Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Hides Firefox Extension In Toolbar Update
Jan writes "As part of its regular Patch Tuesday, Microsoft released an update for its various toolbars, and this update came with more than just documented fixes. The update also installs an add-on for Internet Explorer and an extension for Mozilla Firefox, both without the user's permission."
MS stop acting like spyware....
I like your products, Microsoft...but I still abhor your business practices.
Kinda like Sony, Apple, etc...
Living With a Nerd
Didn't they do this before with a .net update?
Microsoft needs to just go ahead and buy out Mozilla.
Loading...
I'm pretty sure this was done at least once before sometime in May in 2009. I was managing a conference and a "debate" about MS doing this broke out because supposedly if you tried to disable the plug-in Firefox would break. If I can find a reference to this I'll post it.
Old news is so exciting!
Is it old news, or did MS decide that since only "Firefox geeks" complained about it last time that it's open season to add Firefox extensions without asking?
Microsoft hides extension in awkward zipper malfunction.
(Sorry, it's one of those mornings)
Why the hell hasn't Mozilla made it easy to remove plugins from Firefox? You have to Google solutions to find out how to remove Microsoft (and in some cases old Java) shit.
Well Chrome does all kinds of evil, it is just better at hiding it.
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
Disclaimer: This is only my opinion, nothing more.
It's the same problem I have with Apple keeping people locked into the Appstore. It's not that the action itself is a big deal, it's the fact that they are actually doing it that's the problem. The consequences of that action is irrelevant; the action itself is bad.
Living With a Nerd
No. From TFA:
On one of our Windows systems, we had the Windows Live Toolbar installed for Internet Explorer but not for Firefox. Nevertheless, installing this update added the add-on/extension to both browsers without telling us that it would do so. On our second system, we had the Bing Bar installed for Internet Explorer, but it was disabled. Firefox was not installed. This system already had the update in question, so we decided to install Firefox. Not only was the Bing Bar extension present upon Firefox's first launch, but so was the Search Helper Extension.
The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only fools would take it as fact.
Yeah not really much of an issue in my book seeing as I don't have any type of search toolbar installed in any of my browsers (Iron, IE, FF.) Consequently I didn't get some "unwanted sekrit mystery update" when I installed updates Tuesday.
pretty sure that means you're not using a legally authorized version of windows, since you were not leagally able to authorize the installation due to not being able to sign the licensing agreement.
Except even if the toolbar is disabled it still installs and enables the toolbar in Firefox. It also auto-enables the toolbar upon a new installation of Firefox if Firefox was not previously installed.
no evil? how about deliberatly holding back on the browser hooks and infrastructure to allow for comprehensive robust adblock/scriptblock/etc ad-ons, due to such things being completely against their business model that is based on supplying advertisements?
I suppose that's not "evil", bit it is a pretty damn big roadblock to me adopting chrome over FF.
My friend and I played a drinking game to /. once. One person clicks on a story involving Microsoft or Apple or Linux or polotics and the other person has to take a drink for every bullsh*t post about "M$" or Apple's App Store or Android FTW and everything else completely unrelated to what the actual post is about. Let me just say, don't attempt this in the morning...
:)
ps. Slashdot community, I love you all but some days you make me pull my hair out.
I don't have no steenking Bing searchbar in my Firefox browser (no searchbars at all, in fact). The new extension did NOT show up in my Firefox addons, although I received my Windows updates yesterday.
So I'm not affected directly. But, as many others have said, I do NOT appreciate Microsoft changing ANYTHING in my computer without my specific, informed permission. Okay, they can change their own OS if necessary (since they usually accept responsibility for disasters that occur). But leave MY programs the hell alone!
You could if you weren't a minor.
But you are so you can't.
A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
A textbook example of what our anti-trust laws are supposed to address a company using it's monopoly in one market (OS) to trying and gain an advantage in another market (search).
Sigh...
I have two windows, a netbook with windows 7, and a XP, and the general malpractices of the software that this OS use is really anoying. Stuff like the printer driver creates a resident program (HP something) on the toolbar. Other applications after running only once, set itself to start at restart. WTF LOL!?. How is that possible? a OS sould ask user permission with something like sudo for setting apps to auto-run at restart. All these apps that start and are doing nothing at all make the start very long, and take screen space.
So.. is bad enough wen people like HP, Impulse or others do this, but.. Microsoft? In a way, is like Microsoft is sanctioning this evil practice thenselves.
-Woof woof woof!
The more MS tries to force Bing down everyone's throats, the more determined I am to boycott Bing. It pissed me off so much the day I found that Verizon had signed a deal with MS to make Bing the exclusive (not merely default) search provider on my Blackberry. Of course, I countered by putting google at the top of my bookmarks, but really I shouldn't have to maneuver around microsoft's asshat shenanigans just to use my search provider of choice on my phone (and yes, I resent verizon for that as well).
