
Microsoft Secretly Installs Firefox Extension Through Windows Update - VeXocide
http://www.osnews.com/story/23436/Microsoft_Secretly_Installs_Firefox_Extension_Through_WU
======
patio11
You can get outraged that updates do not list every package affected, or you
can have your software used by people who think both Internet Explorer and
Firefox are actually called "the Google", but you cannot have both. I think MS
is making the right call here: assume that a user who has expressed desire for
a toolbar, via installing it and requesting an update, wants it in all
browsers.

The four people in the world who use both IE and Firefox and wanted the bar in
IE but not in Firefox are capable of tweaking that setting themselves.

~~~
fakeempire
Why is this getting upvoted? That is a monkey chatter comment. That's the
stupidest justification I've ever heard. This is scummy tactics. Period. Why
would you defend it unless you had a vested interest in doing so? You know its
bad. Why on earth would I EVER want someone to install additional software on
to my computer without consent or notification.

I NEVER WOULD. That simple. You wouldn't either.

Google's update tactics are really shitty as well but at least you know you
are installing it in the first place. This is just crap and you know it.

There is a third option to get outraged about that you didn't mention. Shitty
tactics. It was obviously a sneaky move. You know it, they know it and I know
it.

~~~
patio11
_Why would you defend it unless you had a vested interest in doing so?_

Because I have a longstanding, passionate interest in making software which
can be used by people who do not make software. If your software requires
package management, they can't use it. If your software requires
configuration, they can't use it. If your software requires consent or
notification, they either a) click right past without reading it or b) can't
use it because they process anything longer than one sentence as "The scary
box is showing me an error message."

Let me give you an example, taken straight from Ubuntu/Firefox. Firefox
depends on ubuntu-desktop, a meta-package. Ubuntu-desktop contains, among
other things, ure.

Do you _really_ want to show my aunt -- who thinks Firefox is called "the
Google" -- "Firefox requires installing a piece of software called 'ure' on
your computer. Think carefully whether you consent to installing 'ure'."

[Install Ure] [Don't Install Ure] <\-- P.S. My aunt does _not_ understand this
will cause her to fail at what she is trying to do.

There are several dozen _other_ packages to run through, too.

My aunt is _not capable of making that decision_. She doesn't know what ure
is. Hell, I don't even know what ure is (+), and it is my business to know
things like this. It is her business to teach high schoolers and she has told
you she wants to use Firefox to do it. _Make it happen and get out of her
way._

\+ On checking with the Googles, I have discovered it is an OpenOffice run-
time component. Duh, why didn't I think of that.

~~~
fakeempire
Well your passion is misguided and you should quit the software business now.
Seriously.

Your argument is completely invalid. You are debating a dependency issue vs
the installation of additional _unrelated_ software.

I'm sure Microsoft has your aunts best interests in mind when they put their
search bar into a product that they dont maintain.

If you are all for software companies installing random peices of bullshit
software on your computer during regular updates of their software, then I'll
gladly setup an update server that you can use. Dont worry, your aunt wont
have to make any decisions.

------
wheaties
I can't figure out which bothers me more: Microsoft being so underhanded with
these updates to software it doesn't produce or that they allow pretty much
any company to install an add-on within Firefox without user consent. This has
happened once before with Microsoft and it's even happened with Skype, a
company founded by modern, savvy entrepreneurs. Why won't Firefox add a
feature to disable an installed add-ons until flagged as wanted by the user?

~~~
Lendal
You consented when you selected "Install updates automatically," instead of
"Check for updates but let me choose whether to download and install them."

~~~
WiseWeasel
We're talking about a new Firefox add-on being installed here, not an update
to one already installed. That's a huge difference.

~~~
moron4hire
Windows Update installs new software all the time.

~~~
WiseWeasel
Windows Update installs new software in the domain of Windows and other
Microsoft products. It is not expected to install updates or extensions to any
3rd party software.

------
BonoboBoner
If only we could sneak in Google Chrome Frame into IE this way...

~~~
rbanffy
Or Firefox...

------
ojbyrne
This happened last year too: <http://annoyances.org/exec/show/article08-600>

------
ck2
Firefox central can "recall" and block any rogue extension.

They did it last year when Microsoft tried this, they should do it for this
one too asap.

I purposely do not run as the default firefox profile, so I don't think
Microsoft got me this time...

------
euroclydon
I hope they are doing it for security reasons. I seem to recall that if your
default browser is set to Firefox, and you click the Windows Update link, that
Windows Update won't run correctly because it depended on an ActiveX control.

~~~
rbanffy
If a specific critical piece of the OS relies on defaults to select the only
environment it can run on, then it's very poorly designed.

Somehow, this doesn't surprise me one bit.

------
Qz
While the indirect way they did this is less than ideal, I think they have the
right idea. IE and Firefox are browsers. A search toolbar is something that
goes in a browser. Odds are, if you installed a search bar in your browser
(not that I personally would ever do such a thing), you want it in whichever
browser you use. It would be better if they just asked, 'hey do you want us to
install this for firefox too?' (maybe?) but I'm not terribly upset by the idea
of it.

------
melvin
Microsoft intentionally made Netscape (more) unstable and slower, if I recall.
is there any reason to think they wouldn't respond to Firefox's growing
popularity is to intentionally make it perform poorly? I'm very, very
suspicious of Microsoft interacting with Firefox in any way whatsoever. No
doubt they'd like to exert control over it in some way.

------
redstripe
Did any of you outraged people actually have the toolbar installed? My auto
updates are on and I don't have it in either browser.

If you already had it then it's not so inconceivable that they would update
both browsers through lazy programming. No conspiracy theory required.

~~~
melvin
I don't think you can 'accidentally' install a toolbar in Firefox.

------
mleonhard
The original article:

[http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/06/microsoft-
slip...](http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/06/microsoft-slips-ie-
firefox-add-on-into-toolbar-update.ars)

