Mozilla Unblocks Microsoft's .NET Addon

Microsoft's updated advisory by lseltzer · 2009-10-19 00:48 · Score: 5, Informative

FAQ for HTML Component Handling Vulnerability - CVE-2009-2529

If I use Firefox, which Internet Explorer update do I need to
install?
If a computer system is configured for Automatic Update, the
correct update will be downloaded and made available for installation depending
on the Automatic Update configuration. In the event that a computer system is
not configured for Automatic Update, users should verify which version of the
Windows operating system and Internet Explorer is on their system and download
the appropriate update.

If I install this security update, do I need to disable the Windows
Presentation Foundation Plug-in in Firefox to be protected from this
vulnerability?
No. Customers who have installed the security updates
associated with this security bulletin are protected from this
vulnerability.

If I have not yet applied this security update, how do I disable the
Windows Presentation Foundation plug-in in Firefox?
If you have not yet
applied this update, you can disable the Windows Presentation Foundation plug-in
in Firefox to block this vulnerability. To do this, launch the Firefox browser,
select the Tools pull-down menu, and then click Add-ons. Select
the Plugins icon at the top of the Add-ons window. In the list of
Plugins, select Windows Presentation Foundation 3.5.30729.1 and click
Disable.

If I uninstall the .NET Framework Assistant extension, does it disable or
remove the Windows Presentation Foundation plug-in?
If the .NET
Framework Assistant extension is uninstalled it does not disable or remove the
Windows Presentation Foundation plug-in. The .NET Framework Assistant and
Windows Presentation Foundation plug-in are controlled through different screens
in the Firefox Add-ons management window.

Re:Microsoft's updated advisory by Stray7Xi · 2009-10-19 02:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Somebody has to file a bug against FireFox that plugins/add-ons are even allowed to prevent user from disabling them.
There's a name for programs that prevent the OS from modifying their files, rootkits. Firefox is not a rootkit. Microsoft update installed the plugin by modifying the filesystem, it didn't use firefox API's.
If you don't trust microsoft update, frankly you shouldn't be using windows.
Re:Microsoft's updated advisory by kantos · 2009-10-19 02:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

That too has been a focus of this whole fiasco, the fact that the plug-in exists isn't a problem, nor is the functionality it provides, which is critical to many enterprise FF users. The core of the whole thing and what has pissed most people off on both sides is that both MS and Mozilla took action without customer consent, effectively choosing for us. First MS for installing it, then Mozilla for disabling it. The resounding consensus has been: "Could you at least ask first?" By acting without consent both Microsoft and Mozilla have shown that they don't think their users can make an informed consenting decision about how they wish to use their browsers. Such an action is disrespectful and disgraceful of both parties. Microsoft should know better having been burned before, and Mozilla because such an action is against the core principles on which Firefox was marketed.

--
Any and all content posted above may be ignored, considered irrelevant, or otherwise dismissed.
Re:Microsoft's updated advisory by TJamieson · 2009-10-19 03:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

Nope.

If I use Firefox, which Internet Explorer update do I need to install?
Replace Firefox with Honda Civic and Internet Explorer with Ford Focus.

"If I use Honda Civic, which Ford Focus update do I need [to install]?"

--
For the last time, PIN Number and ATM Machine are redundancies!
Re:Microsoft's updated advisory by IntlHarvester · 2009-10-19 03:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

Somebody has to file a bug against FireFox that plugins/add-ons are even allowed to prevent user from disabling them.
This whole scandal brings up an interesting point. For "Plug-ins", Firefox has no obvious way to disable the feature. However, because MS's stuff was an "Add-on", people are angry there isn't a one-click UI. (The difference between the two is some technical nonsense which is of no interest to the end user.)
So the moral of the story is if you want to make it hard to uninstall, write a plug-in (like Apple/Adobe) and not an add-on.
Anyway, if anyone knows of an easy way to permanently disable Apple's crappy QuickTime plugin, please let me know. I'm sick of rooting it out every time iTunes has an update.