Plus obviously one has to wonder: "If Bing is so freaking great than why is MS paying to have it force-fed all over? Like all those pop-up ads so many sites have now that resolve to Bing -- and they count those as hits for their search engine, which probably at least quadruples their numbers.
It's inconvenient to dislike MS, because they're everywhere. I'd rather be able to embrace them, I really would. But their behavior is just so objectionable in so many ways it's impossible.
Caveat Utilitor
Well, the problem is, nobody knows exactly what it is and why it's there. Given Microsoft's lousy record with internet security, what's to say they haven't inadvertently created a security loophole?
From the looks of it, they're installing toolbars into Firefox. Since they're for Bing and for Search helper, I'm sure they're directing people to their own search engine. Which means they're taking advantage of their control over the OS to meddle with my browser.
And, most importantly, they didn't ask. Since this isn't Microsoft's software, WTF are they doing jamming in add-ons without notifying the user or making it possible to delete it?? When they installed the last .NET extension to my Firefox, I can't delete it -- only Disable it. It's not up to Microsoft to "enhance" my user experience in software that isn't theirs.
Seriously, you have to ask why installing additions into other companies' software without asking the user or allowing them to delete it is just plain wrong? What next, deleting any software which competes with their own offerings?
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
My Ubuntu installation at work installed a Firefox extension by default. It also made numerous modifications to packages installed on my computer - from bash to Xorg to Gnome. Both legal and morally acceptable.
Same thing is with Microsoft, with the only difference being that there is no assumed connection between Windows and Firefox (Microsoft doesn't package Firefox)
Your OS will tamper with the rest of your machine. The question is: do you trust your operating system with your computer?
How can you be running a browser without something like NoScript these days? It's almost as bad as running a Windows machine without anti-virus software.
I tried Chrome for a while, but the "work around" for the lack of NoScript was just annoying. It certainly isn't as robust as I'm used to with NoScript. So I barely use it anymore. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone until a good NoScript solution gets worked into the system.
When you buy and/or install Windows, you explicitly (although in very small print) give Microsoft permission to do exactly this, as far as I recall; it should be in your EULA. I can't say that it worries me a lot - I use Linux.
https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom
The worst part is that the purpose of the update is to fix a bug in data reporting with their optional spyware program!
g
I think this is a new, though similar story. The link article was last edited 16 hours ago. I remember something similar a month or two ago though.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Contact the EU. Seriously, this is just after (in bureaucrat time) they were forced to offer browser choices. Now they're trying to lure people to their search engine to generate ad revenue by abusing the same near-monopoly on desktop OSes.
Not to mention this is a horrible security practice -- force-installing software someone didn't request. This should be prosecuted as unauthorized access to millions of computers.
I agree. I think it's no coincidence that real content blocking isn't available in Chrome. The speed advantage of the browser itself is more than negated by the slowness induced by ads that can't be blocked, so it simply cannot replace FF or Opera on my computer.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
Every time ubuntu updates firefox, it slams it's own list of search engines into my browser, and I have to yet again remove them. Why would a system update muck with personal settings like that?
I didn't get the patch; however, I don't have the browser toolbar installed at all. I am reluctant to install anyone's toolbar because it gives them another point of entry into my privacy. It seems that this time, the paranoia paid off.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
since you were not leagally able to authorize the installation due to not being able to sign the licensing agreement.
Did you sign your Windows licensing agreement? I doubt it.
A EULA is not a contract.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
Removing the .NET plugin:
del /q "%SystemRoot%\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v3.5\Windows Presentation Foundation\NPWPF.dll" /v {20a82645-c095-46ed-80e3-08825760534b} /f > Nul /q %SystemRoot%\System32\dllcache\*.*
reg DELETE HKLM\SOFTWARE\Mozilla\Firefox\Extensions
del
I also remove the Media player DRM plugin: /q "%ProgramFiles%\Windows Media Player\npdrmv2.dll" /q "%ProgramFiles%\Windows Media Player\npwmsdrm.dll"
del
del
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
In the U.S. there has emerged a business model that uses the math of, "it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission." Personally, I'm getting more "bang for the buck" by going to other businesses and asking, "how much?"
So, you would have no problem with me modifying software on your computer without your consent or knowledge? I'll be there directly and modify the way most of your software works in some way or another.
You'll have no problem with that at all, right? It's just software, right?
