MS Issued a Fix For Its Unwanted FireFox Extension

As we discussed last February, and again a few days ago after the Washington Post noticed, Microsoft installed without permission a hard-to-remove Firefox extension along with a service pack for .NET Framework 3.5. Reader Pigskin-Referee lets us know that, as it turns out, Microsoft issued a fix a month ago; details here.

Comments

So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Blakey Rat]

And of course, since it's negative towards Microsoft, Slashdot dupes it a few dozen times. That's some quality journalism all-around. Oh, and it was an honest mistake in the first place, not some horrible malicious act.

Of course, if you read the Slashdot comments, you knew that Microsoft had already fixed it, since the comments are always about 10 times more on-the-ball than the actual posts. Sadly, I think the majority of visitors to this site never dive into the comments section and are probably fed a large spoon of bullshit every morning with their news.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite, the majority of the people here not only don't read the article, they don't bother to read the summary they are responding to. Some don't even read the comments when they reply.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Foofoobar]

When a company like Microsoft 9 out of 10 times makes hostile gestures towards the open source community, are we supposed to run towards them with flowers and candy every time they screw up now and say 'we forgive you darling. lets go have buttsex on the veranda!'?

I dunno about you but I get screwed in the ass enough and I'm duct taping my shorts and sitting on the porch with a shotgun.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[nizo]

Where is my "+1 Insightful but gross" mod option?

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[gmack]

It is not actually fixed. Even had it been removable in the first place it still would have been bad because they should not have installed it without permission.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[mdm-adph]

Say what you will about people bashing on Microsoft, but this was not an "honest mistake." It was by design, and all Firefox extensions installed this way behave the same way.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[oodaloop]

Sadly, I think the majority of visitors to this site never dive into the comments section

I thought conventional wisdom was that slashdotters go directly to posting after failing to RTFA and sometimes TFS. Or even TFT(itle).

What were we talking about again?

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[ibookdb]

Has firefox fixed the bug where nobody can install extensions that are enabled by default without user intervention?

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Beelzebud]

Is it too much to ask that if you have issues with MS that you bring up the legitimate issues and leave the BS alone?

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[The Moof]

Yea, but we've seen this MS story about this a few times. Where's the huge repeated outrage about the Sun extension that essentially pulled the same BS? There's even a portion of comments in that article defending Sun's decision to do it. Repeatedly visiting this one comes off as the usual MS bashing, like the GP pointed out.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[maxume]

It was a misunderstanding of the attitude at large of Firefox users. That they changed it is a reasonable indicator that they have some respect for those users.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[CarpetShark]

And of course, since it's found something positive about Microsoft, the universe will cancel itself out.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

When the open source community 10 times out of 10 makes hostile gestures towards Microsoft.... ... well yeah, you can see how it goes.

For all Microsoft's faults, it does what it does because it's a business whilst many members of the FOSS community seems to purely rely on hatred for their reasoning.

How can the FOSS community expect to be taken seriously when it can't be mature itself and when Microsoft does something that isn't wrong it STILL attacks it? FOSS is a noble cause but the community is so often blinded by it's own bias that it's self-defeating. I guess that's what happens in an anarchy though.

Why not you know, when it does something right accept that it's done something right and encourage such behaviour rather than leave many big companies thinking the FOSS community is just a cesspool of hate not to be taken seriously?

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[mR.bRiGhTsId3]

I know that its bad that Microsoft silently installs things that are difficult to remove, but I can't help but wonder, if the .NET plugin was actually hard to install, would we be seeing complaints about how Microsoft is leaving Firefox users out in the cold by not supporting the full .NET experience in Firefox.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[docbrody]

Oh, and it was an honest mistake in the first place, not some horrible malicious act.

Not really buying it. It may not have been some horrible malicious act... but it sure was not some 'innocent mistake.'

Sure, innocent mistakes happen at big companies (like the whole thing with Amazon de-ranking Gay and Lesbian books). But for a company that is a constant target of anti-trust suits, who is notorious for this kind of thing, you think by now that they would be more careful. Its hard to believe that someone internal at Micrsoft didn't realize what was this was doing and just say 'fuck it' - even if it was a low level developer, somebody had to know - at the very least the guy(s) who wrote the code. I mean come on, this took some work to do. Its not like the amazon issue where practically one click of a check box reclassified a whole genre of books... some one had to put finger to keyboard and code this out.

So I think its really really hard to call this an innocent mistake. Maybe not a 'horrible malicious act' but once again they are injecting their shit into other peoples shit.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Xest]

Yeah, you know that button you click when you install updates that has two radio options, one where you accept the terms and one where you don't?

That's where you gave permission.

If you didn't install it explicitly, the alternative is that you gave permission when you accepted automatic updates.

If you don't want these things on your system, then don't give permission. Don't give permission and then claim you never actually gave permission when you blatantly did because otherwise it wouldn't have installed in the first place.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[DoofusOfDeath]

Yea, but we've seen this MS story about this a few times. Where's the huge repeated outrage about the Sun extension that essentially pulled the same BS?

Because even virus writers aren't interested in targetting Java?

(ducks)

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Blakey Rat]

You could save the teeth gnashing and anal rape metaphors for when you actually have an issue, instead of wasting it on complete non-issues. It might lower your blood pressure in the long run. But that's just my opinion.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Blakey Rat]

There's three sets of users:
1) Those who read the summaries only
2) Those who read the summaries and comments
3) Those who read the articles, summaries, and comments (extremely rare!)

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Blakey Rat]

But for a company that is a constant target of anti-trust suits, who is notorious for this kind of thing, you think by now that they would be more careful. Its hard to believe that someone internal at Micrsoft didn't realize what was this was doing and just say 'fuck it' - even if it was a low level developer, somebody had to know - at the very least the guy(s) who wrote the code.

Had to know what? That there's an magical unspoken rule not to install extensions that way?

Look, Firefox offers the ability to install add-ons for all users. That's a feature provided by the design of Firefox. The only "horrible" thing Microsoft did was make use of that particular Firefox feature. Now it turns out that a lot of Firefox users don't like that feature, and don't agree with how it works. Microsoft says "oops" and changes the way they install the add-on so it doesn't use that feature.

Where is there any maliciousness here? At all? No.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Shakrai]

I know that its bad that Microsoft silently installs things that are difficult to remove

I'm upset about the silent install but could someone please clarify the "difficult to remove" bit? I "removed" it by going into "add-ons" and clicking "disable". Problem solved as far as I'm concerned.....

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[YouWantFriesWithThat]

there also is a small subset that makes lists that don't include a "???"

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Kuciwalker]

You did give permission, dipshit. They offered you the release notes and asked if you wanted to continue the install.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Fujisawa Sensei]

I know that its bad that Microsoft silently installs things that are difficult to remove

I'm upset about the silent install but could someone please clarify the "difficult to remove" bit? I "removed" it by going into "add-ons" and clicking "disable". Problem solved as far as I'm concerned.....

Simple: disable != remove

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[billcopc]

It's bad because the entire philosophy behind Firefox addons is freedom of choice. How hard would it have been for Microsoft to prompt the user whether they want this thing or not ?

In simpler words: My computer, my decision.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Strilanc]

Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that uninstallable extensions shouldn't even be allowed by firefox. I remember installing SiteAdvisor, then it was bought by McAfee and they set the "screw you no uninstalls" bit. Not appropriate at all.

If it can't be uninstalled, then it shouldn't be an extension.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[whoever57]

And of course, since it's negative towards Microsoft, Slashdot dupes it a few dozen times.

/. dupes stories all the time, why would you assume that this was a malicious act against MS?

Oh, and it was an honest mistake in the first place, not some horrible malicious act.

Microsoft makes deliberate anti-open source moves all the time and is a convicted monopolist, why would you assume that is was a mistake? Or are you a MS employee with inside information?

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

It still left .NET to your user agent string. To get rid of false user agent string, you have to enable the extension, install MS removal tool and uninstall the extension with it. Just disabling it or using removal tool to disabled extension will not stop your browser advertising .NET extension.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Chlorine Trifluoride]

People not accepting automated updates is the reason we have botnets.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[melstav]

Since you dragged the other discussion into this, allow me to point out a comment in that very discussion which points out why it's nowhere near the same thing. (Like the fact that Sun announced months in advance that they were going to do it, and the fact that you can, in fact remove it.)

That comment is +5 insightful. You don't even have to drill down to find it. Just scroll a bit. Given that (some of) the comments are regularly more fair and balanced than the article summaries, you ought to at least skim the discussion before you decide whether this guy is bringing something useful to the discussion or just throwing more FUD onto the pile.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why doesn't the EU share your sentiment about microsoft's honesty?

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Allicorn]

They make great mice.

And I hate them for it!

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[nicolas.kassis]

Why is this rated informative, this is the same bullshit comment we see here every day. Look, business is business and FOSS folks are doing what they can to promote what they think is best. Microsoft does the same. In the end, it's healthy, it keeps MS in check and MS gives a few knocks to the FOSS folks that keep em coming up with new ways to push their stuff. Competition is good. All out assault on Microsoft is fair game. ( aside from pure slandering)

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it too much to ask that if you have issues with MS that you bring up the legitimate issues and leave the BS alone?

Yeah, but how would he feel a part of the community without that common enemy? Once again, yet another instance of fallacious "us vs. them" crap that humanity continues to be shackled by. People get off on malcontent, especially on Slashdot. Makes them feel alive to write scathing and illogical comments about a multinational corporation anonymously on a random Internet site.I guess its easier than actually doing something with your life.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

I usually skip to the comments without reading the summary.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[squallbsr]

This is simply a case of:

Damned if you do, Damned if you don't.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bringing up legitimate issues and leaving out BS is in direct contravention of timothy and kdawson's contracts, or so it would seem

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Chlorine Trifluoride]

Actually, its a case of MS having a broken system. If the automated updates system held unimportant non-security updates, like IE8 and the extension, and displayed a message asking permission for them, then the problem would be averted.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Rasperin]

I tend to read only the comments, they are:

Score 5: Insightful
Score 4: Funny
Score 2: Informative

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Struct]

Not that I speak for the FOSS community or even care at all about this issue, but I just can't ever bring myself to have any sympathy for Microsoft. They worked so hard for so many years to build this reputation for themselves, and they deserve all of the spoils. My only regret is that the cost of their public image couldn't ever hope to outweigh the massive profits they've made through years of bad behavior. It's like seeing a bully get his ass kicked for no reason at all. Maybe he didn't do anything to deserve it (this time), but I'm not a good enough person to want to try and help him. I admit, that's probably some kind of personal failing, but I just don't care.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a misunderstanding of the attitude at large of Firefox users

Sort of like sticking meat in people's veggie wraps would be a "misunderstanding" of the attitude at large of vegetarians.

capcha: rephrase

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[shutdown -p now]

On a side note, why does Sun's JDK installer bugs me to also install OpenOffice (checked by default), and every single Google desktop application has a "set Google to default search engine", and often also "install Google toolbar for IE", also checked by default?

It's just the established software culture these days. From that perspective, installing a browser plugin which you won't ever see (until you navigate to a website that uses it) is relatively benign - compared to installing a 200Mb Office suite.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[TurboNed]

Obviously the maliciousness must exist somewhere. Let's blame Mozilla for having an idiotic feature that Microsoft could take advantage of in this way.

Seriously, I don't ascribe this to maliciousness on anyone's part. Microsoft failed to test this in all circumstances in a way that's not uncommon for them (limited user account usability fail), but if that's "malicious" then so was the entire release and lifetime of their exceedingly popular OS. You know, Windows XP. The one that everybody loves so much because it doesn't suck?

Yeah, it's a huge pile of limited user account usability testing fail. *shrug* If somebody's going to claim the Firefox extension thing is malicious, they'd better not be claiming that Microsoft is being malicious/anti-competitive/monopolistic/whatever by giving XP the End of Life notice. Both products suffer from the same problem, and MS is trying to move past them both.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

A better question would be whether they've fixed the bug that the NoScript author discovered where he installed new filterlists to AdblockPlus because that one goes hand in hand with what you are asking, only is far scarier.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[lukas84]

They do. IE8 doesn't get automatically installed, unless you're using WSUS.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[xmousex]

ahah so this isnt just a chat room!!
now where do you look for the article?

