because I goad you into it. I await with amusement your next incorrect reply.
  
  --
  There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
25. Re:Java does this, too by gparent · 2009-02-02 16:42 · Score: 1
  
  1) I went over that. Read again. Both are annoying. Given how badly the Add/Remove controls is written, I'd argue the registry fix is faster.
  
  2) Actually, both were opt in for me, I don't know what you're talking about. It asks you to pick either choices in the Windows install.
  
  3) Which you both can't easily judge through a few forum posts. So you're still wrong, sorry.
  
  4) Not really. I get a kick out of reading all the idiocies one can come up with to bash a company over another.
26. Re:Java does this, too by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · 2009-02-02 18:48 · Score: 1
  
  1) Faster? hahahaha What a numpty. Do you include the time to search for the fix on the web? Numpty.
  2) Hahahaha. Numpty. Most people don't install windows.
  3) Hahahaha, yes - Your numptiness shines through in a single post.
  4) Hahaha, reply again numpty.
  
  --
  There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
27. Re:Java does this, too by gparent · 2009-02-03 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  1) Faster? hahahaha What a numpty. Do you include the time to search for the fix on the web? Numpty.
  2) Hahahaha. Numpty. Most people don't install windows.
  3) Hahahaha, yes - Your numptiness shines through in a single post.
  4) Hahaha, reply again numpty.
  1) Yes, I do. "net framework assistant uninstall". First result. But I understand someone like yourself might have trouble with it.
  
  2) Then they live with the choices their OEM made.
  
  3 and 4) Ahaha! Ha! Ha111!! Wait you have nothing to say, never mind. Thought I was right too :) Oh, I almost forgot the required childish addition. Numpty1!1
28. Re:Java does this, too by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · 2009-02-03 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  1) If you honestly think that a registry edit is an "easy way of uninstalling", than you are a true numpty.
  2) The 'choices' their OEM made? Microsoft recommends Automatic update be turned on. You numpty.
  
  --
  There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
29. Re:Java does this, too by gparent · 2009-02-03 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  1) I'm talking about what you specifically asked me: "Faster? Do you include the time to search for the fix on the web?". Your greater numptiness appears to be showing again ;)
  
  2) A recommendation isn't an order, but then again I'm not expecting much out of you ;)
  
  Anyway, at this point you went beyond ridicule and you're no longer making sense, so this is totally pointless. It was fun to walk you through each step of your ill logic, but now there's nothing to chew on. Don't change your nickname!
30. Re:Java does this, too by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · 2009-02-03 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  so this is totally pointless
  Oh, I agree. It is totally pointless trying to convince a numpty who thinks that there is equivalence between:
  1) A Microsoft application that will download & install itself without user intervention in the default recommended configuration from Microsoft, alters a third party application & can only be disabled using a method that is specifically warned against by Micrsoft.
  and
  2) A Sun application you can opt to download, that alters a third party application & can be disabled via the control panel.
  (I await your numpty reply with interest)
  
  --
  There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
31. Re:Java does this, too by gparent · 2009-02-03 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  Oh please, let's not go back 10 steps. I've already walked your small brain step by step through it, and you've shown that the only thing you can come up at this point is more of the same insults, or recycled arguments that were debunked.
  
  I shall leave your greater numptiness for good, enjoy staying dumb.
32. Re:Java does this, too by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · 2009-02-03 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  Oh please, let's not go back 10 steps
  Not going back 10 steps, just a summary of what you've said. Doesn't look so good when spelt out so succinctly huh?
  I shall leave
  Aaaah, the classic slashdot "I have no comeback, I won't reply again"
  (I await your next numpty reply with interest)
  
  --
  There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Profiling, anyone? by Creepy+Crawler · 2009-02-01 16:13 · Score: 0

Since this is a rather nasty "Payload" for firefox, what is its performance vs ACID and other rendering tests before and after the plugin?
I mean, hasnt anybody profiled it to see its raison d'etre?
--
- Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thurs, Nov 31, @13:37
1. Re:Profiling, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 16:18 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  The "raison d'etre" of the plug-in when installing latest the .NET framework is to provide support for "Click-Once" deployment of web-enabled applications via Firefox. This is no different than the Java SE installing it's plug-in for Java applets, or Adobe Reader installing it's plug-in for viewing PDFs directly within the browser. It has no effect on the browser at all unless you try to open a Click-Once application link specifically. This also isn't new; the plug-in has been available on Windows Update for at least half a year.
2. Re:Profiling, anyone? by gparent · 2009-02-01 16:48 · Score: 1
  
  Are you blind? The purpose of the plugin is written in the summary, the article, and in the plugin description.
3. Re:Profiling, anyone? by Creepy+Crawler · 2009-02-01 16:55 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Then I assume that you have the source for the plugin, no?
  If you dont have the source, how can you be sure what exactly it's attaching to? I know if I was Microsoft, I'd attach to parts of the rendering engine and screw around with things. It'd be an easy way to make Firefox seem slower and buggier. And, why disable the "Uninstall" button? Looks rather fishy to me.
  I mean, if Firefox is prone to crashing at random times on random websites, wouldnt you think users would go back to IE?
  --
  
  Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thurs, Nov 31, @13:37
4. Re:Profiling, anyone? by gparent · 2009-02-01 17:18 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Microsoft isn't trying to fuck up your web browser, they're enabling ClickOnce functionality via a plugin. You can tell what it's doing because it works exactly as is expected.
  
  Conspiracy theories are not needed here. True, they should have enabled Uninstall, but jumping the gun is absolutely ridiculous.
  
  Fucking up your ACID test via plugin in order to make IE seem better? Are you frakkin' serious? There's absolutely no possible way the community wouldn't notice that, and it'd be a ridiculous waste of time.
  
  If I were Microsoft, I'd fire you for such a terrible idea.
5. Re:Profiling, anyone? by pallmall1 · 2009-02-01 17:19 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  This is no different than the Java SE installing it's plug-in for Java applets, or Adobe Reader installing it's plug-in for viewing PDFs directly within the browser.
  The microsoft "helper" plugin cannot be uninstalled like the java or adobe plugins. And since it behaves differently in that respect, I wonder if the .NET "Click-Once" apps trigger all those "security" warning popups like applets do? Maybe this uninstallable characteristic is related to getting around the windows "security" model. If that's the case, then microsoft will be able to call it "a feature".
  
  As in creature feature.
  
  --
  3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
6. Re:Profiling, anyone? by gparent · 2009-02-01 17:19 · Score: 1
  
  And go right ahead and profile it. Don't forget your tinfoil hat. I'll bet my house nothing changes at all.
7. Re:Profiling, anyone? by ozphx · 2009-02-01 18:23 · Score: 1
  
  If you dont have the source, how can you be sure what exactly it's attaching to?
  I dunno, say a decompiler?
  
  --
  3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
8. Re:Profiling, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 19:15 · Score: 0
  
  They can't enable uninstall, because that's a Firefox thing. (It's either installed into Program Files or the registry via HKLM, Firefox figures out that you are not root and you can't actually write there, so it can't be uninstalled.)
9. Re:Profiling, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 19:29 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  What is ClickOnce and why should I be forced to have a plugin to support it? How is it supposed to work? If my browser crashes unexpectedly, how can you be sure it isn't the mysterious plugin that appeared?
  I get jumpy when software starts appearing on my laptop that I didn't put there. It screams 'attack vector', especially when it hasn't been vetted by any agency or group I trust.
  How does it do it's job? What information does it send? Why the FUCK did it feel the need to modify my agent string?
  I'm going to dig through firewall logs and see what it sends.
10. Re:Profiling, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 23:58 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah.. stuff like that never happens: http://ubuntu-virginia.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=869249
11. Re:Profiling, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 00:32 · Score: 0
  
  How about people who don't want their browser to run whatever their extension is adding?
  Next we'll see ActiveX in Firefox and you'd be saying "yes the plugin works completely as expected, it adds ActiveX support to firefox, along with all the security issues"
12. Re:Profiling, anyone? by ikkonoishi · 2009-02-02 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  about:plugins
  
  Windows Presentation Foundation
  File name: NPWPF.dll
  Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) plug-in for Mozilla browsers
  
  MIME Type Description Suffixes Enabled application/x-ms-xbap XAML Browser Application xbap Yes application/xaml+xml XAML Document xaml Yes
  
  It handles .xbap and .xaml files.
13. Re:Profiling, anyone? by b4dc0d3r · 2009-02-02 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  how do you know that's all it does? because it hasn't done anything else that you noticed?
14. Re:Profiling, anyone? by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-02-02 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder if the .NET "Click-Once" apps trigger all those "security" warning popups like applets do?
  
  ClickOnce is different from applets - it doesn't run in the browser. It's more akin to Java Web Start. It's not something that displays within the content of the page when you browse to a site - rather, it enables a site to publick ClickOnce installer links, that, when clicked, will display a dialog that prompts you to install an app into a sandbox. No, it does not get around Windows security - if anything, it's much more locked down than your typical desktop app, because of the sandbox.
  Of course, you'd know all that, and a lot more, have you bothered to Google - Wikipedia article is pretty decent, for one, with screenshots and all. But I guess this is Slashdot, so...
15. Re:Profiling, anyone? by gparent · 2009-02-02 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know that's all it does, but I'm not stupid enough to make up conspiracy theories about what it hasn't been proved to do when quite frankly the theory is stupid in the first place.
Any real reason to nuke it? by Dotren · 2009-02-01 16:17 · Score: 1

Has anyone noticed a performance hit to Firefox or anything? Any critical need to remove it?
Not that I'm happy that it was put on my system and that it can't be removed through the accepted addon system with Firefox, but I'm wondering if its really worth the trouble and for what reasons other than the standard "MS is evilllll", "They're spying on us", or what is sure to become a new spin on a popular internet meme "Microsoft raped my web browser".
1. Re:Any real reason to nuke it? by pavera · 2009-02-01 16:19 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Well it changes the user agent.. I assume to say firefox is IE, thus making firefox's market share look smaller, making firefox appear less relevant to pointy haired bosses everywhere.
2. Re:Any real reason to nuke it? by terranwannabe · 2009-02-01 16:24 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  More like appending the version of the .NET CLR to the UA string, so that ClickOnce or XBAP applications can install through Firefox instead of requiring IE. I can testify (looking at my UA right now) that it does not change anything else and leaves the Firefox name intact. Of course, to find this out you might have to research or think about your answer instead of assuming evil behavior on Microsoft's part...
  
  --
  If I have not seen as far as others, it was because giants were standing on my shoulders. --Hal Abelson
3. Re:Any real reason to nuke it? by spitzak · 2009-02-01 16:45 · Score: 1
  
  Does Flash do that?
4. Re:Any real reason to nuke it? by whoever57 · 2009-02-01 16:57 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Of course, to find this out you might have to research or think about your answer instead of assuming evil behavior on Microsoft's part...
  Given the ample, well documented evidence of bad behavior by MS, failing to consider evil behavior by MS is a clear example of "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice....". Just because the "evil behavior" is not so obvious yet, doesn't mean that there is not such a motive behind this action.
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
5. Re:Any real reason to nuke it? by artor3 · 2009-02-01 17:12 · Score: 1
  
  There's a difference between assuming the possibility of evil behavior, and just flat out assuming evil behavior. With MS (and most major corporations) you should always do the former. But the latter? That's just closed-mindedness.
  That said, MS should have had a little pop-up box asking to install a compatibility add-on to Firefox. Or, at the very least, made it easy to remove. Doing it this way is just scummy, and akin to when Apple made Safari part of the iTunes update. It sure would be nice if companies needed my permission to install stuff on my computer.
Fucking Microsoft by kpainter · 2009-02-01 16:17 · Score: 1

I saw this thing today while trying to fix an ailing Vista laptop. WTF!? And I couldn't get rid of it. I was thinking that my GF's son somehow got this thing installed but maybe it wasn't his fault afterall. God, I hate Microsoft.
1. Re:Fucking Microsoft by mR.bRiGhTsId3 · 2009-02-01 16:53 · Score: 1
  
  The disable button still works. Or do you not trust the open source firefox code to be able to properly disable plugins?
Re:First by Anthony_Cargile · 2009-02-01 16:18 · Score: 4, Funny

!First. Fail!
...not first, fail not? ugh, this is why I prefer using the bitwise oprtator (~) instead, although in /. lore this is instead in jokes used to mean "home", per the bash usage instead of the one's complement.

Or, I just need to get out more. After asking why all the guys were buying wings and beer on the same day in throngs at the grocery store, I found out the last super bowl was indeed not 32.
So actually by guruevi · 2009-02-01 16:21 · Score: 1

it's slipping spyware/crapware into a competitor's product? That's even worse than Sony and many others (where you can usually opt out or at least you know where it's coming from). Microsoft is stooping very, very low these days. They deserve another conviction... soon.

--
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
1. Re:So actually by JoeCommodore · 2009-02-01 16:47 · Score: 1
  
  You mean 'usually opt out' like those CDs that had auto installers that surreptitiously disabled CD recording programs? Both of these are too scummy but what those hidden CDs programs did was a lot worse, disabling others legitimate software.
  
  --
  "Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
2. Re:So actually by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 16:55 · Score: 0
  
  It's not spyware, but if you read the summary before spouting your anti-MS bullshit, you'd know that. It allows ClickOnce functionality, that's it, that's all, nothing more, nothing less.
3. Re:So actually by msuarezalvarez · 2009-02-01 17:40 · Score: 1
  
  And you know this how exactly? I assume you have access to the source of the thing? Or you're basing your claim on a piece of text written by the marketing department?
4. Re:So actually by Spatial · 2009-02-02 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe the EU will insert their 'bank card' into Microsoft's 'slot' again...
If by 'slip' by eigenstates · 2009-02-01 16:29 · Score: 1

You mean call it out specifically in the install of .NET, I think you may have a point there.
However, it is sad that it is needed at all, even if for acceleration purposes. It means that .NET relies on something only specifically available before in IE. Uncool. No uninstall- unforgivable. My guess is that they will fix it.
And rootkit comparisons? Jesus. Nothing close.

--
quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Why get upset? Firefox users avoid proprietary sw? by aksansai · 2009-02-01 16:33 · Score: 0

I'm seriously confused as to why this is upsetting considering that the average Firefox user installs plugins to assist in rendering media types (I'm picking on Flash) that could potentially be exploited far more than an extension that Microsoft produced because they realize that there is a huge established base of Firefox users on their Windows operating system.
I think this one is a win for the Firefox community in the sense that instead of being greeted with "your browser ain't IE, yo" that they are using the fundamental openness of Firefox to be able to reach users who, like me, think IE is the best waste of disk space on my Windows machines. Let Microsoft continue to develop for Firefox and realize how much of a pair of pants it can hand over to its beloved IE.
Or, continue to bitch and moan over its attempt to reach the Firefox customers to the point where they say, "Screw it - give them the ol' your browser is not supported" line.

--
Ayup
firefox security hole? by enter+to+exit · 2009-02-01 16:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Firefox installed this without me allowing it too
it seems very for malware to be installed like this
Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, but shouldn't Firefox stop extensions being installed this way?
1. Re:firefox security hole? by terranwannabe · 2009-02-01 16:41 · Score: 1
  
  You need local admin privileges to install Framework 3.5 SP1. And remember - if an application masquerades with local admin privileges, it can do WHATEVER it wants.
  
  --
  If I have not seen as far as others, it was because giants were standing on my shoulders. --Hal Abelson
2. Re:firefox security hole? by mdmkolbe · 2009-02-01 16:56 · Score: 1
  
  Unless what it wants requires SYSTEM privileges. SYSTEM is a higher level than Administrator on Windows (which can be rather annoying when I need to do something requiring SYSTEM privileges).
3. Re:firefox security hole? by terranwannabe · 2009-02-01 17:01 · Score: 1
  
  And yet, if you're an administrator it's trivial to escalate to SYSTEM. That's the whole danger of granting unnecessarily broad admin privileges.
  
  --
  If I have not seen as far as others, it was because giants were standing on my shoulders. --Hal Abelson
4. Re:firefox security hole? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 17:02 · Score: 0
  
  Well you can force your extension's files into the proper directories in firefox, maybe add a few lines to a file, and it's installed.
  In other words, your extension can use FireFox's installer, or someone could write there own. Since MS has control of Windows Update, they can downlaod executables to your machine and run them.
  It would be very much akin to a virus downloaded through IE modifying firefox.exe.
5. Re:firefox security hole? by mdmkolbe · 2009-02-01 18:42 · Score: 1
  
  Please tell me how. I've gotten stuck as Admin on my home machine needing SYSTEM so many times.
6. Re:firefox security hole? by Stray7Xi · 2009-02-01 23:50 · Score: 1
  
  Elevate with the "at" command to run a command prompt interactively. Since At is run as system any child processes it kicks off inherits that.
7. Re:firefox security hole? by David_W · 2009-02-02 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  http://verbalprocessor.com/2007/12/05/running-a-cmd-prompt-as-local-system/
Two Questions: by tokyoahead · 2009-02-01 16:42 · Score: 0

a) Why is it possible? I think there should be at least a warning from FF if an add-on is installed w/o user interaction. b) What's next? will MS include FF in the "Mailicious software removal tool" if it detects that your FF is running without the MS-Alien in its belly...

--
no sig
MICROSOFT DRM? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 16:44 · Score: 0

Wtf is this under my Firerfox 3 Add-ons under plug-ins.....2 of them are listed.
Microsoft DRM
DRM Netscape Network Object
Microsoft DRM
DRM Store Netscape Plugin
1. Re:MICROSOFT DRM? by clone53421 · 2009-02-02 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know, but I noticed those fifteen minutes ago and promptly disabled them.
  Although, plugins run only when something invokes them... e.g. there's a java plugin that starts up when the browser loads an applet, an Adobe Acrobat plugin that starts when you open a PDF, etc. Extensions run all the time (which is why the browser has to be restarted in order to enable/disable or install/uninstall them). I'm a bit more concerned about an extension than a plugin: an extension can interact with any page I view without me even knowing about it, whereas a plugin has to be triggered by the mime-type or by some element within the page.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Re:Why get upset? Firefox users avoid proprietary by Fritzed · 2009-02-01 16:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

You are (purposely?) missing the entire point. The average Firefox may CHOOSE to install flash, but that is their choice. If Microsoft wants to make a Firefox extension, then they need to put it in the directory just like everyone else.

--
Spooooon!!!!!
Normal for Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 16:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

People think that Microsoft is a software company that is sometimes abusive. But it isn't, in my opinion. Microsoft is an abuse company that delivers abuse using software.
1. Re:Normal for Microsoft by symbolset · 2009-02-01 17:06 · Score: 0
  
  Trust me on this -- after all, my handle is "symbolset". Microsoft is a symbol. It's neither more nor less than that symbol. The symbol is currently attached to the world's most successful software company. The problem with symbols is they mean neither more nor less than the referents they're attached to.
  If you attach Vista to Microsoft, that's a negative. The negative attachment may be useful.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
2. Re:Normal for Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 18:20 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  So who are you, Umberto fuckin' Eco?
3. Re:Normal for Microsoft by binarylarry · 2009-02-01 18:57 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  So...
  Where can I buy these attachments?
  
  --
  Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
4. Re:Normal for Microsoft by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · 2009-02-01 20:27 · Score: 1
  
  Speaking of symbols, it appears that you're treating this post like one. What the hell are you on about?
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
5. Re:Normal for Microsoft by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · 2009-02-01 22:47 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  You're reading slashdot and you're complaining that I can't think bigger than American Idol? Wow!
  I don't suppose you would care to explain? In small words please, my tiny brain can't understand, but as your brain is the size of a planet then I'm happy to have it explained to me. I'm genuinely curious whether you can.
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
6. Re:Normal for Microsoft by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · 2009-02-02 00:21 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I sure am, but then again I'm not claiming I'm smarter than you are. I actually didn't so much prove anything as right out said that I didn't understand what was being said. I don't really feel any shame in that.
  I'm still confused. You say that "You can't see the world as it is. It is not possible". If that is true, then you're statement is self-contradictory because you are saying that you are seeing the world as it is, which is that seeing the world as it is is not possible. And thus relativism withers on the vine of postmodernism.
  Perhaps you are having issues with facing reality? I know it's tough, but when you mature a little in a few years time it should be possible to start coping.
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
7. Re:Normal for Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 00:31 · Score: 0
  
  I believe that you were modded as -1 flamebait because you told the poster not to interrupt while the grownups were talking, dufus. Not because your unique and controversial comments were so insightful that you caused a backlash from those who cannot stand opinions they don't agree with.
8. Re:Normal for Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 00:59 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  you came here for software? I'm sorry, this is Abuse!
9. Re:Normal for Microsoft by benbean · 2009-02-02 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  Cuh! College kids are funny.
  