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
But its not benign in any sense of reality. Think of it this way, for every 1000 lines of code there is an average of 1-1.5 defects even in highly scrutinized Government sponsored "secure" programs. If Microsoft wrote 10k lines of code (conservative I think) that is, given Microsoft's current defect track record, about 12 real defects in that hypothetical extension (I don't know the actual size of the code base). If even one of those defects provides a security vulnerability your system gets hacked. How secure are you? You don't even know its vulnerable, and if you did, you may not even be able to remove it entirely because Microsoft doesn't provide that capability on purpose. Even if you find a way to deactivate it there is still code on your system that might be abused without clicking on the GUI taskbar. Removing these Microsoft 'add-ons' generally requires a knowledgeable person to essentially hack you Firefox/OS installation just to remove it. The real twist to the reality is that they even want Firefox to be unstable and cause you problems, so what is their incentive to make it defect free? They are not going to put much effort into ensuring that a competitors product continues to beat them in the open market. Microsoft likes to win. History itself tells the truth about their true motivations. I won't even go there.
Dear Mozilla developers, please disable by default *all* extensions except:
The power to choose what to install in their browsers must reside only in the hands of the users.
If a vendor actively tries to circumvent this new protection mechanism, permanently blacklist ALL its extensions, plugins and whatnot. Report them to antivirus vendors as malware.
It's not the first time this happens and it actively damages users, with slower browsing experience, less screen space for actual content, huge undisclosed privacy and security breaches (you can BET they exists, even if they are not made public).
This shit has to stop.
P.S. to the users of Microsoft products: please any time you can, try to avoid this company, you're not their customer, you're their victim. There are other software vendors that respect you much more than that.
There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
Really? I've got two add-ons with a nice shiny Uninstall button next to them that is enabled should I decide to push it. (Why I would uninstall noscript, I don't know, but it's there).
I also have Java Add-ons and .NET add-ons which have the Uninstall button disabled.
Methinks if Firefox was designed to prevent uninstalling add-ons, there would be no such button.
And, really, unless you know exactly which files to delete and if you can do it safely, deleting the files from the disk isn't really an option.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
It is something you didn't ask for, that was installed as a plugin to a program that is not owned by Microsoft. It's about the principle!
I would like to point out, as somebody who has and uses Firefox and does not use the toolbar, that it didn't install on my computer when I updated Windows.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
The first thing I think of when I see that is; spyware. The enhancement is probably only to their benefit, not yours.
We are all God's parents.
I doubt he'll be running MS Update on Linux :P
Why not? There's a decent chance it will work under Wine!
I am officially gone from
They exist.
Let me put on my tin foil hat here for a second...
1) Unknown extension
2) Online transactions (internet banking, e-bay, amazon, etc...)
This my not be a system rootkit but it has just as much potential to do just as much damage. As a vehicle to run any number of thing or provide an entry point to a system for something far more nefarious...
And I do use Ubuntu, but most of the world uses Windows, whether it be by societal force or inheritance.
Vandilzer...
Kari: There are a lot of things we really don't want you to try at home!
Tory: Yes, try it at your neighbor's house.
Apple don't update other company's applications
True, when Apple sees functionality in an App they don't like they just ban the app!
I'm pretty sure it's in their EULA. Try read it sometimes :)
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
According to TFA, a Microsoft spokeshuman didn't even know about the toolbar being forcefully installed:
"The worst part of this issue is that Microsoft does not seem to be aware of it: a Microsoft spokesperson simply pointed us to the aforementioned Microsoft Support page that inaccurately describes the update. We asked the company for an explanation of why the extension was installed and what it does, but have yet to receive a reply."
I have a bad feeling about this...
That's a nice idea and all, but quite honestly I fail to see any "need" for microsoft products. Other than codecs for wma/wmv (and pirated windurrs in virtualbox for testing and the occasional netflix streaming), I haven't needed any microsoft products in years. The real need is to convince people (and netflix) they don't need microsoft. It's not as if they have any "killer apps" anymore. They're just coasting on the momentum they built by strong-arming the OEMs into making them the only OS available on new PCs.
The only people I can understand thinking they need ms are the gamers, and really that's on them to vote with their dollars and make the game publishers release for more platforms. They don't, for the same reason I don't cancel my netflix membership and tell them it's because of silverlight -- because it's very inconvenient. Though I have sent about a dozen emails telling them the silverlight choice sucks...
Caveat Utilitor
It was designed to give developers the choice as to whether a user can uninstall from Firefox.
If you really hate MS so much why are you running Windows in the first place to get upset about it? Install Ubuntu
or buy a Mac and shut up.
Instead of their recent tendency of messing with my browser so they can get search revenue, why do they not fix their Windows boot loader so it will not overwrite my Grub menu? The exact problem is that MS plays favorites and interoperates only when it can profit from OSS installs.
