MS Issued a Fix For Its Unwanted FireFox Extension 266
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.
Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete? (Score:2, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Wiping Microsoft wipes the extension (Score:3, Interesting)
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:The HORROR! (Score:2, Interesting)
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:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete? (Score:4, Interesting)
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? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:But what's the difference? (Score:2, Interesting)
Its trivial to re-enable something if its only disabled.
Clearly it was trivial to install in the first place.