  --
  It's a Unix system - I know this.
10. Re:Normal for Microsoft by berend+botje · 2009-02-02 01:44 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Who asked you? :-)
11. Re:Normal for Microsoft by Lunis+Sorbals · 2009-02-02 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  A comment generation script?
12. Re:Normal for Microsoft by karbyn-aceous · 2009-02-02 03:32 · Score: 0
  
  > People think that Microsoft is an abusive company that is sometimes software. There. Fixed that for you.
13. Re:Normal for Microsoft by RobDude · 2009-02-02 03:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Oh dear god....
  Looks like someone took an Intro to Philosophy at their university and wants the world to know just how 'deep' they are.
  I bet you didn't even get an A in the class.
  You can sit around for *years* and debate whether or not Slashdot exits, or if it is simply a construct of your imagination. And you can go on and on, at great length; trying to determine whether you can determine *anything* because, everything, as you said, that you can perceive is from your own reference point. How can 'real' be defined.
  The same old, tired, arguments for and against these have been tossed around for, hundreds and hundreds of years. Probably longer.
  Pointing them out, in unrelated contexts...like a Slashdot discussion of Microsoft software patch makes you look like a fresh out of Phil101 college d-bag who plays hacky-sack in the quad after lunch and before BIO 102.
  Next you'll point out how maybe the colors you see are like...ya know...different from what other people and that perception is all relative. WHOA!
  But yeah, the whole 'Like, dude, it's really just a symbol! That's all it is, just a symbol' crap is really a stretch.
  Yes, of course, it's a symbol. Symbols are used extensively by people. It makes communication easier. Is it easier to define a large company like MSFT by saying, 'Microsoft' or 'the company responsible for the creation of Windows, Office, .Net, Visual Studio, etc, etc, etc...' or perhaps a complete list of employees start and end dates would make you happier?
  Of course it's a symbol. Duh.
  Pointing it out adds nothing to the conversation. Nothing. And feeling the need to point it out means that you think you are a LOT more clever than you really are.
14. Re:Normal for Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 04:37 · Score: 0
  
  Stupid git.
15. Re:Normal for Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 05:09 · Score: 0
  
  This is embrace and extend. What will their next update do?
16. Re:Normal for Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 08:26 · Score: 0
  
  Thread over. Thank god.
17. Re:Normal for Microsoft by ScrewMaster · 2009-02-02 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  So...
  Where can I buy these attachments?
  Right here
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
18. Re:Normal for Microsoft by rhendershot · 2009-02-02 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  well, you have to give credit (or something) to someone who'd start out a philosophical rant with 'Oh dear god'....
19. Re:Normal for Microsoft by darkpixel2k · 2009-02-02 15:44 · Score: 1
  
  you are saying that you are seeing the world as it is, which is that seeing the world as it is is not possible.
  Maybe Jesus started posting to slashdot?
  
  --
  There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
20. Re:Normal for Microsoft by symbolset · 2009-02-04 18:17 · Score: 1
  
  What the hell are you on about?
  I'll try again. Vista is a Microsoft product. It's today's Microsoft product. Vista is what Microsoft aspired to be for six long years of product development and testing. Mightily they labored and on that fateful day in August of 2007 they proclaimed "Here you go! This is the product that best represents us!" Vista is today's Microsoft.
  So. Do you see what I did there? Microsoft is Vista. Vista is Microsoft. Somewhere a marketing manager is going to cringe when he reads that.
  Now in a week or so watch the articles spring up all over the place with just that theme. Because that's what you can do with symbols.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
21. Re:Normal for Microsoft by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · 2009-02-04 20:41 · Score: 1
  
  In terms of what the general non-technical, MS Word and game playing public, this is largely true. To those who use server OSes like Windows Server 2008, SQL Server 2008 and things like Sharepoint I would say that this isn't the case.
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
22. Re:Normal for Microsoft by symbolset · 2009-02-04 21:06 · Score: 1
  
  To those who use server OSes....
  In terms of a person who uses server OSes like linux, BSD and OS-X I have to ask: "What's a Client Access License and how does it improve my server?"
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
23. Re:Normal for Microsoft by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · 2009-02-04 23:14 · Score: 1
  
  Oh bravo sir! I thought we were talking about symbols? You were busy telling me, I believe, that Vista is a symbol that is meant to represent the best of their company to consumers. I didn't actually disagree. I did point out that Microsoft don't actually highlight only Vista as their best product, and in fact I provided you with two examples of what business and server people think give them value. Yes, they have to pay for it via CALs. But I thought we were talking about symbols and Microsoft here?
  Perhaps I was not clear, however. When I said "for those who use Microsoft server OSes". Silly me.
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
24. Re:Normal for Microsoft by symbolset · 2009-02-05 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Forgive me for digressing but we're off the track. The common folk don't see the software in the server room. The server software isn't representative of the company and vice versa to them. It's harder to attach a symbol to something they can't see. Harder, but not impossible.
  Something that's in front of them every day like desktop software, especially when it shows them both symbols together each morning when they start their PC, that's easy. It says "Microsoft" and "Vista" right on it, doesn't it? They must have some relation. It's not that hard to push it the extra inch and say the one is the other - especially when afterward the software itself will reinforce the connection every morning.
  Oh, and SharePoint's security model? That's an interesting bit of work. Have you had a look at how that's actually deployed in the field? Doesn't that concern you just a wee bit? Nothing says due diligence like a press release along the lines of "a Security Group employee downloaded documents from the server and fled. We don't know what he got yet, but we will soon because he's using them as evidence in a lawsuit."
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
Re:Why get upset? Firefox users avoid proprietary by Mad+Merlin · 2009-02-01 16:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
Maybe because...
- nobody asked for this extension
- the extension makes a point of not letting you remove or disable it
- the extension doesn't help you in any way whatsoever
- it's Microsoft
Just one of those is enough to make something bad.
--
Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
Re:Why get upset? Firefox users avoid proprietary by pallmall1 · 2009-02-01 16:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm seriously confused as to why this is upsetting considering that the average Firefox user installs plugins to assist in rendering media types...
What part of "can't uninstall" confuses you?

--
3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
Re:Why get upset? Firefox users avoid proprietary by Nutria · 2009-02-01 16:55 · Score: 5, Insightful
I'm seriously confused as to why this is upsetting considering that the average Firefox user installs plugins ...
The point isn't that MSFT is creating FF plugins.
The point is that MSFT is silently forcing plugins without telling us what they do.
This whole thing would have been a non-issue if they had
- added a sentence on why this plugin is useful, and
- enabled the Uninstall button.
But MSFT is too arrogantly stupid to do that.
--
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
windows 7 by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 16:58 · Score: 0

Winsows 7, its amazing...
http://www.conceitodigital.com
updating third party software? by master_runner · 2009-02-01 17:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

I find it interesting that people here are so outraged at MS installing an extension for third party software, particularly a web browser. Think about how many completely non-Mozilla related products install a Firefox extension - PDF readers, media players, etc. I'll take as an example Adobe Reader, which installs a plugin for in-browser viewing when you install the desktop app (I hate Adobe Reader too, but it's a high-profile example). Firefox is not an Adobe product at all! yet we aren't yelling at that. Additionally, MS already has components installed in FF. Silverlight and the Windows Presentation Foundation are both MS products that are commonly installed in Firefox as plugins, to enable apps that take advantage of Silverlight and .NET browser features to operate in Firefox and friends as well as Internet Explorer. This plugin seems to serve a similar purpose of allowing .NET-powered web apps (which MS wants to be common in the future) to operate in Firefox as well as Internet Explorer. It seems like we should appreciate this move towards interoperability on MS's part - the alternative is only supporting Internet Explorer for web apps.

So it's really nothing abnormal to install an extension in a third party browser. This leaves us with only one issue, the fact that it was distributed via updates to other applications. I refute this as being a major issue for the exact same reason - quite a few programs update/install Firefox extensions as part of their normal update procedure - I raise Foxit Reader as an example, which as of v3.0 automatically installs a Firefox plugin. No one's yelling about that.

A significant question here: If it wasn't Microsoft, would anyone be nearly as angry?

--
I might be stupid, but that's a risk we're going to have to take.
1. Re:updating third party software? by Aussie · 2009-02-01 17:16 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  A significant question here: If it wasn't Microsoft, would anyone be nearly as angry?
  Apples & oranges, only MS has the desktop monopoly to make this work.
  And the lack of an uninstall makes it malicious by my standards.
2. Re:updating third party software? by Qantravon · 2009-02-01 17:31 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's not the fact that they're installing an addon, it's the fact that they're not telling you they're doing it, and that they're not giving you an easy/obvious way of getting rid of it.
3. Re:updating third party software? by master_runner · 2009-02-01 17:38 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  there are plenty of installers and updaters out there that obscure what they're doing. Must I came back to Foxit Reader? when you install that, you have to go to the Advanced installer to see anything about the browser plugin. The fact that it can't be removed the normal way is very likely unintentional, as MS seems more blundering than malicious.
  
  --
  I might be stupid, but that's a risk we're going to have to take.
4. Re:updating third party software? by iammani · 2009-02-01 17:56 · Score: 1
  
  I raise Foxit Reader as an example, which as of v3.0 automatically installs a Firefox plugin. No one's yelling about that.
  Flawed analogy.
  What would you say if Foxit Reader updater installs a plugin for Adobe Acrobat reader?
  I specifically want to avoid IE crap and download FF (for security and usability reasons) and I see the IE developer sneak-in a FF plugin without warning. I say BS
5. Re:updating third party software? by Cathbard · 2009-02-01 18:07 · Score: 1
  
  Other extensions and plugins ask if you want them to be installed and are easy to remove if you don't want them.
  If it wasn't microsoft it wouldn't be done in this way so no, people wouldn't be as angry because there wouldn't be anything to be angry about.
  
  --
  "A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist" - Sir Humphrey Appleby
6. Re:updating third party software? by Eil · 2009-02-01 18:24 · Score: 1
  
  I'll take as an example Adobe Reader, which installs a plugin for in-browser viewing when you install the desktop app (I hate Adobe Reader too, but it's a high-profile example). Firefox is not an Adobe product at all! yet we aren't yelling at that.
  Adobe Reader isn't an apt comparison. For starters, they've been installing their plugin for practically as long as web browsers have been around. People know that installing Reader gets you the browser plugin as well (and most actually want that). Second, I do believe the installer for Adobe Reader gives you the option of installing the plugin, or at least makes it obvious that it is installing a browser plugin. Or at any rate it used to. I haven't installed Reader in years, so correct me if I'm wrong about current releases.
  
  So it's really nothing abnormal to install an extension in a third party browser.
  It is if you're not giving the user a choice about it. Even worse if you're not even telling them about it. Much worse if it can't be uninstalled via the normal means. TFA and the comments posted so far imply that Microsoft has bulls-eyed all three.
  
  quite a few programs update/install Firefox extensions as part of their normal update procedure - I raise Foxit Reader as an example, which as of v3.0 automatically installs a Firefox plugin. No one's yelling about that.
  A significant question here: If it wasn't Microsoft, would anyone be nearly as angry?
  Anything that is installed "stealthily" on a computer, without the user's expressed permission, and with no immediately obvious way of removing it is the very meaning of malware as defined by all the security experts in the world. Whether it's Microsoft doing it or not makes no difference.
7. Re:updating third party software? by greg_barton · 2009-02-01 18:42 · Score: 1
  
  None of the others you cite are competing with Firefox.
  An honest comparison would be if Opera, or another browser vendor, installed a plugin for Firefox. Have they?
  And I'm sure you'd argue that Microsoft would never, ever, would have any ulterior motives for their actions.
8. Re:updating third party software? by bakedpatato · 2009-02-01 18:52 · Score: 0
  
  Hear, hear! Last time I checked, Adobe Reader doesn't ask you about installing a plug-in to Firefox either. Anyway,it seems like the .net plugin is not(fully, meaning without tweaks)compatible with Firefox 3.1 Beta 2,so for me(shame on me for using beta software in a production environment),the plugin's benefits are moot.
9. Re:updating third party software? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 19:03 · Score: 0
  
  Think about how many completely non-Mozilla related products install a Firefox extension - PDF readers, media players, etc. I'll take as an example Adobe Reader, which installs a plugin for in-browser viewing when you install the desktop app (I hate Adobe Reader too, but it's a high-profile example).
  I was not aware of a single example of a 3rd party installing an extension (aside from Beagle with Fedora). I spend 99% of my time in Linux now and even on Windows avoid scumware like Adobe and most media players. The alternatives, Foxit (or kpdf or xpdf), VLC are better. Now I avoid Fedora too for pushing KDE4 and leaving KDE3.5 out.
10. Re:updating third party software? by Arker · 2009-02-01 19:04 · Score: 1
  
  A significant question here: If it wasn't Microsoft, would anyone be nearly as angry?
  Absolutely. Other commenters have claimed Sun is doing the same thing with Java. If they are, it hasnt bit me yet, and it's possible that the posters are just reflexive MS shills - but if Sun is doing this, and they try to do it on my machine, it'll piss me off just as bad as this did.
  Which, by the way, is quite a bit.
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
11. Re:updating third party software? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 20:04 · Score: 0
  
  Most programs ask, or inform us. Any that does not is just as bad.
  Also, it should work in the standard way, and be removable easily.
12. Re:updating third party software? by ion.simon.c · 2009-02-01 20:06 · Score: 1
  
  I looked into Foxit. It *sounds* really shady.
  However, if you look into NoScript, it *SCREAMS* really shady, so looks can be very deceiving.
13. Re:updating third party software? by AnalPerfume · 2009-02-01 20:32 · Score: 1
  
  The question is about (lack of) choice, or (lack of) control. This was done without asking the user. To be fair, they always have the owners consent as they own the copy of Windows you license to use but that's not the point. Some people choose not to have certain formats on principles of free software such as Flash player, which they accept limits their use of some sites; this is a price they are willing to pay as it's their choice.....Flash is not included in a Microsoft update, any distro the user chooses which has Flash, they can easily remove it. Despite Microsoft shills trumpeting the acceptance of Silverlight, nobody wants it, yet no doubt Microsoft would happily install that on people's Firefox installs without asking too to increase the user base, which in turn fakes popularity. If people are stupid enough to code .NET sites, most likely they're on a diet of M$ cool aid anyway, which means they're still convinced IE is the best of the browsers. Surfers using Firefox can easily add the extension on manually.....you know....like they do with EVERY other add on they need. If Microsoft had been a reputable company, they'd have put the add on in the Mozilla add ons site like everyone else's.
  
  Microsoft have long thought of the end user as someone to be used and abused for profit, this is yet another sterling example of their arrogance. They let IE stagnate because they had no serious competition, which meant all the complaints of pop ups were ignored. Only after they started to notice a trend of users switching did they decide to dust off the IE code and see how they could compete. Given that they treat their OWN customers with such contempt, do you really think they're gonna give a shit about pissing on those who have abandoned their IE in favor of a proper browser? They already do their level best to make sure govt's have "IE & Windows only" websites to block the competition, the more they can get .NET installed and used, the more they can freeze out the competition. Microsoft never have, and never will like competition, mainly because they can't compete like for like on products.
  
  With all the mistakes and arrogance, 2009 is the year Microsoft's empire starts to collapse. It won't be quick, and it'll also take down plenty of companies and shills who have tied their credibility and income to Microsoft. The end has begun.......and it's all self inflicted; they had the world in their hands and blew it in spectacular style.
14. Re:updating third party software? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 22:25 · Score: 0
  
  Utter rubbish. If Microsoft wants to promote interoperability, then their software should behave according to the W3C standards. End of story.
  And since you can't seem to see the blindingly obvious, let me say it again. Slowly.
  IT'S NOT THAT THIS PLUGIN EXISTS, IT'S THAT, IN THIER UNBELIEVABLE ARROGANCE, THEY INSTALL IT SILENTLY AND WITHOUT PERMISSION, AND DISABLE THE STANDARD METHOD OF UN-INSTALLING IT.
15. Re:updating third party software? by vaxius · 2009-02-01 23:47 · Score: 1
  
  What you're talking about is plugins, which generally run only when needed to display the plugin's corresponding content. When I install things like Adobe Reader and various media players, I expect them to install the plugins that will let me use them in my browser.
  Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant is an extension. Extensions usually run all the time, starting when Firefox does.
  I've never had any software install Firefox extension before without my asking or approval, and doing so is unacceptable. Let me make it plain and clear that I'm not irked about this simply because it's Microsoft. If any other software company tried this I'd be just as upset.
  After some more research into this issue, I'll be writing an entry in my blog to provide more details in one place for those who want them (I promis not make the article an exercise at Microsoft bashing).
  Blog: blog.vaxius.net
16. Re:updating third party software? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 00:56 · Score: 0
  
  They can install it if they want but I should have the right to uninstall it.
17. Re:updating third party software? by ikkonoishi · 2009-02-02 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  They did tell you they were doing it. You just didn't read it. You could always uninstall .NET 3.5 which would remove it.
18. Re:updating third party software? by ikkonoishi · 2009-02-02 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  Congratulations on being the first rational response on this subject I've seen here. I made the pdf comparison as well earlier.
  http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1111907&cid=26693859
  It really is the best comparison. ClickOnce seems to be a new ActiveX like software MS is pushing. While the paranoia running rampant in this thread is overblown. This could be a new security threat we will need to keep an eye on in the future. Though not likely more than things like flash, java, and silverlight which all allow executable code to run on our computers.
19. Re:updating third party software? by jank1887 · 2009-02-02 02:47 · Score: 1
  So, programs I'm aware of that tie into the browser via plugins:
  
  Adobe Reader
  
  Foxit Reader
  
  Real Player
  
  Quicktime
  
  Adobe Flash
  
  Adobe Shockwave
  
  Java
  
  Win Media Player
  
  Media Player Classic
  
  ... (insert other media player here)
  
  So, basically, lot's of 'other media' tools. Anyone care to run down the list of how those programs handle 'fresh install' browser tie-in? Checkbox in the installition windows? Downloading and installing a specific executable for the Mozilla browser? Installing an Add-on? Installing an Add-on without user approval?
  What if I had some other, or my own Firefox program for handling .Net stuff. They would have just forcibly taken over that function without requesting to first. Although I don't know if such a thing exists, that's just bad form.
20. Re:updating third party software? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 03:47 · Score: 0
  
  This plugin seems to serve a similar purpose of allowing .NET-powered web apps (which MS wants to be common in the future) to operate in Firefox as well as Internet Explorer
  Maybe one of the reason I use Firefox is specifically so those apps DON'T work.
  
  It seems like we should appreciate this move towards interoperability on MS's part - the alternative is only supporting Internet Explorer for web apps.
  Hmmm, yes that's why I use an addon called "IE tab" when I want to use the Microsoft written non-standards compliant IE options in a web page.
  
  This leaves us with only one issue, the fact that it was distributed via updates to other applications.
  No, the fact that I can not remove it is the major issue I have. The install without confirmation or chance to opt-out is irritating, and yes it's not that unusual.
  But just because one company pissed in my breakfast cereal, and then another company did the same, and then a third also kindly crapped on my eggs, doesn't mean I enjoy eating feces for breakfast.
21. Re:updating third party software? by rbanffy · 2009-02-02 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  I find it interesting that people here are so outraged at MS installing an extension for third party software, particularly a web browser.
  Any other companies that were considered guilty of abuse of monopoly please raise a lawyer.
  That's what I thought.
  
  Additionally, MS already has components installed in FF. Silverlight and the Windows Presentation Foundation are both MS products that are commonly installed in Firefox as plugins
  
  Not on my Firefox, at least.
  
  , to enable apps that take advantage of Silverlight and .NET browser features to operate in Firefox and friends as well as Internet Explorer.
  
  "Take advantage"?! "to operate as well as IE"? How much is Microsoft paying you?
  
  This plugin seems to serve a similar purpose of allowing .NET-powered web apps (which MS wants to be common in the future) to operate in Firefox as well as Internet Explorer.
  
  Sure they do. Embrace, extend, extinguish... That's their mantra.
  
  It seems like we should appreciate this move towards interoperability on MS's part - the alternative is only supporting Internet Explorer for web apps.
  
  I would mod you funny, if I hadn't written this reply.
  
  This leaves us with only one issue, the fact that it was distributed via updates to other applications.
  
  The fact it was distributed silently inside an update to Windows. Curiously timed to a moment when IE share is sliding.
  
  I refute this as being a major issue for the exact same reason - quite a few programs update/install Firefox extensions as part of their normal update procedure - I raise Foxit Reader as an example, which as of v3.0 automatically installs a Firefox plugin. No one's yelling about that.
  
  Don't you have to run its installer? Excuse me if I miss your point, but when did people grant Microsoft to install plugins into their non-Microsoft browsers.
  
  A significant question here: If it wasn't Microsoft, would anyone be nearly as angry?
  Again, is there any other company that is a convicted monopoly abuser abusing its monopoly to install additional software into a competitor's product?
  