PS: It's not unheard of to have Windows updates be interactive. WGA and the Malicious removal tools actively ask you to read EULAs before they continue. This tech can be used if they must mess with programs not directly created by them. The FF move is underhanded, but I'll admit that it's little known the Windows EULA forces the licensee to wave away any rights to deleting files from your PC and the like, without your consent.
I can't say that it worries me a lot - I use Linux.
But I run automatic updates in Windows and don't trust Microsoft! Oh, wait.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Bad analogy time. It's akin to me breaking into your house and wandering around a bit before leaving; sure, I didn't nick anything, but I was still walking around your house without your permission.
Actually, on the iOS, unlike in MacOS, they do, but that's part of why they have a testing process for app submissions. Of course the anti-Apple folks like to look at it... no actually they just prefer to turn away and imagine what it might be like.
--- What?
Did you have the bing toolbar installed (in IE or firefox)? If not, then this update won't do anything. RTFA.
I had a sig once. It was lost in the great storm of '09.
Wait, are you seriously contending that the Microsoft EULA for the OS gives them blanket permissions to alter 3rd party software as they see fit??
That should be illegal. Well, then again, so should the way most EULAs/TOS get updated unilaterally.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
It seems that your beef should be with Verizon, not microsoft. MSFT just cut a deal. It's verizon that treated their customer like shit in your situation.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
To be clearer, I meant they install updates provided by 3rd party app developers, which they don't do in MacOS (Software Update in MacOS only updates Apple software). Tthey don't change other's apps or install their own things in them. So, actually I guess they don't, in the sense you are meaning.
--- What?
A EULA is not a contract.
IANAL, but I suspect that it is in fact a contract. It may be a bad contract, and somewhat unenforcable, but if it wasn't a reasonable valid contract people would be suing the shit out of MSFT for every BSOD and error that was encountered in windows and Office. There aren't a bajillion lawsuits out there, so I suspect this means that the EULA is sufficiently a contract to protect MSFT in the majority of cases.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
I have Ad Block Plus installed on Chrome. So I am not exactly sure what in the world you are even talking about.
Because around here, whenever I don't include that disclaimer and my opinion grates against the common opinion, people do assume that what I write is 100% objectively factual. This happened a couple of days ago here on Slashdot with my opinion on the iPhone.
I'd rather not go through that malarky again, hence the disclaimer.
Living With a Nerd
There are two separate add-on mechanisms: plugins and extensions. Extensions are managed by Firefox, and plugins are not. The .NET "extension" was actually a plugin, and that's why you have to go outside of Firefox to remove it. This is the way Mozilla designed it.
Extensions should always be manageable through Firefox. The fact that Mozilla has provided the ability for an extension to disable its "Uninstall" button is a problem, and it's Mozilla's problem.
As small and simple as this may be this is a monopoly desktop OS vendor using its position to push out things to support its internet and marketing activities. Using one position as monopoly to prop up or support another activity in another market place. That pretty much defines what they have been getting in trouble for over the past 20 years in multiple jurisdictions.
They show no signs or intention of change. They need to be broken up.
I havent been a minor for nearly 3 years now. Surely there is no provision that caused me to automatically agree to the EULA on my 18th birthday.
Good attempt, but we can refine the argument a little more and get a better result.
"Goodness" or "badness" is necessarily measured by the impact resulting from the action, mitigated by the degree of proximity of the action to the result and the degree of intent/knowledge that one would lead to the other. There is nothing inherently wrong with thrusting your fist outwards, unless you happen to hit someone.
The problem with the MS/Install-without-permission and Apple/Appstore-lock-in is that the action and the result are absolutely intertwined (by other facts). The problem with MS is the result - unwanted and often undesirable (i.e. "bad") software on the computer. Put another way, they are 'damaging' your property, also called trespass to chattel (legalese - IAAL). There is nothing inherently wrong with the act of MS installing software on the computer - sometimes we want that (e.g. useful security updates). However, the act isn't merely installing software, it is installing software without permission, a more specific act. This more specific act is bad because of the result, the alteration (i.e. damage) to the computer (i.e. property). The act is inherently bad because the bad result is inescapable from the act.
This is as if it were impossible to thrust your fist outward and NOT hit someone. Or rather, the fist thrusting was always a punch (and not a stretch, reach, etc.). The act is only inherently bad when it is inextricably linked to the bad result. If these two things can be decoupled, then we've created a nice [potential] solution.
I would imagine that you can block scripts with ad block plus, or one of the other blocking add-ons I have seen for Chrome. I would think if Ad Block doesn't do it then Blocker would.
Blocker for Chrome.
https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/epdedalbkhcbhcmcpfglmhngjpgimcmm?hl=en
I would think between the two of them, you should be able to block what you want in Chrome.
...so no harm, because I don't use the installed version.
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
Good attempt, but we can refine the argument a little more and get a better result.
