Comments on: Microsoft force-installs Firefox extension

By: Glenn

Glenn — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:33:32 +0000

I’m not a programmer nor do I work for Microslop. I am just a help desk support tech (20 years) and I totally agree with the author.
It doesn’t matter if it’s dangerous, useful or what ever. It wasn’t asked for. There was no option NOT to add it. And greying out the disable button is just typical Microshaft.
What they think is best, is what they do, like it or not.
That is why I stopped using IE many years ago and I have never, ever been hit with a virus or spyware. This is a perfect example of Microsoft thinking for the customer.
They really make we wary about all the crap they seem to force on us. I would like to know why they thing messenger MUST run.
Even when it’s manually disabled, the next update re-enables it.
Then there’s unplug-n-pray.
What’s up with them? Until MS learns to stop thinking they know what’s best for us, they will always have a bad rep.
Their crap is full of holes. I recall NT4. The service packs were bigger than the damn OS! And it hasn’t changed.
Firefox all the way!

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 22:48:36 +0000

A lot of people contributing to this thread are asking why they should disable .NET Framework Assistant? What harm is it causing Firefox. Well here is a possible answer. And Firefox today automatically disabled .NFA and WPF! Battle of the Softwares: Microsoft vs Mozilla Firefox!

By: .NET Framework Assistant « js9600.dk

.NET Framework Assistant « js9600.dk — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:19:04 +0000

[...] altså deaktiveres men ønskes udvidelsen helt væk er her en gennemgang af [...]

By: pedro

pedro — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 16:41:51 +0000

Dear Microsoft,

Thanks for making up my mind whether to go with Windows 7 or Linux.

By: Keith L. Fretz

Keith L. Fretz — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:07:26 +0000

So if someone uses that addon to install software that checks Microsoft for updates every say, minute, that’s cool, right?

By: andrew

andrew — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 07:16:16 +0000

I got this junk from Windows after a fresh install of Vista and installing “high priority UPDATES”

Since when do UPDATES (patches, security fixes, whatever you call them) add features? Microsoft will never learn… such as the “critical update” on Windows XP called Genuine Advantage Notifications. How is that a high-priority security fix?

By: Arno Teigseth

Arno Teigseth — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:03:22 +0000

AutoCAD 2010: Also got this installed. I disabled it immediately. This is very serious, as I did not agree to install the add-on!

By: Top 10 ?????????? ??? tricks ??????? ? ????????? ???????????. - ???????? 5 - ????? Gday.ru - ??????????, ???????? ? ????? ? ???????

Thu, 04 Jun 2009 02:19:42 +0000

[...] [...]

By: BigWaveAlex

BigWaveAlex — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 04:49:39 +0000

As IT manager for large org I install FF on the images because I want my users to run a web browser that can’t install software. In the past I’ve defended MS but with this they have lost what trust they had with me. Truly disappointing, I would have expected this from MS circa 1990, I thought they were changing, guess not. I haven’t cheered the large EU settlements against MS but I hope they screw them on this one. And no it’s not ok that Sun and Apple do the same thing but pointing out other’s bad behavior doesn’t excuse yours.

By: mike

mike — Sun, 31 May 2009 18:56:37 +0000

Micro$0f7 at it again huh.
We all know that their software is Insecure is oh so many dirty ways.
But What duos this Mean?
We all know that every advanced user Will not use M$ browser unless forced to.
But what dous this really mean?!.
It means M$ is going after the WEEK users who don’t know how to defend themselves.
so M$ wants to cash in on the WHOLE cut of the spying to advertise you market all while hitting its main competition Mozilla Firefox Browser with its security flaws while releasing its new browser?!!! WTF?!?! I don’t think M$ paid enough to the EU every time it was sued, Charging them 10 times more should put a stop to this, This should have them rethink of all the individuals they are really hurting.
Microsoft has a long history of patent infringement and trampling its competition all over the world, so who’s it gonna be? you gona issue me a refund?! because If I cant maintain my own security then I should trust M$?!?!?! pff pleaase I WANT A REFUND.
FUMS

By: Butros Gali

Butros Gali — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:47:18 +0000

You can always use the Portable version of Firefox – it doesn’t use the registry, it is contained in one folder and supports all known extensions – IF you want to install them.

http://www.portableapps.com

And no, I’m in no way connected with the above website – just a very, very satisfied user…

By: DanTheMan

DanTheMan — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:24:07 +0000

I think you should not blame MS developers but rather Firefox developers. Something is wrong in the Firefox extension system if a extension can only removed by hacking the registry. Nevertheless Firefox developers won't fix this. Check this out: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=446139

By: Onysius

Onysius — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 15:32:39 +0000

All of the defenders here in favor of the forced update sound as though they probably are paid henchmen or more correctly drones of MS trying to do a little damage control.

By: shadow

shadow — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 00:38:58 +0000

Good news people, MS is working on a solution which will allow each user on the PC to uninstall the extension for themselves. Basically, it sounds like they are going to enable to Uninstall button in the Add-ons window in FF.

http://blogs.msdn.com/brada/archive/2009/02/27/uninstalling-the-clickonce-support-for-firefox.aspx

By: kolapd

kolapd — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 08:49:02 +0000

Here a blog post from Microsoft about this issue: msdn.com/saurabh

By: reisio

reisio — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:06:02 +0000

“Iâ€™m using Google Chrome ”
Google isn’t your friend, either.
After installing Google Chrome, try going to google.com/chrome and hitting the download link, whereupon you will see GoogleUpdate.exe do whatever it likes to your computer, including installing anything it wants to install. Now, sure, ATM it will probably just check for Google Chrome and not install anything else, but there’s no stopping Google from doing anything nefarious in the future… and that isn’t the only concern â€” the right kind of security fowl up and the entire GoogleUpdate system could be someone’s gateway into your box; and Google is no stranger to big-time fowl ups, either.

By: blastoise

blastoise — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:48:41 +0000

DAMN even first-parties are installing stuff without our permission!

By: Morgan Roderick

Morgan Roderick — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 21:18:17 +0000

Turns out the Wired guys, and Will Shipley are also unhappy about software that just get installed on your machine, without asking your permission.

http://blog.wired.com/business/2009/02/why-googles-sof.html

By: x

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:53:58 +0000

when you install Java, it silently and secretively installs a Java Console extension into Firefox. the extension doesn’t even appear in Firefox’s list of extensions. they disable its uninstallation as well. you can show and uninstall it by closing Firefox, then editing the appropriate install.rdf file, and changing the value of “Hidden” in there from “true” to “false”.

there’s a similar and easier way to remove the .NET extension as well, but i’m sick of typing.

By: Robert Nyman

Robert Nyman — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 20:23:44 +0000

Lupus,

Thanks for sharing!

IJ,

I pretty much feel exactly like you.

Dave,

I agree, it would be great to have the option whether to accept installed extension, at least those that aren’t already installed within Firefox (because in that case, you do confirm the installs), but rather those installed through other means.