  --
  http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
22. Re:updating third party software? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 04:13 · Score: 0
  
  No, they didn't. The .NET 3.5 SP1 is an automatic update through Windows Update in the background, for the vast majority of affected users. The extension wasn't there in the original release of .NET 3.5, where people *might* have read the release notes. Stop spouting that incorrect line of yours. (I've seen it twice now. It's still wrong.)
23. Re:updating third party software? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 04:33 · Score: 0
  
  "A move towards interoperability"??? Did you mean MS monocultive with .NET?
24. Re:updating third party software? by Raenex · 2009-02-02 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  However, if you look into NoScript, it *SCREAMS* really shady, so looks can be very deceiving.
  What do you mean? Details?
25. Re:updating third party software? by clone53421 · 2009-02-02 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  This plugin seems to serve a similar purpose of allowing .NET-powered web apps (which MS wants to be common in the future) to operate in Firefox as well as Internet Explorer.
  Ah, so that's it. Well, I don't want .NET-powered web apps to be common in the future, and I don't want them to operate in Firefox.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
26. Re:updating third party software? by ion.simon.c · 2009-02-02 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  Check out their website:
  http://noscript.net/
  Bright colors, exclamation points, crazy logos, claims of a "safer internet" [1]. That sort of stuff screams EVIL to me... I might be the only one, though.
  I've never actually scrolled to the bottom of their page, so this is the first time I've seen the citations they've received in real news publications. That does offset the spammy feel of the rest of their site.
  [1] Yeah, I know that noscript really does make a safer internet. A lot of evil software makes that same claim, so ya know... :)
27. Re:updating third party software? by Raenex · 2009-02-02 16:02 · Score: 1
  
  I see what you mean. Yes, it is a bit aggressive.
28. Re:updating third party software? by AntiDragon · 2009-02-03 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  When I install a *new* piece of software, like Acrobat Reader, it includes a plugin.
  When I install WinZip, it includes browser (explorer) plugins.
  When I install Java, it includes plugins.
  I'm not installing anything new here. I'm "allowing" a critical update to an existing installation. An installation that to my mind has no association with my web browser. An installation that has already been installed, and did not include modifications to any other rhird-party software on my system.
  So, regardless of how useful, wanted or harmful or harmless this browser extension may be, *why* is a brand new piece of software being installed as part of a security fix? And why was I not informed? And why cannot I not remove it easily like any other such extension?
  Of course you're right - so much of this anger is knee-jerk distrust and group-think hatred for Microsoft. But it's not totally misplaced - if my Apple updates started installing addons for third party apps, or if Apt-get started downloading completely unrelated and new packages as part of an update I would be equally concerned.
  Microsoft is a massive company, with a particular reputation and legal responsibilities. This kind of cock-up is not just worrying, it's downright stupid.
  
  --
  "...So I hung back and lurked. For 18 months. Can't beat a good old-fashioned lurking."
29. Re:updating third party software? by GroovBird · 2009-02-03 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  Of course they're telling you they're doing it. You just didn't bother to read it.
30. Re:updating third party software? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-03 16:36 · Score: 0
  
  A lot of times when you go to install software (especially freeware, shareware, etc) they want to install their business partner's work (presumably because they'll get money for throwing it in) but usually whether it's Google Desktop or iTunes or some Microsoft service they're trying to throw at you, it always makes me angry when they don't give you an option not to install it. Often if I find an application install has overstepped its bounds I will tear it out of my system immediately. Most vendors are courteous enough to allow the unwanted application to be uninstalled even if they didn't didn't give you an option in installing it.
  But to install something without your knowledge or consent, and to make it difficult to remove...how is that much different than a computer virus, malware, or spyware?
New Idea by bendodge · 2009-02-01 17:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

I've noticed several of these uninstall-proof extensions lately. How about the Mozilla folks tweaking the extension model to allow an uninstall option?

--
The government can't save you.
Is this SO bad? by gorehog · 2009-02-01 17:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

A lot of you will hate me for this...
MS doing this is them trying to ensure that Firefox will work with their web apps (or, web apps built with their technology). Now, granted that they are taking liberties they should not. It would be better to just make the plugin easy to get and install. Consider however that they are doing this so their technology will work on a standards-compliant browser. That's not nothing. It IS dysfunctional in a passive-aggressive way (aggressive-passive?). On the other hand MS is trying to make the browsing experience BETTER for people who use .Net with Firefox. I'm not so sure this is a bad thing. maybe poorly executed...but...there's an argument for saying it's not.
Look, if you were running Ubuntu, installed Opera, and automatically got plugins from Synaptic for Opera that added new functionality would you complain?
Then again, the convoluted removal process should be reconsidered.
1. Re:Is this SO bad? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 17:40 · Score: 0
  
  You find this hard to believe but some of us don't want to ensure that our browsers will work with Microsoft's extensions. We'd rather Microsoft fix their "stuff" so that they'll work with open standards.
2. Re:Is this SO bad? by Vladus2000 · 2009-02-01 17:56 · Score: 1
  
  Yes.
  
  A lot of you will hate me for this...
  Hopefully not, I don't. Disagree strongly != hate.
  
  MS doing this is them trying to ensure that Firefox will work with their web apps (or, web apps built with their technology).
  Great, if I wanted it I would seek it out, download it and install it. I think most people that go with firefox understand that some MS technologies don't quite work with it in all cases. Genuine windows crap comes to mind.
  
  Now, granted that they are taking liberties they should not.
  Many people use firefox to get away from Microsoft. Understand that what MS is doing here is blasphemy to many. Actions like this reinforce the "MS is evil" notion. If a firefox update installed something into IE without asking or without an uninstall, I would be offended too.
  
  On the other hand MS is trying to make the browsing experience BETTER for people who use .Net with Firefox.
  The ends do not justify the means. Oh shit, I forgot this is slashdot, ignore that comment.
  
  I'm not so sure this is a bad thing.
  If it is not bad for you, good. I do not doubt that many people will not care about this. For many of us this is bad. I personally do not like anything (iTunes, Java, etc) that installs components without my approval.
  
  Look, if you were running Ubuntu, installed Opera, and automatically got plugins from Synaptic for Opera that added new functionality would you complain?
  If it came from Opera, no. If it came from another source, yes I would complain. Your example is a bit different. If Windows had something like Synaptic, and I got firefox through it, I wouldn't be surprised if they pushed an update that modified it. But I didn't get firefox through a MS service. Your comparison fails. I compile my own firefox for both Windows and Linux, for optimization and more control. I don't fully trust Synaptic for everything either.
3. Re:Is this SO bad? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 18:12 · Score: 0
  
  Look, if you were running Ubuntu, installed Opera, and automatically got plugins from Synaptic for Opera that added new functionality would you complain?
  Yes actually I would. I want to choose to install those plugins before they were installed. The blocked removal is just icing on the cake.
4. Re:Is this SO bad? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 18:24 · Score: 0
  
  they should do so by modifying their web app technology to be more standards compliant NOT by modifying ff to be more MS-propietary compatible
5. Re:Is this SO bad? by zullnero · 2009-02-01 18:26 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not hating, but man. What about this extension is really making things so much better for Firefox users? Messing with the browser agent string? Preventing it from being uninstalled?
  
  If Microsoft really wanted to help someone out, they'd offer their extension to be installed optionally, and they'd explain exactly why you should install it. The way it is, if you do any development with .NET 3.5 and you do so much as update it...even if you only use IE to test .NET code, Microsoft still sticks it right into your OTHER browser without asking.
  
  And yeah. Most people who do .NET development have IE on their computer. You get it forced down your throat and you have to be fine with that. Microsoft can do whatever they want to their browser, but it's not acceptable for them to screw around with other browsers without asking very politely and being very clear about it. There's no rationalizing this mistake away.
6. Re:Is this SO bad? by RightSaidFred99 · 2009-02-01 18:52 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  OK, Captain Open Standards. I'm sure you can refer MS to the open standards dealing with ClickOnce installs of .NET apps?
  Oh. OK, I guess you can't.
7. Re:Is this SO bad? by jonaskoelker · 2009-02-01 20:44 · Score: 1
  
  MS doing this is them trying to ensure that Firefox will work with their web apps
  Call me jaded and cynical, but if MS was aiming for interoperability, where are the OS X and Linux versions?
8. Re:Is this SO bad? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 00:09 · Score: 0
  
  Bingo!
  MS installs a plugin to make FF on Microsoft work with MS web products.
  No comparable plugin is made available for Linux.
  End result, Linux break web apps and it Linux's fault. Buy MS.
9. Re:Is this SO bad? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 00:22 · Score: 0
  
  Excuse me? I don't *want* .Net crap to run in my browser!
  And even if I *did* want it to run I'd like it in the good old Aobe/Macromedia Flash way: oh sorry you need this extension/plugin for the content to work, would you like me to install it for you?
  The Wikipedia page for Firerox lists it as having multiple licenses: MPL/GPL/LGPL/Mozilla EULA. I don't know how this applies, but if they enforce the GPL part Microsoft gotta release the source for it's extension.
10. Re:Is this SO bad? by quantumphaze · 2009-02-02 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  Call me jaded and cynical, but if MS was aiming for interoperability, where are the OS X and Linux versions?
  Bundled with Duke Nukem Forever :-p
  This is just the latest Embrace, Extend, Extinguish scheme from Microsoft to keep Windows significant in the "Web 2.0" world.
  All of a sudden businesses see that no longer are they ignoring the 30% of their potential customers who don't use IE by making their site depend on .NET. Now only the 10% of non-Windows users are left out so we get a new era of a Windows only web. Hotmail will probably be the first to go.
  Let's hope that Mono gets up to scratch, in 3 years time we may all have to depend on them to use banking sites.
  
  --
  Unicode in Slashdot
11. Re:Is this SO bad? by jank1887 · 2009-02-02 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  OK... other companies would get yelled at for this. MS does it and immediately the first thoughts go to Anti-competitive practices. Past performance justifies a lot of these thoughts, so on the business side, Who specifically gets hurt now by this plug-in push? Who are the .Net corporate competitors that can now claim used their (legally recognized) monopolistic dominance in the OS market to push their technology in the ?web-apps? market. Which companies should we expect lawsuits from? Sun? Google?
12. Re:Is this SO bad? by gfilipski · 2009-02-02 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  I find it most interesting that no one here seems to have noticed that, regardless of the ethical considerations (which 'free enterprise' generally doesn't care about), MS has effectively separated Firefox users into two camps. Those on Windows and those that aren't. They have effectively driven another functionality wedge between Windows machines and *NIX machines.
Oh come on people... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 17:10 · Score: 1, Insightful

Everybody and their mother does that:
1) Quicktime/iTunes
2) Acrobat/Flash/etc
3) RealPlayer
4) Skype
5) ...
In fact that's what the whole system of extensions and plugins was *designed* to do. Accommodate 3rd party functionality that wasn't built-in to the browser itself.
And that's a GoodThing (TM).
The bad is that you can't uninstall it (easily). But you can always disable it...
1. Re:Oh come on people... by YttriumOxide · 2009-02-01 19:07 · Score: 1
  
  The bad is that you can't uninstall it (easily). But you can always disable it...
  The "bad" is a couple of things - one being that you can't install it, but a "bigger bad" is that the install is really quite surreptitious. If it popped up like any other Firefox extension or was quite clearly labelled beforehand as existing, I doubt there'd be so many complaints here.
  
  --
  My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
  Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
2. Re:Oh come on people... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 20:06 · Score: 0
  
  Go into Firefox on any Windows box and you're going to be surprised by the number of plugins installed that you never asked for.
First do a Windows Update extension for firefox... by voss · 2009-02-01 17:15 · Score: 1

There is no reason why firefox shouldnt be able to download their windows updates in firefox!
Ah, I was wondering by Torodung · 2009-02-01 17:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

That explains why .NET 3.5 SP1 was tagged as a 'high-priority,' and thus completely automatic and unnotified, install for anyone who allows Automatic Updates self-governance.
It clearly wasn't a security update: I only have .NETs v1 and v2 installed, and yet I still got a notification to install the SP1 update for .NET v3.5! Luckily, I don't automatically trust Microsoft with anything. I told it to ignore the update and never show it to me again.
Basically, MS is once again abusing the high-priority update channel, just like they did with the Genuine Advantage Notification tool. Don't let anyone tell you differently. They are treating machines set to update automatically like a spammer treats his botnet.
--
Toro
1. Re:Ah, I was wondering by Spad · 2009-02-01 21:12 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 is a full cumulative update that contains many new features building incrementally upon .NET Framework 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, and includes cumulative servicing updates to the .NET Framework 2.0 and .NET Framework 3.0 subcomponents. The .NET Framework 3.5 Family Update provides important application compatibility updates.
2. Re:Ah, I was wondering by metamatic · 2009-02-02 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  I don't have any kind of .NET installed, and didn't get this update.
  So I guess the moral of the story is to avoid .NET like the cancer that it is, even on Windows.
  
  --
  GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
3. Re:Ah, I was wondering by Torodung · 2009-02-02 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  Excellent, but you're missing my point. Are they *security* updates? Why not just issue a separate .NET 2.0 patch to fix the issues with .NET 2.0?
  There is no justification for this kind of ham handed 'fix.'
  My statement about the abuse of the 'high-priority' channel stands. Microsoft is doing what Microsoft does when the chips are down; they're cheating. They're not offering a vital security update, or there would be a security bulletin referenced, one marking .NET 2.0 as vulnerable to an exploit.
  They're pushing .NET 3.5 on people, for whatever reason, but I'm sure it isn't for the benefit of the user.
  Why the hell should I have to download this monster (248+ MB), just to get a simple tiny hotfix for .NET 2.0? Why am I being told this is 'high-priority?' They should have offered a patch for 2.0, in the 'Software, optional' section, not a bloody upgrade in toto to .NET 3.5, in the 'high-priority/security' section.
  And one that slips an uninstallable extension into Firefox as well? WTF?
  I just put the thing in my ignore basket as another example of Microsoft's malfeasance and general contempt for the fact that *I* own my computer.
  --
  Toro
Extension? by Samah · 2009-02-01 17:20 · Score: 1

It seems Microsoft has finally gotten around to doing the second E in "Embrace, Extend and Extinguish" (literally).
All they have to do now is to make the FF addon force all links to iexplore.exe, and there's your extinguish.

--
Homonyms are fun!
You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
1. Re:Extension? by Noxn · 2009-02-01 23:15 · Score: 1
  
  If you are right, then we will be kind of fucked... At least the people who don't know how to uninstall that stuff.
  
  --
  By reading this you agree to give me (Noxn) 1 dollar.
Re:Why get upset? Firefox users avoid proprietary by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 17:26 · Score: 0

it's not ms developing add-ons for ff as much as even knowledgeable users (like avg /.ers) not knowing, much less consenting, that this MS product is being installed on their PCs.
They have silverlight plugin which nags me all the time but at least it does not install itself without my knowledge. If I need or want it I will get it. there is no reason for ms to do it for me.
Security by Adrian+Lopez · 2009-02-01 17:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

Given Microsoft's track record with security, I worry:
- Windows user installs Firefox to avoid IE's security flaws.
- Microsoft silently installs a plugin onto Firefox that reports the browser includes .NET functionality allows websites to host .NET executables.
- Hackers discover a way to exploit this.
- Thus, Firefox is now less secure thanks to Microsoft.

--
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
1. Re:Security by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 11:31 · Score: 0
  
  EXACTLY!
  Didn't ActiveX get rolled into .NET? And now our browser has re-enabled ActiveX?
Ho Hum by Dragonshed · 2009-02-01 17:33 · Score: 1

The amount of venom/vitriol/nerdrage comments in this story is fucking astounding.
Install .NET 3.5 SP1 (the latest version of .NET) you get this firefox extension. It enables the use of ClickOnce within firefox. You guys know what clickonce is right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClickOnce#Firefox_extensions
One can only assume if you install .NET, you might actually want to run .NET apps, and some of them are deployed using ClickOnce. The FF extension is a convenience.
The only valid critique I see here is necessity for more people to prune back the Opt-In settings for Windows Update. The rest of you though..
1. Re:Ho Hum by l0ungeb0y · 2009-02-01 18:55 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  And so the disabling of the "uninstall" button is totally cool with you?
  Not sure which comments you were reading, but the ones I payed attention to were the ones that were ticked about the lack of any sort of notification prior, during or after the install, the lack of an opt-out and the intentional disabling of the uninstall button.
  Wasn't there some laws being pushed that made this sort of covert install procedure illegal? Or did MS and Sony get those laws squashed?
2. Re:Ho Hum by YttriumOxide · 2009-02-01 19:19 · Score: 1
  
  One can only assume if you install .NET, you might actually want to run .NET apps, and some of them are deployed using ClickOnce.
  But MANY aren't... That's like saying "One can only assume that if you install GIMP, you might actually want to use the GIMP, and some people use it for doing distortions based on mathematical formulae, so you shouldn't complain when MathMap gets installed automatically.". AND that's not even taking in to account the bigger and nastier complaint that Microsoft should have no right to force an install of something in to software that they didn't write, just because someone agreed to get updates automatically for software that they did write. (the user agreed to Microsoft updates to Microsoft software, NOT to Microsoft updating anything else)
  In my day job, I write .NET based software. I "don't do web apps" at all (everything I write has GUI front ends done in WinForms, Cocoa# and/or GTK# (for MacOS X and Linux systems respectively)). We don't deploy anything via ClickOnce. Why do I need/want this in my Firefox? For my job, I tend to always stay on top of .NET updates in Windows and so installed this update on my test box for a bit of eval before putting it on my main dev system. My test box doesn't have Firefox and so I never noticed this at all... it was "surprise time" when I did install it on my main development system after that!
  
  --
  My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
  Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
3. Re:Ho Hum by Dragonshed · 2009-02-01 19:45 · Score: 1
  
  Blame firefox for this. A quick google search reveals a large number of extensions for firefox must be uninstalled manually. These include vendors such as Skype, AVG, Sun Microsystems, etc.
  http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/internet/firefox/manually-remove-skype-extension-from-firefox/
  http://www.technipages.com/firefox-3-cant-uninstall-avg-safe-search-extension-because-uninstall-is-grayed-out.html
  I think it's bad design that it's possible. But "Wasn't there some laws being pushed that made this sort of covert install procedure illegal"? Are you high? It's a bootstrapper for clickonce, a feature that comes with .NET, not some extension that's gonna log your bittorrent usage or shoot your baby.
4. Re:Ho Hum by knorthern+knight · 2009-02-01 19:49 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  > The amount of venom/vitriol/nerdrage comments in this story is fucking astounding.
  Why, because MS is so benevolent and competent and writes such secure code? No. The reason is because of their high-handed tactics, combined with their propensity for malicious behaviour. And please, forget the old saw about not assumimg malice when effing incompetence explains things; the results are the same.
  The reaction would've been totally different if MS had promoted this plugin, and made its installation voluntary, and made uninstallation possible without registry hacking. Note that dozens of obscure extensions show up on https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/ This is the "official channel" for people who want to enhance their Firefox. The extensions at this site are downloaded voluntarily by end-users who feel a need for them. And these extensions can be uninstalled by the same users who install them. MS merely needed to have asked the Mozilla folks to link to a specific MS webpage from their addons section, and things would've been copacetic.
  Instead, MS chose to act like Apple. Remember the flak Apple caught for trying to sneak in Itunes and Safari for people who install/update Quicktime? We happen to be "equal-opportunity-bashers" here. MS acts like Apple, they catch flak like Apple.
  Yes, I did RTFA. FFClickOnce makes automated installation of .NET code (the successor to Visual Basic) much easier. Have you ever heard the phrase "drive-by download"??? Many people fled from IE to FF specifically to avoid this very problem. Now MS throws in code that may enable this in FF. No thanks. BTW, there was a plugin for FF that provided ActiveX support for FF (For crying out loud... WHY?). Let's just say I wouldn't want it on my work machine either.
  
  --
  
  I'm not repeating myself
  I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
5. Re:Ho Hum by Dragonshed · 2009-02-01 19:50 · Score: 1
  
  Well I don't deploy via ClickOnce either, but I use many clickonce apps. It's nice that it works in my browser of choice, one that Microsoft didn't write.
  So if you build and deploy apps for macosx and linux, you're using mono. Why did you bother updating your .NET to 3.5 SP1 at all?
  If it's going to kill you to have a Microsoft-authored ff extension, you can remove it (read the wikipedia link I referenced).
6. Re:Ho Hum by Dragonshed · 2009-02-01 20:11 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I did RTFA. FFClickOnce makes automated installation of .NET code (the successor to Visual Basic) much easier. Have you ever heard the phrase "drive-by download"??? Many people fled from IE to FF specifically to avoid this very problem. Now MS throws in code that may enable this in FF. No thanks. BTW, there was a plugin for FF that provided ActiveX support for FF (For crying out loud... WHY?). Let's just say I wouldn't want it on my work machine either.
  ActiveX has a horrible security model, so much so that versions of IE newer than 6 will warn you before using them.
  ClickOnce apps are sandboxed. They are also announced plainly to the user. It cannot be installed without the users knowledge (coincidentally enough).
  