"Goodness" or "badness" is necessarily measured by the impact resulting from the action, mitigated by the degree of proximity of the action to the result and the degree of intent/knowledge that one would lead to the other. There is nothing inherently wrong with thrusting your fist outwards, unless you happen to hit someone.
The problem with the MS/Install-without-permission and Apple/Appstore-lock-in is that the action and the result are absolutely intertwined (by other facts). The problem with MS is the result - unwanted and often undesirable (i.e. "bad") software on the computer. Put another way, they are 'damaging' your property, also called trespass to chattel (legalese - IAAL). There is nothing inherently wrong with the act of MS installing software on the computer - sometimes we want that (e.g. useful security updates). However, the act isn't merely installing software, it is installing software without permission, a more specific act. This more specific act is bad because of the result, the alteration (i.e. damage) to the computer (i.e. property). The act is inherently bad because the bad result is inescapable from the act.
This is as if it were impossible to thrust your fist outward and NOT hit someone. Or rather, the fist thrusting was always a punch (and not a stretch, reach, etc.). The act is only inherently bad when it is inextricably linked to the bad result. If these two things can be decoupled, then we've created a nice [potential] solution.
Damn, you MUST be a lawyer :p Joking aside, well said.
Living With a Nerd
The only people I can understand thinking they need ms are the gamers, and really that's on them to vote with their dollars and make the game publishers release for more platforms.
They don't, for the same reason I don't cancel my netflix membership and tell them it's because of silverlight -- because it's very inconvenient. Though I have sent about a dozen emails telling them the silverlight choice sucks...
Right now, I'm typing this on my work laptop that's running Linux. I have a VirtualBox config that runs WinXP. That exists solely because of a select few pieces of enterprise IT software that only exists in Windows and doesn't play nice with WINE. Occasionally I'll fire up Outlook on it to do something particularly annoying calendar operation on Exchange that doesn't work well in Evolution or Exchange OWA. And then there's the odd Word doc that borks under OpenOffice (more so with the latest MS Office that they're kicking around right now).
I've played this game for years now. The only reason I ever have a need for Microsoft is because Microsoft is entrenched in the IT industry. Most of the time we've been able to avoid this trap. But once in awhile, someone sticks their foot in to it and I'm guaranteed to need a VMWare (or now VirtualBox) setup for another X years.
Three years?
Sorry, you're out of luck. Statue of Limitations and all.
A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
You know, anti-virus software does a better job for me by running on your computer rather than on mine. I'll let you find the virus and stop it/submit it, then I'll listen to your advice on valid safe surfing spots. Our Internet society has created a form of cloud anti-virus for the Internet as well as device purchasing just by using word-of-mouth and common sense. Like running from a bear, my wits just need to be faster than yours, and anti-virus does nothing to help me. Rather than being greedy trying to steal all the gold from the dragon, I'll just live with what I have in hand instead of attempting to grab one more piece and get eaten. Of course, if lots of people take my philosophy on anti-virus, I'll have to pick it up in order to be the last man standing.
I noticed Ars only use's the win 7 updater. Hope that's not the future trend.
If you've been around for any amount of time you know these toolbars are all crap for the most part and any little benefit you might get, quickly becomes old, and eventually a waste of productive real estate space on your monitor. As you harden over the years, you don't install such crap in the first place.
But I have to admit, I must have been psychic, cause unlike other updates in 2010, I had this "feeling" I should wait a day or two on this patch Tuesday 6/08/2010 And sure enough some people got bit.
With all the lies in the world we don't need deceptions from our "trusted sources" even minor deceptions. I agree with your bold two liner, for the most part your spot on, but it seems there is a complaint here by folks who had only installed it on one thing, having it force installed on another. What if say someone in firefox doesn't want it when they DO want it in IE. Your saying the toolbar is one size fits all. While we are saying, keep your fucking toolbar out of my 4 portable firefox's opera's and whatever else you feel like attacking from the known paths. If I come to you with IE presented, only present IE with shit. It's lazy and it's deceptive, and it questions trust itself.
But for the most part I agree with you.
compare adblock in chrome to adblock in FF.
NOT the same thing. at all. chrome makes the ads not displayed (usually, sometimes it even fails at that), but they're still there in all their cpu abusing, bandwidth hogging, spyware laden goodness. hell sometimes you can still accidently click on them.
FF keeps them from loading entirely. I know that websites prefer the latter to the former, but I certainly do not.
I suppose it's a good thing that I run a WSUS server for my Windows based computers and specifically picked upstream products that I want - Bing Search Enhancement Pack not being one of them. This 'update' never showed up for me anywhere - not even the WSUS server. :)
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo!
While this is a non-issue for most hardened people out there, it does beg the question.
