Microsoft Hides Firefox Extension In Toolbar Update 285
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."
stop it MS (Score:2, Insightful)
MS stop acting like spyware....
Again? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Again? (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference being that that add-in was arguably useful. It enabled click-once in firefox, iirc, which is a fairly handy experience for running small apps over the web. If I recall, Java does the same thing. The problem then was that firefox had no way to distinguish between a version with a flaw, and a version without a flaw, so they had no choice but to temporarily blacklist it (and there was that issue with not being able to disable it due to permissions).
Browser toolbars, however, never strike me as a nice addition to a product without asking.
Re:Again? (Score:5, Informative)
The difference being that that add-in was arguably useful. It enabled click-once in firefox, iirc, which is a fairly handy experience for running small apps over the web. If I recall, Java does the same thing. The problem then was that firefox had no way to distinguish between a version with a flaw, and a version without a flaw, so they had no choice but to temporarily blacklist it (and there was that issue with not being able to disable it due to permissions).
Browser toolbars, however, never strike me as a nice addition to a product without asking.
The update doesn't install a browser toolbar, it updates the browser toolbar for users that already have it installed. Users who haven't installed it won't see this update.
For once the Slashdot summary actually got this correct, and from the original article: "Additional testing determined that the update is only being offered to those with one of the Microsoft toolbars installed,"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Again? (Score:5, Funny)
So, to use a car analogy, it's like Microsoft is installing a new rooftop on their own car, and if you don't own a car from the other company they just install a new rooftop that just floats in mid-air next to your Microsoft car?
Neat!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Again? (Score:5, Funny)
It's more like them installing a public bathroom on the roof of your car where the plumbing consists of an open pipe directly over the driver's head.
At least that's how I view toolbars.
Re:Again? (Score:5, Funny)
So, to use a car analogy, it's like Microsoft is installing a new rooftop on their own car, and if you don't own a car from the other company they just install a new rooftop that just floats in mid-air next to your Microsoft car?
Neat!
No, not on their car, on your car that they manufactured and sold to you.
So it's more like they disconnected the brakes and replaced the pedal with a super-rocket-booster-hyper-activator overnight - without telling you. You will be pleasantly surprised at the next crossroads.
Re:Again? (Score:5, Informative)
Additional testing determined that the update is only being offered to those with one of the Microsoft toolbars installed
Yes, but irrespective of whether it's installed for IE or Firefox. Just because I have the Live Search Toolbar installed for IE doesn't mean I want it turning up in Firefox unannounced.
Re:Again? (Score:5, Informative)
Additional testing determined that the update is only being offered to those with one of the Microsoft toolbars installed
Yes, but irrespective of whether it's installed for IE or Firefox. Just because my OEM put the Live Search Toolbar on IE doesn't mean I want it turning up in Firefox unannounced.
fix'd
Re:Again? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does an OEM have to put in the Live Search Toolbar? Couldn't the user have installed it him/herself?
It's possible. It is also possible that the user could deliberately stab themselves in the eye with a rusty nail, exfoliate with a belt sander, or give themselves dozens of tiny paper cuts on their genitalia. Many things are possible, and some of those things indicate mental illness of some sort.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm one of those users. I recently bought a new laptop and who knows what the OEM put in IE because I never open IE. I was pissed when I saw an uninvited add-on in Firefox. A little research determined that it was related to this microsoft search update. But it's not possible uninstall it via the Firefox add-on GUI. So I disabled it and presumably someone will tell me the right way to get rid of it soon.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Call Microsoft and threaten to sue for unauthorized modifications of programs on your computer.
Watch how fast you get it fixed.
Re:Again? (Score:5, Informative)
No EULA may violate the law. We already have laws expressly concerning unauthorized access of computer resources.
Their EULA is null and void in this instance. EA tried this same BS with me when I sued the crap out of them for Spore and the SecuROM DRM. That argument HELD NO WATER.
Re:Again? (Score:4, Informative)
Both.
If the toolbar exists (either because Windows Update installed it automatically, or because somebody for some reason actually installed the toolbar manually), then Windows Update will automatically update the toolbar. It does not install the toolbar, only updates it.
The update also installs an extension for both Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox... and nobody seems to know what the extension is for or what it does.
The extension is not the toolbar, and it does not seem to be an update to the toolbar. It just comes piggy-backed with an update to the toolbar.
yay (Score:3, Interesting)
I like your products, Microsoft...but I still abhor your business practices.