--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Re:Microsoft's updated advisory by Khyber · 2009-10-19 08:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

Microsoft installed it without asking, without me even knowing.
They modified a third-party software installation without my permission.
The third-party software maker was within perfect rights to put a stop to that bullshit. They even notified you about it. That's damned good service.
However, through that very same system I see something that could have the potential for severe exploit.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Re:Microsoft's updated advisory by Thinboy00 · 2009-10-19 09:17 · Score: 2, Informative

The was dome debate on Mozillazine and probably a bug or two submitted to create a proper UI for this stuff and have a way of blocking new plugins, but the devs seem to be ignoring it for now. The have made a schoolboy error here - trying to blacklist all "bad" plugins instead of just having a UI and allowing the user to whitelist plugins as they see fit.
According to the (very long!) discussion on the bug in question, Mozilla is working on such a UI.

--
$ make available

Question is... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-19 00:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Will they allow users to uninstall it normally at any point?

Re:Question is... by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-10-19 03:38 · Score: 2, Informative

Will they allow users to uninstall it normally at any point?
Uninstall has been enabled for several months now. There had been a /. story about that
Re:Question is... by Blakey+Rat · 2009-10-19 04:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

That was fixed ages ago. How did this get modded up?

--
Comment of the year

In related news by tokul · 2009-10-19 00:51 · Score: 2, Funny

Enterprise users are working on removing those f##ked up plugins completely.

Still can't uninstall? by dschuetz · 2009-10-19 00:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

Mozilla should block the plugin simply on the grounds that a user can't uninstall it from within the approved Mozilla add-ons panel. That should be the case for any plugin that doesn't play by the rules, no matter who it's from or what its use is.

If I can't delete it, it's malware. Oh, wait, I *can* delete it, if I google for some crazy instructions that involve registry editing? Isn't that how I delete malware?

Re:Still can't uninstall? by sakdoctor · 2009-10-19 01:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

'Ubuntu firefox modifications' plugin also can't be deleted from within firefox.
I'm not arguing for or against your proposal, just that it would need to be consistently applied.
Re:Still can't uninstall? by Jimmy_Slimmy · 2009-10-19 01:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

Parent says it all.
Just because Mozilla caves, do not shut up. Make MicroSloth play by the rules.
Please: Post how to make Microsloth get out of my Firefox.
Mod parent up.
Re:Still can't uninstall? by xigxag · 2009-10-19 01:18 · Score: 4, Informative

Oh come on. As anyone who's following this story is aware, Mozilla has an "approved" method of installing plugins without using the add-ons panel. So pick your bone with them.

--
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Re:Still can't uninstall? by aetherworld · 2009-10-19 01:25 · Score: 5, Informative

Is this a failed attempt at trolling?
It's a PLUGIN, not an ADD-ON. There is no way to uninstall ANY Plugins in Firefox. You can disable Add-Ons, you can uninstall Add-Ons and you can disable Plugins. But you cannot uninstall Plugins from within Firefox. Firefox simply loads all files in a specific Internet Plugins folder (not a Firefox-only plugin folder) and if it detects a plugin, it uses it.
Delete the file and you're good to go.
Re:Still can't uninstall? by sosume · 2009-10-19 01:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

> If I can't delete it, it's malware.
It's a component of your OS. Whether it's crucial to you is an entirely different discussion - if you want your OS to be as bare as possible, Windows is not for you. MS has decided that it is needed on every system so they can make certain assumptions on system usage and updates. Would you like to be able to delete, say, your kernel executable? Is that malware too?
Re:Still can't uninstall? by SanityInAnarchy · 2009-10-19 01:36 · Score: 4, Informative

It can, however, be removed via the package manager.
Can the .NET addon be removed at all, without hacking the registry?
No, using the package manager is not even remotely comparable to hacking the registry.