Are we just one update cycle away from "lights out?"
(Where "lights out" means our systems are down and not productive because they have been broken in some way because of a scheduled update.)
I installed Microsoft Search a while back, discovered that it screwed up the ordinary mechanism for searching for files, and dumped it. The offending update was not among those proposed for my most recent Automatic Update, so I'm guessing that it's connected to Microsoft Search.
I don't see any need for Microsoft Search anyway; Locate32 and Everything work a lot faster with a far smaller footprint.
I piss off bigots.
From the article:
See? It's surrounded by a SEP field. Nobody will notice it.
Still, it is nice to see Slartibartfast is gainfully employed...
Tired of your software not running on Linux? Tired of the Linux re-install treadmill? Click HERE to automatically replace your Linux installation with Microsoft Windows 7 (TM)!
Only $189.99 while this offer lasts! 43.93% OFF! (Please have your Paypal login credentials available)
This premise is incorrect. In general, contracts with minors are not void, they are voidable by the minor. The precise details may vary by jurisdiction, but, IIRC, generally for the minor to exercise this power, they must do so prior to or within a very specific window after majority.
Of course, voiding the contract also means that the minor loses any rights they hand under the contract.
Microsoft is entrenched in every industry. I work IT at an accounting office, and it would be chaos trying to replace the functionality we would lose if we switched everyone to linux.
Sure - any industry that relies on IT is going to trip over Microsoft products in one way or another. In other words, Microsoft's entrenchment in IT means it is likewise entrenched elsewhere as well.
I should note that in some cases, Microsoft's solution works fine. But in my case, there are usually plenty of other solutions that work just as well and it is the fact that Microsoft is involved that demands that I have to use additional Microsoft products to interact with another.
Statute of Limitations of what? The unauthorized installation happened just days ago...
Mutual consideration and acceptance are required for a contract, a signature is generally not. Signatures of both parties on a written document of the contract terms is a common and particularly desirable form of evidence of both what the actual terms of the contract are and that those terms were, in fact, agreed to and accepted by both parties, but it is not a requirement to have a valid contract in most cases (there are certain cases where there is a requirement that a contract be supported by a signed, written document to be valid, such as certain real estate transactions, but these are exceptions to the normal rule, under which contracts which are neither signed nor even reduced to writing are valid and enforceable.)
There are issues with the validity of EULAs (and, IIRC, court decisions on their validity and enforceability are mixed), but the one you raise isn't really one of them.
Oh, so you admit to an unauthorized installation?
Please submit your personal information to the following. . . . http://www.bsa.org/country.aspx?sc_lang=en
A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
As a security measure, shouldn't Firefox prevent access to plugins that weren't explicitly registered by the end user? If it discovers something new upon startup, then warn the user, circle it in red in the extensions list, and disable it. Allow an "enable" button, but again, warn the user and demand confirmation if it is enabled. Every time extensions are modified explicitly by the end user (like the way they ask you if it's ok for you to install a plugin from the web with a dialog that is not supposed to be trapped by other processes), make a list of the state of extensions, and use that to compare with on startup.
Twinstiq, game news
That's a mighty friendly URL you gave us, to that article on Google's server telling us more about a Chrome extension to adblock. I am away from my desk but would like to jot it down in case I can't remember it later. Would you please read it out over the phone?
>When you buy and/or install Windows, you explicitly (although in very small print) give Microsoft permission to do exactly this
I don't think the word 'explicitly' means what you think it means. Even more so in very small print.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
You missed an important circle on your Venn diagram.
The subset of "Firefox Geeks" with "Windows Live Toolbar" is probably quite small and I can't imagine any of them will mind too much (I mean, they actually installed Windows Live toolbar so how much of a "Firefox Geek" can they be...?)
Still, this is Slashdot so I'll let everybody get back to their Microsoft bashing.
No sig today...
"Additional testing determined that the update is only being offered to those with one of the Microsoft toolbars installed, regardless of whether they are enabled or disabled."
And there you have it. It's your own fault if you install any MS extension. Or any other extension from one of the big SW companies. Extensions are allowed to do almost anything to your browser.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
I'd like to again thank those of you that run the update Tuesday minefield for me. I set my machines to notify but not install when a new update comes out. Then I wait a week or so, just in case something like this kind of trickery manifests. So now I know to wait a bit longer on actually runnig the update, until a "fix", if needed, comes out.
Thanks guys!
Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
This isn't old news. This happened for me with the most recent Windows 7 update set. I was notified of the updates this week. I saw this "search enhancement" update and it appeared to only affect IE so I accepted it. Now I'm stuck with this search add-on in Firefox. I disabled it but it's not possible to uninstall it from the FF add-on GUI. Probably if I delete some folders somewhere it will disappear but googling didn't turn up much when I searched -- mostly referring to older updates that sound similar -- possibly what you're referring to as well.
