Comments on: Microsoft Accused of “Sabotaging Firefox”

By: Yuhong Bao

Yuhong Bao — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:45:04 +0000

“uninstallable”
I mean non-uninstallable.
“In comparison, AARD was an attempt to prevent Windows 3.1 from running on DR-DOS (thus sabotaging it), there is no other way to explain it, period. ”
Not only that, it was clearly deliberately obfuscated code. Andrew Schulman disassembled it and says so.

By: Yuhong Bao

Yuhong Bao — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:37:55 +0000

“It’s malicious. Like AARD.”
Well, MS’s intention with this add-on was to add .NET integration to Firefox so that .NET powered web apps can work. MS did not deliberately made it uninstallable, it was a side effect of how it was installed.
In comparison, AARD was an attempt to prevent Windows 3.1 from running on DR-DOS (thus sabotaging it), there is no other way to explain it, period.

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 05:37:11 +0000

It’s malicious. Like AARD.

By: Bogdan Bivolaru

Bogdan Bivolaru — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 05:29:50 +0000

Let me get this straight:
I need to install patch #2 just to remove something that shouldn’t be installed in patch #1 (without users’ consent)…
That doesn’t sound like easy removal (as any patch from MS can break my system in lots of unexpected ways) and doesn’t sound like they stopped pushing patch #1 down the users throat.
This message is like ‘We keep doing crimes, but we help those injured as a result of our actions.’
What about stopping the patch #1, isn’t it still pushed down the channel?

By: buck

buck — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 04:59:31 +0000

Another reason not to use Windows.

By: pcolon

pcolon — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 20:37:32 +0000

Thanks for the update. IMO Mozilla has tested this fix as much as possible since there is a vested interest. But that doesn’t rule out the fact that microsoft can modify, without user consent, a third party application running in a windows environment.

Many people elected to use Firefox instead of IE thinking Mozilla and the owner of the computing device would be the only party to modify Firefox’s behaviour.

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 08:18:13 +0000

I’ve finally found a response from Mozilla:

“dealing with the .NET ClickOnce add-on”
http://shaver.off.net/diary/2009/06/02/dealing-with-the-net-clickonce-add-on/

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 19:01:09 +0000

I was not able to find any response from Mozilla. Is there such a thing? Is Mozilla too shy to complain? It’s already part of the Opera-led motion in Europe (with ECIS IIRC).

By: PaulGaskin

PaulGaskin — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 17:54:45 +0000

This is really outrageous. They’ve changed the way millions of Firefox installations on Windows will function without asking permission, nor notifying users.

This .net extension will undoubtably cause pop-ups, crashes and become a security problem. This was a desperate and probably illegal act by Microsoft.

They should face the full force of the law for compromising people’s computers and illegally interfering with a business competitor.

By: Juan Pablo Angamarca

Juan Pablo Angamarca — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 20:29:55 +0000

So typical of Microsoft… that’s got so stop!

By: alex

alex — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:59:49 +0000

I wish I had time to look at this in detail as it starts to slip toward copyright infringing to me.

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 23:01:55 +0000

I’d love to try Chrome at some stage.

Is there any response from Mozilla?

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:35:22 +0000

You can follow http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/963707

to remove it.

However, unlike Microsoft, AVG will ask you if you want to add their extension to FF. Kinda niffty how they did it in the first place.

Btw, I had some malware/payware that infected IE and FF but not Chrome. Perhaps you should keep that just in case and/or a copy of FF in portable app guise.

By: suresh

suresh — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:55:35 +0000

Mozilla should take a leaf out of GNU Icecat’s book which is more concerned about privacy and spyware.

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 12:38:22 +0000

Steve and Neelie might discuss this over dinner and candlelight.

By: Bogdan Bivolaru

Bogdan Bivolaru — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 12:03:22 +0000

Well… where are the antitrust regulators?
European Commision? US?

By: aeshna23

aeshna23 — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:36:34 +0000

I attempted to remove this addon from my installation of Vista 7 following the directions given at http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/article08-600.

I could not follow those directions. There appears to be no longer be any reference to this add-on in the firefox configuration options (steps 5-7). I hope I’m not being paranoid in wondering why Microsoft would make it so difficult to remove this add-on.

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Sun, 31 May 2009 20:34:56 +0000

I haven’t come across any official response from Mozilla.

By: pcolon

pcolon — Sun, 31 May 2009 20:33:13 +0000

Was the Mozilla team contacted beforehand in reference to the Firefox modification?

Updates, including security patches, do not occur without asking in the GNU/Linux distros I use. These forced modifications to the os and extended applications is reason enough for discontinuing the use of microsoft products and services altogether.

By: the11thplague

the11thplague — Sun, 31 May 2009 20:03:27 +0000

Stefano Forenza’s Web site… nice site, I didn’t knew about it before!
Thanks for the tip.