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Re:Still can't uninstall? by CNeb96 · 2009-10-19 01:57 · Score: 2, Informative

I can't comment on MS's plugin because I don't know how it works, but Firefox does support extensions which are not displayed to the user. If they are installed in locations besides the profile directory (ie are not a normal extension a user chooses to install). I don't think Mozilla's policy is quite that clear cut about when you should or shouldn't make something viewable by the user.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Install_Manifests#hidden
"hidden
Firefox 1.0 - 3.5 A boolean value that when true makes the add-on not show up in the add-ons list, provided the add-on is installed in a restricted access area (so it does not work for add-ons installed in the profile). This is for bundling integration hooks to larger applications where having an entry in the Extensions list does not make sense."
Re:Still can't uninstall? by Arancaytar · 2009-10-19 02:36 · Score: 2, Informative

Note that that one's bundled with the Launchpad package. I downloaded the binaries directly from Mozilla to get the Minefield trunk, and I see no Ubuntu addon listed in there.
In this case, MS added the plugin to the self-installed version of Firefox, not a version of Firefox they distributed (not that they'd likely be able to cut a branding agreement the way Ubuntu did, so MS would have to distribute it under a different name).
Re:Still can't uninstall? by bendodge · 2009-10-19 03:54 · Score: 3, Informative

Actually, the most recent version (not sure of the number) has the normal Uninstall button enabled, and overall it seems to be behaving pretty well.

--
The government can't save you.
Re:Still can't uninstall? by CSMatt · 2009-10-19 05:02 · Score: 2, Informative

Plugins are add-ons in the Mozilla universe. The term "add-on" is used by Mozilla to mean extensions, themes, and plugins. Saying "plugin" instead is merely being more specific as to what type of add-on is being discussed.
Re:Still can't uninstall? by Thinboy00 · 2009-10-19 09:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

Perhaps not "as bad as the registry hell", but I would still prefer if Firefox blocked both of them until they were deletable like all other addons. I mean, have some backbone mozilla, if people don't do things properly, give them a nice big "FAIL" and send them on their merry way.
Given that the Ubuntu addon is installed system-wide and has root:root owner (as a result of being installed via APT), how, exactly, would you go about enabling the button when the user in question may or may not have root privileges?

--
$ make available
Re:Still can't uninstall? by Thinboy00 · 2009-10-19 09:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

This might surprise you, but a lot of people use the net for more than :-
Watching the latest lolcat video - check
Browsing their mail for the latest penis enlargement offer - check
Posting uninformed comments to Slashdot - check
Point taken ?
What specific, popular website (other than *.microsoft.com) is nonfunctional or seriously crippled without ClickOnce?

--
$ make available
Re:Still can't uninstall? by Jimmy_Slimmy · 2009-10-20 05:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

The point is, choice. They can make it available, but let me take it out. And do not sneak it in.
Doesn't this seem reasonable?
I think their support is fine. The strong-arming, I can do without.

Isn't this a good thing? by BarMonger · 2009-10-19 00:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

Now I'll admit that there are only a few posts above mine, but already they are generally negative. Which I don't get.
Isn't this a good thing?

Microsoft releases a couple of Firefox plug-ins.
A security vulnerability was discovered in the plug-ins.
Mozilla disables the plug-ins.
Microsoft and Mozilla has a talk about the the vulnerability and it appears that one of the plug-ins aren't vulnerable.
The plug-in is re-enabled.

As far as I can tell, this is the system working properly.

Re:Isn't this a good thing? by lunatic1969 · 2009-10-19 01:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

The system isn't working perfectly. Mozilla is taking Microsoft's word that these plugins, which install in their software without notice, don't have any vulnerabilities and are working just fine. Microsoft's plugins should be required to behave as every other responsible plugin. It shouldn't install with stealth, there should be a way to easily disable, and there should be a way to easily uninstall.
Re:Isn't this a good thing? by Culture20 · 2009-10-19 01:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

Now I'll admit that there are only a few posts above mine, but already they are generally negative. Which I don't get. Isn't this a good thing?

Microsoft releases a couple of Firefox plug-ins.
A security vulnerability was discovered in the plug-ins.
Mozilla disables the plug-ins.
Microsoft and Mozilla has a talk about the the vulnerability and it appears that one of the plug-ins aren't vulnerable.
The plug-in is re-enabled.

As far as I can tell, this is the system working properly.