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[TurboNed]

It can be uninstalled. For all users. As Administrator.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[PitaBred]

There seem to be quite a few posts in that article about the Sun extension being bad, how it should have been opt-in rather than opt-out. And the author of the post is obviously not happy with what happened. There were a few people defending Sun in that article, just like you're defending Microsoft.

Really... just because you have a hard-on for MS doesn't mean everyone does. There are quite a few Slashdot users that don't think EITHER of these actions were right.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Of course, if you read the Slashdot comments, you knew that Microsoft had already fixed it, since the comments are always about 10 times more on-the-ball than the actual posts.

Unfortunately you have to dig all the way back to 2005 to understand the +5 flying chair jokes.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[PitaBred]

What Microsoft SHOULD have done was not install the add-on automatically at all. Only offer it as an optional update... I know they do that for some things, like .NET in general. Extending .NET to hook into additional software should require additional positive steps.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[xmousex]

oops i forgot!
hi mom im on slashdot wheeee

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, I think the majority of visitors to this site never dive into the comments section and are probably fed a large spoon of bullshit every morning with their news.

Are you serious? Most of the time I skip the summary completely and just read the 4 and 5 score comments. Like you say, there is much more interesting stuff in the comments, and most of the stories here are just dupes anyway.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[AmiMoJo]

The license agreement didn't mention anything about installing a Firefox plugin. I never agreed to having it installed.

It isn't like people have that much of a choice about security updates anyway. You can either accept their terms or be vulnerable to exploits. Switching to Linux isn't an acceptable option, MS has a moral and possibly legal duty to fix security problems in the software they provide and I pay for and those updates should not interfere with my other software.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[mazarin5]

Not quite, the majority of the people here not only don't read the article, they don't bother to read the summary they are responding to. Some don't even read the comments when they reply.

They are not!

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[AmiMoJo]

Has anyone produced an add-on to warn users about secretly installed plug-ins and optionally block/remove them yet?

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it too much to ask that if you have issues with MS that you bring up the legitimate issues and leave the BS alone?

Well, the last time I was visiting Redmond I got a concussion from a sevre blow to the head from a flying leather desk chair. Does that count?

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, I think the majority of visitors to this site never dive into the comments section and are probably fed a large spoon of bullshit every morning with their news.

You read the article? Well, there's your mistake right there!

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[DeVilla]

My problem is not with the feature in firefox. My problem is not that that MS used. My problem is that Microsoft used it without asking. My problem is that Microsoft used it, without asking, to add something to my machine that made my 'secure' browser significantly less secure. My problem is that I did not know it happened and because of how they slipped it in, it was very difficult to fix.

To be clear, if they had asked up front "Can we install this for all users on the system?" and if they would have honored my inevitable response (NO!) then we would be ok. They damaged my web browser without asking. I would open a problem to Mozilla about it being possible, but this was the operating system subverting the security of an application. An App can't really defend itself against a malicious OS.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[AnalPerfume]

Say what???? Firefox users install addons they want via the addon manager in Firefox itself. They don't expect third parties to use other tricks to install addons, and grey out the "uninstall" option. They specially don't expect third parties from competing products which are losing market share to do this. This is NOT a misunderstanding on behalf of Firefox users.

Microsoft have nothing but contempt for those people who choose not to use Microsoft products. How many more examples do you need to see to understand that Microsoft can't stand ANY competition. They want ALL of the market, not just a share of it.

My guess is that you fall into one of the following categories:

1 - Someone with their heads in the sand, intentionally finding other ways to look when decades of evidence is staring you in the face. A worried Microsoft shareholder perhaps?
2 - A Microsoft astroturfer trying to earn a living by defending Microsoft and passing the blame in vintage Microsoft fashion.....yes, you guessed it, it's them dumbass users again. Of course they're dumbasses, they don't use Microsoft products, right? If they don't use Microsoft products they deserve to be fucked with.
3 - A comedian who makes jokes which can be read as serious.
4 - A troll looking for responses.

From what I understand of the functionality of this plugin, it helps display sites done with Microsoft drugs like .net which is fine as it stands. If Microsoft were genuine about playing well with others, they could easily have done what everyone else does and have it on the addons section of Mozilla's site along with all the other addons. They could have a banner available for .net developers to put on their site saying "This .net addon will improve your .net experience in Firefox, click here to install".

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[RobDude]

They didn't screw up.

If you don't trust Microsoft....if you don't want Microsoft messing around with your computer - DON'T LET MICROSOFT.

Install Linux and be done with it. Or go to the Mac store and buy a mac.

EVERYONE who experienced this problem had the .Net Framework installed and had automatic updates turned on.

The add-on couldn't be removed from FireFox in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY that countless others can't be removed. When they are installed for 'all users' on the machine, individual users can't remove it.

Just like all of these others....
        * Java
        * VLC Player
        * Adobe Acrobat
        * QuickTime
        * Google Talk
        * iTunes
        * Hulu
        * Picasa

The 'fix' was released weeks ago - long before everyone got their panties in a wad over it. And when I mentioned that in the last anti-ms thread here I was modded flamebait.

The worst part is that lots of people are going to honestly think they 'made Microsoft' change their mind by their complaining. No, sorry Kid, MS had the update long before you even NOTICED.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[elfprince13]

Wait, you mean there are people who actually read TFA?

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps there's a middle ground between silently installing something that can't be removed without special effort and something that's difficult to install. Like, perhaps, asking the user if they want it in the first place?

I, for one, don't want the .NET "experience," whether on firefox or anywhere else. It gives no value that is of importance to me. Others may feel differently. That's the whole beauty of asking the user -- everyone can be happy.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anpheus]

I skip to the comments without reading the summary, then go back to the summary to laugh at how woefully poor a job the editors are doing.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Chlorine Trifluoride]

Was the extension automatically installed?

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[The Moof]

I'm not defending Microsoft, and I'm on the side that thinks both actions were NOT right (and very irritating because I'm tired of removing these extensions every time I get a critical Java update or .Net SP). It was more of a commentary about repeatedly bashing MS while turning a blind eye to other offenders who are just as bad.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a misunderstanding of the attitude at large of Firefox users. That they changed it is a reasonable indicator that they have some respect for those users.

Horseshit.

This was no mistake about attitudes. It was pure arrogance on the part of MS. The same one they have displayed year, after year, after year. It never changes. They just push to see how much they can get away with, and if the screams of outrage get to a certain level they back off just to show how "responsive" they are.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

All out assault on Microsoft is fair game. ( aside from pure slandering)

Micro$oft kicks puppies, hurts kittens, lies to children, poisions wells, and funds the Church of $cientology. All Facts.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

This does not work in XP. The WGA installer asks for permission, and does not install when I don't agree. The problem is, now it keeps asking after every reboot. I already spend a day digging through the Microsoft "knowledge" base, but it seems that not wanting some piece of software phoning home every day is not an option. The Microsoft support forms are even lying, saying it only runs once for legitimize users. Phoning home still counts as running in my book.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[BorgDrone]

I can't help but wonder, if the .NET plugin was actually hard to install, would we be seeing complaints about how Microsoft is leaving Firefox users out in the cold by not supporting the full .NET experience in Firefox.

They should have just posted the plugin on the firefox plugins webpage. It would then be just as easy to install as any other extension.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. I couldn't remove it but I can remove both VLC, Java and so on no problem.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[cml4524]

First of all, those other updates don't get installed silently among other, legitimate updates. Secondly, it affected anyone that installed that .NET update regardless of how they did it.

Like someone else said, this should have been an option in the installation process for that could be unchecked. You shouldn't make changes to other people's software without their permission. So, yea, Microsoft certainly did screw up.

Is it the end of the world? No. They offered a fix, so it's more like a minor annoyance for those who don't want it, but it's still a screw-up.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[The Moof]

Yea, I saw that post. Just because its modded insightful doesn't mean that I agree with what it was saying.

If removing a "slipped in" extension requires more than clicking on the Uninstall button in add-ons, it shouldn't be there to begin with. Not to mention there isn't an option to opt-out of the installation. That post claims "it's always been there, and only noticeable in Firefox 3" doesn't help the "we weren't trying to slip one by you" argument that you seem to be making, since FF2 has it completely invisible (if that post is true). And claiming that it was announced in the patch notes is a stretch claiming that it was announced. If something is coming through as an update to an application, I should have to hunt down its release notes online to ensure it isn't going to add some "bonus things" onto other applications.

Since we keep seeing these type of extensions appear, I wish FF would add something on startup that says "Hey, we noticed this new system-level extension that wasn't here when we quit last time installed itself. You want to install it or reject it?"

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

You should be modded down. The proper term is "neck beard," not "chin beard," newfag.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your computer? Don't you mean Microsoft's computer? ;-)

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[t4inted]

Look, Firefox offers the ability to install add-ons for all users.

My ass offers the ability to be fucked. That doesn't mean I want some random company sticking their dick in it.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[twidarkling]

Nope. That was your own fault. Everyone knows "DEVELOPERS" is MS code for "hit the dirt."

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Windowser]

I don't know how to read, you insensitive clod!

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[davidsyes]

My work computer is set to take ms updates, and it has the .net 3.5 sp1 update.

But, for the past 3 weeks or so, Firefox (3.0.10) has been acting weird as hell on one machine. If I grab the title bar to move the browser, the browser freezes up. If I alt-tab away from or even away from and back to the broser, it unfreezes and i can surf. But, try to *MOVE* the browser, it freezes up again. Minimizing and maximizing seem ok.

I'm now wondering if ms has been f*cking around with Opera (yeh, 9.64). One one site i visit, i can submit things for a bit, then after a while submissions just WON'T go through, so i have to switch to Firefox just to get the submission through.

I don't trust ms, and things like this just further erode ANY chance to *gain* any trust from me. Obviously, so long as i am forced to use windows for some of my work or hobby, ms could care less -- as long as i cannot forensically uncover their shenanigans or tip off smarter people to uncover things.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[db32]

Personally I am waiting for the day where a date rape victim gets on the stand and testifies "It was like Microsoft installing unwanted addons just because I agreed to installing the patch!"

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone fixed the bug where an updater program with root privileges can install extensions that are enabled by default without user intervention?

Emphasis on "updater program with root privileges". How exactly do you think Firefox should prevent the extension from being installed and enabled automatically? DRM? It's open-source; Microsoft can just recompile it without the DRM.

There is nothing you can do to prevent a program with root (or SYSTEM on Windows) privileges from doing anything. Computers don't work that way.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

The license agreement didn't mention anything about installing a Firefox plugin. I never agreed to having it installed.

Really? You read the entire thing? Nothing about "additional software to enhance experience?" Because even something as vague as that would be agreeing. Even "You agree to accept all the content included in this update," and then having the patch notes available would be agreement.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[twidarkling]

They want ALL of the market, not just a share of it.

You keep talking like they're not a company. You might wanna look in to that.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[twidarkling]

It's already installed. Just no one told you about it. But you won't be able to remove it if you don't care. Sorry.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[twidarkling]

Holy shit. +4 Insightful for "malicious OS"? You do realize that users are set up with limited rights now because that's how people bitched at them to make it, right? It's now malicious to make a product how people are screaming for it to be made? Go ahead, mod me troll, flamebait, whatever, but screaming about an OS acting how the user wanted it, using a facet of the browser that was *known* about previously (Sun's extension, for example) is stupid. If people are so anti-.net, why did they install the update in the first place? It's _optional_. .net can be removed. It's not even hard.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

When a company like Microsoft 9 out of 10 times makes hostile gestures towards the open source community...

On the other hand, when 9 out of 10 Microsoft stories on this site turn out to be bullshit, one wonders if Microsoft is nearly as bad as they're made out to be by people on this site.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[docbrody]

Had to know what?

What = installing software automatically, under the radar, without asking. Read the other posts for more detail.