  Instead, MS chose to act like Apple. Remember the flak Apple caught for trying to sneak in Itunes and Safari for people who install/update Quicktime? We happen to be "equal-opportunity-bashers" here. MS acts like Apple, they catch flak like Apple.
  You definitely get credit for bashing someone other than microsoft, but the situation is different. It's akin to being pissed at Apple for installing a quicktime-enabling plugin in firefox when you've installed quicktime.
  You've installed .NET, so you might actually want to run a .NET application, deployed as an XBAP (embedded in the browser, sandboxed, facilitated by a seperate plugin by the way), as a clickonce app, or as a traditionally installed application. The extension enables the clickonce scenario for a non-microsoft browser. It's not a whole other application, and as I mentioned in another comment, it's not gonna log your bittorrent usage or shoot your baby.
7. Re:Ho Hum by YttriumOxide · 2009-02-01 20:13 · Score: 1
  
  So if you build and deploy apps for macosx and linux, you're using mono. Why did you bother updating your .NET to 3.5 SP1 at all?
  Most of my apps are "cross platform" using mono, but some aren't... And it's always good to stay across the latest developments, even if I won't use them immediately.
  
  If it's going to kill you to have a Microsoft-authored ff extension, you can remove it (read the wikipedia link I referenced).
  Yep, and I'm all for having such extensions available, I didn't uninstall it, and potentially may even use it one day (absolutely no need for it right now though) - what I'm not in favour of is it being installed without my knowledge/permission.
  
  --
  My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
  Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
8. Re:Ho Hum by Arker · 2009-02-01 21:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  One can only assume if you install .NET, you might actually want to run .NET apps, and some of them are deployed using ClickOnce. The FF extension is a convenience.
  Very poor assumption. I run firefox specifically to avoid making it so easy to install arbitrary code on my machine behind my back. I installed .net because one program I wanted to run (and purposefully installed) required it. As soon as I remember which one that was I'm going to start looking for an alternative, directly as a result of this hijacking in fact I'll be looking carefully for alternatives to ANY .net program, and whenever possible refusing to run .net programs EVEN IF THERE ARE NO ALTERNATIVES WITHOUT IT.
  If you want to add an extension to MY copy of firefox, you need to ask my permission and respect my answer, whether it's yes or no. Leveraging their control of the OS to install it without even asking was a criminal attack they should be prosecuted for. (Yes, I know they wont, they're above the law, but if some 15 year old kid had done the same thing we both know he'd be risking gaol for it.) Doing this in such a way as to disable the uninstall button is just adding insult to injury.
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
9. Re:Ho Hum by l0ungeb0y · 2009-02-02 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  Intent and purpose do not matter. If I see that your carpets need vacuuming, is it ok for me to break into your house to clean them?
  Surreptitious installations should in all cases be made illegal.
  There is no reason not to disclose a manifest of what will be installed and the ability to opt-out. Intentionally disabling the uninstall button is nothing sort of a malicious infringement upon user rights to administer their own machine and a blatant attempt at trying to force unwanted software upon the end user. These actions are no different than those of any malware/spyware creator.
10. Re:Ho Hum by jank1887 · 2009-02-02 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  they didn't disable the uninstall button. they installed the program with permissions that Firefox itself doesn't have. So Firefox disables the uninstall button to let you know that the program is outside of its reach. (just like if you installed something via Synaptic or whatnot outside of FF's own Add-on manager using Admin/root privileges.)
  The whole thing stinks, but its not quite like a rootkit install.
11. Re:Ho Hum by Culture20 · 2009-02-02 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  You've installed .NET, so you might actually want to run a .NET application, deployed as an XBAP (embedded in the browser, sandboxed, facilitated by a seperate plugin by the way), as a clickonce app, [in a non-microsoft browser]
  Hell, I installed Windows, so I might want to run Downadup/Conficker. If you've got a new whiz-bang add-on for firefox, show an ad during the .NET SP upgrade or on next login (for silent installs). I might just download and use it if I think it's good to have. Secretly installing this add-on and restricting its removal is malware behavior.
12. Re:Ho Hum by daVinci1980 · 2009-02-02 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  I'll go one further and say that it's bad design on Firefox's part that backdoor installs are even possible.
  This seems like a gaping security hole to me. What's to stop a malware vendor from slipping in a keylogging addon to me using almost this exact mechanism?
  From a compromised website, they could attempt to crash firefox with a stack overflow, then execute code to figure out what other addons are installed, then basically slipstream in a keylogger masking itself as one of the other plugins. I'd claim that if the keylogger was transparent enough, 99% of users would never notice.
  No question it was bad form of microsoft to do this (please use the front door, and don't be upset if I ask you to leave), but it's bad form of firefox to create a door-sized window frame next to the front door and to not put any glass there.
  
  --
  I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
13. Re:Ho Hum by Dragonshed · 2009-02-02 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  Hell, I installed Windows, so I might want to run Downadup/Conficker. If you've got a new whiz-bang add-on for firefox, show an ad during the .NET SP upgrade or on next login (for silent installs). I might just download and use it if I think it's good to have. Secretly installing this add-on and restricting its removal is malware behavior.
  So by this definition, Adobe also produces malware because the Acrobat Reader installer silently installs plugins for firefox and IE. I disagree, I don't think it's malware, it's tiny helper that improves the over all usability of the app. Same goes for the .NET FF extension.
  I think majority of the people here, with a handful of exceptions, are bent out of shape just because it's Microsoft. The rest are discriminating firefox users that don't know what clickonce is.
14. Re:Ho Hum by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 09:34 · Score: 0
  
  So are you pissed because acrobat reader installs a plugin into your sacred browser without your permission?
15. Re:Ho Hum by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-02-02 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  And so the disabling of the "uninstall" button is totally cool with you?
  It's not purposedly disabling uninstall. It just happens to install the plugin into the system-wide Firefox directory (on Windows, it's the one where Firefox itself is installed) rather than your user directory. The simple reason for that (I guess, but I've dealt with MSI installers before, so I think I'm right) is that, according to the guidelines, an installer shouldn't ever write stuff into user profile directory unless it's doing a user-specific install (for products that support it). In other words, it shouldn't install some stuff to Program Files (so that it's available for all users), and then some more stuff to C:\Users\John. As .NET installer is not user-specific, the plugin gets installed system-wide as well.
  That Firefox won't let you remove it is, technically, a Firefox deficiency. The correct way to go about it would be to make the "Uninstall" button for system-wide plugins active on Windows, but display the Vista elevation "shield" icon on it, and, when clicked, request elevation, and then remove all that stuff. However, even for the lack of that, note that you can still disable the plugin without uninstalling it - the "Disable" button is still active.
16. Re:Ho Hum by Arker · 2009-02-02 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  So are you pissed because acrobat reader installs a plugin into your sacred browser without your permission?
  Yeah. They definitely should have asked, and they definitely annoyed me.
  But it's nowhere near as bad as this, because with Adobes plugin I can go into preferences and control the behaviour like any other plugin.
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
17. Re:Ho Hum by scdeimos · 2009-02-03 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  It's interesting that you mention FFClickOnce.
  Pulling apart the extensions chrome code in chrome.jar!/content/contentyype.js shows that this extension also futzes with FFClickOnce, with the once-again-presumptuous comment from Microsoft:
  // If the user has both this addon and FFClickOnce installed show only our button
  This is the first file in the extension I've looked at. I wonder what else they're mucking about with? :(
Mod up. 5 is not enough. by Jane+Q.+Public · 2009-02-01 17:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

Installing software on my computer -- especially software that is designed to make YOUR software work better, at the possible expense of others -- without my knowledge or consent is UNETHICAL . Period. And deliberately making uninstall difficult? INEXCUSABLE!!!

Shame on MS. They have been through this before and should know better. Bad. Bad. Negative points. Sad, sad negative Karma.
1. Re:Mod up. 5 is not enough. by ikkonoishi · 2009-02-02 02:16 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Yeah because when you choose to install software on your computer its completely wrong of them to actually install that software on your computer.
  This program is mentioned in the new features list of .NET Framework 3.5.
  http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb613588.aspx
  
  Firefox Support for XBAPs
  A plug-in for WPF 3.5 enables XBAPs to be run from Firefox 2.0, a feature that is not available from WPF 3.0.
  No big deal. Return to your homes. Disaster averted.
2. Re:Mod up. 5 is not enough. by chance2105 · 2009-02-02 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft is a convicted monopoly. Installing a browser plugin for the #2 browser used.. here's to the appropriate government agencies cluing in.
3. Re:Mod up. 5 is not enough. by oneTheory · 2009-02-02 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  Installing software on my computer -- especially software that is designed to make YOUR software work better, at the possible expense of others -- without my knowledge or consent is COMPLETELY EXPECTED . Period. And deliberately making uninstall difficult? EXACTLY WHAT THEY ALWAYS DO!!!
  
  There, fixed that for you.
  
  Shame on MS. They have been through this before and should know better. Bad. Bad. Negative points. Sad, sad negative Karma.
  You realize that's like saying "Shame on Satan. He should know better."
4. Re:Mod up. 5 is not enough. by furby076 · 2009-02-02 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  Shame on MS. They have been through this before and should know better. Bad. Bad. Negative points. Sad, sad negative Karma.
  Negative Karma doesn't seem to hurt their bottom line. Don't use MS products...problem solved.
  
  --
  
  I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
5. Re:Mod up. 5 is not enough. by Whatanut · 2009-02-02 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  Oh noes!! They installed software to make the computing experience work better!!! Bastards!
  
  --
  
  yvan eht nioj
6. Re:Mod up. 5 is not enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 05:55 · Score: 0
  
  I almost didn't read your post. But when I saw that third exclamation point...I knew it was important.
7. Re:Mod up. 5 is not enough. by Culture20 · 2009-02-02 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  Take a look at MS's forums. There are posts from last August about this add-on crashing Firefox.
  Hmm... Seems they deleted one already. This is the only one left.
  http://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/Workaround.aspx?FeedbackID=361360
8. Re:Mod up. 5 is not enough. by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-02-02 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  What's even funnier is that this thing - ClickOnce - is essentially just a .NET version of Java Web Start, which also gets automatically installed whenever you install any JRE.
Re:First do a Windows Update extension for firefox by Qantravon · 2009-02-01 17:36 · Score: 0

Actually, you can. Install the extension "IE Tab." It makes websites you choose (by default, the windows update site is chosen) think that you're using IE. And guess what? Windows update runs just fine through that.
Re:First by Anthony_Cargile · 2009-02-01 17:41 · Score: 2, Funny

mumble... bitwise oprtator (~) mumble...
Lovely spelling as well, after all its not like every app using GNOME has spell-check now. And on such a detailed subject with no right being brought up in the same post as football, too! Why don't I either start writing my posts in binary or just tap some snipped ethernet wires together to make the binary datagrams/packets myself? Man I really need to get out more...
Re:Dude by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 17:41 · Score: 1, Funny

I, too, am a fan of British Columbia.
News? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 17:42 · Score: 0

I thought this had been around since the last .NET Framework service pack; it certainly didn't just show up today. I'm not defending the extension itself, it's basically useless and might present security risks, but it's been around for a while and apparently no one took any great notice of it before, so maybe, just maybe, it isn't all that big of a deal.
Exactly! by Jane+Q.+Public · 2009-02-01 17:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is where Microsoft shows its true colors. They believe that as long as you are running Windows, they actually have RIGHTS regarding your desktop and the software you run.

They think they have a right to re-configure the software you use, for their own convenience and profit. That they can install things and you should have no say in the matter.

I am serious. On the corporate level (not most individual employees, I am sure), they really think that way. The evidence is incontrovertible.

Which used to serve them well. But which, in today's environment, is suffering a greater and greater disconnect with reality. I am sure you have noticed this yourself... the most obvious explanation for Microsoft's accelerating loss of market share is simply that they have lost touch with the realities of the market: their users' wants and needs, and, not to make too small a point of it, their business ethics.

I am not surprised at all.
1. Re:Exactly! by ozphx · 2009-02-01 18:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Or possibly they believe that:
  a) You are running Windows
  b) You have the .Net framework installed
  c) You are clicking a "Clickonce" installer link ... then it is quite possible that you want the goddamn thing to actually work. They have delivered an add-in, which brings this support, at their expense, to your browser.
  They have added a goddamn handler for the clickonce mime type. That is all. This is useful. This allows firefox adoption in the many businesses that deliver LOB thick client apps using clickonce.
  Before you get on your MS bashing high-horse, you might choose to take a glance at Sun, who has been including the _goddamn google toolbar_ in Java updates as a default option.
  
  --
  3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
2. Re:Exactly! by clang_jangle · 2009-02-01 18:33 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Oh STFU Balmer -- you should have just offered it through the appropriate Mozilla extension site like every-freaking-body else who has a useful extension to contribute, instead of shoving it down everybody's throat. Stupid, stupid monkeyboi!
  
  --
  Caveat Utilitor
3. Re:Exactly! by aussie_a · 2009-02-01 19:19 · Score: 0
  
  They have delivered an add-in, which brings this support, at their expense, to your browser.
  And they couldn't have delivered a add-in which is removable by the user through the Firefox GUI that most people are accustomed to using to remove add-ins? Or in a pinch, they couldn't make it removable through their Add/Remove Program feature?
4. Re:Exactly! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 19:33 · Score: 0
  
  Before you get on your MS bashing high-horse, you might choose to take a glance at Sun, who has been including the _goddamn google toolbar_ in Java updates as a default option.
  Indeed an excellent reminder.
  Although I did expect something about Java WebStart or how that stuff is called, that would be more related.
  Anyway, personally I don't have .net installed at all, and I quite happy with that, not planning to adopt it anytime soon, if ever.
5. Re:Exactly! by maztuhblastah · 2009-02-01 20:03 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  They have added a goddamn handler for the clickonce mime type. That is all. This is useful. This allows firefox adoption in the many businesses that deliver LOB thick client apps using clickonce.
  It's useful, unless you don't want to make it easier to install software from any website that offers it. I would argue that ClickOnce is a lot more trouble than it's worth.
  
  Before you get on your MS bashing high-horse, you might choose to take a glance at Sun, who has been including the _goddamn google toolbar_ in Java updates as a default option.
  Unless I'm misremembering, a good number of us folk *have* bee bashing Sun for that. I believe the phrase "whoring themselves out for cash" has been used in the context of discussions about this behavior before...
  
  --
  The real litigious bastards...
6. Re:Exactly! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 20:09 · Score: 0
  
  I agree. Very useful and not evil. This makes a simple and secure deployment and upgrade mechanism a viable option. It should have had broader publicity, though. Useful information can be found here:
  What click-once does:
  http://windowsclient.net/wpf/wpf35/wpf-deploying-clickonce-ie-firefox.aspx#xamlbrowser
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClickOnce
  An old FF clickonce addon: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1608
  This is neither news nor a surprise. This addon first started appearing in summer 2008. Clickonce is years old. Firefox support is new.
  Regarding mono support for click once, read http://www.mono-project.com/StudentProjects
  " A ClickOnce implementation could be done ... Since CAS is not supported in Mono its usefulness would be somewhat limited. " (Mono doesn't implement code access security. Sandboxing and trust are key parts of ClickOnce. The apps are usually not fully trusted.)
7. Re:Exactly! by ais523 · 2009-02-01 23:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They think they have a right to re-configure the software you use, for their own convenience and profit. That they can install things and you should have no say in the matter.
  They do. Read the EULA.
  
  --
  (1)DOCOMEFROM!2~.2'~#1WHILE:1<-"'?.1$.2'~'"':1/.1$.2'~#0"$#65535'"$"'"'&.1$.2'~'#0$#65535'"$#0'~#32767$#1"
8. Re:Exactly! by jc42 · 2009-02-02 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  [Microsoft] think they have a right to re-configure the software you use, for their own convenience and profit. That they can install things and you should have no say in the matter.
  They do. Read the EULA.
  Yup; I've read a few Microsoft EULAs, and they did say that by running their softweare, you give them the right to write anywhere on the disk. Even on partitions that contain other OSs or no OS at all. I learned about this years ago, when I had a PC with Windows, and installed linux on a second partition. When I booted Windows, I discovered that the linux partition was no longer marked bootable. I eventually found the paragraph in the docs where it was stated that Windows did this. I reformatted the Windows partition as another linux filesystem.
  However, we should note that things stated in the EULA are not necessarily legally binding. As with contracts, licenses can't override laws. Most places have laws about such things, and in much of the world, this would qualify as sabotage of the customer's equipment. It shows that Microsoft knows their software does such things, and the behavior is intentional. It's likely that wherever you live, EULA text like this would be treated by a court as admission of guilt, malice aforethought, or whatever your local legal terminology is. If it worries you that Microsoft is modifying your installation of non-MS software, perhaps you should talk to a local lawyer about it. You just might be able to get a settlement for it. Even better, see if you can start a class-action lawsuit, which could help persuade Microsoft's management that their code should include code to check your locality before it does such things to your computer.
  If nobody challenges them, they'll take this as acceptance, and they'll continue to do it. Actually, considering that automatic, behind-the-scenes updates have existed in MS Windows since at least XP, it may take a lot of time to teach them any useful lesson. But it's worth doing, at least if you want (or need) to run MS software for some reason.
  
  --
  Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
9. Re:Exactly! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 02:46 · Score: 0
  
  Also known as: 101 Reasons not to use Windows
10. Re:Exactly! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  They have added a goddamn handler for the clickonce mime type. That is all. This is useful. This allows firefox adoption in the many businesses that deliver LOB thick client apps using clickonce.
  Before you get on your MS bashing high-horse, you might choose to take a glance at Sun, who has been including the _goddamn google toolbar_ in Java updates as a default option.
  Hmmm, that's funny, last time I did a Java update there was this little checkbox that said "Install the Google toolbar", which had the option to remove this checkmark, and thusly NOT install the Google toolbar.
  Yes, still irritating, but avoidable if you pay a little attention.
  The issue is not the capability of the software they installed. It is the issue that if I want this capability I will either bitch at Mozilla for not building it into Firefox, or I'll download the extension from the Firefox website, just like other extensions or updates for that product.
  
  c) You are clicking a "Clickonce" installer link ...
  
  NO I'M NOT
  
  then it is quite possible that you want the goddamn thing to actually work. They have delivered an add-in, which brings this support,along with potentially unstable behavior and/or security holes at their expense and YOUR risk, to a 3rd party application they have no business messing with.
  There, fixed that part for you.
11. Re:Exactly! by clone53421 · 2009-02-02 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  Before you get on your MS bashing high-horse, you might choose to take a glance at Sun, who has been including the _goddamn google toolbar_ in Java updates as a default option.
  The Java updates display a checkbox for whether you want the google toolbar even if you already chose to perform a default install. It's checked by default, but it doesn't silently install without asking.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
12. Re:Exactly! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 04:05 · Score: 0
  
  They do. Read the EULA.
  Let's see the contents of this EULA...
  
  "You agree to nothing."
  
  Ah yes! I customised things a little before installing. I call it negotiation. :)
13. Re:Exactly! by Khyber · 2009-02-02 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  I just read the EULA. Not a god damned thing gives them the right to modify third-party software.
  Whoever modded you insightful is a fucking moron.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
14. Re:Exactly! by danomac · 2009-02-02 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, it does say it the EULA, and it doesn't specifically exclude third-party products - this was a part of an update for their software)[emphasis mine]:
  
  2.4 Internet Gaming/Update Features. If you choose to utilize the Internet gaming or update features within the Software, it is necessary to use certain computer system, hardware, and software information to implement the features. By using these features, you explicitly authorize Microsoft or its designated agent to access and utilize the necessary information for Internet gaming and/or updating purposes. Microsoft may use this information solely to improve our software or to provide customized services or technologies to you. Microsoft may disclose this information to others, but not in a form that personally identifies you.
  
  I read this as them allowing to install software and updates. It would likely fall under the improve our software bit (third party web browser support.)
  
  It is there, as vague as it is...
15. Re:Exactly! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 09:15 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, look -- the humorless microsoft fanbois got their mod points.
16. Re:Exactly! by ScrewMaster · 2009-02-02 14:32 · Score: 1
  
  Before you get on your MS bashing high-horse, you might choose to take a glance at Sun, who has been including the _goddamn google toolbar_ in Java updates as a default option.
  Well, I don't agree that Microsoft is on the up-and-up here ... but yeah, that was sure a professional touch on Sun's part, wasn't it? I had a couple of updates that offered Yahoo's toolbar instead. I was irked enough to write them a letter about it. Got a polite response, that was about it. My laptop updated its Java yesterday, and sure enough there was the Google Toolbar option (checked by default, of course.)
  