Kinda like Sony, Apple, etc...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"I like your products, Microsoft...but I still abhor your business practices."
Not enough to stop using their software, hence not enough to matter.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In my personal experience, I've had good luck with them from a security and stability standpoint. Granted, there is better stuff out there, but it still works pretty well for me. I also have a few music programs and games that I use which don't work on Linux (yes, even through WINE), and I don't want to have to pay extra for Apple-branded hardware, so Windows + self built systems it is.
Buy Em Out (Score:2)
Done before... (Score:2)
Microsoft hides... (Score:5, Funny)
(Sorry, it's one of those mornings)
Re:Microsoft hides... (Score:5, Funny)
What, one of those mornings where you wake up, roll out of bed, step on a rusty nail that protrudes from the floorboards, limp to the bathroom, have the cold water stop during your shower so you get scalded, the toilet gets clogged and overflows, the coffeemaker shorts out and starts a small fire in your kitchen, your dog eats something bad and barfs all over your feet, and then you get your penis caught in your zipper?
Wait, that is not really analogous to this update... that kind of morning is more analogous to installing windows in the first place.
Plugin uninstaller for Firefox? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Plugin uninstaller for Firefox? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mozilla has -- there's supposed to be an Uninstall button next to them.
Unfortunately, Microsoft didn't allow the Uninstall button to work, and you could only Disable. This is not a Mozilla problem in not providing a mechanism -- this is Microsoft and Sun making shitty add-ons.
Re:Plugin uninstaller for Firefox? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Plugin uninstaller for Firefox? (Score:4, Informative)
They should make it impossible for anyone to install plugins/extensions without user interaction
Normally you're prompted to install extensions, and add-ons are usually by way of installer. The problem here is that the user DID interact - at some point they opted to receive an update from Microsoft. MS is COMPLETELY at fault here as they slipped a DLL into a folder where Firefox would find it and go "Geez, thats an add-on!" No install necessary in FF, just put the extension in the right place and bingo!
As far as not being able to uninstall it...if its a "plugin" like Shockwave or Flash, you should note that the ability to Disable/Enable ONLY is there because any user can and should have access to that plugin. Extensions, on the other hand, should have the ability to be uninstalled unless they fall into this "any user could and probably wants" this extension category.
Re:Plugin uninstaller for Firefox? (Score:5, Insightful)
HP Web Printing does this and Move Media Player does this. Both are old plug-ins that are disabled because they don't work with the current version of Firefox that I have, and they won't update, and I can't uninstall them either. So there are many companies that are making Firefox add-ons/plug-ins that are not able to be installed. That should not be an option at all. If you can't uninstall it then it shouldn't be possible to install it all. This is something that Mozilla/Firefox people need to work on fixing.
The Move Media Player is what you have to have to watch streaming TV from the CW network. HP Web Printing was installed when I installed the drivers and software for my printer. Now I am stuck with both of them that don't work and can't be removed and won't update either.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
they slipped a DLL into a folder where Firefox would find it and go "Geez, thats an add-on!" No install necessary in FF, just put the extension in the right place and bingo!
That's the problem. Firefox should say - "hey user, I've never seen this extension file before (and you didn't download it via Firefox either); you didn't mean to install this stuff did you?" The default answer should be to skip installation of the extension. Problem solved. MS would be a lot more hesitant to try to "hack" around to circumvent this process.
if its a "plugin" like Shockwave or Flash, you should note that the ability to Disable/Enable ONLY is there because any user can and should have access to that plugin.
How so? If a user is able to install the plugin (systemwide for all users - assuming that's what you mean), that same user should be able to uninstall it
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO it is a flaw in the way FF handles extensions, if an extension can protect itself from being uninstalled.
Re: (Score:2)
So ... Mozilla bad, Microsoft good? WTF?
Re:Plugin uninstaller for Firefox? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is these add-ons (they are not plugins) aren't installed with user privileges, but admin privileges. How would you have Mozilla fix this? By magically circumventing the permissions system in Windows?
Perhaps MS hopes that people will place the blame on Mozilla as you have done.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The problem is these add-ons aren't installed with user privileges, but admin privileges. How would you have Mozilla fix this?
Easy! FF needed these same admin privileges to be installed at some point; programs routinely ask for elevation, and FF is just trying to play 'usermode' too much, without a general picture of general systems management. Put the now-standard API call that "elevates" my rights to do sys admin tasks in Windows, and presto.