Where is there any maliciousness here?

Didn't say there was. Actually I said the exact opposite. But characterizing it as 'innocent' is just letting Microsoft off the hook too easily. Read what I wrote again if its confusing.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[docbrody]

uhhh crap. you said 'honest', not 'innocent' in your original post. global replace that in all my subsequent posts.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

Say what???? Firefox users install addons they want via the addon manager in Firefox itself. They don't expect third parties to use other tricks to install addons, and grey out the "uninstall" option.

Speak for yourself. When I install something that has, as one of its features, browser integration, I expect that feature to be installed as well. I don't want to have to launch my browser, go to a separate plugin site, and install that feature manually.

Having said that, the installer should provide the option to not install the browser integration feature if I don't happen to want it. Either way, though, the installation should be done outside of Firefox.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

kdwason is awful

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[pak9rabid]

Sadly, I think the majority of visitors to this site never dive into the comments section and are probably fed a large spoon of bullshit every morning with their news.

I don't know why everyone else reads /. but I'm here for the comments. If I wanted quick and reliable news, I surely wouldn't come here.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[maxume]

The mechanism used isn't a trick, it is an explicit feature of Firefox. That is, it checks a local machine registry key and runs extensions that are pointed to by that key. Any installer with system privileges can do the same thing.

Now, would it have been better for Microsoft to make the installation optional? Probably.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

The 'honest' mistake, co-existing with two other 'honest' mistakes, of FireFox being denied access to, or being not quite installed by Microsoft? Maybe history forgets the honest mistakes involving Netscape et al. (lost lot of lawsuits, in open court on those).

A better question, is why is the mistake patchable, only if you didn't fix it yourself, instead of removed completely, in the first place.

Why did the 'honest' mistake violate all the requirements of the type of install into Firefox, laid out by the rules of the authors (and owners of the software!!)

(For that matter, why does Microsoft violate all their own rules with their software?? Ever try to uninstall their stuff? Ever check the registry for the thousands of lines left over by it??)

That Microsoft installed the bug is not up to question. That it IS a bug, is not up to question. The only question is... DID THEY FIX IT? and WITHOUT ANY OTHER 'HONEST' MISTAKES.

I no longer use Microsoft's buggy and invasive software. Until they no longer write programs with deliberate 'honest' mistakes, I see no point.

The military (except countries that now have massive bugs invading their secrets - see reports about England) requires Microsoft to 'secure' their software before they will allow its use. (Windows was banned from the US Navy secured areas for many years... now used with reluctance... seems lobbying had something to do with that...)

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly why it is so important to READ the dialog boxes instead of just mindlessly clicking "Next", "Continue", "Install", "Okay", "I agree to these terms" and so on then later saying "What the fuck?!? I did not want this!!!1!!onehundredandeleven!!!!1! Bill Gates tricked me!!!11!!!1!1!" If you do not read a single word of the dialog boxes or EULA but keep clicking next you have no right to complain because you just agreed to a legal contracted without reading it.

You did give permission, dipshit. They offered you the release notes and asked if you wanted to continue the install.

Flamebait? Why? aside from maybe use of the word "dipshit" I see no reason why Kuciwalker's post was moded Flamebait.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, yeah, fixed it - addon was added without user consent, but to get rid of it user has to jump through the hoops. Really, MS at its best as usual.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[DougBTX]

but this was the operating system subverting the security of an application.

By using a documented API designed for silent installs?

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

We disabled automatic updates on all Windows computers, after all the WGA problems. Microsoft automated updates are a toy of there marketing department. Blame me for botnets when there is an option to only install security updates.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Etrias]

No, you are full of shit. Want proof? Reverse the situation...

Watch how quickly the MS lawyers would come out if the Firefox team came out with something they called a system patch, but buried in it was an plug-in that embedded itself in the OS with no way to uninstall it. I'm betting "oops" just wouldn't do.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

An App can't really defend itself against a malicious OS.

So, exactly, why are you running a malicious OS?

I run a malicious OS (WinXP) because Visio won't run in Linux. I use Linux for almost everything else INCLUDING web browsing.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the majority of people never dive into the detail and are fed a large spoon of bullshit with their news.

There, fixed it for you.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE!

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

So I'm curious, since you're so obsessed with all this hot butt sex you've been having as Microsoft screws you, just how have they screwed you lately? What hostile actions has Microsoft taken towards open source lately? Was it opening the Microsoft Open Source Labs? Was it making sure PHP runs equally well on IIS as it does on Apache? Was it launching the open source .NET portal CodePlex? Maybe it was their monetary investment in several big open source projects? Wow, damn those evil bastards!!

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[whitefang1121]

I don't care if it is fixed our not, i'm just tired of listening to this same story over and over again, so for my sanities sake and yours I am going to choose to believe they fixed it and go on with my life.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[mR.bRiGhTsId3]

I would assume that the plugin depends on a specific .NET runtime. Would it make more sense to install the plugin as part of the .NET runtime or risk the user installing the plugin and then not having the correct .NET runtime?

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't mind Microsoft updating their own software.

They updated software that isn't theirs.

That's bad.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

"it keeps MS in check"

You haven't been paying attention, have you?

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Propaganda13]

You must be new here. The majority of people here on Slashdot are meme scripts.

signed,
The You Must Be New Here Meme Script

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[toleraen]

Am I the only person that knows about the Automatic Updates control panel extension? Nobody else bothered reading the screen when they first booted up their copy of Windows that said "Do you want Microsoft to install anything it wants to, or do you want to decide what's installed?" Really?

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[AmiMoJo]

Even when disabled it still adds itself to your browser's user-agent string.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like how Firefox prompts me before it updates? Oh yeah. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, bitch.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Xest]

Of course it didn't explicitly mention a Firefox plugin, it does however talk of installing software on your machine. The fact it doesn't specify what doesn't mean you didn't agree, it just means you agreed to let them install whatever they deem necessary and they deemed a Firefox plugin necessary,

You still explicitly gave them permission however you cut it.

You can avoid installing updates to certain software - this was a general update to .NET, no one is stopping you installing the security updates by themselves. No one is forcing you to even use the .NET framework. If however you want to run the latest applications then you have to accept what comes with that package though.

The fact is though, it's almost certainly the case that what it comes down to is people like yourself simply cannot be bothered to sift through all the updates that come out and so you are generally happy to let Microsoft make that decision as to what should and shouldn't be installed for you. Again though, if that's the case don't start whining if you don't like Microsoft's decisions.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh Ya?

How bout M$ keeping their silent backdoor updates away from other peoples software?

You call this a non-issue? It was a clandestine act upon a competitor and one small step away from sabotage.

M$ earned the bad rep and shit like this don't make it better.

As it is I wouldn't recommend using Microsoft platforms for anything important or confidential. It's a matter of who controls the machine; who's in charge and that isn't the owner nor operator. M$ can reach into the box anytime it wants and nothing is safe. A power that has grown with each iteration of Windows since 3.11

To take offense when people get upset over snake shit such as this just makes you a shill for M$ trolling through the boards attempting damage control -- otherwise a cheerleader probably cashing a paycheck.

I for one would relish M$ pulling a stunt that brings FireFox to its knees, for the result would be a defacto global banning that no amount of M$ payroll trolls could cover.

Non-issue indeed.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[pizzach]

Has firefox fixed the bug where nobody can install extensions that are enabled by default without user intervention?

How slashdot loves to give karma to karma whores. I would have at least expected the parent to post a link to an actual bug so that the slashdot community could collaboratively vote for it so it could get noticed. That would actually accomplish something. This is why I am disappointed in Slashdot.

I personally don't have a problem with this installation method. It make addon development easier and it makes administration of many computers easier. While I trust linux distros doing this type of installation, Microsoft is a bit questionable.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Xest]

WGA checks that your version of Windows is legitimate, this is a different issue.

If you are not willing to activate your version of Windows to confirm that it is genuine then yes, it will keep asking.

This is more of an issue with Windows in general than it is anything to do with Windows updates and I agree, I'm not a fan of it. Legitimate users should not have to deal with software phoning home to Microsoft.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[I'm not really here]

It would be trivial for their plugin to, on first load, determine if the runtime was installed, and notify the user with a popup that says "This pluging requires blah blah crap. Click Ok to install." No intrusion, no difficulty... just a well designed add-on.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[krakelohm]

ASL?

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[ivucica]

"+1 Gross but Insightful" is more like it

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Keeper Of Keys]

It was an instance of buggery, not fallacio.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[AnalPerfume]

It is a feature, but that's like saying UK MPs have an expenses system that let's them rob from the UK taxpayer. They did nothing wrong......technically, because the loophole existed, they could. That's went down so well with UK voters as the media has shown.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[AnalPerfume]

Was it listed if you switched to custom install of available updates?

"Critical fix for EI8"
"Critical fix for Windows Explorer"
".Net Framework addon for Mozilla Firefox web browser"

Or was it an unlisted update which assumed you wanted it if you just selected automatic install?

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

But did you install the 200Mb Office suite? Or did you just untick the checkbox?

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[uassholes]

Exactly: If you use MS (or it uses you), you get what you deserve. Stop Whining.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[uassholes]

You date the high school bully, then you complain that he doesn't act like a gentleman.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Of course it didn't explicitly mention a Firefox plugin, it does however talk of installing software on your machine. The fact it doesn't specify what doesn't mean you didn't agree, it just means you agreed to let them install whatever they deem necessary and they deemed a Firefox plugin necessary,

You still explicitly gave them permission however you cut it.

NO fucking way. It is not acceptable to hide behind deliberately obfuscative lawyer-generated language that produces a result that no regular user would expect. You would be hard pressed to find anyone other than microsoft sycophants who would expect that a service named "microsoft update" would modify non-microsoft software.

In fact, I'm pretty confident that even a microsoft sycophant would be hard pressed to find another case where the microsoft update service had modified any other non-microsoft software. Thus this situation is so out of the ordinary as to be a reinterpretation of the terms even by microsoft themselves.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[mysidia]

So many web browsers are using Firefox now, the market share is so significant, that if they didn't sneak this plugin in, .Net would have a serious disadvantage.

Everyone would just continue to use flash... instead of expecting the web browser to promiscuously install software applications.

By the way, I see this as Active X 2.0 being involuntarily forced on people who chose firefox for one of the major reasons that malware couldn't easily infest it.

What happens when security bugs start being found in this .Net plugin?? FF could get the same bad rap IE has.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[mysidia]

They could include the heart of their plugin in the runtime directories but require the user to go to the firefox extensions page and install a runtime-independent "shim" to cause the plugin to be enabled in the browser.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[mysidia]

WGA notification is a security update, it's just not a feature to improve security for you, it helps improve security for MS.

It's an update to improve the Windows OS' security against people utilizing pirated copies.

As for the 3.5 dot net framework, that's no update/hotfix/patch that's a full blown UPGRADE

The difference is a patch or hotfix fixes a problem, or protects you.

Upgrades add features or fill in missing functionality, often at the risk of introducing new bugs or new problems.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[DeVilla]

Because my wife's genealogy software won't run on something more reasonable. I'm locked in. I need a reliable safe migration to get her off of Family Tree Maker on to something open.

I could move her data to Gramps, but I currently cannot be sure that no data was lost or corrupted in the transfer. At least now Gramps can handle the amount of data she has. Give me time.

For what it's worth, we will not be installing Vista on any of our systems and things aren't looking so good for the follow on either.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[DeVilla]

but this was the operating system subverting the security of an application.

By using a documented API designed for silent installs?

By using the API to install something as terribly insecure as ClickOnce. I don't mind if a sysadmin chooses to silently install something across the corporation. I don't want my OS vendor to sneak one in on my systems with an unrelated update. Firefox is not .Net.

My point about the OS subverting an app is that the OS can alter anything it chooses. Nothing Firefox could do would protect it if the OS what's to make a change behind it's back. They could make it harder for the OS, but it's a failing strategy, just like DRM. Why try?