I bolded two things I don't agree with. You skipped an important statement: Microsoft forcibly installed said plug-in, and prevented its removal.
Re:Isn't this a good thing? by BarMonger · 2009-10-19 01:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

Mozilla is taking Microsoft's word that these plugins, which install in their software without notice, don't have any vulnerabilities and are working just fine.
Just like every other plugin on the market. Apparently the .Net plug-in isn't vulnerable, the WPF one is.
I know we like to bash Microsoft here, but the plug-in safety process (in FF) seems to work fine.
How do you know that there aren't unknown vulnerabilities in another plug-in somewhere?

Microsoft's plugins should be required to behave as every other responsible plugin. It shouldn't install with stealth, there should be a way to easily disable, and there should be a way to easily uninstall.
You disable it by going to Tools > Add-ons > .Net plugin -> click either 'Disable' or 'Uninstall'
I works fine for me, I just uninstalled the plugin.
And Microsoft aren't the only ones who install by stealth. I don't remember installing Nokias 'PC Sync2 synchronisation' extension. It just installed itself with some other software.
Re:Isn't this a good thing? by plague3106 · 2009-10-19 01:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

That, plus you have to remember that this plugin was being installed without user's knowledge in the first place.
You mean just like dozens of other plugins?
Re:Isn't this a good thing? by Rary · 2009-10-19 01:51 · Score: 4, Informative

Microsoft forcibly installed said plug-in, and prevented its removal.
The first statement is debatable, since the plugin is a part of the .NET Framework, and people can choose not to install the .NET Framework — although I realize newer versions of Windows have it preinstalled, so there's less of a choice there, which is why I say it's debatable.
However, the second statement is just wrong. It's not Microsoft who prevented removal of the plugin, it's Mozilla. Firefox does not provide a mechanism for removing any plugins.

--
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
Re:Isn't this a good thing? by mcgrew · 2009-10-19 02:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

And Microsoft aren't the only ones who install by stealth.
Bonnie and Clyde weren't the only ones to rob banks, either. So does that mak bank robbery OK? The former head of NASDAQ ran a Ponsi scheme for decades, does that make fraud ok? Personally, if I find a vendor doing any kind of stealth installation, I no longer use that vendor's wares. That's why I no longer buy anything with Sony's name on it, and why I'm running Linux at home. As well as why I won't deal with a host of other vendors.
Too bad there are seven billion people on the planet, that allows vendors to completeley dismiss intelligent potential customers. It's sad.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Isn't this a good thing? by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-10-19 03:49 · Score: 2, Informative

Except Java and Acrobat ask me if I want to install Firefox plugins during install.
Except they do not.
In fact, Java, at least, also does a system-wide plugin install, meaning that it cannot be uninstalled from Firefox extension manager; not sure about Adobe Reader, but I think it does that too.

MS hand wave by kaaposc · 2009-10-19 00:59 · Score: 5, Funny

Mozilla: Do you have any identification?
Microsoft: *waving hand* We do not need any identification.
Mozilla: You do not need any identification.

Re:Imagine if the situation were reversed by Shadow+of+Eternity · 2009-10-19 01:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

Because of course blocking a program the user chose to install is completely comparable to a program the user chose to install blocking a plugin they didn't choose to install or even knew had installed and was just as difficult to get rid of as most malware.

--
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."

Re:Why not click "Enable"? by LordKronos · 2009-10-19 01:10 · Score: 3, Funny

Would you be referring to the "Enable" button that is greyed out? Click on it as much as you like, but it's not doing anything.

Why is not Microsoft playing by the same rules? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2009-10-19 01:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why would Microsoft submit its extension to Mozilla and follow the standard operating procedures as far as the dot net thingie is concerned? The user base and use cases for Mozilla/Firefox has always been, you get extensions from one authorized source. That is mozilla.org. If Microsoft wants an enabler they should just submit it to mozilla.org. Installing it in stealth mode is not expected from mozilla user base.

Further, why is Mozilla.org is allowing a mode where any Tom Dick or Harry can drop in a bunch of files in the install directory and suddenly all the users get the extension on by default? Since it is in the instal dir, individual users cant even disable them or uninstall them. The existence of such a mode itself is a big security hole. If IE has a hole and allows a drive by download of a file into Firefox install dir, boom, you get a vulnerability in Firefox. Already there are reports that installing an HP printer gives and unwanted, unasked for and unpermitted extension added to Firefox. Now every software you install is going to want to add a tool bar or an extension to Firefox.