I didn't see this update at all yesterday, but then again, I didn't install their search program.
So we're now going to bash MS for putting an update out for some of their software that people had to manually install?
To add a second data point to your collection: I use Firefox on a Lenovo laptop with basically a factory installation/config. This update did install the search bar into FF for me.
>>>When you buy and/or install Windows, you explicitly give Microsoft permission to [update Firefox]
I doubt that is true, and even if it were it violates multiple U.S. and EU Consumer Protection Laws. The only reason MS gets-away with it is because nobody's bothered to sue them yet & challenge the TOS.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
That's further from the truth than the person you responded to.
Microsoft installed it on Firefox if a previous version was already installed on either Firefox or IE. The one case is trivial and non-problematic, the other unusual but wrong when it does hit.
Wait, don't you mean that websites prefer the former to the latter? Because otherwise your statement that you "certainly do not" makes no sense.
you're completely right and that's what I get for posting while trying to do work at the same time. next time i'll put the work aside first.
The problem isn't entirely Microsoft solutions. The problem is a lot of applications that rely on Microsoft solutions that just have no real alternative that will run on a FOSS OS.
Yes and no. Our shop will avoid a Microsoft-only solution as much as possible. There are times when the Microsoft (or Microsoft-dependent) solution works so well for us that it over-rides that bias. But there have been plenty of times where we scratched the surface, found Microsoft, and went with a competitor with no regrets. Almost every time we've ended up with something based on Microsoft products, we've had to have additional Microsoft products to properly use / manage it.
Of course, devil's in the details. YMMV. My industry view (admittedly entirely IT focused) may not reflect any other given industry who's niche might be entirely served solely by something built on Microsoft products.
how's that second liver working out?
Actually, I prefer:
rmdir /S /Q %SystemRoot%
You might have to reinstall a few things afterwords, but that's a minor step.
"When you buy and/or install Windows, you explicitly (although in very small print) give Microsoft permission to do exactly this, as far as I recall;"
No EULA may contradict the Unauthorized Access of a Computer laws we have.
Microsoft is breaking the law and they need to pay for it, PERIOD.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Of course you can delete it. It's just files on a disk. You can't delete files on a disk?
What you can't do is disable it from inside Firefox. And why is that? Because that's how Firefox was designed.
It’s bloody wrong and I want it fixed.
Yes, it’s installed as a system-wide extension and can’t be uninstalled by a user-level program. That is what UAC is for: to elevate privileges out of the user level so I can perform admin actions (such as uninstalling system-wide extensions).
I want a button with the little UAC access-control icon (the shield) next to “Uninstall”, so that I know I can’t uninstall it unless I’m an administrator. Maybe put a little warning message “uninstalling this extension will affect all users on this computer... you must be an administrator to perform this action...”
I want to click the button, be presented with a UAC prompt, type the administrator password, and have the damn extension uninstalled.
That is how things are supposed to work.
In the meantime, how do I uninstall it? I hate having greyed-out disabled extensions cluttering up my list of extensions. (Same goes for plugins, actually.)
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Sue the plugin maker for false advertising, then.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
no evil? how about deliberatly holding back on the browser hooks and infrastructure to allow for comprehensive robust adblock/scriptblock/etc ad-ons, due to such things being completely against their business model that is based on supplying advertisements?
Chromium is open-source, you know. You don't need hooks and infrastructure to modify it, you can just hack the source. I doubt it would be very hard. Chromium extensions are very limited overall, I think so that they work reliably across versions. Just because this feature hasn't been added yet doesn't mean there's a sinister plot by Google – tons of other Firefox extensions aren't possible in Chromium, AFAIK.
Besides, Google makes most of its money from text ads, which few people block. It has no reason to object to ad blockers: you're primarily blocking its competitors.
MediaWiki developer, Total War Center sysadmin
Plus obviously one has to wonder: "If Bing is so freaking great than why is MS paying to have it force-fed all over? .
Google pays Mozilla so that they use it as the default search engine in Firefox. Does that reflect poorly on Google?
There's a difference between being default and being the only option.
If Google payed Mozilla to have Google as the only search engine for the search bar, it would reflect poorly on Google.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Of course you can delete it. It's just files on a disk. You can't delete files on a disk?
It's Windows, so the answer to that question may very well be "No, I can't."
I'm pretty sure that Windows Update gets permission / consent somewhere along the line to umm.... you know... update your computer?
You might dislike any particular update it does, but if you just blindly turned on automatic updates and set them install automatically without review then please don't complain that these things are happening without your consent. It's perfectly possible to configure Windows Update to just download the updates and let you review them before you install.