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, Kdawson posted this corrective article.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[adolf]

If you want to carefully shepherd every bit of software which is installed on your computer, then don't use automatic updates. It's very simple. There is no available version of Windows which updates itself automatically by default -- the user must choose to allow them to happen.

That said: Windows Update often offers up new drivers for my video card, sound card, and various bits of hardware that are built into my motherboard, and none of these drivers are Microsoft products.

This is no greater sin, in my humble opinion, than Gentoo packing up Perl modules as part of Portage, and then updating them along with everything else once I've told it to do so.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

If you want to carefully shepherd every bit of software which is installed on your computer, then don't use automatic updates. It's very simple. There is no available version of Windows which updates itself automatically by default -- the user must choose to allow them to happen.

Whoop-dee-doo. Don't try to change the subject. Previous poster claimed that everyone who had firefox changed agreed to it because the very fine print said so. My point is that hiding behind very fine print is no excuse.

That said: Windows Update often offers up new drivers for my video card, sound card, and various bits of hardware that are built into my motherboard, and none of these drivers are Microsoft products.

Oh yeah? Then why are the drivers shipping on the microsoft installation media? They have been cryptographically signed by microsoft and included in the update repositories at the hardware vendor's request. That's a far cry from modifying an application that microsoft did not provide and has not been asked by anyone to maintain.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just the established software culture these days.

Yes, in Windows world it is an established culture to ask user to install crap and have it checked by default, but it doesn't mean that it's good. And this time, MS didn't even ask for permission.
 

From that perspective, installing a browser plugin which you won't ever see ...

Do you remember Sony rootkit?
 

until you navigate to a website that uses it

... to pwn your box, for example.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[adolf]

*sigh*

It's not my fault, nor Microsoft's, that folks don't read the things they agree to. It's not my fault, nor Microsoft's, that people don't think they're responsible for things after they've agreed to take part in them without further prompting.

Besides, it didn't modify Firefox. It dropped an addon into Firefox's system-wide addon directory, which normal users aren't allowed to touch from within Firefox (though they certainly could if the developers of Firefox decided that they should be able to), and which Firefox loads by default (which, again, was a decision made by Firefox's development crew). (Gee, put this way, and it almost sounds like a Firefox problem instead of a .NET one.)

Please try to understand the situation in question.

(On another note: VMWare Workstation installed a "VMWare Remote Console Plugin" Firefox addon on my machine, and I certainly don't recall it ever asking me if it should be allowed to do so. Should everyone get all torches-and-pitchforks over this?)

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

It's not my fault, nor Microsoft's, that folks don't read the things they agree to. It's not my fault, nor Microsoft's, that people don't think they're responsible for things after they've agreed to take part in them without further prompting.

"It's not my fault" - puhlease, skip the silly dramatics. You are soooo terribly put upon...

However, it is ABSOLUTELY microsoft's fault for choosing deliberately vague wording designed specifically to obscure the meaning of "we will do whatever the fuck we want and tough shit to you" while simultaneously marketing their update service as being specific to the updating of microsoft products. Just because they cover their ass in legalese doesn't mean they get to say and imply whatever they want everywhere else.

Besides, it didn't modify Firefox.

Oh boy, another semantic bullshiter. Microsoft just happened to randomly put those registry entries in there, they don't mean anything at all, its Firefox's own fault for reading its own configuration. Stupid Firefox, they should have known better! What kind of sycophancy motivates someone to come up with such a ridiculous apologia?

Please try to understand the situation in question.

That's rich. The situation in question is microsoft saying they will do one thing, doing it for about a decade or so, and then suddenly doing something else and when called on it a bunch of lawyer wannabes come out of the woodwork to say "everybody should have known better, everybody should be an expert in legal terms and language, you can't expect anything better of poor little microsoft, who doesn't have any responsibility at all."

(On another note: VMWare Workstation installed a "VMWare Remote Console Plugin" Firefox addon on my machine, and I certainly don't recall it ever asking me if it should be allowed to do so. Should everyone get all torches-and-pitchforks over this?)

Dunno, maybe so, I don't know a thing about what vmware does or doesn't do or claims to do. Regardless, its a red herring.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[adolf]

Right. Because it's never anyone's fault that they made a bad deal.

Yeah. Poor little microsoft. Heh. Embelish much?

You're hopeless.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[theaceoffire]

Has Windows fixed the bug where nobody can install a program that boots by default without user intervention? When the OS doesn't allow silent Virus installations, then I will concede the point.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Right. Because it's never anyone's fault that they made a bad deal.

An absolute mischaracterization of my argument. Microsoft advertised one thing and then delivered another and you chalk it up to a "bad deal."

Yeah. Poor little microsoft. Heh. Embelish much?

So you deny the rest of that sentence as embellishment too -- that microsoft "doesn't have any responsibility at all?"
And therefore you agree that microsoft has responsibility for what they did here. How's that petard working out?

Really, I think you are just being petty because I called you on your dramatics you feel that you can score points by trying to do the same thing back to me. Except your embellishment was completely without merit -- "It's not my fault" -- no one ever said it was. Yet you claim the responsibility here is not with microsoft and "poor little microsoft" is pretty much a mocking restatement of your own premise.

Its funny though, your entire argument has been reduced to trying to score points rather than arguing the logic of microsoft promising one thing in the big print and taking it away in the fine print. I guess scoring points is what you do when you don't have an argument to stand on.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[adolf]

You're still here?

Amazing.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You're still here?

Amazing.

A question that begs an answer of the asker.
Ah, complete capitulation in the form of adolescent smart-assery.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[adolf]

Wow; you are.

It's pretty late in the year, and most schools are already out. How'd you fare in debate class this time 'round, kid?

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Wow; you are.

It's pretty late in the year, and most schools are already out. How'd you fare in debate class this time 'round, kid?

Debate? This isn't a debate any more, it's just your pathetic attempt to protect your id.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[adolf]

Interesting.

Is there anything else you'd like to share about me?

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Interesting.

Is there anything else you'd like to share about me?

Anything else? I haven't "shared" a thing.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[adolf]

Debate? This isn't a debate any more, it's just your pathetic attempt to protect your id.

Were you referring to someone else?

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Were you referring to someone else?

That's not "sharing" anything that's commenting on the obvious.
Seems you really aren't terribly self-aware.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[adolf]

Ah. So you do have more to share.

I'm learning more and more about me with each of these exchanges.

Please continue.

Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only bullshit here is your defense of Microsoft. You act as though the playing field is level, and Microsoft should be held to the same standards as everyone else. But it's not, and they shouldn't. They should get the ever-lovin'-fuck beat out of them every time they make even the smallest mistake. They are a bunch of assholes, and so are you.

We need an new abbreviation

[selven]

LATFDBS - Look At The Date Before Submitting

Re:We need an new abbreviation

[Chlorine Trifluoride]

What about DLkP - Don't Let kdawson Post.

Yeah, a fix

[mysidia]

Now there is an 'uninstall' button, but if you press it, the app is only uninstalled for the user who clicked the button, not other users on the computer; there's still no ready means of permanently opting out system wide.

And they also indicate with every update of the .NET framework it may get re-installed for all users when Windows Presentation components are updated...

Their fix is even more sly possibly. Now you have the false illusion of being able to remove it....

And this still doesn't 'fix' the whole issue of installing components / editing the contents of a third party app a user installed without that user's permission.

Re:Yeah, a fix

[colfer]

And you must enable it in order to uninstall it.

To properly update the .NET Framework Assistant, this update must be applied while the extension is enabled in Firefox. To remedy the result of installing this update while the extension was disabled, uninstall the update, re-enable the extension, and reinstall the update.

Re:Yeah, a fix

[Blakey Rat]

Now there is an 'uninstall' button, but if you press it, the app is only uninstalled for the user who clicked the button, not other users on the computer; there's still no ready means of permanently opting out system wide.

Maybe what Microsoft should do is install the add-on into the "All Users" folder, so that if one user removes it then it's removed for all users on the computer!

Oh wait, that's exactly what they did that people are throwing a hissy-fit over.

Seriously, knowing how Windows permissions work, what is your "solution" for this problem? Either Microsoft puts it in the All Users folder, and people throw a hissy-fit, or they do what they're doing now and install it individually for all users, which means you can't disable it for all users at once. That is the way Windows works. (And Linux, and OS X, and all multi-user OSes.)

So, pray-tell, what the hell should they be doing?

Re:Yeah, a fix

[rootofevil]

first, since that update wnt out over windows update, this one should too.

or perhaps just not install it in the first place, thats also a perfectly good option. submit it to mozilla to present in the addons section. you know, like nearly ever addon out there.

but hey, if you want to excuse their behavior, go right ahead.

Re:Yeah, a fix

[poetmatt]

No, people got pissed because it was installed in the first place without any notification. In my case it was installed without any security updates. I didn't ask for a plugin to install a vulnerability without any confirmation.

If they did all users for the plugin installation has absolutely 0 to do with that.

Re:Yeah, a fix

[TurboNed]

Well, an opt-in install for the addon would be nice. Other than that, I totally agree with you.

Re:Yeah, a fix

[Blakey Rat]

At some point you gave it permission to install. They could make that clearer, I suppose-- it might have been buried in a EULA or "I Agree" button somewhere-- but you gave it permission. Heck, in Vista, it *requires* permission, since an installer can't write to All Users without it.

Or are you seriously suggesting that it's not only an unwanted add-on, but it's literally a virus?

Re:Yeah, a fix

[poetmatt]

windows update -> turned off
automatic plugin update in firefox -> disabled

It comes in on anything that is required to install .net in any form. That's pretty shady, thus outrage. There was no confirmation of it being installed into firefox, and due to how they did it, none was necessary.

Had this been an accident, I bet they would have installed it as an addon that confirms, as opposed to an automatically installed plugin. Let's be real. It's not a virus, even if some people may feel that way in a sense.

Better idea yet

[Todd Knarr]

Instead of installing it and letting you uninstall it if you don't want it, how about they don't install it and make it an optional thing you can choose to install?

Re:Better idea yet

[Anonymous Coward]

No - that would be too perfect of a world. We can't have that...now can we?

Re:Better idea yet

[Ephemeriis]

Instead of installing it and letting you uninstall it if you don't want it, how about they don't install it and make it an optional thing you can choose to install?

That'd be the best solution... When IE8 gets downloaded and queued for installation you're asked if you really want to install it. You can choose not to. And then the updates continue on their merry way.

Why not have the update ask for user input before installing this component?

Re:Better idea yet

[KingMotley]

Because it's trivial? I preferred it didn't ask. But that's my opinion.

Perhaps a slider with 3 setting for automatic updates: Auto install, Download but install manually, and Anal retentive future botnet. Oh wait, they have that already.

Re:Better idea yet

[Ephemeriis]

Because it's trivial? I preferred it didn't ask. But that's my opinion.

Perhaps a slider with 3 setting for automatic updates: Auto install, Download but install manually, and Anal retentive future botnet. Oh wait, they have that already.

You do understand what is being discussed, right?

We're not talking about automatically updating Microsoft's software. There are indeed several different options. You can tell it to install automatically, or ask you, or never update. But that isn't what we're talking about.

We're talking about downloading an update for Microsoft's software, and having it install a component for Firefox that is then difficult to remove.

If I choose to let Microsoft automatically update their software without prompting me, I can probably assume that Microsoft will update Windows, Internet Explorer, Office, Windows Media Player... Things like that. I would not assume that Microsoft would be installing updates to Firefox, or Left 4 Dead, or other random pieces of software on my computer.

And If I chose to install an update for the .Net framework I would probably assume that it would update the .Net framework - not Firefox.

I understand the argument... .Net shows up on web pages, Firefox is used to view web pages, folks might like Firefox to be able to work with .Net stuff. I get it. But that doesn't mean I actually want to install .Net support in Firefox any more than it means I want to install Flash or Java in Firefox. I should be allowed to choose what I install. And if I choose to install a generic Windows update for .Net I do not necessarily want anything installed in Firefox.

Re:Better idea yet

[iLogiK]

What does it do anyway? As far as I can see, it changes to user agent to also contain the .NET version you've got installed....Why? And isn't the user agent string unnecesssarily long as it is?