I wish Firefox will just disallow such a way of installing extensions. The cardinal rule, as for as Firefox is concerned, is that the users rule. They control their browser, they decide which extensions are allowed, which scripts are allowed to run, which user agent string is sent out, whether or not to allow java, applet, or javascript or flash or silverlight or whatever. For corporate deployment, the Mozilla team might allow a script based instal on all machines in a corporate network using proper authentication procedures, like Corportate IT dept has local sysadmin privilege, so they come in and install an extension, and even disable its uninstall option, but that is all done outside the browser using the standard corporate deployment procedures. Allowing anyone to dump cruft in a particular folder and suddenly everybody gets the cruft is totally against the expectations of the standard mozilla firefox user.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact

Re:Why is not Microsoft playing by the same rules? by LordKronos · 2009-10-19 02:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

How exactly do you propose to stop a process from doing so when it is running outside the scope of firefox? Whatever files Firefox updates to indicate an extension has been installed can also be modified by an outside process. Want to make the file digitally signed? Well, Firefox has to get the signing key from somewhere, but then the other app could just go and get it from the same place. Want to move stuff like this off the local system and have it stored in some network repository...well, no, almost nobody is going to want this, but even if they did it wouldn't matter since the other app could just contact the repository pretending to be firefox.
You see, you run into the same problem you run into with any other sort of malware. The only way to stop it is to have a process loaded beforehand at a higher privilege level than it. That's what virus scanners do, but I don't think it's the sort of thing firefox should be doing (otherwise, why shouldn't every single application have it's own monitoring process to handle this sort of thing).

Re:Imagine if the situation were reversed by noundi · 2009-10-19 01:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

If Microsoft were to "block" Firefox from running due a security vulnerability it had, the sheer level of rage released from Slashdot would probably be enough to melt monitors on the other side of the world.

If you're going to draw parallels, at least learn to do it properly. If Mozilla would sneak in a plugin inside IE when you're doing something which you assume should not indulge in that behaviour, say e.g. updating Firefox, upon which Microsoft blocks this snuck piece of software, nobody in their right mind would say a thing. But yes, in your example, which is incorrect and irrelevant, people would -- and they would because they would be completely right in doing so, just like people are now with the .NET plugin which doesn't uninstall. Your kindergarden rhetorics won't work here drsmithy, if that is your real name.

--
I am the lawn!

Why is everyone targeting MS on here? by tgd · 2009-10-19 01:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

Seriously -- I have FAR more of an issue with Firefox disabling a plugin *that I want there* and not providing a way to re-enable it (or at least any obvious way).

Microsoft may choose to say that Firefox integration is part of the .NET framework, and if I choose to have a problem with it, I can uninstall it. But where does the Mozilla organization get off disabling an extension I have, and may be using, without any ability to opt out?

The double standard on this would be funny if people weren't so serious about it.

Re:Why is everyone targeting MS on here? by TypoNAM · 2009-10-19 02:46 · Score: 3, Informative

Simply enter the address 'about:config' and then do a search for blocklist.
There, you'll see a setting called 'extensions.blocklist.enabled'. Set it to False if you don't want Mozilla to decide what plugins/add-ons you shouldn't use. Restart Firefox after making changes to take effect.
Sure it isn't obvious for majority of users, but then again on Windows it isn't obvious what registry entries to hack in order resolve issues either. Firefox does have its own (evil?) registry too.

--
This space is not for rent.

Re:.NET comes preinstalled by Malc · 2009-10-19 01:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

What, you're not like all the other /.ers who are using XP or Windows 2000?

Seriously though, this thing is being blown out of proportion. /.ers are in a minority. Firefox is a main stream browser (through choice), and most people don't care for these political shenanigans, and just want it to behave properly (no global blocking of a standard part of the Windows experience).

WTF is the summary saying? by Nexus7 · 2009-10-19 01:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

First the summary says Mozilla have unblocked the ".Net Assistant" add-on. Then it says Mozilla is working on a way to block a "Windows Presentation Framework" add-on _AS WELL_. As well (meaning "in addition to") what? The first item mentioned was unblocked, not blocked. Typo, or incorrect sentence construction, or what? It's 2 lines, can't we get it right?