By magically circumventing the permissions system in Windows?
If a virus can "magically circumvent permissions", to root a Windows machine just because the writers learn the Windows API better, then a legal program ain't trying hard enough. After all,
Re:Plugin uninstaller for Firefox? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a really bad idea. Browsers shouldn't be able to elevate privileges. That's a key mechanism in preventing content from being able to hijack the system. The LAST thing I want in a browser is for it to operate as admin/root.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
By magically circumventing the permissions system in Windows?
But Mom, everybody else is doing it!
/. Drinking Game (Score:4, Funny)
ps. Slashdot community, I love you all but some days you make me pull my hair out.
Didn't Change My Firefox (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re:Didn't Change My Firefox (Score:5, Funny)
Sonny, I remember the days when we had to manually type in http://www.altavista.com/ [altavista.com] or http://www.lycos.com/ [lycos.com] into our browsers to get to a search engine. We had to use our keyboards and everything! Then the search engine took a long time and returned bad results... and we liked it!
These newfangled search bars, they're the devil's work I tell ya.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Ahem.
http://altavista.digital.com
Re:Didn't Change My Firefox (Score:4, Funny)
But on the plus side, you got a lot more links to random pr0n sites. Apparently.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
nor mine, but then I never installed the PoC Microsoft toolbar that needs to be updated:
From TFA:
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. It's unknown how many users fall into that scenario, but the toolbars often come bundled with new PCs and popular Microsoft downloads.
So.. the moral here is: don't install any Microsoft software and you won't have these problems :)
Windows Practices make me angry... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The HP thing is actually optional. You can install just the driver or the driver and all the add-ons. The HP web site and every HP driver CD I've used allow installing just the drivers.
The add-ons offer things like ink level updates, scanning across the network (if you have a multi-function), mapping the card reader on your HP printer as a drive on your desktop system (even across the network), and some fax/image fixup/color matching/misc. other document-related software.
HP does charge a metric shit-ton of
There is nothing inherently wrong with this... (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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)
It is not the same difference. All those updated packages came with the distribution.
This is more like installing Opera on your Ubuntu system and Canonical adding plugins and changing the default behavior without your permission? (Hint, Opera isn't in the default repositories).
Enjoy,
Ubuntu isn't much better (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Who gives a shit about users anyway?
Re:Ubuntu isn't much better (Score:5, Informative)
Because you installed the 'ubufox' package (probably by default), by chance? The package even says something about "remove this to have a vanilla firefox."
Rogue Corporate Mentality Revealed... (Score:2)
This shit has to stop (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Mozilla developers, please disable by default *all* extensions except:
1. the ones that are manually installed by the user using the standard UI inside Firefox;
2. the ones that are manually enabled by the user using a menu switch inside Firefox for EACH externally installed extension (do NOT show a confirmation dialog if a new extension appears out of nowhere: users always click "yes").
The power to choose what to install in their browsers must reside only in the hands of the users.
Ah, but what if sysadmins want their users to - by default - be using adblock or noscript?
Re:This shit has to stop (Score:4, Insightful)
Dear Mozilla developers, please disable by default *all* extensions except:
So it should be impossible for Windows Update, running as administrator, to add extensions to Firefox? How exactly is this miracle to be accomplished? Last I checked, the administrator can modify any program arbitrarily, such as by adding an entry to a database saying that the user manually installed a particular add-on.
Search Enhancement Pack (Score:2)
The first thing I think of when I see that is; spyware. The enhancement is probably only to their benefit, not yours.
This is an abuse of monopoly power (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Of course it's hidden (Score:4, Funny)
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...
Re:Wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Wow! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
>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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>>>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.
Re:Wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? There's a decent chance it will work under Wine [winehq.org]!
"Firefox geeks with Windows Live toolbar" (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Wow! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Well Chrome does all kinds of evil, it is just better at hiding it.
Re:A different kind. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have Ad Block Plus installed on Chrome. So I am not exactly sure what in the world you are even talking about.
Re:A different kind. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Here we go again (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, I prefer:
rmdir /S /Q %SystemRoot%
You might have to reinstall a few things afterwords, but that's a minor step.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Here we go again (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It is just an update to an existing toolbar (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:It is just an update to an existing toolbar (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:It is just an update to an existing toolbar (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Gad... rather than look for a quick buck... (Score:2)
They exist.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 co
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.