Re:Better idea yet

[Todd Knarr]

It adds not just the ability for Firefox to run .Net applications, but the ability for links on a page to install and run .Net applications with a single click and with no indication to the user that new software's been installed on their computer. That's a problem for me at least because, unlike Java, .Net is (as is usual for Microsoft products) to some degree integrated into the Windows operating system. Java, for instance, doesn't have it's own user accounts on the system independent of the user's account, while the .Net framework does. That's fine for entirely local applications, but not fine for unknown applications loaded from unknown and potentially hostile sources at some unknown location on the Internet.

Is it wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

that the only reason I have Slashdot on my RSS is for the witty comments only? I used to actually read the article but now, I don't even bother looking at the headline.

If it's wrong, I don't want to be right!

Install certainly isn't for the "common" user

[JimMcc]

Sure, they've come out with an uninstall process. But who here thinks that Ma and Pa PC User have a chance in hell of correctly performing the necessary steps? For that matter, who thinks that the common user of a PC will even be aware of the issue in the first place?

Yes FF allows add-ons. Yes, MS has every right to create an add-on for FF. What really worries me is when a company creates an add-on for the product of their primary competitor which threatens the stability and security of their competitor's product. At a minimum this is dirty pool. To me it just looks like MS continuing to wallow in the sewage of unfair competition.

Re:Install certainly isn't for the "common" user

[Anonymous Coward]

Maand Pa PC User doesn't give a shit about extra functionality added to their browser for several reasons.

First off the plugin doesn't add anything malicious, it isn't a security hole, and it doesn't do anything without the user's consent (You need to 'Click' for 'ClickOnce' to work, strangely enough)

Second off, they don't think it's an outrage that some company tries to increase interoperability with their favorite browser (FF) and they actually want it to happen, because they get pissed every time some thing doesn't work in FF as they think it should (such as click once)

Third off, it doesn't fucking matter because 20 other companies do it already (Adobe's Flash, Sun's Java VM, etc.) and only a fucking retard would care only because it's MS. These people need to get a grip.

Re:Install certainly isn't for the "common" user

[initdeep]

Who the Hell thinks ma and pa PC user are using Firefox?
The majority aren't.
You may have turned your parents onto it, and I've tried with mine, but the reality is it's still an IE world, webpages are still designed to work in IE, and .Net is a widely used set of tools that more and more webpages are taking advantage of.
having this installed into firefox for all users when the person ELECTS to download the .NEt framework because they've been told they need it for a certain webpage or program to work correctly is just common sense.

versus the more slashtard oriented view of making "Ma and Pa PC User" go download the required .Net framework for their needs, and then go download a firefox extension to make it work properly in the alternative browser that their geek son/daughter/relative told them was so much better.

yeah.
So much better, and more annoying, and less useful.

But instead we get something like this that actually makes FF useful for the same places the user already downloaded the .Net framework for......

And since the extension was to allow click-once support for .net enabled websites, i'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that those "Ma and Pa PC Users" will LIKE having it installed so their webpages work correctly and function the way they expect.
Just like they do in IE.

So in reality, despite what slashtards want to think, most people simply won't care, don't want to uninstall it, and in the real world, are probably glad it's there when they need it without having to go search for it and then download and install it.

let the modding down for the truth begin.

Re:Install certainly isn't for the "common" user

[BobMcD]

Oh, AC, how I love your objectivity... You're always such a breath of fresh air...

Re:Install certainly isn't for the "common" user

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference in Java/Flash and this is two fold:

1. You explicitly install these FOR the functionality provided to the browser.
2. You can choose not to install the browser addons
    2a. With the last version of Java I installed you could
    2b. Flash requires you pick what browser you want it installed for the last time I checked also.

Installing something by default (as an update no less) without notifying me and providing the solution of "oh you can just uninstall it by deleting this reg key, this folder, and change this in about:config" pisses me off, not that I'm not capable, but WHY should I have to when I didn't ASK for the addon to begin with? This is what pisses me off about it....

Re:Install certainly isn't for the "common" user

[shutdown -p now]

But who here thinks that Ma and Pa PC User have a chance in hell of correctly performing the necessary steps?

Why would they need to? The extension doesn't do anything to impact their performance, privacy, and so on.

... add-on for the product of their primary competitor which threatens the stability and security of their competitor's product.

It does all that? Wow. And I just thought that it lets you do the same things you can do with Java applets, more or less (by the way, did you ever see Sun's JRE prompt you when installing the plugin for running them?).

Re:Install certainly isn't for the "common" user

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly which web pages have you visited that require the .NET framework? I have never encountered one.

Programs don't count. I use Firefox to browse the web. Having .NET installed because a certain program required it doesn't mean I want to visit the 3 websites that require .NET using Firefox.

Re:Install certainly isn't for the "common" user

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference in Java/Flash and this is two fold:

1. You explicitly install these FOR the functionality provided to the browser. 2. You can choose not to install the browser addons 2a. With the last version of Java I installed you could 2b. Flash requires you pick what browser you want it installed for the last time I checked also.

Installing something by default (as an update no less) without notifying me and providing the solution of "oh you can just uninstall it by deleting this reg key, this folder, and change this in about:config" pisses me off, not that I'm not capable, but WHY should I have to when I didn't ASK for the addon to begin with? This is what pisses me off about it....

This doesn't apply with Sun's VM. Last time I installed it (a month ago, maybe it changed), it never asked me about their piece of shit plugin. And I wasn't installing the JRE for Firefox, I was installing it for another program.

It's the same thing, but since it says "MS", it's bad, and people can't deal with that.

Who bicapitalizes Firefox?

[Nimey]

Seriously? And why?

Firefox

[r45d15]

It's Firefox not FireFox, by now it should be clear to everyone including whoever wrote the title.

Re:Firefox

[Culture20]

It's Firefox not FireFox

No, it's IceWeasel, with weasel pronounced the way Pauly Shore says it: "Ice Weee-zel"

Re:Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously. It drives me nuts when people spell something willy-nilly when they clearly don't know how it's actually spelled.

See Firefox vs FireFox - Logo vs LoGo.

Now how about Java Quick Starter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, now tell me how to get rid of the similarly-uninstallable "Java Quick Starter" that nobody seems to be mad about because it's not Microsoft?

Re:Now how about Java Quick Starter?

[xenolion]

Um you answered your own question there; Its not Microsoft.

Re:Now how about Java Quick Starter?

[YesIAmAScript]

My understanding is you turn that off in the Java control panel.

And that thing drives me crazy too. It has some kind of bug such that it install two copies of itself in my Firefox. Both without explicit permission.

Re:Now how about Java Quick Starter?

[Anonymous Coward]

He was asking how to get rid of it...

Re:Now how about Java Quick Starter?

[shutdown -p now]

He was asking how to get rid of it...

Of what, of Sun? He's a bit late to the party.

Or of Microsoft? That... well... is an outstanding issue. I hear they're actively working on it, but it's been 5 years already, and it's not even 50% done.

~

Re:Now how about Java Quick Starter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Q: How do I uninstall Java Quick Starter
A: It's not Microsoft

???

Re:Now how about Java Quick Starter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try actually reading his comment, it's nearly impossible to misunderstand it:

Okay, now tell me how to get rid of the similarly-uninstallable "Java Quick Starter"

Re:Now how about Java Quick Starter?

[Anonymous Coward]

The question wasn't "Why isn't anyone mad?" It was "How do I get rid of..?"

The answer "It's not Microsoft" isn't an answer. That would be implying that you could only get rid of things if they were actually made by Microsoft.

Re:Now how about Java Quick Starter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Adobe Acrobat PDF Plug-in rep-ruh-zent!!!

main problem is with firefox....

[Anonymous Coward]

it should NOT allow unsigned / unblessed extensions to be installed in the first place. signed extensions like the windows driver signing is the appropriate fix here.

Microsoft..

[Anonymous Coward]

Knowing them, it will leave about 50% of the junk that the addon installed. And 100% of the registry keys they used for it.

Re:Question? Who fucking cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

"You use a browser I don't like, therefore it's okay if someone messes with it without your permission!"

And yes, that IS exactly what you're saying, and yes, saying it DOES prove you beyond all possible doubt to be the craven idiot you so rightly fear yourself to be.

And no, you weren't just trolling to get a rise out of those oh-so-predictable Slashbots. And finally, yes, that IS what you were about to say in your pathetically futile defense.

The HORROR!

[malevolentjelly]

Wait, what's the big problem? It sounds to me like they decided to give Firefox support for what is basically .NET's equivalent of Java WebStart. It means you're using a Windows platform... which you are if you're bitching about this. They didn't alter the code for firefox, or anything-- they installed an extension.

It sounds to me like years of opensource Stockholm Syndrome has made freetards deathly frightened of platform integration and compatibility. Do you freak out when Java WebStart support is installed, also?

From the team perspective, they probably viewed it as a positive gesture--while they were updating the clickonce support on IE, they figured they would provide it on Firefox as well to give users a wider range of choice as to what their browser is.

From an enterprise perspective, you probably want to use things like ClickOnce on your company Intranet; that way web applications don't have to be cludged together in either archaic standard javascript or wacky inconsistent non-standard "modern" javascript... you can make consistent interfaces for things like electronic timesheets and such. Chances are, they don't want you removing it unless you know what you're doing. Of course, there's also some tin-foil hat linux moron who is going to remove the extension with their user-level permissions because it says "Microsoft" on it, then complain about the lack of .NET web application to support. Or worse... "WHY ISN'T THIS WRITTEN IN HTML 5? IT'S A WORKING DRAFT SORT OF. HOW ABOUT WxPython?!" One might even surmise that it being user-level monkey-able might make it more open to exploitation than it would be in IE.. (GreaseMonkey, anyone?)

The fact of the matter is, it's platform integration. Nothing more. For most users, ClickOnce is simply convenient. It just bridges them to support for secure sandboxed .NET applications that might be convenient if provided. For wingbats on slashdot, it's A GROSS INVASION OF THEIR OMG PRIVACY THAT THEY DEMAND FOR THEIR PIRATED COPY OF WINDOWS XP.

Since most of you are using a supported platform, your web browser is rather connected to the security and integration of the platform. Thus, it is Microsoft's territory, in the same way Firefox gets updated and extended if you are using Ubuntu or OpenSuSE. Of course, Firefox's biggest security hole is probably Firefox itself, but that's unimportant.

The point being is its a goddamn platform integration plugin and you people are probably afraid of your own shadows. The idea that any of you can use hideously insecure linux or mac systems, then turn around and freak out at a sandboxed .NET application starter is just awkward.

Re:The HORROR!

[Todd Knarr]

The objection isn't to them providing support in Firefox. It's in their forcing the add-on into Firefox without asking the user whether they want it or not, when established convention is that the user elects to install add-ons and that if the user hasn't elected to install something it doesn't get installed. This is made especially annoying by the fact that many Firefox users use it precisely because it doesn't support things like .Net.

Re:The HORROR!

[BobMcD]

I disagree.

To me, the difference is:

A) This plugin is being installed without consent. I'm not talking about the EULA version of the word, but the common definition.

B) At least some people use Firefox on Windows expressly so that it won't be compatible with the OS underneath. I recommend it to Windows people all the time for exactly this reason. Firefox is 'just a browser' and it 'just works' without requiring all this deep integration that isn't really necessary to do 99.5% of all the things one would use a browser to do.

By combining A and B you're removing one of the key things that makes Firefox a better choice, without informing the user that you have done so.

That's not quite the same as a Java Quickstart.

Also, it isn't as if Sun has a vested interest in making Firefox behave more like IE, so that comparison is really pretty weak to begin with...

Re:The HORROR!

[malevolentjelly]

This is made especially annoying by the fact that many Firefox users use it precisely because it doesn't support things like .Net.

Basically, this is the anti-compatibility mindset. I would wager more users would like this functionality without knowing what it is than would specifically like to see their browser non-integrated with their platform for what I will assume is spiritual reasons.