  I always thought better of Sun, for some reason. Smacks of some lame shareware program, where the author makes more money installing toolbars than he does from his own work.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
17. Re:Exactly! by popoutman · 2009-02-02 22:19 · Score: 1
  
  In this country, EULAs are not legally binding.
  I completely disregard any EULA, as I do not have to abide by anything in there - consumer law already does the job of my protection and already gives me the rights that I want. Anyway, my cat walked across my keyboard during the install and 'agreed' to the EULA, or my neighbour's kids of a non-majority age did it...
  
  --
  - This sig deliberately left blank. Nothing to see, move along.
Same With Other Installations by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 17:52 · Score: 0

The addon was installed when you first installed .net framework 3.5... at that time, it installed the firefox extension.

I've seen that being done with other applications (e.g., Veoh installing various plugins and addons to firefox, as with Microsoft Office)... why haven't people complained about those?

I think that the problem here is that the update shouldn't have been treated as a "high priority" update, since there are those who did not want the .net framework 3.5.

Whatever security fix was required, MSFT should have had one update for those who installed <= .net framework 2, and another for those who got 3.5.
1. Re:Same With Other Installations by YttriumOxide · 2009-02-01 19:23 · Score: 1
  
  I think that the problem here is that the update shouldn't have been treated as a "high priority" update, since there are those who did not want the .net framework 3.5.
  Actually, I think a nicer solution would have been to simply make it a separate update. There is no good reason that this "feature" needs to be a PART of the .NET update, regardless of the version. Let me install .NET Framework x.x and any associated SPx to it, but let me UNSELECT things I don't want from that, such as plugins to my browser, which has nothing to do with what I use .NET for.
  
  --
  My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
  Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
2. Re:Same With Other Installations by Paradigm_Complex · 2009-02-02 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  An even more elegant solution:
  
  Firefox already has support for launching a user-friendly way of adding plugins/addons/whathaveyou when it reaches a site that requires such things. MS could have easily approached Mozilla about adding this functionality for "clickonce."
  
  --
  "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
3. Re:Same With Other Installations by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  You know what really bugs me with this .NET update?
  This is the list of fixes included in the .NET update I installed.
  It has details on a bunch of fixes, but I can't see anything about a plugin that will be installed.
  Can anyone point out to me where Microsoft says that it'll install this plugin?
Missing here...? by DeusExCalamus · 2009-02-01 18:15 · Score: 1

Winxp SP3 here, I don't have it...not 100% sure what the requirements are for it, though :?

--
"...Sleep comes like a drug in God's country Sad eyes, crooked crosses in God's country..."
1. Re:Missing here...? by Paradigm_Complex · 2009-02-02 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  It comes with an update to .NET 3.5SP1.
  
  --
  "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
2. Re:Missing here...? by Culture20 · 2009-02-02 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  And .Net 2.0 SP2
But wait, that's not all by Bobnova · 2009-02-01 18:19 · Score: 1

Hell one of the plugins listed in my copy of firefox is Windows Genuine Advantage. I see no reason for that to exist in firefox. Also there are two Microsoft DRM things. However, all can be disabled. Running SP3 here as well as .NET 3.5, and i do not have the plugin/addon mentioned.
1. Re:But wait, that's not all by Paradigm_Complex · 2009-02-02 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  Hell one of the plugins listed in my copy of firefox is Windows Genuine Advantage.
  Whenever I've seen that one, you had to go out of your way to install it. That one gives you the option to use Firefox instead of IE for cases where WGA is required - the OPTION. With notice. You have to download and run an executable.
  
  That is nothing like updating .NET3.5SP1 and finding it was toying with other, non-MS applications without any heads up.
  
  --
  "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
Re:First do a Windows Update extension for firefox by orkysoft · 2009-02-01 18:20 · Score: 1

You are actually running IE.

--

I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
Quickly forgotten by scdeimos · 2009-02-01 18:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

Anybody remember when Windows "Genuine Advantage" validation software was getting slipped in as part of "critical updates" for things like the Microsoft Flash Player patch? It wasn't really that long ago.
You don't seriously expect Microsoft to *not* do these sorts of things on what they consider to be *their* systems, do you?
1. Re:Quickly forgotten by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 01:30 · Score: 0
  
  The only people who really care about WGA are pirates.
Microsoft, huh? by Waccoon · 2009-02-01 18:23 · Score: 4, Informative

Here's a look at all the plugins I didn't want and had to disable:
Extensions:
- Java Quick Starter 1.0
- Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant 1.0
Plugins: - Adobe Acrobat
- Java(TM) Platform SE 6 U10
- Java(TM) Platform SE 6 U11
- Java(TM) Platform SE 6 U11 (Yes, again)
- Microsoft(R) DRM
- Microsoft(R) DRM (Yes, again)
- QuickTime Plug-in 7.4.5 (I'll send it to the external player, please)
- RealPlayer Version Plugin (RealAlternative, please)
- RealPlayer(tm) G2 LiveConnet-Enabled Plug-IN (32-bit)
- Windows Media Player Plug-in Dynamic Link Library
So far, that's Sun, Apple, Real, Adobe, and Microsoft messing with my browser without telling me... and only because I'm quite strict with what I install on my system. This isn't Microsoft up to their old tricks, it's just them keeping up with the Joneses, and forcing me to keep up with everyone with an agenda. What else is new?
I do have Silverlight installed, too, but at least the installer for that told me it would work with multiple browsers. Thank goodness the Mozilla people had the fine sense to let people see plugins and extensions, unlike IE6 and friends. Quite a few time I've had to fix someone's compter by hacking out IE extensions from the system registry, and that's not pleasant at all.
1. Re:Microsoft, huh? by mikelieman · 2009-02-01 23:11 · Score: 1
  
  How did you disable and uninstall "Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant 1.0" ?
  Did it comply with the guidelines for a Firefox addon/plugin, and provide for easy removal?
  And *THAT* is the issue here.
  
  --
  Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
2. Re:Microsoft, huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 00:16 · Score: 0
  
  The same way you disable any Firefox extesion:
  Tools -> Add-Ons -> select the add-on -> Disable
  I agree that there should have been an indication that it would be installed but it's not difficult to disable and it's nice to see MS actually supporting Firefox.
  Personally, I disabled this add-on a long time ago when I first noticed it, since I don't use any ClickOnce apps at home. However, a couple of years ago at work we started using a ClickOnce app and it was a pain in the ass to have to switch to IE all the time...
  So the add-on is a good thing and certainly can be disabled. The installer for it could be better but is no worse than many other installers that drop features into the web browser(s) at the end of the day. (Which doesn't make it right but does make me wonder why it's only a problem when MS do it.)
3. Re:Microsoft, huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 04:19 · Score: 0
  
  - Java Quick Starter: Can be disabled. It makes sense that when JAVA updates, the LAUNCHER for JAVA updates as well.
  - Acrobat: Don't want it, remove it & stop installing it. Be aware you won't be able to view .pdf inside your browser & will have to launch the viewer yourself. This is actually how I prefer to do it myself.
  - Java, Java, Java: Go ahead, remove Java, and Java will go away. Imagine that.
  -Quicktime. Yes, highly annoying. I recommend not installing it, or removing it.
  -Realplayer. See 'Quicktime' above.
  Note that almost all of the options above, with the NOTABLE exception being MICROSOFT, ALL have the ability to remove or uninstall.
  Again, everything you listed above that is not MICROSOFT, can be removed.
  So yes, it IS MS keeping up with their own tricks.
Re:Why get upset? Firefox users avoid proprietary by aweraw · 2009-02-01 18:24 · Score: 1

I see your point, but there's a big difference between me choosing to install the flash plug-in in my firefox installation vs having Microsoft choose to install their own plug-in in my installation of firefox.
If the benefits afforded to me by this plug-in were clear and made sense, I would have installed it myself with out much hesitation. My understanding is though that this plug-in is of no direct benefit to the owner of the firefox installation, only to those who want to know what versions of .NET I have installed on the underlying OS.
I see it kind of like a local council sending someone to sit in my driveway, and report what kind of car I drive, and when I drive it, without asking me before hand... it's of no direct inconvenience to me, but I certainly feel as if I'm being put under needless scrutiny. On the other hand, if the local council informed me of their wish to send someone to sit in my drive way and record these details, and gave me the reasons why they were doing it, I'd probably have much less issue with it.
This is a violation of trust more than anything else, and Microsoft thinking that because they technically (as per EULA) own the software on your computer, that by extension, they own everything on it. /car analogy

--
5468652047616D65
documentation by blue_goddess · 2009-02-01 18:35 · Score: 3, Informative

there is a doc about that extension, written by M$:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc716877.aspx
according to that site, its present sice *July* 2008

--
As a computer, I find your faith in technology amusing.
1. Re:documentation by Z00L00K · 2009-02-01 19:22 · Score: 1
  
  Present since then, forced upon us recently.
  This is not really what most of we who are using Firefox wants. We are running Firefox for a reason - like that we want to be in control and have a layer between the OS and the sites we are surfing.
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
You have missed the point. by Jane+Q.+Public · 2009-02-01 18:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

(1) Firefox is not a Microsoft application. It is installed at the will and whim of the end-user. And the end-user should have control over what is installed into their Firefox.

(2) Microsoft has every opportunity to give that end user A CHOICE. Yet, typically of Microsoft, they chose not to do so. That was the WRONG decision. And that is how most people view their work machines today: it belongs to me, by damn, and you had better ask me before installing something. As a computer professional, who depends on controlling software versions and so on to guarantee compatibility, this is not an option for me. I insist upon it. Companies that violate that policy are not my friends. They do NOT make my life easier, they make it much more difficult.

(3)They have no right to assume that I want their goddamned "Clickonce" thing to work. Maybe I don't. And in fact, the OP was not about installing it via the web at all, it was about it being installed automatically in the background via SPs and SP updates. This isn't about clicking on a link at all. Please read first before you offer an opinion.

(4) This is NOT about adding a mime-type handler. It is about installing a mime-type handler that some users may not want, secretly, in the background, without asking for permission. And for a BROWSER that isn't even their own product. Not only is this unacceptable to me (because I must always be in control of what is installed on my work machines), it is also typical of Microsoft's arrogant attitude toward their users.

My high-horse is not strictly MS-specific, as you would know if you actually read what I wrote! If any other company did this, I would oppose it just as vehemently. It is just that Microsoft is famous for doing this kind of thing, and here is yet one more example.

Odds are, "ozphx", that I was using Microsoft products professionally before you were out of elementary school. If you don't have a direct counterargument to mine, then please go elsewhere.

Oh... by the way. I agree that including the Google toolbar in Java updates is unethical, too. But at least a choice *IS* offered, and that during a voluntary install. In the case under discussion, it was stated that this software is being added unannounced, as part of an update, without any such option being provided. So there is a bit of a difference.
1. Re:You have missed the point. by jez9999 · 2009-02-01 22:09 · Score: 1
  
  (2) Microsoft has every opportunity to give that end user A CHOICE.
  Heh, the Firefox team can't lecture people about giving users a choice. Try not installing an update Firefox decided to silently download in the background. Hell, they're talking about installing them without even prompting you first, then telling you they did. If they even bother to do that. And this stuff is all switched on by default.
  
  --
  == Jez ==
  Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
2. Re:You have missed the point. by Xest · 2009-02-01 23:10 · Score: 1
  
  No need to be condescending towards the guy, I can see why he disagrees with you.
  The biggest flaw in your argument is your repeated insistence that Microsoft installs things secretly and without permission. Sorry, but if you've been in the business as long as you say then you must know that Microsoft doesn't in fact do as you say. Even when you install Windows initially you have to specifically enable Windows updates but if you install updates separately you explicitly accept an agreement each and every time.
  You cannot on one hand accept these agreements and then on the other claim you knew nothing of them, that's simply playing ignorant and ignorance is no excuse for surprise that when you give permission for Microsoft to install or modify arbitrary files on your system that they do just that.
  The fact is you don't know what ANY Microsoft update really adds or changes, particularly service packs. You're right to complain that MS doesn't give more information about what is and isn't in a patch, but you'll find Apple is just as bad with iTunes for Windows and it's installation of Bonjour, some DNS service that runs in the background, and their more recent attempts to make it sneak on Safari and Quicktime also.
  We need to be provided more data about what comes with automated installations industry-wide but I'd argue what we should really be focussing on in this particular case is not that Microsoft is distributing something with automatic updates (although it can be used as an example for that when pushing for industry-wide improvements) but that it's distributing something that sends data to untrusted servers- that's the bigger problem for me. I can buy the automated installation, it's something I already accept and that anyone working in IT for a while should be able to accept, what I can't buy is the fact they're installing something that sends data, that's my real problem here with MS.
  Some years ago (we're talking Windows 95 kinda era here), I knew even on an MS OS what data was being sent to and from my machine, when and by what but nowadays I absolutely could not tell you every service that sends/receives data on my system. Whether it's Windows itself, whether it's Steam or many other peices of software transmitting data back to some server. I am more concerned about this, the constant unchecked sending and receiving of data to/from my system. What makes it worse is that there has, rightly or wrongly been a major bastardisation of protocols in recent years partly due to the web 2.0 revolution so even if you know what protocols are being used, you still don't necessarily know anymore what is being sent/received over those protocols unless you actively monitor them.
  Quality of software has improved over the years with Microsoft even though it may not seem so, their software is much more stable and much more secure than it has ever been (although some might argue that's not saying much but to be fair, Windows 2003 and 2008 server are pretty solid) but whilst they continuously harden their apps they're also slipping in crap like genuine advantage and the likes and that covert transfer of information is going to ensure Microsoft can never provide the security of Linux/Unix variants where you still at least have much more control over what does and doesn't come and go from your system.
  The fact is, if you truly want control over your system, what data is sent and received, what is installed with patches and updates then you're using the wrong OS. Complaining that an MS update has installed a Firefox extension is ignorant of a much bigger problem that effects both Windows itself and the set of Windows software that is equally guilty- be it Apple's, Sun's or even Google's. Getting mad at Microsoft for doing what they've always done and what their competitors do is pointless, moving to a platform where this doesn't happen is arguably the only way to get them to listen.
  As a disclaimer, I don't use Linux, I use Vista so I too am guilty but whilst these things irk me I've we
3. Re:You have missed the point. by FishWithAHammer · 2009-02-02 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  (3)They have no right to assume that I want their goddamned "Clickonce" thing to work. Maybe I don't. And in fact, the OP was not about installing it via the web at all, it was about it being installed automatically in the background via SPs and SP updates. This isn't about clicking on a link at all. Please read first before you offer an opinion.
  
  Please learn what ClickOnce is before you open your stupid-hole. Then you will understand why this was done as it was.
  
  --
  "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
4. Re:You have missed the point. by ewanm89 · 2009-02-02 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  (4) This is NOT about adding a mime-type handler. It is about installing a mime-type handler that some users may not want, secretly, in the background, without asking for permission.
  Especially the browser (since version 3.0) provides a way to add handlers through javascript that automatically asks the user whether it is wanted. No damn extension is needed. Oh, and java webstart gets by without any such measures.
5. Re:You have missed the point. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 01:06 · Score: 0
  
  M-M-M-M-MONSTER KILL!
  What's with all these Microsoft defenders lately, anyway? Corporate fanboys are even worse than football hooligans!
6. Re:You have missed the point. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 01:28 · Score: 0
  
  it is also typical of Microsoft's arrogant attitude toward their users.
  
  Kind of like how Apple sneaks Safari installs into iTunes updates?
  Oh, oh, cognitive dissonance! Make it stop!
7. Re:You have missed the point. by ikkonoishi · 2009-02-02 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  If you installed the .NET 3.5 framework then you installed this.
  Check the whats new page for 3.5
  http://windowsclient.net/wpf/wpf35/wpf-whats-new-35sp1.aspx
  *FireFox browser extension to support Clickonce installations using FireFox browsers
  If you didn't read about what you were installing then thats your problem.
8. Re:You have missed the point. by hesaigo999ca · 2009-02-02 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  Nope sorry, I agree with the other admin, even though you have multiple admins here displaying the size of their "you-know-whats" it does not come down to who has the bigger size, it comes down to who has the bigger budget and the meaner boss.
  If my boss asks me why I am wasting time learning about a new update he did not approve to send to all the machines to know what it does and how it will affect all my machines in my network, you better come up with a good excuses, and telling him, "its M$ fault, they forced this patch on us, and now we are stuck with this thing....I don't know what it is or what it does, I am reading up on it..."
  Does he say...well that sounds like M$, or does he look at you like you are wasting time on something he didn't approve, or maybe you don't know what you are doing if you can answer him what this latest patch update does...
  So...when it comes down to size, I win... ok , seriously though, if you cant prove to your boss you "were not responsible for this happening" and ALSO if you can't competently tell him what its for, you are at fault...and when it comes down to the dollar....I see this as M$
  costing more money on their client's backs, then it could ever produce in their bank accounts.
  There will only be so many times you can push this on M$ backs before the unacquainted think you are full of B$..... M$ IS THE WORST FOR THIS, HANDS DOWN. YOU WOULD NEVER SEE RED HAT PULL THIS SH*T. THEY WOULD BEND OVER BACKWARDS FOR YOU TO HOLD OFF UPDATES IF THEY KNEW THERE WAS ADMINS WHO DID NOT WANT IT.
9. Re:You have missed the point. by dragonjujotu · 2009-02-02 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  But it can be switched off without adverse effects (other than security issues) and without having to do anything with about:config.
  
  --
  Yes, I am obsessed with ellipses.
10. Re:You have missed the point. by DisKurzion · 2009-02-02 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  I read the summary about ClickOnce. You know what my brain saw?
  ActiveX 2.0
  Everything that is old is new again...
11. Re:You have missed the point. by Xest · 2009-02-02 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure you actually read a word I said.
  Any manager is going to think you're bullshitting them if you just throw up excuses ad-hoc and quite rightly so. If however you put together a report explaining the issues and providing possible solutions (i.e. move to OSS) and instead refer your boss to that if they don't pay attention to it the first time then they're more likely to pay attention and listen.
  If your boss still wont listen then as I say, well, at the end of the day, you get paid, so why care at that point? If the problem is your boss making life difficult for you then leave, giving reasons why to both him and his superiors and get a job elsewhere.
  No one wants to deal with someone that just sits there and whines about someone elses software without actually providing viable solutions over ad-hoc excuses. Microsoft etc. aren't going to change until there's a real threat from OSS so what's the point annoying everyone else by whining about it as if it will if you're not willing to take real action to change it?
12. Re:You have missed the point. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 03:32 · Score: 0
  
  You know... I don't care if it impacts the functionality of one of their other business units. I don't USE their stuff- I only have to off-and-on use Firefox. If it's really only to provide things like their ClickOnce, sorry, it's not acceptable to have them push that out. The grandparent poster is right.
  Stop and think about what you're proposing before opening YOUR stupid-hole.
13. Re:You have missed the point. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 03:51 · Score: 0
  
  You didn't bother much with reading yourself, did you?
  In the original release of .NET 3.5 there was no such Firefox extension. Hence, those who chose to install it, having read the release notes, explicitly knew there were no such thing as a Firefox extension being installed at the same time.
  The Firefox extension is new in .NET 3.5 SP1, which is an automatic install (for the vast majority of people having .NET 3.5 already installed). There is never any choice given to the user to neither read any release notes nor choose to decline the installation in order to avoid it, or the Firefox extension contained therein.
  So the not-reading problem is in fact yours, and it does make you look like either an idiot, a shill or at best, ignorant.
  The complaints are very much legitimate and Microsoft are indeed at fault in this case. (As they are in so, so many cases, but let's stick to one at a time.)
14. Re:You have missed the point. by fast+turtle · 2009-02-02 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  But the main point is that by Default Windows Update enables all critical updates to be downloaded and installed Silently and w/o user intervention. Simply put, What MS is doing is Hijacking an Alternate Browser through it's usage of Windows Update. This is not an acceptable action by any company and MS should have their feet held to the Coals in return for violating even their usual minimal level of ethics.
  
  --
  Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
15. Re:You have missed the point. by Quantumstate · 2009-02-02 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  The main difference here is that Firefox's auto update feature updates Firefox and not anything else and also the auto updates are security patches and bug fixes. Also if you don't want auto updates then you should turn off the auto update feature. it is clear what an auto update does.
16. Re:You have missed the point. by powerlord · 2009-02-02 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  it is also typical of Microsoft's arrogant attitude toward their users.
  Kind of like how Apple sneaks Safari installs into iTunes updates?
  Oh, oh, cognitive dissonance! Make it stop!
  Haven't used iTunes or the Apple Updater in a while, huh?
  Apple included the windows version of Safari for about a week as an update to iTunes. Since then its fixed the updater to display Safari (and presumably any other software they choose to port to windows), as an "Optional Install" in a separate frame at the bottom of the dialog. It also defaults to NOT installing it if Safari isn't already installed.
  (Darn, I hate feeding trolls)
  
  --
  This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
17. Re:You have missed the point. by Jane+Q.+Public · 2009-02-02 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  I CAN and do assert that Microsoft installs things secretly and without permission. Yes, their updates can be turned off (in most but not all cases... some updates will try to install every time even if you have not selected them).
  
