Chris Cason wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> In any case, did it bring up the "you installed new plug-ins" window when 
>> you started firefox the next time?  If not, this sounds like a bug in 
>> firefox as well.
> 
> No. But rather than a bug in FF, more likely Microsoft used a means that avoids
> this (which might be designed into FF, for all I know).

Hmmm... Here's what I did. I started a new VM, installed Vista, installed 
all suggested updates but .NET 3.5 SP1, then installed the latest firefox, 
and confirmed there was nothing in the tools menu about Microsoft.

Then I installed SP1.  Contrary to my memory, it did not make me agree to a 
new EULA, so if you told Windows to install updates without asking, it 
probably would do so "silently" as requested.

After rebooting, the first time I started firefox, it popped up the window 
saying "You have new extensions". The default option boxes were both turned 
off, so it doesn't report every version of .NET and doesn't prompt before 
running click-once programs. (Sounds like bad defaults to me.)

If you didn't get that, perhaps you have a different version of Windows of 
Firefox or .NET 3.5 SP1 installed. Perhaps MS got flamed and changed the 
code to be marginally less silent.

http://darren.s3.amazonaws.com/Junk.png because I'm sure at least some 
people will think I'm lying.  I'm sure at least some people will think I'm 
lying and even made up the screen shot, like I work for MS's legal 
department or something.

>> I'm also trying to figure out why this is a problem at all. You install 
>> software,
> 
> *Microsoft* installs software. *I* did not install it. Whether it came via
> windows update or bundled with another program I can't be sure. I can be sure I
> was never asked about it.

Since it was made available via Windows Update and did not require an EULA 
agreement, it's possible it installed itself if you tell Windows Update to 
install things automatically.

> I can't say whether or not the end-user is asked about it when it's installed
> via automatic updates (where they are set to "automatically download and
> install" but I would be surprised if they were asked - the purpose of auto
> download and install of windows update items is to do exactly that.

Usually big things ask, or at least anything where MS wants your agreement 
to a new EULA. For example, I don't think the "malicious software removal 
tool" runs without explicit permission. This update didn't.

> As a general rule, Microsoft has avoided directly installing stuff into programs
> they don't own in the past. And in any event, if I install software from
> manufacturer "X", I don't expect them to fiddle with the software from
> manufacturer "Y" unless they ask me first.

OK.  I guess they figure firefox is getting enough popularity they have to 
support it.  Maybe it comes from the number of people complaining you have 
to use IE to get to particular microsoft-centric web sites.

>> the problem is, really. It's not stealth, 
> 
> If I'm not told it's being done, it's stealth, at least insofar as modifying
> another company's product (*especially* when that product is considered by
> Microsoft as a competitor to one of their own programs).

OK. I guess that's just semantics there. They don't ask in advance, but 
before it runs you get told about it and get the opportunity to turn it off. 
It's modifying another company's product by installing extensions through a 
defined interface. Dunno.

> *DO NOT WANT* any Microsoft internet-related code running in FF, it's that simple.

Doesn't the "disable" button keep it from running? I mean, isn't that what 
that button *does*?  If not, sounds like FF is broken too.

> THAT is why I and many are pissed off this appeared in FF without our
> permission. Their security record speaks for itself. If you wish to defend
> Microsoft irregardless of their record, please do so elsewhere: this is not the
> forum for it.

Fair enough. Now I understand. :-)  I'm not sure why the conversation 
couldn't stay civil.

> Please: no more replies, no more posts from you on this topic. It gets nowhere
> and distracts from the real purpose of the thread.

I'm still curious about the "real purpose" of the thread. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message