How else do you offer subtle and clever backend technology to non-technical users? Microsoft is accepting Firefox into the Windows software ecosystem. If you're afraid of this, it's time to hop on over to Chrome, so you can go through the joys of being non-native all over again.

You installed the .NET service pack, right? We all know these updates are not "automatic".. you just update without reading what it does. On my system it calls these things "Recommended" or "Optional".

Re:The HORROR!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe firefox shouldn't allow plugins to be installed without user intervention... Didn't they learn anything from activex? I'm surprised more spyware isn't trying to add its own plugins into firefox.

Re:The HORROR!

[Anonymous Coward]

You downloaded and installed the framework. My expectation would be anything that uses the framework would work without having to do anything else. Seems nice to me.

Re:The HORROR!

[malevolentjelly]

B) At least some people use Firefox on Windows expressly so that it won't be compatible with the OS underneath. I recommend it to Windows people all the time for exactly this reason. Firefox is 'just a browser' and it 'just works' without requiring all this deep integration that isn't really necessary to do 99.5% of all the things one would use a browser to do.

Firefox is drastically more secure on Windows than Linux or Mac because it plays well with the Window security model. Just because the application looks and acts non-native doesn't mean it's not decently native.

This argument is simply retarded. The MOST non-native browser I can think of, Safari, is also the most insecure browser you can run on the Windows platform. A lack of integration is not what secures browsers.

Another example: Chrome is (probably more) secure on Windows specifically because it is catered to the NT 5+ kernel's security model.

Non-integration != Security

Furthermore, the EULA definition and the *intent* are irrelevant. You have to separate Microsoft the supported platform ecosystem and Microsoft the imaginary monster dreamed up by Stallman. The company operates like a hundred tiny companies, I guarantee you the .NET team was doing this to improve usability for people using the growing Firefox browser. The IE team more likely than not had no hand in this.

Re:The HORROR!

[ratboy666]

So, I'm a "wingbat freetard". In two words "fuck you".

This, of course, doesn't affect me. I wouldn't be arsed to comment about it, except for YOUR particular comment. Just to let you know -- we "wingbat freetards" also go crazy if a Firefox extension modifies ANOTHER extension with permission (Noscript vs Adblock). (Grrr... Don't presume that you know what's better for me. If you make that assumption, prepare to be flamed.)

On the other hand -- this is the most brilliant troll I have seen in months! Congratulations, I responded!

I wouldn't have bothered replying, except that Slashdot doesn't have a Troll+1 moderation (Troll-1 isn't applicable here; this one is pure genius).

Re:The HORROR!

[TypoNAM]

Last time I checked Microsoft never documents what updates actually do. They just give very vague one-liners and expect you, the user, to know exactly what the hell they're talking about. Also people install .NET service packs to fix .NET application issues, not to all of a sudden have .NET support in Firefox.

Re:The HORROR!

[BobMcD]

Non-integration != Security

That's an oversimplification of the issue, and isn't exactly intellectually honest.

In the security world, browser breaches happen because the attackers successfully make assumptions about the target machine.

Re:The HORROR!

[DigitalSorceress]

I very deliberately set up my FireFox to NOT use Flash, Shockwave, Acrobat, etc... and not have any content type plugins. I browse the web with that and with NoScript installed, and ONLY allow trusted sites to run JavaScript on my browser. IF I run into a site that needs more (YouTube for videos, other sites where I HAVE TO have Flash and really need to use the site, etc...), THEN I fire up IE Tab or a copy of IE for it. The idea being that I will control who executes what on my browser as much as it is possible.

This helps keep me virus and malware free. The idea that MS just silently installs something is truly annoying. I DON'T WANT compatibility - I want some measure of security and control. If I want compatibility, I have other options.

The .NET service pack is part of the .NET framework, and there are LOTS of reasons to install it other than for browser-ish things. Try installing AdAware without it nowadays...

I'm personally very disgusted with the whole thing and the fact that they fixed it does NOT excuse the initial behavior.

Re:The HORROR!

[malevolentjelly]

In the security world, browser breaches happen because the attackers successfully make assumptions about the target machine.

Browser security has more to do with proper sandboxing than obscurity. It's all about memory management and privilege level. The Windows platform has better anti-exploit code in that respect than any other platform, anyway.

ClickOnce applications are probably more securely sandboxed than firefox in general.

Re:The HORROR!

[malevolentjelly]

I very deliberately set up my FireFox to NOT use Flash, Shockwave, Acrobat, etc... and not have any content type plugins. I browse the web with that and with NoScript installed, and ONLY allow trusted sites to run JavaScript on my browser. IF I run into a site that needs more (YouTube for videos, other sites where I HAVE TO have Flash and really need to use the site, etc...), THEN I fire up IE Tab or a copy of IE for it. The idea being that I will control who executes what on my browser as much as it is possible.

Ah, so you basically represent a level of paranoia that encroaches on functionality and usability. Since you represent about a hundredth of a percent of users, I recommend you manually scrape the extension out of the system and keep the tin-foil hat tightly so that the government doesn't read your thoughts while you're doing it... and watch out for chemtrails, too.

Re:The HORROR!

[malevolentjelly]

You downloaded and installed the framework. My expectation would be anything that uses the framework would work without having to do anything else. Seems nice to me.

Oh crap, it's the seedy counterculture of people who expect technology to work for them and not vice versa. That's pretty subversive around these parts.

Re:The HORROR!

[BobMcD]

This is only true in the highest point of view possible. In an ecosystem where all browsers exist and are used, yes, the best sandboxed one would be the most secure.

In the real world, however, that same most secure browser can be the most-often-compromised.

Using Firefox that doesn't support .NET is a way of making yourself less of an opportunity. A hypothetical .NET browser exploit wouldn't work on you unless you had this functionality added. Mind you, it wasn't pointed at your Firefox browser, so it may not work at all, unless your Firefox behaves enough like IE (the true target).

Yes, a secure .NET platform is far preferable to an insecure one. Yet even more preferable is not having one at all, unless you require it. Adding this when it is not required, nor even requested, is not justified.

I fail to see the disconnect on your end. Perhaps I'm just a 'retard', as you put it.

Re:The HORROR!

[DigitalSorceress]

Call me Paranoid if you wish, but honestly, there is so much malevolent crap out there in the web that it's fair to say "they" really ARE out to get you. ("They" being the spammers and scareware authors and identity thieves, and all the other baddies breaking into computers and installing god-knows-what)

I'm not so paranoid that I refuse to use IE or ever allow flash, Javascript, PDF, or activex, it's just that I like to make use of such things an explicit, deliberate choice on a site-by-site or even case-by-case basis.

My method of achieving those ends is "FireFox for browsing unknown, untrusted content, and IE (usually via IE Tab) only for trusted sites". It's really not some huge ordeal, and I have a very decent track record in terms of not getting infected with malware. I can not say the same about most of the people in my office.

Re:The HORROR!

[malevolentjelly]

Using Firefox that doesn't support .NET is a way of making yourself less of an opportunity. A hypothetical .NET browser exploit wouldn't work on you unless you had this functionality added.

I don't think it plays into the browser security model, though. You'd be correct if the plugin actually integrated .NET into Firefox... instead, it just provides a means to execute the permission dialogue launcher for ClickOnce. Any exploitation code connected to this is happening outside of Firefox and within the .NET ecosystem.

Mind you, it wasn't pointed at your Firefox browser, so it may not work at all, unless your Firefox behaves enough like IE (the true target).

The true target is the most popular exploitable target. If firefox ever surpasses IE in popularity. it's going to be in the same boat as IE has been historically. It will be targeted. If the Firefox team didn't take the Windows security model seriously, this would be an issue. Thankfully, they do.

Yes, a secure .NET platform is far preferable to an insecure one. Yet even more preferable is not having one at all, unless you require it. Adding this when it is not required, nor even requested, is not justified.

In terms of security threats, this is way below the average user having a regular flash implementation... if Microsoft decides that ClickOnce is a feature of the Windows platform and Firefox is a legitimate default browser, this behavior is as-designed. A work-around has been issued for those who are skittish about it.

Re:The HORROR!

[malevolentjelly]

My method of achieving those ends is "FireFox for browsing unknown, untrusted content, and IE (usually via IE Tab) only for trusted sites". It's really not some huge ordeal, and I have a very decent track record in terms of not getting infected with malware. I can not say the same about most of the people in my office.

Would it bother you if I told you that I haven't gotten a virus in about 5-6 years and I don't do all that stuff? It just seems a little overkill. I would usually say that if ClickOnce seems scary to you, you should be deathly afraid of Flash... but incidentally you are.

They're out there. You watch the skies, hombre.

Re:The HORROR!

[Culture20]

It sounds to me like years of opensource Stockholm Syndrome has made freetards deathly frightened of platform integration and compatibility.

Nice trolling paytard. Hopefully you'll get a few +1 Funny moderations.

From the team perspective, they probably viewed it as a positive gesture--while they were updating the clickonce support on IE, they figured they would provide it on Firefox as well to give users a wider range of choice as to what their browser is.

And the MS Office team sure took Sun's ODF plugin positively. If every version of Java started stealth installing the Sun ODF plugin into installed versions of Office to fix the broken compatibility (and made it non-removable) don't you think Sysadmins on both sides of the aisle would be crying foul?

For wingbats on slashdot, it's A GROSS INVASION OF THEIR OMG PRIVACY THAT THEY DEMAND FOR THEIR PIRATED COPY OF WINDOWS XP.

Most of the comments expressing anger were from Windows Sysadmins managing legit Windows machines. The Linux guys laughed. The Mac guys didn't read the article because it wasn't hosted at apple.slashdot.org
Quite a few sysadmins were surprised by this because checking FF plugins isn't part of the usual procedure on a test machine that you installed a new .NET framework patch to. Sure, fire up the cirtical .NET using apps, make sure everything's working. Groovy on all X test machines? Shoot the patch out to group 1. Day 2, group 2. Day 3, group 3 ... a week later user notices a new add-on. WTF, it's on all the machines!

Re:The HORROR!

[Anonymous Coward]

A lack of integration is not what secures browsers.

Another example: Chrome is (probably more) secure on Windows specifically because it is catered to the NT 5+ kernel's security model.

Non-integration != Security

You are absolutely correct, Integration (or lack thereof) does not constitute security. However, lack of integration means that if there is an exploit, it's less likely to break the entire os which is really what's more important to me.

Also, I don't want my browser crashing to cause my entire desktop environment require a restart. I'm not calling the desktop environment the OS as those (yes, even in windows) are 2 separate environments merged to give the appearance of one. In the case of windows, this means, I don't want iexplorer.exe crashing to cause explorer.exe to go down and have to be re-initialized. If you haven't seen this happen, your lucky. If you have, you know exactly what I'm talking about. Unfortunately, it's not just the browser that can cause this, open Windows Explorer cause it to hang (try to browse to a network share that's no longer on the network and attempt to close the Windows Explorer window, click End Task, explorer.exe and your entire desktop, start menu, task bar go down and get reloaded).

The way I choose to minimize this possibility is to not use IE.

now for an unrelated question.... Why in the hell do we have Internet Explorer(iexplorer.exe) , Windows Explorer (explorer.exe), and the desktop (explorer.exe), all similar names with different functionality ? How does this make it easier?
It's possible Windows Explorer and the Desktop explorer.exe's are the same (privilege escalation away!).

AC out...

Re:The HORROR!

[nih]

If the convention isn't enforced by code then people can ignore it, its a basic security flaw.

Re:The HORROR!

[malevolentjelly]

And the MS Office team sure took Sun's ODF plugin positively. If every version of Java started stealth installing the Sun ODF plugin into installed versions of Office to fix the broken compatibility (and made it non-removable) don't you think Sysadmins on both sides of the aisle would be crying foul?

That wouldn't make any sense unless you were running a Sun supported platform... so, go back to metaphor school, cheesmo.