  However, the OP was about a browser plugin for Firefox (NOT Windows or a Microsoft program) that was installed without notice. That was not my statement, that was his. So don't try to tell me it is false, tell him.
  
  I agree with you that people who want control over their system should not be using Microsoft products (which statement, by the way, contradicts what you said in your first paragraph... that's okay, I'll allow that little hypocrisy). But that does NOT mean that it is necessarily ethical for Microsoft to operate the way it often does. Further, *I* was not "complaining" about it, somebody else was. I was just decrying the practice as unethical. And it is.
  
  I do not ignore the solutions. My OSes of choice (what I use every day) are various flavors of Linux. That doesn't mean I don't have an opinion, I do. And I used Microsoft products for enough years to be entitled to that opinion.
18. Re:You have missed the point. by Jane+Q.+Public · 2009-02-02 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  I know what the goddamned thing is. Why do you think that should change my opinion? Just maybe, it isn't me who is being stupid.
19. Re:You have missed the point. by Xest · 2009-02-02 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  No that's wrong, you have to enable automatic updates to even get critical updates.
  I have Vista set to let me choose which to download and no patch is installed on my system without my acceptance.
20. Re:You have missed the point. by QuietObserver · 2009-02-06 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  I don't like to speak ill of anyone, but I'd say his username describes him perfectly.
Re:Why get upset? Firefox users avoid proprietary by mysidia · 2009-02-01 18:39 · Score: 1

The issue is that they're modifying non-Microsoft software I've installed without asking for my permission.
I use Firefox because it's more secure than Internet Explorer, for example an application can't install itself with minimal interaction, just because it's an ActiveX control signed by someone.
The "extension" Microsoft sneaks into third-party software enables ClickOnce, which essentially introducing almost the exact same security vulnerability ActiveX introduces to IE.
It's slightly better in that these are standalone apps per se, not necessarily controls any web page can call.
Re:Why get upset? Firefox users avoid proprietary by Sta7ic · 2009-02-01 18:43 · Score: 2, Funny

Echo'ed.
If someone in a suit on the street forced you to wear a band-aid on your shoulder, you'd ask them what was up with them. If someone wanted on the street was "vaccinating" everyone walking by, you'd turn and run the other way.
It's not possible to guard against this by knorthern+knight · 2009-02-01 18:46 · Score: 2, Informative

Firefox is a standards-compliant program that does things via standard API's. MS is going behind Firefox's back and putting stuff in places where Firefox can't write/delete files. You do *NOT* want FF to be able to write/delete all over your system. That is one reason it's safer than IE.

--

I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
1. Re:It's not possible to guard against this by FriendlyLurker · 2009-02-01 21:07 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Firefox is a standards-compliant program that does things via standard API's. MS is going behind Firefox's back and putting stuff in places where Firefox can't write/delete files. You do *NOT* want FF to be able to write/delete all over your system. That is one reason it's safer than IE.
  Sure, fair enough. But FF can *ignore* said extensions in a standards compliant way without writing/deleting all over your system. A simple user authorised extensions list will do the trick.
Re:Why get upset? Firefox users avoid proprietary by Workaphobia · 2009-02-01 18:52 · Score: 1

To be fair, we'd only be criticizing them slightly less had they done both of those points. They just made our rationalization a heck of a lot easier by discarding any sense of caution or respect.

--
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
Re:First do a Windows Update extension for firefox by YttriumOxide · 2009-02-01 19:04 · Score: 1

Just nitpicking, but it doesn't just "make it think" you're using - you actually are using IE with IE Tab - that tab contains an instance of IE itself (which gets annoying when your proxy settings are different between the two)

--
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
Re:Why get upset? Firefox users avoid proprietary by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 19:11 · Score: 0

couldn't the microsoft clickonce website detect that the user is running firefox and recommend the extensions to them at that point, rather than just failing until the user gets around to installing an update which they wouldn't expect to contain this helper extension?! wouldn't that be verging on sane?
Should Mozilla sign the add-ons? by gzipped_tar · 2009-02-01 19:22 · Score: 1

AFAIK the add-ons (incl. updates) hosted at addons.mozilla.org must go through a review procedure before being pushed to update channel. If so, why doesn't Mozilla sign the reviewed packages (while not signing the pending ones) and only allow the user installing the signed ones? This is similar to what all Linux distros are doing.
This doesn't rule out 3rd party add-ons that don't go through the Mozilla review procedure. Firefox should include only the official Mozilla public key by default, but a user can import 3rd-party developers' keys by themselves. If you don't trust a particular developer (for example, Microsoft) or can't verify its identity, just don't import the key and there will be no way for the add-on to install. Importing/deleting public keys should be done with root- or admin-privilege just like updating Firefox itself.

--
Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
Erm, right.... by raehl · 2009-02-01 19:23 · Score: 1

Guess nobody here runs Java or Flash.
They don't even show up in the add-ons list.

--
paintball
1. Re:Erm, right.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 19:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Eh... well not under Extensions, but under Plugins. (I'm looking right at them right now.) Which is where I go to disable them, since they are the Great Satan. Well ok maybe not, but they are annoying. :-D
2. Re:Erm, right.... by capnkr · 2009-02-01 20:01 · Score: 1
  
  ...but Sun and/or Macromedia don't push Java/Flash onto your machine in stealth mode. If you don't have them, then you must make the effort to install them yourself. Yep, that's right - it is Your Choice to install them or not. They don't just show up because Sun or MM think you might need them...
  Not to mention the fact that both Java and Flash are easily removable via the Add/Remove/Uninstall/Change Programs list. Or whatever it's called in Vista.
  
  --
  "...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
3. Re:Erm, right.... by TSPhoenix · 2009-02-01 20:33 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Try the "Plugins" tab of the Add-on window as opposed to "Extensions". Both Flash and Java are listed and can be disabled.
4. Re:Erm, right.... by gbjbaanb · 2009-02-02 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  interestingly, I've just looked here on my work box....
  I have Microsoft DRM (twice),
  Office Genuine Advantage and Windows genuine Advantage.
  Windows Media player plugin
  Windows Presentation Foundation
  2007 Microsoft Office system
  Now, I'm sure I did install the Genuine advantage apps, but none of the others.
Re:Why get upset? Firefox users avoid proprietary by vsnc · 2009-02-01 19:41 · Score: 1

Agreed :)
Re:Exactly? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 19:50 · Score: 0

1 Question: Why not pushing this as a separate update?
Car Analogy For You by TheLink · 2009-02-01 20:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

"You look like you need a car analogy"

This is like sending in your Microsoft car for servicing at Microsoft and having the Microsoft mechanic install an extension to your "Firefox" add-on car radio - which you installed yourself, because you wanted an alternative to the embedded Microsoft Car Radio (which cannot be removed without disabling a large part of the car).

An extension that allows you to listen to the New & Wonderful Microsoft Radio Stations, and all installed without asking your permission first.

Just because you chose to add that extension on your built-in Microsoft Car Radio, does not give them the right to install it on your non-Microsoft Car Radios, WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION.

After all many of us have the Firefox Car Radio just so that we can avoid listening to the Microsoft Radio Stations by accident or mistake or "Just Because Microsoft thinks it's time for you to". When we want to listen to those stations we use the Microsoft Car Radio.

So far I have managed to install the Java crap on various computers without having the google tool bar installed without my permission - they made it optional and I usually deselect all such options.

MS deserves a bashing for this. They are trespassing and are arguably doing an "unauthorised modification" to your computer system, which is a Computer Crimes offense in many countries.

They'd probably get away by giving the various usual excuses. After all, the Sony bunch got away without being jailed even though they did something worse.

Unauthorized modification of one to a few hundred computers and it's "hacking/vandalism", and if caught you can go to jail.

Unauthorized modification of millions of computers and it's called "useful and allowing firefox adoption".
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold
1. Re:Car Analogy For You by afxgrin · 2009-02-02 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  At least they left the radio in ... there's enough mechanics that will remove the car stereo without putting it back.
  I like how I have Microsoft DRM add-ons in Firefox. I don't remember installing those...
2. Re:Car Analogy For You by ozphx · 2009-02-02 18:53 · Score: 1
  
  Its more like you install a GPS, and they wire it into your Whatever branded sound system, because they assume that by having GPS installed that you want to hear the directions when you press "Speak Route".
  "I'm one of the tiny minority that want a GPS installed but not listen to the directions!" you cry.
  Fine. Don't press "Speak Route".
  "Waa! I don't want the hidden cable under the dash... its not necessary. I asked for a GPS, not a cable! I don't care if its free and part of the standard GPS.... etc fkn etc.
  You can either stick with the standard install, or get a different framework/GPS (Java comes to mind).
  
  --
  3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
3. Re:Car Analogy For You by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-06 00:47 · Score: 0
  
  Just because you chose to add that extension on your built-in Microsoft Car Radio, does not give them the right to install it on your non-Microsoft Car Radios, WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION.
  Except that I'll bet you did give permission when you clicked on the "I Agree" button when presented with the MS EULA.
  
  MS deserves a bashing for this.
  Absolutely, I think it's pretty nasty behaviour myself, but that doesn't mean that it was "without permission" or "unauthorised".
You missed the point here. UTTERLY. by aepervius · 2009-02-01 20:36 · Score: 1

Maybe some are exaggerating their ire that MS installed something as a FF extension. And if it was ONLY this, the story would have been laughed at by the majority of moderate people. But the fact you are missing which make people angry is the extension could not be uninstalled. How many of those extension above you cite are uninstallable ? They would be as guilty, but I have the feeling this is not the case.

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Firefox security hole by Tom · 2009-02-01 20:57 · Score: 1, Insightful

It seems you've found a glaring Firefox security problem there, that ought to be reported immediately.
If it is possible to silently install add-ons, how long will it take until someone finds a way to send you one via Exchange? One that, say, logs your keystrokes whenever you visit a URL starting with "https://", such as your online banking site?
Firefox needs to validate its add-ons and make sure the list can't be manipulated without user interaction.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
1. Re:Firefox security hole by Slashcrap · 2009-02-01 21:40 · Score: 1
  
  It seems you've found a glaring Firefox security problem there, that ought to be reported immediately.
  If it is possible to silently install add-ons, how long will it take until someone finds a way to send you one via Exchange? One that, say, logs your keystrokes whenever you visit a URL starting with "https://", such as your online banking site?
  Firefox needs to validate its add-ons and make sure the list can't be manipulated without user interaction.
  How the fuck do you expect any installed application to protect itself from being modified by Windows Update? Once you've come up with the solution, let us know what it is and we can also apply it to the general situation where we want to prevent an application being modified by another process running with root priveleges.
  Please hurry! I am literally holding my breath here.
2. Re:Firefox security hole by BBird · 2009-02-01 22:06 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It isn't. First time you start firefox after the update it tells you about the new add on and you can delete it or disable it on the spot. Before that it will not work. I've got the ms update and was surprised myself (as I only run on demand ms updates, and review before installing, and it did not say it was installing this add on bundled in .not update)
3. Re:Firefox security hole by StrawberryFrog · 2009-02-01 23:10 · Score: 1
  
  If it is possible to silently install add-ons
  It isn't. firefox makes it quite visible when it next starts up.
  how long will it take until someone finds a way to send you one via Exchange?
  This one is installed when you .. gasp .. run an installer. if you are running a random exe that exchange sent you, you already have problems that go well beyond firefox addins. like silent keyloggers and stuff.
  Firefox needs to validate its add-ons and make sure the list can't be manipulated without user interaction.
  What a good idea. They do that.
  
  --
  My Karma: ran over your Dogma
  StrawberryFrog
4. Re:Firefox security hole by Tom · 2009-02-05 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  How the fuck do you expect any installed application to protect itself from being modified by Windows Update?
  
  It's called cryptographic signatures. You might have heard of the concept.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Firefox is a web broswer by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 21:19 · Score: 0

USB Mass Storage Driver is a driver for USB memory sticks/HDD.
Yet I didn't need to read the source code to do that.
This extension does what? It certainly doesn't mention changing the browser string and no reason for it to do so. And it's "a framework" I.e. doesn't *actually* do something.
If I don't use C I don't install the compiler.
I don't use .NET.
1. Re:Firefox is a web broswer by Jaruzel · 2009-02-01 21:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I don't use .NET.
  I bet you do.
  Got Office 2003 ? Some of that is .NET code. Got Live Messenger ? Ditto. Nvidia or ATI graphics cards ? well, those DEFINITELY need .NET to work properly. Let's not forget all those extra bits of freeware you've also got, some of those will be .NET based as well.
  As I understand it, this add-on just alters the useragent to declare that the PC it's running on is .NET capable (i.e. you got at least one version of the .NET framework installed). This is a good thing - as it means MORE sites that have .net extensions or controls will work in FF, meaning you can finally ditch IE completely (in theory).
  Yes their installation methods were suspect - but remember MS's major user base is The Doe Family, who can just about turn their PC on and off. Do you really thing they know the answer to 'Do you really want to install the .NET Framework Assistant ?' - If course they wont know what that is, or whether they need it.
  Does your mechanic, dentist, doctor, explain to you each and every thing they do to you or your car in intimate detail ? No.
  The PC is becoming a closed box appliance. You can't fight this.
  An finally, if you distrust MS SO much - why did you have Windows Updates on anyway!?
  
  --
  Together, We Can Make Slashdot Better. I Do NOT Mod ACs. - Check Me Out
2. Re:Firefox is a web broswer by geordie_loz · 2009-02-01 22:26 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, but you're saying that this is for people who are the "Doe Family", i.e. people who don't make decisions about their software, and just run what they're give.
  
  Did the EU stuff become law whilst I wasn't looking? Firefox isn't installed by default, not for these users. So they're already know they've done something "custom", by installing firefox, it's not Microsoft's job to touch that, it's the person who installed firefox, or the people who make firefox.
3. Re:Firefox is a web broswer by One+Monkey · 2009-02-01 22:46 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I always understood that any installation that takes place without the user giving some kind of permission was classified as viral behaviour.
  
  --
  www.nodicerpg.com - Some RP stuff for free, some not so for free, but still cheap.
4. Re:Firefox is a web broswer by Azghoul · 2009-02-02 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  "I bet you do"? Nonsense.
  Some of us don't own a copy of Windows (nor a pirated copy).
5. Re:Firefox is a web broswer by Taevin · 2009-02-02 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  ...or the people who make firefox.
  That's what really stands out to me here. If this Microsoft extension was really above-the-board, they should have just gone to Mozilla and said: "Hey guys, look we've this extension here and we'd like to include it with Firefox because we think it will help websites be more compatible with Firefox." (assuming that's what it's for)
  
  Covertly installing updates/modifications to another party's software is very bad form. I'd be just as pissed if a Firefox update installed some mysterious IE plugin or a game update installed some add-on to my IM software. When I download and install an update for a piece of software, I expect it to only update that program. Personally, I don't think it should even come with updates/add-ons for other software but if it does it damn well better ask me before installing it.
6. Re:Firefox is a web broswer by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 02:09 · Score: 0
  
  Nvidia or ATI graphics cards ? well, those DEFINITELY need .NET to work properly.
  Unless things have changed recently, you don't need .NET for your ATI and nVidia card drivers. You need .NET for the Catalyst Control Center, etc. You definitely do NOT need .NET for your video card to "work properly". You just need to install the drivers without installing the third party display manager (CCC, etc.). I tend to find that bells and whistles like CCC just muck things up rather than help.
  Just download the driver, extract it, do an "Add New Hardware Scan", point windows to where the driver extracted and then go to a dir underneath that contains the inf files.
  Lots of people refuse to install vendor provided display managers since they often just make things worse and are bloated / sluggish..
7. Re:Firefox is a web broswer by EmperorKagato · 2009-02-02 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  I see everyone has forgotten the meeting Microsoft and the Mozilla Foundation had. This product was most likely years in development and testing.
  
  --
  ----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
8. Re:Firefox is a web broswer by faedle · 2009-02-02 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  Does your mechanic, dentist, doctor, explain to you each and every thing they do to you or your car in intimate detail ? No.
  Dentists and doctors do, in fact, disclose everything they do in both medical transcriptions and billing... which you are entitled to take to another doctor for interpretation.
  Secondarily, if a mechanic added a GPS tracker to my car without my knowledge or consent, you can bet that would be actionable in court. If the add-on caused my vehicle to operate differently and that "changed operation" caused an accident, you can also bet they'd be sued.. if not by your attorney, by the insurance company.
9. Re:Firefox is a web broswer by tnk1 · 2009-02-02 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  The usual behavior of "The Doe Family" is not to alter the standard configuration of their software, no matter what. So, this explains why the software was added without their knowledge.
  What it does not explain is why it has been made so difficult to remove it. Mom and Pop don't sit around reviewing add ons and then randomly deleting them, so its not like MS is protecting those users from themselves.
  Let's also bear in mind that the world would not end if the add-on was deleted. It's purely optional. So, there is absolutely no reason to make it impervious to uninstall.
  That said, never attribute something to malice that can be adequately attributed to stupidity. Or in this case: corporate culture. My guess is that Microsoft designers just do crap like this by default without thinking about whether it is even needed first. You could fault MS for it, but its an affliction of all large, monolithic organizations.
10. Re:Firefox is a web broswer by Joey+Vegetables · 2009-02-02 04:07 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  And if I don't want to advertise my computer's susceptibility to .NET-based malware? If I don't want to run embedded Mafia$oft crap in Firefox, which is probably 50% or more of why I use it in the first fracking place?
  And what the frack is Firefox doing allowing "extensions" to be installed behind my back in the first place??? Are they purposely trying to piss me off, or did they have controls in place to prevent this, which M$ managed to somehow bypass? If the latter, why isn't there already a patch available and why wasn't I asked to install it???
  Granted, it's partly my employer's fault for forcing me to use M$ operating systems in the first place . . . but I'm beyond pissed off at M$ at this point, and if the Mozilla folks don't have a DAMN good explanation for how and why this happened, and how they will prevent it from ever happening again, then I will begin a search for alternatives.
  I feel like kneecapping someone. :(
  
  --
  
  Nonaggression works!
11. Re:Firefox is a web broswer by Quantumstate · 2009-02-02 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  As far as I am aware this is a standard windows update. It would have been added in the usual update procedure which is authorised. The main problem is the fact that they installed it in a product which they did not make without explicitly saying that this was happening.
12. Re:Firefox is a web broswer by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 05:00 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  ...
  As I understand it, this add-on just alters the useragent to declare that the PC it's running on is .NET capable (i.e. you got at least one version of the .NET framework installed). This is a good thing - as it means MORE sites that have .net extensions or controls will work in FF, meaning you can finally ditch IE completely (in theory). ...
  How the hell is Microsoft surreptitiously polluting a browser that tries to be standards-compliant with their non-compliant, deliberate-barrier-to-competition CRAP "a good thing"?
  What fucking Earth on you on?
13. Re:Firefox is a web broswer by hesiod · 2009-02-02 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  Some of us don't own a copy of Windows
  Then this doesn't directly affect you.
14. Re:Firefox is a web broswer by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 05:25 · Score: 0
  
  I can safely say I don't use .net - I run Linux, and MS has written it so that it will, hands down, absolutely NOT run on my computer. An upside to this is that I'm completely safe from this MS problem you're all having. You all should try it some time ;)
  Also a note - I game on Linux, it's not that hard - and I get better framerates than in Windows...
15. Re:Firefox is a web broswer by Risen888 · 2009-02-02 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  The same mechanism that allows Ubuntu to install and update the Ubufox extension through apt allows Microsoft to do sleazy stuff like this. Can't get one without allowing the other (yeah, it sucks, whaddaya do).
  Oh, and really, the "M$" "Mafia$oft" thing. Not cool, man. Make your argument and go your way, but don't go out of your way to make yourself look childish. (This friendly tip brought to you by someone who agrees with your message and would like to see it disseminated more effectively.)
  
  --
  Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
16. Re:Firefox is a web broswer by Khyber · 2009-02-02 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  Actually in this case it's Wire Fraud and Misuse of a Computer. Just like Spore installing SecuROM without telling me and then allowing SecuROM to remove some of my Admin privileges without my expressed permission, Microsoft installing an update to Firefox without my knowledge and making it where I can't remove it by normal means without my permission is something they should be SUED TO DEATH over.
  Mozilla needs to hit them with Antitrust litigation, the people affected by this undisclosed software addition need to be pressing to have Microsoft as an entity placed under arrest for what essentially amounts to hacking a person's system, and I'll nail their ass the same way EA's getting nailed.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
17. Re:Firefox is a web broswer by msimm · 2009-02-02 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Yes their installation methods were suspect - but remember MS's major user base is The Doe Family, who can just about turn their PC on and off. Do you really thing they know the answer to 'Do you really want to install the .NET Framework Assistant ?' - If course they wont know what that is, or whether they need it.
  
  Yes their installation methods were creepy
  There, fixed that for you.
  