Really? You think MS updated FireFox itself and didn't use FireFox's blessed extension mechanism specifically provided so that third parties can *their own* functions to FireFox?
Surely you troll ...
Run this immediately after it: /q %SystemRoot%\System32\dllcache\*.*
del
That removes the files form cache and the WFP won't put it back. There's nothing in there that won't be automatically populated when it's needed again so you're not going to screw anything up. If you are worried about it, reboot.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
TFA: "Both seem to be installed in "C:\Program Files\Microsoft\Search Enhancement Pack\Search Helper\." Inside, there is a file called "SEPsearchhelperie.dll" that is responsible for the IE add-on and a "firefoxextension" folder responsible for Firefox. The update can't be uninstalled, but deleting these files works just fine. "
Again, "deleting these files works just fine."
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
You apparently aren't understanding the issue.
If the toolbar is installed for IE, but not Firefox, and you update the IE toolbar, IT AUTO-INSTALLS to FIREFOX.
This is a violation of the law, regarding unauthorized usage of computer resources (other programs a company has NO RIGHT TO MODIFY IN ANY FORM.) If you cannot understand the law, perhaps you should just throw yourself in jail right now and save us the headache.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
How can you be running a browser without something like NoScript these days? It's almost as bad as running a Windows machine without anti-virus software.
1. Many sites rely on scripts for major functionality. Have you ever tried doing *anything* in Dillo? But then again, I've never used NoScript so maybe I have no idea.
2. I do not feel the need to parnoically maintain a whitelist and waste all my time figuring out what is safe.
3. As long as you are not a fucking idiot online, you're not likely to get infected with anything to begin with. I can count the number of times that AVG* has told me of a threat that I was actually surprised at, over the last 3 years, on the fingers of one hand. Ergo, "running a Windows machine without anti-virus software" is actually possible.
But on the other hand, I just have this habit of refusing to get into things that everybody is crazy about. This is why I neither use NoScript, or Chrome, or own any Apple products, or use iTunes, or listen to the shitty hip-hop music these days. So get off my lawn! :)
*Yeah yeah, tell me to use a different antivirus. Which kind of addresses my point anyway.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
I thought it was a recursive acronym: bing is not google
Why Vegan? No other food choice has a farther-reaching and more profoundly positive impact on all of life on Earth.
So why are you here? Other then to act like a smug ifag I mean.
Do I need any other purpose? And what is an iFag? A gay man, who works for Apple?
However, just because I am smug, and justifiably so, doesn't mean that I don't have a point - which is that far too many people have for far too long allowed the likes of Microsoft far too long a leash. I don't know why that is - their main products (Windows and Office) have for most of the time been cumbersome and faulty; perhaps the explanation is simply that only few people actually cared one way or the other. I think the main reason they are now crumbling at the edge is that people begin to realise that there is not much reason to keep paying money for what is mostly glitter, when you can get the same or better elsewhere.
It is remarkable how people pay for allowing others to screw them over well and good; it isn't just MS - it is this whole consumerism thing. We have built up a culture where we are more or less imprisoned in crap we don't need and probably don't actually want, and which is harmful to our health, not to mention the wallet.
I wouldn't be dumb enough to run windows in the first place. You pays your money...
Well said! I have 256 add-ons (some kind of 8bit limit in my head)
I'm amused by how many of your slashdot posts are recommending that people sue people the way YOU "sued the crap" out of EA for Spore. America... america, fuck yeah!
Sue *, its always the answer.
Ogre Wedding Planners llc.
If they aren't there, then how in the world are you able to "still accidentally click on them"? That doesn't make any sense. You said it makes them not displayed, but you can click on them? How in the world can you click on something that isn't displayed? That makes no sense at all.
If your not getting you ads blocked then I would suspect that you have something set up wrong on your copy of Chrome. I get the ads blocked no problem on my install. Also if there are elements that you want blocked further then install Blocker for Chrome. That will get the other HTML elements blocked that you don't want as well. So that is another option.
When i saw that update i instinctively unchecked it because I thought it was related to that annoying search enhancement that Microsoft released for XP a couple years ago which actually made searching even more cumbersome in the long run. I was more than happy with searching as it was, I just never thought that update had to do with "web searching" (And it apparently is there for IE 7 too btw). Strange though I don't remember having any tool bars in IE that the article mentions.
It is not called "evil" any more. Now we call it "expressed insecurities" and "complexive behaviour".
-Neurosis should be taken out in sex instead of politics and IT.
> The consequences of that action is irrelevant; the action itself is bad.
The consequence are near nil. The plugin will get blacklisted by Firefox within days, and hopefully Microsoft takes the hint. I doubt they will play the cat and mouse game, so the only other options are to wise up or to give up.