Quite a few sysadmins were surprised by this because checking FF plugins isn't part of the usual procedure on a test machine that you installed a new .NET framework patch to. Sure, fire up the cirtical .NET using apps, make sure everything's working. Groovy on all X test machines? Shoot the patch out to group 1. Day 2, group 2. Day 3, group 3 ... a week later user notices a new add-on. WTF, it's on all the machines!

Firefox is now an accepted part of the Windows ecosystem. Score one for Mozilla! It's time to add that to your test cases. Jeez, complaining because something unexpected occurred. What an uninspired lifestyle... this is what you people get paid to do!

Re:The HORROR!

[LurkerXXX]

Wait, what's the big problem? It sounds to me like they decided to give Firefox support for what is basically .NET's equivalent of Java WebStart. It means you're using a Windows platform... which you are if you're bitching about this. They didn't alter the code for firefox, or anything-- they installed an extension.

They installed it without permission. Extensions change how firefox works. That's kind of the point of them. They add/alter functionality. In this case potentially opening a huge security hole, without permission.

From the team perspective, they probably viewed it as a positive gesture--while they were updating the clickonce support on IE, they figured they would provide it on Firefox as well to give users a wider range of choice as to what their browser is.

Providing it on Firefox is well and good. Forcing it on Firefox is definitely not.

From an enterprise perspective, you probably want to use things like ClickOnce on your company Intranet; that way web applications don't have to be cludged together in either archaic standard javascript or wacky inconsistent non-standard "modern" javascript... you can make consistent interfaces for things like electronic timesheets and such. Chances are, they don't want you removing it unless you know what you're doing. Of course, there's also some tin-foil hat linux moron who is going to remove the extension with their user-level permissions because it says "Microsoft" on it, then complain about the lack of .NET web application to support. Or worse... "WHY ISN'T THIS WRITTEN IN HTML 5? IT'S A WORKING DRAFT SORT OF. HOW ABOUT WxPython?!" One might even surmise that it being user-level monkey-able might make it more open to exploitation than it would be in IE.. (GreaseMonkey, anyone?)

Then you know nothing of enterprise perspective. Enterprises can already roll out all the software they want to automatically. We roll out tons of applications all the time with no javascript, thanks.

The fact of the matter is, it's platform integration. Nothing more. For most users, ClickOnce is simply convenient. It just bridges them to support for secure sandboxed .NET applications that might be convenient if provided. For wingbats on slashdot, it's A GROSS INVASION OF THEIR OMG PRIVACY THAT THEY DEMAND FOR THEIR PIRATED COPY OF WINDOWS XP.

It is a security issue. And my copy of XP is very much paid for Mr. Troll. I won't respond further because the rest of your post is just more inane trolling. (Please mod the troll to oblivion).

Re:The HORROR!

[malevolentjelly]

Oh my god, that is so hard to read. You just made my comment and your snarky replies look like the Declaration of Independence.

They installed it without permission. Extensions change how firefox works. That's kind of the point of them. They add/alter functionality. In this case potentially opening a huge security hole, without permission.

It's not a security hole. There's no justification for making that claim. It's a more secure method of executing web-based .NET software than running native executables.

Then you know nothing of enterprise perspective. Enterprises can already roll out all the software they want to automatically. We roll out tons of applications all the time with no javascript, thanks.

It's a web application technology... so I was referring to web applications within an intranet.

It is a security issue. And my copy of XP is very much paid for Mr. Troll. I won't respond further because the rest of your post is just more inane trolling. (Please mod the troll to oblivion).

What is that, an incantation? You are such a dork.

Re:The HORROR!

[twidarkling]

One could easily argue that a program not supporting .net IS a .net application issue. Seriously, this thing doesn't compromise security, it makes it so that some of those "IE only" sites aren't quite as IE only. It's a step towards moving away from IE as a dominant force on the internet.

I can easily imagine that this is the way the conversation went at MS:

Coder: Hey, we've got the .net update ready to push out, and the Firefox extension's ready too. Should we release them separately?

Manager: Nah. Make them the same bundle. One less thing for people to deal with on the list of patches.

Coder: What if they don't want it?

Manager: You put the disable button in it?

Coder: Yeah.

Manager: If they don't want it, then they can turn it off. Big whoop. Let's go for lunch now. I'm hungry.

Re:The HORROR!

[twidarkling]

I have a very decent track record in terms of not getting infected with malware.

Lesse. You're excessively paranoid (arguably, anyways) about your security, and you have a "very decent track record."

Whereas I have all that running pretty much whenever it wants, and the only virus I've ever gotten was from my roommate's Windows ME machine. And that was 6 years ago. I'd call mine an "excellent" track record.

Re:The HORROR!

[twidarkling]

>

Also, it isn't as if Sun has a vested interest in making Firefox behave more like IE, so that comparison is really pretty weak to begin with...

You have GOT to be kidding me. If anything, MS would have a vested interest in ensuring Firefox behaves NOTHING like Firefox. Because if there's things only IE can do, they keep their market share! Don't let your MS-hate blind you.

Re:The HORROR!

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that a competitor installed an addon for a program without the user's permission. To me, it would be like Toyota mechanics tinkering around in the engine of my Mazda while I'm not home...and then giving me instructions on how to remove the parts they installed. I don't really care at all what it does or if it helps me or not.

I do agree that Microsoft probably viewed this as a positive gesture, but they just went about it the wrong way by not allowing a user to choose whether or not they want it installed. Microsoft knows that many of the people that use firefox don't actually browse available addons very often...if it all and probably saw it as wasted effort to put it out there for the minimal amount of people that would have seen the addon and would have known what the hell it actually did.

From an enterprise perspective, you don't want anything whatsoever installing on your company intranet without your permission. Granted, it is something you would likely want to go ahead and permit to install, but an IT professional should have complete control over his network.

From a "Linux Moron" perspective, I don't think there's much chance of any of them complaining about a lack of .NET web application support...but I may be wrong.

Also, I do agree with what many people have said that its partially Firefox's fault for allowing an addon to be installed without the user's permission.

Re:The HORROR!

[VGPowerlord]

Last time I checked Microsoft never documents what updates actually do.

Microsoft releases a knowledge base article for every update they push on Windows Update. As long as you don't blindly tell Windows to install them without looking at the details, you can follow the links to them and see exactly what the update does.

Now, having said that, KB951847: List of changes and fixed issues in the .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 doesn't mention a Firefox plugin at all.

Re:The HORROR!

[Anonymous Coward]

The real problem is that Firefox allows this bullshit!

Re:The HORROR!

[DigitalSorceress]

No, it doesn't bother me at all. To each their own.

How about I put it this way:

Even though I've been driving for over 20 years without having an accident, I wear my seat belt whenever I get into a car (as a driver or passenger). I'm quite happy that I've never needed it, but the fact that I've never needed it doesn't mean that I won't on my way home from work on Monday.

I recognize that there is no such thing as a perfectly safe computer, save one that's unplugged, disconnected from all networks, and encased in reinforced concrete in the bottom of a sealed bunker... yada yada (yes, I'm being extreme and/or silly), but such a computer would be rather useless.

It's been my experience that there is a very real trade-off between security and usability. However, I don't really feel that my preferences for web browsing have a major negative impact on my ability to use the Web. I guess this whole tangent is the result of me falling for the flamebait.

Re:The HORROR!

[malevolentjelly]

Even though I've been driving for over 20 years without having an accident, I wear my seat belt whenever I get into a car (as a driver or passenger). I'm quite happy that I've never needed it, but the fact that I've never needed it doesn't mean that I won't on my way home from work on Monday.

That's completely true, but I think the degree of caution you're taking is more akin to what you mention in the following paragraph.

It's been my experience that there is a very real trade-off between security and usability. However, I don't really feel that my preferences for web browsing have a major negative impact on my ability to use the Web. I guess this whole tangent is the result of me falling for the flamebait.

I am not trying to flame you. I just think that you're setting yourself up for the security situation of Windows 98, but in reality things have come pretty far. I keep my system up to date and pay attention every time tries to process elevate in UAC. When something seems suspicious, I investigate. Maybe I am unconsciously sandboxing more than other users, and that's a major factor.

I am trying to say your level of security is not invalid, per se, it's just excessive. You could win back some usability if you look into the security model of some new more isolated browsers (like Chrome, the Secure Safari) and be certain to simply run on a limited account and let UAC catch some of these problems. You can run as a limited user and process escalate with a password prompt like on mac or gksudo and enjoy a pretty certain level of security.

All I am trying to say is that the modern Windows security model is pretty good if used properly. It's as good as you'll get out of a consumer system.

Re:The HORROR!

[malevolentjelly]

The problem is that a competitor installed an addon for a program without the user's permission. To me, it would be like Toyota mechanics tinkering around in the engine of my Mazda while I'm not home...and then giving me instructions on how to remove the parts they installed. I don't really care at all what it does or if it helps me or not.

I just don't know that it's the same, because it seems to me like this is more Microsoft acting as the platform maintainer than as a Firefox competitor. I think there's confusion here stemming from how expansive Microsoft is in this enterprise. Because one of my Microsoft's platform components is a web browser, it can be construed that they're sabotaging the competition. I just don't see that as any benefit, in this case. If Firefox is better on Windows than any other platform, then that's positive to Microsoft. They don't necessarily sell IE. I think it's more of a "value added" maneuver.

From an enterprise perspective, you don't want anything whatsoever installing on your company intranet without your permission. Granted, it is something you would likely want to go ahead and permit to install, but an IT professional should have complete control over his network.

I was talking about using ClickOnce WPF applications being used within the intranet, not them suddenly appearing on the intranet like a virus. I was speaking in reference to a company using firefox internally and wpf through the intranet.

In reality, the security issue probably has less to do with enterprise access control and more with the fact that offering firefox any system-level control over anything .NET would be insecure. A removal tool or methodology on a system level MUST be outside of firefox. A local uninstall button is about as rational as they could logically offer.

Going to be around for a long time

[pembo13]

This is going to be around on machine for quite some time still.

FlameBait

[Anonymous Coward]

firefox, firefox, firefox, ...

Not good enough!

[Anonymous Coward]

If Microsoft wanted to play nice, it would've offered it as a "really cool thing to install in Firefox", not something that the user has no choice but to install unless they want to leave their system vulnerable.

Wiping Microsoft wipes the extension

[Anonymous Coward]

This Anonymous Coward will be removing this extension by wiping Microsoft of his machine and installing Linux. After 25 years of developing commercial applications for Microsoft platforms, I'm done.

Re:Wiping Microsoft wipes the extension

[Nimey]

Somehow I don't believe that you're a longtime MS app developer and this was enough to move you to Linux.

Re:Wiping Microsoft wipes the extension

[Minimalist360]

An anonymous poster claiming that he's been developing 25 years on Windows commercially is suddenly going to throw away his career to start anew on Linux, because an update installed a plugin. And this post is on Slashdot, and it's modded interesting. Yeah, that's SO interesting. I thought it was just drivel, predictable, and/or noise. Little did I know!

Re:Wiping Microsoft wipes the extension

[Anonymous Coward]

This Anonymous Coward will be removing this extension by wiping Microsoft of his machine and installing Linux. After 25 years of developing commercial applications for Microsoft platforms, I'm done.

Much like a baby-eating Satanist sex-addict pedophile atheist who suddenly finds JAYZUS, right?

Here's a hint: try not to sound like a made-up conversion story and people might take you seriously.

This is an outrage!

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally am astounded to think that Microsoft would have the nerve to release an application that uninstalls MY firefox addons!

And the rest of the story...

[Anonymous Coward]

Scott Hanselman put up a nice post today outlining the whole story. He points out why it turned out this way, how to uninstall it and even put up the source code so you can see their evil ways for those who were too lazy to unzip the xpi.

http://www.hanselman.com/blog/HowToRemoveTheNETClickOnceFirefoxExtension.aspx

Re:And the rest of the story...

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, it doesn't really uninstall it, but uninstalls it for 1 specific user. The crap is still there for other user accounts.

This is complete, utter bullshit and totally unacceptable. Where do I go to remove this shit from my computer for all user accounts, period? Including if I make a new account tomorrow? Do I need to go in and remember to log into someones account every time I make a new one, and then disable it for each account from within Firefox?