  So do you thinking that everyone who's not a computer geek is too stupid to be provided with a notice or an uninstaller or that Microsoft is too stupid to provide one?
  
  If Microsoft can tamper with 3rd party software, perhaps some 3rd party software developer should nest an oblique clause in their EULA and remove that pesky ie extension once and for all?
  
  --
  Quack, quack.
18. Re:Firefox is a web broswer by Joey+Vegetables · 2009-02-02 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed, and sorry about that. I try not to stoop to that level, but thuggish, fraudulent, and illegal behavior has this tendency to anger me, and, when angry, I become rather less articulate.
  
  --
  
  Nonaggression works!
19. Re:Firefox is a web broswer by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 06:12 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, the computer is becoming a closed box appliance, just look at the Macintosh.
  But what is happening here is having an unexpected feature added without consent, a feature that we may have an equal already to, a feature we may find unwanted.
  A doctor doesn't have to tell me all it does, but he does need my agreement, to the point I may choose to not recieve treatment and die in a horrible way if I so choose.
  If you went to your dentist for a checkup and he added a "grill" without you knowing, you'd get pretty angry I guess (unless that's the way you roll).
  If you brough your car to a mechanic for a checkup and he took the chance to change your radio/mp3-player because this one was much better, you may have wanted to know that, because it might be "generally" better, but maybe you had your old radio because it had rad bluetooth and that's the way you roll, this new radio has bluetooth, but it kinda sucks, it doesn't sync with your cellphone correctly, etc.
  The thing is, we don't "need" to know what this plugin does in detail, we just need a general idea, but the important part is: WE NEED TO CHOOSE. We need to be able to agree to installing certain features, anything else added as though something else (a new plugin as a bug-fixing patch) is unethical and should not be allowed.
20. Re:Firefox is a web broswer by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 06:30 · Score: 0
  
  Unless you run nothing but software written before the .NET series of visual studio came out, you have something that uses the framework.
  Unless he means he doesn't use .NET inside Firefox--which is likely true.
  There's nothing wrong with the .NET frameworks either. They provide a solid and universal development foundation for windows/ASP/webservices/silverlight coders.
  It is annoying they installed an extension without asking, but I'm not putting on the tinfoil just yet.
21. Re:Firefox is a web broswer by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 06:39 · Score: 0
  
  Even in my head, I try to use "MSFT." Not quite so tenth-grade, but it's a way to convey that what we're talking about is in fact a corporation whose first interest is never my well-being and always their profits.
  Also, it helps me take the issue out of the "is this good/bad?" value judgment area of my brain, which is really not helpful in this context, and put it into the "this is who they are and what they do, now what am I going to do?" cause and effect area of my brain. (Wow, I didn't realize how meta that was, did any of that make sense?) Language is a powerful thing.
  -still risen, posting AC to avoid an off-topic mod
22. Re:Firefox is a web broswer by DrVomact · 2009-02-02 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  As I understand it, this add-on just alters the useragent to declare that the PC it's running on is .NET capable (i.e. you got at least one version of the .NET framework installed). This is a good thing - as it means MORE sites that have .net extensions or controls will work in FF, meaning you can finally ditch IE completely (in theory).
  So you're saying that the MS extension allows the browser to communicate the fact that it is ".NET capable" to web servers. Aside from the fact that having MS add a communication feature to FireFox reflexively makes me say "security hole", what advantage does this .NET capability buy me? Why do I care? Firefox was working fine as is; if a site was broken to Firefox, I assumed that it was run by stupid-heads, and I didn't want to buy their stuff (or whatever) anyway. I don't think that encouraging web authors to write sites that depend on .NET is necessarily a good thing. How will .NET improve the web, and how is it in our interests to have the web become dependent on this Microsoft proprietary technology. Could you explain what I'm missing?
  
  --
  Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
23. Re:Firefox is a web broswer by sabt-pestnu · 2009-02-02 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  > Does your mechanic, dentist, doctor, explain to you each and every thing they do to you or your car in intimate detail ? No.
  My mechanic, dentist, and doctor will, on request, explain each procedure they intend to do, why they feel it needs to be done, and how they intend to do it. If I wish, I can get a second opinion before the procedure is done, by going to another provider.
  Microsoft is the only provider. They don't offer to explain in any detail what will be done. They don't explain in detail why it needs to be done.
  Also, for each procedure done by the mechanic, et al, I pay per procedure. Microsoft, I've already paid.
  Your analogy could stand some improvement.
  > An finally, if you distrust MS SO much - why did you have Windows Updates on anyway!?
  What, you'd prefer they run pre-SP1 Win XP? What parts of "monopoly" and "defective product" weren't clear?
24. Re:Firefox is a web broswer by Culture20 · 2009-02-02 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  I can safely say I don't use .net - I run Linux, and MS has written it so that it will, hands down, absolutely NOT run on my computer.
  Have you apt-get/yum updated mono lately? I wonder if there's a mono-framework-addistant-mozilla-plugin-0.0.1.x86_64.deb/rpm
25. Re:Firefox is a web broswer by vux984 · 2009-02-02 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  The usual behavior of "The Doe Family" is not to alter the standard configuration of their software, no matter what. So, this explains why the software was added without their knowledge.
  The .net framework plug in is really no different than the Adobe Reader plugins. If you install reader, it automatically installs plugins for various installed browsers, so that they can use Adobe Reader.
  If you install the latest .NET framework, it installs blugins for installed browsers, so that it can use it. If you don't install the framework, it doesn't install the plugin. You have a choice whether or not to install the framework; you can uninstall the framework, and the framework description even discloses what it is doing.
  What exactly is your problem?
  What it does not explain is why it has been made so difficult to remove it. Mom and Pop don't sit around reviewing add ons and then randomly deleting them, so its not like MS is protecting those users from themselves.
  Its not 'so difficult to remove it'. You can uninstall the plugin manually, or remove the .net framework. The reason firefox can't uninstall it, is because it wasn't installed through firefox, and firefox doesn't have permission to modify software installed via 3rd party systems... like Windows update. Or apt-get. Yes, apt-get-- if you install a plugin through apt-get on Ubuntu, firefox can't uninstall it there either. So much for your conspiracy theory.
  Let's also bear in mind that the world would not end if the add-on was deleted. It's purely optional. So, there is absolutely no reason to make it impervious to uninstall.
  Its not impervious. Its just the result of being installed through windows update. The user can trivially disable it at the user level, because the decision to use a given plug-in is a simple user preference. However to actually uninstall it - you have to do that at the same privilege level it was installed at. Duh!
26. Re:Firefox is a web broswer by Xenographic · 2009-02-02 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  > As I understand it, this add-on just alters the useragent to declare that the PC it's running on is .NET capable (i.e. you got at least one version of the .NET framework installed). This is a good thing - as it means MORE sites that have .net extensions or controls will work in FF, meaning you can finally ditch IE completely (in theory).
  So we can leave IE, but we're stuck with Windows? (Given that any Linux computer able to run .NET code won't exactly be using Windows update.) Great...
27. Re:Firefox is a web broswer by meatmanek · 2009-02-02 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  Keep in mind that what is a "good thing" was judged from Microsoft's point of view.
  If more people use .NET for web stuff, more people buy Visual Studio.
28. Re:Firefox is a web broswer by jhfry · 2009-02-02 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  WRONG... WRONG... WRONG... it is not a good thing in any sense of the word.
  Do I want web developers using .net and making my non-dotnet-capable machines unusable. NO!
  I don't want Microsoft fooling developers into using .net to develop web apps that are not standards compliant and are dependent upon Microsoft anything.
  I would rather developers not use Flash, Silverlight, vbs, or any other technologies that require a non-open technology of any sort.
  Imagine if MS starts publishing the .net proliferation and developers see that 95% of computers can run .net code in their browsers. Since that developer knows .net he decides that he will use .net thinking he doesn't care so much if he loses 5% of his traffic to compatibility issues. Now your iPhone, netbook, and most devices with embedded browsers won't work.
  If MS want's .net in the browser, they should open it up and make it entirely up to the user to choose to install it. After all, it's not a web standard.
  
  --
  Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
29. Re:Firefox is a web broswer by AK+Marc · 2009-02-02 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  Viral is when something hides in something else and self replicates. Trojan is where you have to take an action to get it, but it isn't what you thought it was. You manually let the horse in when you turned on updates or downloaded the particular update. But you didn't get what you expected. It doesn't self-replicate. It doesn't infect anyone else from your machine. It just rides in on something else.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
30. Re:Firefox is a web broswer by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 11:23 · Score: 0
  
  This assumes that we WANT .NET extensions running in our browser. There is no way I want MS using their little plug-in to bypass my NoScript settings and open my banking computer to hacks of any kind. Let alone the entertainment/gaming/media box.
31. Re:Firefox is a web broswer by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 15:45 · Score: 0
  
  I bet you do.
  
  Got Office 2003 ?
  
  Nope
  
  Got Live Messenger ?
  No.
  
  Nvidia or ATI graphics cards ? well, those DEFINITELY need .NET to work properly.
  No they don't. They still made drivers with a normal (non-.NET) control panel last I checked.
  
  Let's not forget all those extra bits of freeware you've also got, some of those will be .NET based as well.
  I've got one app that uses ".NET" and it actually uses mono.
  
  As I understand it, this add-on just alters the useragent to declare that the PC it's running on is .NET capable (i.e. you got at least one version of the .NET framework installed). This is a good thing
  No it's not. Altering the third-party browser to change the user-agent, without even asking, is not good.
  
  as it means MORE sites that have .net extensions or controls will work in FF, meaning you can finally ditch IE completely (in theory).
  In practice, I have not used IE in years.
  
  Yes their installation methods were suspect - but remember MS's major user base is The Doe Family, who can just about turn their PC on and off. Do you really thing they know the answer to 'Do you really want to install the .NET Framework Assistant ?' - If course they wont know what that is, or whether they need it.
  
  Does your mechanic, dentist, doctor, explain to you each and every thing they do to you or your car in intimate detail ? No.
  I don't have them like put a bumper sticker on my car (or teeth) advertising for them though. I would not expect to come in for a checkup/tuneup and have them start (doing repairs/pulling or filling teeth/doing some surgery) without asking me though.
  
  The PC is becoming a closed box appliance. You can't fight this.
  Like hell I can't.
  
  An finally, if you distrust MS SO much - why did you have Windows Updates on anyway!?
  Of course, I'm not the OP, but I don't use Windows or windows update. HOWEVER, just to not be a smartass, though, when I *HAD* XP, I did not use IE, did choose the video card drivers without the stupid .NET control panel, did not use Office 2003, and did not use Live Messenger... in fact I removed it since I found it intrusive. And I'd be PISSED if Microsoft started screwing with my browser in this way. With no "add/remove programs" option to remove it. Or in-firefox remove option. Or asking permission to install.
32. Re:Firefox is a web broswer by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-03 06:12 · Score: 0
  
  If they can't tell me in intimate detail, my dentist and doctor aren't going anywhere near my car.
Not updating by Arancaytar · 2009-02-01 21:21 · Score: 2, Informative

And this is why my XP system has not been updated in two years now. The PC's working, Microsoft won't support the OS much longer, and Microsoft is known for messy and intrusive changes. Ain't no way I'm letting them near my computer now.
Yes, that means I have dozens of unplugged security holes, but then there are dozens of unplugged holes even after updating - plus the messy changes into the bargain. Ultimately I'm probably safer relying on a NAT router and a virus scanner than on system fixes.
The View From The EU by kilfire · 2009-02-01 21:45 · Score: 1

Now that Microsoft are happy to use Windows Update to "update" other organisation's software, perhaps they'd care to install some too?
Re:Why get upset? Firefox users avoid proprietary by zoney_ie · 2009-02-01 22:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well, obviously Firefox does not obstruct the possibility for some other random application to install a Firefox plug-in as part of the install process.
How does a Firefox user have any assurance that it's a good idea for them to manually install a given plug-in in any case?
As far as I can see, it's just because people "like" Firefox that they choose to believe it's all perfect. It's just like Apple, or Google, or $FlavourOfTheYear
This story is as much about Firefox insecurity as Microsoft surrepticiousness in my opinion.

--
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
I dont want it. by Noxn · 2009-02-01 22:41 · Score: 1

1. I don't WANT that clickonce thing, im sure there is/will be some way to exploit that.
2.They should fix their own stuff.
3.Yeah, yeah, many install stuff without asking, but how many of them have their own browser they don't want to fix?
4.I just don't like that they do it hidden, without asking or giving you an option. AND they still have the balls to make it uninstall proof. Thats just to much.

I think they shouldn't do this. ALSO, Microsoft said open source is CANCER or something (old news) and now, out of the sudden, they CARE about us? I always hated them (i use windows only for gaming purposes), and now i do way more.

--
By reading this you agree to give me (Noxn) 1 dollar.
Re:Why get upset? Firefox users avoid proprietary by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 23:21 · Score: 0

Java did exactly the same thing here: An extension called "Java Quick Starter" that cannot be uninstalled. And from comments around, so do Skype and several other applications.
So, the question should be "Why Firefox allows extensions that can't be uninstalled", but as usual /. prefers to avoid the more important issue in exchange for a cheap shot at MS.
Dear God by pdusen · 2009-02-01 23:26 · Score: 1

...new add-on...unrequested...unasked-for...hitchhiking...gone wider...coming in with updates...
God damn, ok, we get that you for some reason don't like .NET extensions in firefox, you don't have to beat us over the head with it.
Mozilla should include a Linux "OS extension" by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · 2009-02-01 23:28 · Score: 3, Funny

Mozilla should include a Linux OS extension with Firefox then. And install it by default! :D
Aargh! Is it on me?! Get it off! by brightmal · 2009-02-01 23:49 · Score: 1

Given that I am almost the archetypical luser (too thick to run linux on my desktop), how do I find if this piece of crud in on my system? I'm a tad nervous about messing about with the registry if I don't have to.

--
Islam Delenda Est
1. Re:Aargh! Is it on me?! Get it off! by Paradigm_Complex · 2009-02-02 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  Jeeze, how times have changed. I never thought I would see the day that someone, fearing non-user-friendly things like messing with a registery, would be better off with a major Linux distro than Windows.
  
  To answer your question, go to the main menu bar on Firefox (File, Edit, etc) and look through it for "addons" I think it's under "options" or "tools"... I can't check myself but it's not hard to find. See if you find anything mentioning Microsoft or "ClickOnce."
  
  --
  "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
Also changes User-Agent string by tonk · 2009-02-02 00:40 · Score: 5, Informative

The .Net Framework Assistant also changes the User-Agent string of the Firefox browser, adding "(.NET CLR 3.5.30729)", so infected sites can better detect which MS vulnerability to exploit.
Not every Firefox install... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 00:42 · Score: 0

Some of us are too smart to run a Microsoft controlled operating system. If you do, you've already handled over all your keys and alarm codes.
Not much sense in complaining that someone also left a window open then.
Why don't you just change your settings? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 01:14 · Score: 0

Seriously, why to make this a big thing? Change your settings and don't automatically install every update that Microsoft recommends. This way you can control whatever extensions, critical updates, special offers that comes into your system.
One thing that shows that Microsoft is becoming a better company, is that it is starting to offer product support over other browsers and platforms. ClickOnce applications are a rapidly and useful way to distribute small applications across a company, but it requires you to use Internet Explorer. With this update, the user can stick to his preferred Firefox browser while accessing applications that were made to take advantage of ClickOnce support.
Don't you think that Slashdot overreacted too much?
1. Re:Why don't you just change your settings? by diegofrata · 2009-02-02 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like a good alternative.
Bloody murder! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 01:26 · Score: 0

Just wanted to say it once.
Re:Why get upset? Firefox users avoid proprietary by Insanity+Defense · 2009-02-02 01:33 · Score: 1

Personally I would be quite happy for the whiny 0.1% of users who don't want this feature (ie: 0.02% of Windows users) to either put up, or fuck off in an orderly fashion in the direction of their nearest RMS lookalike, so they can STFU, and have all the freedom they want without interrupting me, who wants his shit to just work without offering a hundred goddamn options.
These complaining people are ones who purposefully avoided using Microsofts web browser for their own reasons. Now they find that Microsoft is interfering with the web browser that they chose instead. Reason for them to be upset especially as this modification cannot be easily uninstalled by most people.
You want your "shit" to just work? Guess what so do the rest of us. For some of us that includes not having Microsoft arbitrarily taking control and modifying 3rd party software that WE installed and configured how WE want it on OUR computer. The computer does not belong to Microsoft and they should not treat it as if it does.
I gave up on IE long ago because an update to IE 5.x disabled my ability to access the internet with ANY program. Why would a browser update block ALL internet applications from working? Fortunately I had a backup from the day before the update occurred and was able to fix it. Then I moved on to Mozilla. Now I use Firefox on Linux.
MSFT is not a proctologist! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2009-02-02 01:49 · Score: 1

It is what a proctogist looks at!

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
PFO! by i_kenefick · 2009-02-02 01:55 · Score: 1

Apple did something similar - though not quite as sinister. They were shoving Safari for Windows down the automatic update pipe. It's annoying and akin to SPAMMING. Has anyone requested or opted in to receiving this update?
1. Re:PFO! by Ilgaz · 2009-02-02 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  They show it as "New Software". If you click it and "Ignore" it from menu, it should disappear. This is in case you updated the Apple Software updater for Windows.
  Similar thing would be installing "Apple Software Update" extension to Firefox without users permission and rolling Safari from it. Lets not give them ideas though :)
Re:First by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 01:57 · Score: 0

Or, I just need to get out more. After asking why all the guys were buying wings and beer on the same day in throngs at the grocery store,

I need to read more carefully, but the image of guys wearing thongs buying beer and wings in grocery stores is really hard to get out of my mind.
Strange, I don't see it... by nyvalbanat · 2009-02-02 02:01 · Score: 3, Funny

dpkg -l | grep .NET returns nothing.
Oh, wait...

--
Ubuntu on primary work desktop since Dapper Drake (2006).
As usual... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 02:17 · Score: 0

Microsoft copies Apple, but never quiet hits the mark. It's supposed to be a FULL browser, MS... not just a plugin. ;)
Re:Why get upset? Firefox users avoid proprietary by ikkonoishi · 2009-02-02 02:30 · Score: 1

Here is a question for you. After you install a pdf reader do you become upset that it installs a plugin in firefox so it can view PDF files? That is all this thing is.
Look in your firefox options. Click the application tab. Click on the label at the top of the actions list. Look for the "Use Windows Presentation Foundation" entries. There are two of them. Change them to whatever you want.
KB951847 by Dreadneck · 2009-02-02 02:33 · Score: 1

KB951847 (Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 and .NET Framework 3.5 Family Update) installs this e(vil)xtension without so much as a by-your-leave. Simple instructions on how to remove it can be found here: Microsoft force-installs Firefox extension

Microsoft are acting more and more like the kings of old who claimed Divine Right to justify their tyranny.

--
Power does not corrupt - power attracts the corrupt.
Re:Why get upset? Firefox users avoid proprietary by ikkonoishi · 2009-02-02 02:33 · Score: 1

This is a PLUGIN. Not an ADDON. Addons have uninstall buttons. Plugins do not. Uninstall .NET 3.5 of which this is a part, or follow my instructions in this post to disable it.
Re:Why get upset? Firefox users avoid proprietary by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 03:02 · Score: 0

The point is that MSFT is silently forcing plugins
Period, end of statement.
If a burglar left a list of every item he stole from you, you still wouldn't be happy about the break-in, right?
You're right, though: an uninstall option would greatly improve things. An opt-out option would be even better. An opt-in would be perfect.
Quick uninstall by qubezz · 2009-02-02 03:11 · Score: 5, Informative

For a fast removal of the .NET Framework Assistant 1.0 from Firefox, save the following text as decrap.reg and run:
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Mozilla\Firefox\extensions] "{20a82645-c095-46ed-80e3-08825760534b}"=-
To run this from a command line (like a login script on all your machines):
regedit.exe /s decrap.reg
Feel free to modify and add the strings of any other extensions you want to auto-kill...
Microsoft has also added to the Firefox prefs.js config file, located at C:\Documents and Settings\USERNAME\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\XXXXXXXX.default, where USERNAME is the user profile and XXXXXXXX is random characters. You will find these entries added to the file:
user_pref("general.useragent.extra.microsoftdotnet", "(.NET CLR 3.5.30729)"); user_pref("microsoft.CLR.clickonce.autolaunch"
You can remove these lines manually after closing all Firefox windows.
You can type about:config in the URL bar, and filter for 'microsoft' if you want to see what the slimeballs have been adding to your browser.
(high posting so you can find this...)
Embrace... by anonieuweling · 2009-02-02 03:37 · Score: 1

& Extend...
1. Re:Embrace... by PPH · 2009-02-02 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  & Extend...
  I just wish Microsoft wasn't standing behind me when they did that.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2009-02-02 03:45 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Extension vs Extension? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 04:11 · Score: 0

How about a Firefox extension that cleanly and removes the MS extension? Updates to it could look for MS's future attempts to drop in unrequested extensions.
Why is MS the only one being blasted here? by Hassman · 2009-02-02 04:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Agreed, what MS is doing is TERRIBLE!
That said, if this was the other way around. Some 3rd party software installing something into / on top of some other software, people would be screaming of security holes and blasting MS or whoever for their shoddy software.
So where are the folks calling out FF for allowing this to happen?