Or is this a way to make readers RTFA?

Mike Shaver by socsoc · 2009-10-19 01:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Didn't Mike Shaver spend hours yesterday defending FF's stance in the original article? Now they've backtracked from blocking an already patched vulnerability, but he's still sleeping! We require your insight!

Re:.NET comes preinstalled by poetmatt · 2009-10-19 02:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

slashdotters represent the crowd that companies like MS would like to deny when it is convenient to them.

They represent a group that enterprise and abusive corporations basically try to ignore/minimize to make them sound irrelevant.

Basically, the informed consumer. This is every abusive enterprise's nightmare.

The real FAQ (Frequently Asked Question... by jkrise · 2009-10-19 02:06 · Score: 3, Informative

Why did it take 7 long months for Microsoft to issue this patch? Fixes using Registry hacking were available on theweb immediately then...

--
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....

Re:The real FAQ (Frequently Asked Question... by rvw · 2009-10-19 02:15 · Score: 3, Funny

Why did it take 7 long months for Microsoft to issue this patch? Fixes using Registry hacking were available on theweb immediately then...
7 is the answer!
Re:The real FAQ (Frequently Asked Question... by RawJoe · 2009-10-19 04:47 · Score: 2, Funny

I thought it was 42

--
?

Re:Shit! by Culture20 · 2009-10-19 02:10 · Score: 4, Informative

Host your own blocklist and point extensions.blocklist.url to it. Or locally: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Blocklist.xml

Not really by pizzach · 2009-10-19 03:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

That flies in the face of the difference in expectations.

When Windows users install Firefox, they get it by going to the Mozilla Firefox corporate homepage, not the Microsoft homepage.
The program is not included with Windows.
Windows does not have it in an application repository.
MS does not take care of security updates for their "distribution".
You do not download Firefox from MS servers at any point or time.

--
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.

You don't know what you're talking about by ClosedSource · 2009-10-19 03:35 · Score: 2, Informative

"MS forced everybody to adopt it by simply dropping support for all other development technologies."

No. You can still use the Win32 API, MFC, ATL, WMI, vbscript, jscript etc.

Re:You don't know what you're talking about by AmiMoJo · 2009-10-19 05:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

"No. You can still use the Win32 API, MFC, ATL, WMI, vbscript, jscript etc."
They go pretty far out of their way to make your life difficult if you do though.
All the current developer tools are targeted towards .NET and newer technologies. That includes things like the shiny new interface elements they introduced with Vista, as well as stuff like the new (hardware accelerated) video decoding/rendering system or the re-designed taskbar in Windows 7. From Vista onwards anything that boils down to Win32 APIs for GUI stuff no longer gets hardware accelerated drawing either.
So yeah, in theory you can still use all those old technologies, but it's an uphill struggle. To be fair most systems are like that - imagine trying to create a modern website in just HTML 3.2 and CGI. You could do it and it might even be faster and less bloated than CSS, PHP and SQL, but you would probably fail and end up with a website that looks like it's from 1995.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

Re:.NET comes preinstalled by sakdoctor · 2009-10-19 03:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

The most annoying thing on the internet by far, is the shenanigans of "internet tough guys"

Re:Yes!! by Fallen+Seraph · 2009-10-19 05:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

When you download Firefox on Windows, you're downloading it from Mozilla. When you download Firefox in Ubuntu via apt, by default, you're downloading it from Canonical, which struck a deal with Mozilla to package their plugins with it and redistribute it. If you don't want them, you can uninstall firefox and reinstall it from Mozilla's repo, or just uninstall the plugins directly from apt. With Windows, Microsoft installs their plugin into the user installed installation of Firefox without asking permission or following the API. That's the difference. Neither of them has the right to install anything into a user install of Firefox from Mozilla, but Microsoft didn't care. The point is that there AREN'T different standards for Canonical and Microsoft.

Slashdot Mirror

Mozilla Unblocks Microsoft's .NET Addon

54 of 275 comments (clear)