This is pure bullshit and exactly what I'd expect from Microsoft.

Spaz down, Sparky

[Benfea]

While I have my criticisms of Microsoft, I'm hardly a basher. Despite having lots of familiarity with Macs and a tiny bit of familiarity with LINUX, I use Microsoft operating systems exclusively.

Two things are worth mentioning here. One is that practically any palooka can show up and start one of these threads. Someone probably saw the article in the WP (or an article about the article in WP) and started a thread without doing research and finding out that this is actually an old issue, an issue that was already mentioned back in February on this site, and that Microsoft had issued a fix a month ago. Bone-headed posts happen a lot around here. That doesn't make these threads part of a sinister conspiracy against Microsoft.

The other thing worth mentioning is that frankly, this is worth mentioning again. While the disabled uninstall button was obnoxious, to me the greater wrong here was sneaking in an extension to a competitor's browser through an automatic OS update without informing the user.

Re:Spaz down, Sparky

[beckerist]

You're right. Nowhere among the Additional Resources pages (kb or readme) do they mention Firefox. On their own MSDN page it's even tagged as malware!!!

I didn't even realize it was in my addons list until I just checked...right now.

Re:Spaz down, Sparky

[Anonymous Coward]

The tags on MSDN are user-contributed.

Re:Spaz down, Sparky

[mysidia]

However, accurate... but someone over there must be paying attention, as those tags have mysteriously disappeared...

But what's the difference?

[tepples]

but could someone please clarify the "difficult to remove" bit? I "removed" it by going into "add-ons" and clicking "disable". Problem solved as far as I'm concerned.....

Simple: disable != remove

What is the significant practical difference between an add-on that doesn't get loaded because it's disabled and an add-on that doesn't get loaded because it's removed?

Re:But what's the difference?

[Fujisawa Sensei]

but could someone please clarify the "difficult to remove" bit? I "removed" it by going into "add-ons" and clicking "disable". Problem solved as far as I'm concerned.....

Simple: disable != remove

What is the significant practical difference between an add-on that doesn't get loaded because it's disabled and an add-on that doesn't get loaded because it's removed?

Its trivial to re-enable something if its only disabled.

Re:But what's the difference?

[morpheus800e]

Its trivial to re-enable something if its only disabled.

Clearly it was trivial to install in the first place.

Re:But what's the difference?

[Jake Griffin]

Hard drive space? Boot up time? Are these negligible? Probably. But install every add-on ever made for Firefox and "disable" them all and I'm sure you'll notice a huge difference.

Re:But what's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its trivial to re-enable something if its only disabled.

Clearly it was trivial to install in the first place.

There in lies the problem.

Firefox is popular

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox is definitely popular if such an extension is made available in a system update!

your computer, not your decision

[Anonymous Coward]

The moment you decided to install Windows you decided to trust Microsoft. You decided to trust them to do what is good for you, you decided to rely on there judgment.
Past experience should have warned you. Don't complain now.

Nitpick

[the_other_chewey]

It's Firefox, not FireFox.

That's what bugs me.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

And you must enable it in order to uninstall it.

That's what bugs me the most.

If some other operation installed malware on your machine then said it would uninstall cleanly if you just TURNED IT ON and ASKED IT, would YOU believe them? Would you enable it just to turn on the uninstall button?

I sure wouldn't. Whether it was (or claimed to be) from Sony, Microsoft, 3FN, or Linus himself. Why the HELL should I enable malware that actually IS from a company that considers Firefox to be a major competing product line and has repeatedly sabotaged it in the past? ...

And you can bet that, even if Microsoft's malware uninstalls itself cleanly, the next generation of black-hat malware will include plugins that MASQUERADE as later versions of this thing...

Re:That's what bugs me.

[adolf]

Is it malware?

What is its nefarious and maligned function? Does it make your computer crash? Does it open up a fleet of popups upon login? Does it spread like the plague via any available means? Does it turn your machine into a wayward botnet zombie?

No? Then, please: Why is it malware? (And, no, "It's malware because I don't have a use for it" isn't good enough.)

Re:That's what bugs me.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Is it malware?

Just as "weed" incluses any plant that's growing in a place where you don't want a plant of that type to grow, "malware" includes any software that is installed without your permission.

What is its nefarious and maligned function? Does it [a], [b], [c], [d]?

For starters it bloats your Firefox instalation. Beyone that, it's proprietary. That means WE DON'T KNOW what, if anything, it does.

But it does one or more of these:
  - Nothing. (No bets on that.)
  - Something we want done (in which case we'd have done it voluntarily - either with some other tool of our choice or by CHOSING to install this one).
  - Something we DON'T want done. (Open security holes, collect data, etc.)

So it fits my definitions of malware and likely yours as well. But I doubt anyone will be able to convince you of that, short of a security expert spending a couple months taking it apart and demonstrating the problems. And probably not even then.

Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Whiny Open-source posers are bitches, and will never be happy so ignore them as they'd rather flame you than do anything.

pivotal point - do YOU trust microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

I will follow your preference for a few days and NOT hold you responsible for the consequences.
Now tell me, do *you* personally trust Microsoft?

This should probably be a slashpoll too.

Wrong.

[Xest]

No, people clicking things they shouldn't and not being behind a firewall is the reason we have botnets.

If your machine is NAT'd or you're behind a specific firewall and you do not use any vulnerable outgoing applications (i.e. you browse with Firefox and don't have Javascript enabled for sites that cannot be trusted) and you use an e-mail client that is secure and do not open random attachments or files sent to you on memory sticks then there is no reason you should get infected no matter how out of date you are on Windows updates.

Even if you're fully uptodate on Windows updates as many people are if they go to a site with some Javascript exploit that isn't patched or they open an e-mail attachment you're still going to end up with botnets.

There are ever less and less people in the world connecting to the internet directly such that vulnerable Windows services needing to be patched are the main attack vector. Most people are NAT'd through a router that prevents direct connection to their machine nowadays. Dodgy e-mail attachments and dodgy websites/downloads are almost certainly the primary attack vector for trojans nowadays.

Re:Wrong.

[mysidia]

And then you go to a site with a link to a rootkitted PDF exploit and it's all moot.

Also, software on your system doesn't exist on its own -- all that vulnerable unpatched software is there waiting for an attacker to figure out some way of getting you to invoke it.

Often the security bugs may be in a DLL that doesn't just effect one program, but can effect many programs, e.g. the GIF/JPEG/PNG exploits.

Even Firefox/Thunderbird may be vulnerable as a result in a bug in a system DLL.

For the software you use to be reasonably secure, every component that interacts with untrusted data needs to be fully updated at all times.

On a windows machine, you'd be surprised how many outside apps a website can make Firefox interact with.

Things like telnet URLs, embedded office documents, PDFs, SVGs, DOCX/PPT/XLS/DMG/AVI/SWF/FLV/MP3/WAV/JPG/PNG/TIFF/DJVU/MPG/OGG/ISO/TORRENT, and all sorts of various sorts of content come to mind.

This was the final-final straw for me

[blankoboy]

Very long time Windows user here. WGA was the first final straw for me but I let it slide for several years....but now with this stunt it has really pushed me over the edge. I have already switched my wife over by purchasing her a Mac Mini. I will be following suit in the next week. Really Microsoft, if wanted me to switch so badly all you had to do was ask. Your wish is my command. Thanks for the memories though.

Re:This was the final-final straw for me

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're replacing Microsoft with another company that worse at cramming things down your throat? Yeah, good job there.

slashdot is negative to microsoft

[akayani]

Slashdot is negative to Microsoft...

What a load of crap! Slashdot is totally neutral to all things. We posters are cynical on all issues. We are every bit as cynical about Apple and Linux.

Should MS have done this? Totally NOT. I had to bugger about for a week and finally to reinstall Windows to get .crap to load. I suspect because I had used the FX beta (and that was after I used the special removal tool buried in MS TechNet that is best found using Google). I couldn't update Silverlight or install Visual Studio. I've managed to keep my original install of XP running despite having updated the hardware at every level 3+ times in those ~7 years until .crap came along. .crap is the worst MS software install I have ever experienced. It has the feeling of 'we will force you to Vista' written all over it. There are issues with ATI use of .crap in CCC that I still haven't been able to resolve. CCC worked fine here until .crap was updated. ATI couldn't careless about fixing CCC for users on AGP cards and simply reverted to 'not supported' as a 'don't give a stuff' (DGS) solution.

Solutions I tried showed that only way to get .crap installed was to strip every part of it from the system and then reload each module in order. MS have never provided a single (one package) that manages to deal with .crap as a collective.

If the question was asked "Do you want .crap to invade your install of Firefox 3, 3.5 and Minefield?" clearly the answer here would have been "bugger off".

In fact the 'question' if it were honestly put would have been...

"Would you like to install MS .crap into your standards compliant browser and assist Microsoft to break the web with technologies that extend the web services to Microsoft only clients like we did with JScript and every other opportunity we can find to cause the web to be fragmented into the has windows and has nots and potentially open a security hole with source code that can't be reviewed by the Mozilla team that may or may not destabilize your Firefox browser and slow down start up times?

With [YES] & [FUCK NO RACK OFF]

Clearly 99.9% of sane people who understand are going to choose the 'rack off' option.

It's an underhanded attempt to break the web. Nothing more and nothing less. That people here are a tad pissed about it... really I think the reaction to this has been too mild.

The best thing for the web is the removal of Microsoft at the front and backends. We already have the pain in the arse drifting standards of IE to deal with. The CSS, JavaScript and XMLRequest differences.

What's needed is a class action by Web Designers to recover the time required to write Conditional Comments from Microsoft. Why should I or my clients pay for Microsoft browser war. And we should have a class action support by Mozilla for the time it takes to remove this from Mozilla products and have that cash given to the Mozilla Foundation.

If putting .crap into Firefox was necessary it should have been done in the open and discussed in the development forum at Mozilla. There is absolutely no excuse for this, it is a deliberate act to extend the browser wars to break the web with technologies that are not required and are specific to the Windows platform.

The comments in Slashdot, rather than being 'anti-Microsoft' haven't gone anywhere near far enough. Was it discussed in the Mozilla forum? I'll go look today but I seriously doubt it. Surely we would have heard the screaming.

It breaks security, the Firefox distribution model, the universal web and software etiquette.

Dyslectics of the world: untie!

[Anonymous Coward]

How do I capitalize Firefox? How do I abbreviate it?
 
Only the first letter is capitalized (so it's Firefox, not FireFox.) The preferred abbreviation is "Fx" or "fx".

That's not a real fix

[cheros]

The "fix" as they call it only disables the MS plug-in for the current user who runs it. The install is system wide, so the only approach that really rips it out is the one that has been detailed in various places, hacking the register and than zapping the file from the system.

It's again complete BS, not "we're sorry we didn't ask, let's undo the damage", but "we're sorry you noticed, here's something that makes it look differently".

You can trust these guys even less than a UK MP with an expense account.

Mozilla Forum Says...

[akayani]

"Locking -- Details of how to remove the add-on have been shown in previous posts. Discussions on whether the merits of Microsoft doing this are outside the remit of this support forum."

I wonder how Adobe would react if this was done to Acrobat. Or .net got access to Flash to say collect stats that might benefit Silverlight. Or just injected features of Silverlight into Flash.

I'd like to see someone do some hard tests on this, seriously FF seems slow to start with it enabled and stability has been improved since it was removed. I'd like to know if this was just imaginary.

didn't work for me

[FordPrefect276709]

I never got that FF extension - what did I do wrong?? - I feel so left out.... ;(

Re:Are you kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderated troll because:

– "f**king idiots". If you're going to insult, quit half-assing it. We can say "fucking" here.
– I install lots of stuff without examining the source code. Does that give them free reign to deliberately fuck stuff up?
– I do not want, and never have wanted, to use .NET with my web browser. In fact, most people probably don't.
– Learn to capitalise Firefox correctly, dammit.

PS: You're a fucking idiot. (captcha: "classify")