--
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
1. Re:Why is MS the only one being blasted here? by knorthern+knight · 2009-02-02 09:53 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  > So where are the folks calling out FF for allowing this to happen?
  Huh??? It is impossible for an ordinary application to prevent a system app with root privileges (such as WIndows Update) from doing anything. FF would have to hack Windows Update to block it, which would raise an uproar.
  
  --
  
  I'm not repeating myself
  I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Re:Why get upset? Firefox users avoid proprietary by Amasuriel · 2009-02-02 05:13 · Score: 1

Okay, MS didn't do the right thing by making it obvious that it was installing it (prompting etc) but...

This only gets install without your knowledge if you don't review the updates they are pushing on your system. It is (to extend the above car analogy) like you took you car to the mechanic for maintenance, and when he provided you a list of possible things you might want to have done you just signed the approval form blindly.

I know this is a good MS bashing opportunity, but I think people should take some responsibility for their own machines. If you blindly install all updates or have automatic updates configured to do it for you, you ARE giving MS rights to your desktop.
Understanding ClickOnce by Shoults · 2009-02-02 05:15 · Score: 1

It's interesting how articles crop up in the media and the public goes into an uproar. It's possible that some may not fully understand the issue. My personal feeling is that Microsoft shouldn't jack with software that doesn't belong to them. It's my computer, it runs the way I want it to, don't install !@#! I don't want. But I also understand what ClickOnce is and I understand that it's the user-installed application that sends .NET version information back to the web server the application is installed from, not the browser and not the browser extension. So, the fact that it's there doesn't concern me so much, except for the resources that I know it's taking up. About ClickOnce: In ~ August, 2008, Microsoft released Visual Studio 2008 Service Pack One. Visual Studio 2005/2008 allows content creators to produce web applications based on a number of programming languages. These applications can be run as stand-alone or driven through web sites, either way, linked back to database servers, behaving similarly to Flash-based applications driven through Adobe Air. One of the technologies deployed with Visual Studio is ClickOnce, a system which allows the installed application to check for updates upon launch and prompt for new versions. The idea is that once the application is installed, it keeps itself up to date and the user doesn't have to continually mess with software revisions. Microsoft .NET 3.5 SP1 and VS 2008 SP1 releases silently install an extension for Mozilla Firefox, called .NET Framework Assistant, which "Adds ClickOnce support and the ability to report installed .NET versions to the web server." The Problem: Users are stating they were not told that the Firefox extension was being installed and are only finding out of its existence after-the-fact. To further complicate the issue, once installed, the extension appears with the uninstall button disabled. Users, who don't understand what ClickOnce is and don't understand what is meant by "the web server", are very upset about what this means and what information could be potentially outbound from their PC. Numerous forums list post after post from users who are extremely vocal about Microsoft's audacity of installing plug-ins to non-Microsoft applications and further providing no method for it's removal. While the tactics are dirty, Microsoft is not the first to do this. Sony used music CDs to install a virtually invisible "rootkit", DRM software to PCs to keep tabs on music placed on a host PC. Apple installs a host of applications as part of iTunes, which includes several resource consuming TSRs and Microsoft Outlook components, even if a user doesn't own an iPod. The Technology: ClickOnce in and of itself, is not a bad thing. Mini applications built on Visual Basic, VB.NET, C# and others, can be written with Visual Studio 200( x ) and delivered to a host PC through a web-installer. These applications require the Microsoft .NET framework to be installed and if set up correctly, when an update to the software is available, the user is automatically notified and the update applied, eliminating the burden of needing to check for updates. The extension for Firefox allows the user to visit a web page and see information about one of these applications, click on a link and be prompted for it's installation. This is not necessarily a bad thing. The extension simply allows the user access to the installer, it doesn't collect data and send it back to Microsoft or anywhere else. The installed application, upon launch, sends the currently installed version number back to the programmers web server and checks if a newer version is available. If a newer version is available, it notifies the user asks to be installed. The real problem is that Microsoft installed the extension without being asked and after being installed, disabled the uninstall button.
Stop getting annoyed for the wrong reasons.... by pjr.cc · 2009-02-02 05:16 · Score: 1

People are getting annoyed at MS for something that many applications have done for YEARS. How many people have installed apps that then go off and search for you web browser and "add functionality". Wow, MS did it, big f'n deal! I don't see this as a huge problem myself. So it installs it quitely, so it's hard to remove (perhaps my next few paragraphs might frame a "why"), so what? its not impossible.
If you want a reason to be peaved about this, here is a better one. Having worked for some big companies that do web development (from the perspective of creating websites that add functionality to their own business, not 3rd party developers writing apps for other business') most that I have dealt with have a list of "broswers we must support" which usually includes firefox, IE, safari as a minimum (not platforms, browsers). So now said businesses can say "ahh, we can write .net client side applications and it'll work and support all our browser support requirements". There in lies the problem, suddenly if your running firefox on linux, your screwed because mono and the associated chunks that would fulfil the req's under linux just aren't going to cut it.
As far as im concerned thats the real reason to be very angry. Suddenly people can look at .net as a replacement for java (webstart/applets) and flash. This is NOT a good scenario given that at least adobe and sun do put some effort into making flash and java work with some consistency across platforms. Its not a stab at ruining firefox, its a stab at linux, bsd, solaris, etc. That is a much greater concern.
Did someone try to read what ClickOnce does ? by rkt · 2009-02-02 05:36 · Score: 1

There are 500 comments in here and not one mentioning the "clickonce" technology made it to the top ?
Now I know why I stopped reading slashdot.
Microsoft has been installing plugins in firefox for a long time... so has Adobe, google (picasa), Apple(quicktime,itunes) and others. What freaks me out is how this issue is blown out of proportion for the wrong reason.
ClickOnce is similar to Java's webstart technology for those who understand Java and you can get more information here
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163973.aspx
If you let java do it, and apple do it and apple do it why are you so surprised that microsoft is doing it ? Is it because its part of Office suite ? And how is that different from Picasa or itunes ?
Please read before you reply to or rate comments on a website like this.
Be safe! Go Portable! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 05:54 · Score: 0

Just use Firefox Portable (Mozilla FirefoxÂ®, Portable Edition).
I have not had an issue with this MS extension. Possibly because Firefox is not listed as being installed anywhere, so when Microsoft goes to look for it, it cannot find it.
And barring that, its set up the same as an installed edition, and I could plop it on a CD or USB drive and carry it with me.
You mean.. by msimm · 2009-02-02 05:59 · Score: 1

You mean you think not providing an extension would prompt the same complaints as having one installed surreptitiously? Let me assure you, tampering with *competing* 3rd party software without explicitly asking for my permission, no matter what you might be trying to do, is not equivalent.

--
Quack, quack.
Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 06:24 · Score: 0

Somehow a RealPlayer extension was installed in my FireFox browser, and I have no idea how it got there. It's called: RealPlayer Browser Record Plugin 1.0
welcome to the 21st century by slashdotjunker · 2009-02-02 06:35 · Score: 1

The PC computing model is commercially dead. Microsoft is trying to transition to the game console business model. We sell you a Microsoft machine. You can buy Microsoft approved first and third party titles. We make sure everything works. You can turn your brain off.

The classic PC model (my computer, keep your hands off) will live on thanks to the power of open source but it will not sustain commercial products.
Who do you work for? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2009-02-02 06:49 · Score: 1

Do you actually work for a company that will listen to you when you recommend Linux over Windows? If so your job is the exception rather than the rule.

You keep saying that people should come up with solutions, yet most people are not in a position such that a viable solution to this would be listened to. That is not an issue where I work, but I have certainly seen it in other places. Most other places, in fact.

You are calling people ineffectual whiners when in fact they are just describing their actual business situation (or in my case, someone else's). THAT does nobody any good.
1. Re:Who do you work for? by Xest · 2009-02-02 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  I've yet to encounter a single private sector company that wont pay attention to a report that explains how they can improve stability of their computer systems and gain real cost savings. You'd have to work for some pretty crap companies for them to ignore opportunies to improve profitability.
  You can make yourself listened to easily if you tell people what you want to hear, but no you wont get anywhere if you just whine "Windows is crap, it's Windows' fault". You also have to provide the answers as well as the problems, again, something many IT people fail to do and wonder why they're not listened to.
  The only exception is public sector where no accountability exists and where there's no benefit to management of cost savings, but we all know public sector is crap already.
  "You are calling people ineffectual whiners when in fact they are just describing their actual business situation (or in my case, someone else's). THAT does nobody any good."
  The point is, solutions exist, if people are describing their situation in a negative manner whilst simultaneously ignoring the options available to solve their predicament then yes, they are just whiners.
2. Re:Who do you work for? by hesaigo999ca · 2009-02-02 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  It all depends who you work for, and how much they respect "non management" opinions,
  no matter how informed
3. Re:Who do you work for? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2009-02-02 17:21 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. The problem is that "Management" often has a pre-conceived idea of what kind of computing platform is suitable for their business, and are not amenable to suggestions.
  
  In other situations I have experienced, the "official" computing platform is dictated by a central corporate IT department, who were jealous of their positions and equally, if not more so, NOT open to suggestions, no matter the talent or experience of others in the "branch" offices or stores.
  
  Which is exactly why I asked this poster where he/she worked, because apparently he or she has never experienced this phenomenon, which is very common. It causes me to question the poster's actual amount of experience.
4. Re:Who do you work for? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2009-02-02 17:25 · Score: 1
  
  You have completely ignored the point I made, and seem to believe that the situation cannot exist. I assure you, it can and does. Denying that makes me question your experience, which is why I asked.
  
  Certainly solutions exist. But if you have never been in a situation in which "superiors" did not listen to valid solutions, then I do have to wonder just where you work, and have worked in the past. Because in my experience (and that of the colleagues I have asked), the kind of situation I described is quite common.
5. Re:Who do you work for? by Xest · 2009-02-02 20:45 · Score: 1
  
  I have not ignored your point, I merely stated I've never encountered it in private sector.
  I have no denied it exists at all, I have encountered it in public sector, but not listening to employees who actually put effort into their points rather than just whining briefly to their superiors about problems is a trait of bad management and I have only ever encountered that level of bad management in public sector.
  Regardless, you still completely ignored my original point regarding this- that even if you are in that situation at the end of the day, you either accept it and deal with it as part of your job or get a new job informing the highest levels of your old workplace why you left- lack of management foresight, and again, send them, including the CEO that report. I'm sure you'll tell me how hard that is in the current economic climate, but I managed to fine and I'm sure with the wealth of experience you keep telling us about you wouldn't have a problem either.
  I don't expect you to understand this, as checking your other posts you seem to repeatedly twist people's posts in your mind to say things to yourself that they didn't actually say so it already seems quite clear you only want to read what you want to read. Your constant flouting of the experience card, simply assuming you have more than anyone else and now the "I've asked my friends and they all agree with me" card doesn't strengthen your point either, it instead screams insecurity.
  It'd be nice if you could actually post without having to resort to such childish comments and whilst actually reading what other people write as they write it rather than how you want to read it, is that really so much to ask?
6. Re:Who do you work for? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2009-02-02 22:19 · Score: 1
  
  You still seem to be misunderstanding me. I do not have a problem with this at all, though I have seen it in the past. I was NOT complaining, just trying to explain that the problem does exist for some people.
  
  I offer this sentence in evidence: "You can make yourself listened to easily if you tell people what you want to hear, but no you wont get anywhere if you just whine 'Windows is crap, it's Windows' fault'. You also have to provide the answers as well as the problems, again, something many IT people fail to do and wonder why they're not listened to."
  
  Now wait a minute here. You just brought up the subject of distorting others' words. Did I, at any point, write those words? Or anything even remotely similar to them? No, I did not. Right here, you have insultingly implied (as I stated elsewhere in this thread) that I am an ineffectual whiner, and in the same sentence, you try to put words in my mouth. When in fact I all did was make some statements about some of Microsoft's objectionable ways of doing business. And at the same time, you are denying my point, with the words "you can make yourself listened to easily...", when I had described situations in which this is not always so. Then you go on to say "The only exception is the public sector..." (emphasis mine), as though you are a noted expert on the matter. Well, I have news for you: there are plenty of exceptions in the private sector, which is what I have been saying all along, despite your denial which is clearly stated here!
  
  I have not ignored the point you mention here. I happen to agree with your description of a reasonable response. So why should I argue? My own point was simply that there are many places -- and yes I meant in the private sector -- where your reasonable solution would not be well received. So I was not ignoring your point at all. On the other hand, you responded by trying to tell me that your solution is still a reasonable solution (and I agree that it should be), ignoring that I had already pointed out that in some cases it is not. Unless I misunderstood your words, that is how this conversation has played out.
  
  You then go on to say, "The point is, solutions exist, if people are describing their situation in a negative manner whilst simultaneously ignoring the options available to solve their predicament then yes, they are just whiners." Now, I had just stated that there were situations in which these options are not available to the employee, in which case they are not "ignoring" options that are available to them. So where did this statement come from? Had you not read what I wrote? If you did, then why does this statement change the situation back to where the employee is ignoring options? One way or another, either you were not replying to what I stated, or this reply by you is ignoring what I stated, as though my comments did not even exist. And then above you say that you have not denied my point at all... well, I have just quoted two places in which you very clearly did.
  
  *I* am twisting other peoples' words? I think that is pretty funny, as I am a regular here and in all honesty I don't often get that complaint. Misunderstandings do happen, of course, but you are saying that I deliberately distort things? Can you give me some examples, because it seems to me that you are the one doing some twisting, accusing me of "constant flouting of the experience card", when in fact I did nothing of the sort. I actually stated little about my own experience... I simply inquired about yours because you were quite clearly denying the existence of what I have found to be a rather common situation (and then denying that you denied it). Questioning your experience is NOT the same thing as blowing my own horn, thank you very much; those are two quite separate and distinct things. You further accuse me of "assuming you have more experience than anyone else", and I simply deny this. You have no idea what I h
7. Re:Who do you work for? by hesaigo999ca · 2009-02-03 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  I concur!
8. Re:Who do you work for? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-03 04:32 · Score: 0
  
  NERD FIGHT!!!
9. Re:Who do you work for? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2009-02-03 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  Haha that's pretty good.
That really is different. by Jane+Q.+Public · 2009-02-02 06:58 · Score: 1

Safari is an Apple product, bundled with Apple's operating system. This whole thing was not in reference to Microsoft updating Internet Explorer (which it does on a regular basis). This was about Microsoft updating SOMEBODY ELSE'S product, without permission.

That is a completely different situation.

And just for the record, this is a nice straw man that you dug up. I did not say that Apple was not arrogant. I stated that Microsoft was. Again, two different things.
Further... by Jane+Q.+Public · 2009-02-02 07:05 · Score: 1

if what you meant (it's hard to tell) was that iTunes was actually installing Safari into Windows without permission, then guess what? They were stopped, weren't they? As they should have been. Which is the whole point here.

But the issue under discussion did not involve Apple, it involved Microsoft. If, as you appear to be saying, it was wrong for Apple to do it, well then it is just as wrong for Microsoft, yes? So why are you objecting to people saying so? You contradict yourself by implication. So who's the troll?
doesn't work on firefox 3.1 betas by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 07:16 · Score: 0

Luckily it doesn't work on 3.1 beta, so at least some people are safe ;)
Call the police... by TiggertheMad · 2009-02-02 07:30 · Score: 1

...Bill Gates is in my house pointing a gun at me and making me use windows. I am typing this while he is using the rest room. OH GOD HES COMING BACK, AM I THINK HES GOING TO MAKE ME TURN ON OFFICE ASSISTANT...

--

HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
1. Re:Call the police... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 11:18 · Score: 0
  
  : im in ur firefox, installing ur extentions
  : LLOLOOLOOLOLLO! pwnt!!!
  : shut up balmer and make a l337 commercial for teh extention with songsimth
  : LOLoLOOLOLO!!!1
PortableFirefox not effected by st_judas · 2009-02-02 07:41 · Score: 1

I use PortableFirefox (available from www.portableapps.com) on all the Windows machines I administer. I use it for its convenient portablity, but a nice benefit is that it not detected by WU and doesn't get this "update".
Re:sony Flamebait warning: harsh/ascerbic by davidsyes · 2009-02-02 09:14 · Score: 1

They are ALLOWED because the fucks are doing it at the behest of varoius unnamed governments (or for their own needs, which will ultimately entail apprising the governments of unpublished abilities... recall the simpler ones like $ prompt sysadmins can use to BUST RIGHT ON IN on user accounts with the typical user being unaware. And, for fuck's sake WHY does ms have the shitty model of requiring the user to supply their password to the SYSADMIN so the SA can grant the user access to outlook share folders on another domain? Just another cultivation of "surrender or surrender and change your password...).
Why ELSE could they (ms) do this kind of shit with apparent impunity? Unfortunately, probably the same is happening with Open Source. We can be free of mshaft, but, to operate with relative, apparent freedom, we have to accept that there are mshaft analogs in the Open Source developer base whether white hat or black hat.
If Open Source is going to be allowed to operate, federal back doors will be present there, too. No matter how many eyes can FIND the back doors, the governments will always be in the upper position to demand access, and refusal means being branded with criminal or insurrectionist intentions. So, we pay a price, regardless of OS or flavor of OS of choice.

--
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Re:Why get upset? Firefox users avoid proprietary by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 09:47 · Score: 0

* You asked for it when you downloaded the update saw it on the patch notes. You did read those, right?
* It doesn't make a point of it, EVERY plugin has just the 'disable' button. Java, Flash, every media player plugin you have, etc...
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClickOnce Looks useful to me. I guess you like the extra steps of saving a .exe file, browsing to it, and double clicking.
* I believe this is the only point that's true, but it's only a bad thing to prejudiced people (honestly, people like you and racists are on the same level). Hate's fine, but hate with reason.
Re:Why get upset? Firefox users avoid proprietary by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 10:18 · Score: 0

Hmmm, maybe it's cause I pirated my version, but when I installed it and came to the automatic dialog box asking me to enable automatic updates nobody from Microsoft appeared with a gun to make sure I did it. I guess that's for paying customers only. One would think that if they really wanted to force this they could have just not brought up that dialog box.
Ridiculously sarcastic counterpoints aside, your analogy is just terrible. How can you not see the gaping holes in it? Let me try: this is like hiring a maid to clean your house once a week and then crying to the internet when she leaves an extra bottle of 409 under the sink. Oh, and she left you a note about it, which you ignored. That's much better, no?
Seconded by Well-Fed+Troll · 2009-02-02 11:23 · Score: 0

Wait.... you run as system administrator?
Casting FF as malware OR MS supporting FF by lpq · 2009-02-02 16:58 · Score: 1

Sony installed a rootkit as part of DRM. MS is adding a .NET helper to FF -- in a way we can run around and look at what they could do "wrong"...like (any paranoid conservative) ... I mean they could install a FF addon that installs a rootkit FF addon to allow specific content to trigger the rootkit via any normal string of HTML -- while deleting the original addon with the MS signature on it. That would make it difficult to track the root kit back to the source (though not impossible, obviously).
HOWEVER, you could also look at the positive side -- Microsoft is, maybe, trying to SUPPORT Firefox by adding .NET compatibility code.
FWIW, it looks related to a patent lawsuit I think MS lost a while back concerning automatic execution of plugins embedded in a webpage - vs. being forced to "push" a button to activate the plugin. It was a bogus patent that MS should not have been required to honor, but hey...that didn't stop some court system from mucking it up.
Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 22:06 · Score: 0

Mozilla should simply release an update to Firefox which removes the offending plugin and resets the user agent string.
I know that's what I would do if another company was installing add-ons to my software without my user's consent.
This is the same reason: by Monoliath · 2009-02-03 03:16 · Score: 1

- I never use automatic updates from microsoft for any microsoft product
- People should not blindly trust anyone / remote corporation to automatically update software on their machine, especially one that has blatantly shown the world that they are only interested in maintaining their monopoly and the interests of their corporate interests, instead of the end users...such as microsoft.
- People should not trust microsoft ever again, and should not have to begin with.
- I constantly advocate that people not use automatic update ever for anything.
- That stupid people get what they deserve for being too lazy and stupid to think and do things themselves.
I would like to say this should be the last nail in the coffin, but this has happened before many times, and caught many times, and brought to the forefront many times...yet people still use automatic updates. The problem isn't microsoft being evil...we've all known that. The real problem here is blatant stupidity on the part of the end user for even allowing this kind of access to the machine remotely.