Why is WU installing Firefox add-on's?
in [Windows Update]
|
From: Gene3 on 3 Mar 2010 21:51 My computer (XP Home, an OEM 2002 version) came with .NET 1.0 installed, and I had to do everything else. Yes, I installed everything individually from .NET 1.0 through 3.5. I tried a lot of ways, and that's the only way it would work for me. What finally worked was to uninstall everything squeaky clean with the .NET removal tool, then reinstall in order: 1.0, 1.0 SP1, 1.1, 1.1 SP1, 2.0, 2.0 SP1, 3.0, 3.0 SP1, 3.5, 3.5 SP1 - all of them downloaded directly from MS (nothing from WU). Only after that process was complete did I let WU get involved. Otherwise WU simply couldn't understand and returned errors/refusals to install! When I let Windows Update get involved, it was a revealing experience. It redownloaded and reinstalled several of the items I'd already installed, and in several stages/tiers. I believe it reinstalled some of the same things 2-3 times! The whole process took several hours but their almost interminable series of patches finally came to an end. I have tried to study and understand the .NET system but could find no clear overall explanations. Part of the problem is the MS method of dropping software after awhile. I believe their .NET 1.0 is already dropped and being ignored, as is perhaps also .NET 1.1(?). However some of my software still uses those .NET versions so I guess I need them. As for installing only .NET 3.5 SP1 as the method to get .NET 2.0 thru 3.5 inclusive, I wasn't aware of that possibility. Perhaps I tried it, I can't remember. I tried almost everything! :) -- G3 "ybS2okj" <ybS2okj(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:u5rOZD0uKHA.5008(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > > Did you install all the .Net Framework Applications from 1.1 to 3.5 SP1? > If so then I have to say you wasted a lot of time because you should have > installed only 3.5 SP1 because it is cumulative from 2.0 onwards. Then > this leaves 1.1 but it may not be needed unless you are using very old > programs like Quickbooks version 6 or VS 2003. > > I have decided not to install any updates post SP3 and my system is > perfect and I don't have any worries about viruses or spywares or even DoS > attacks because my Firewall has "No Exceptions allowed". > > MS-MVPs are a bunch of geriatrics who are jobless and no one wants to > employ them. So they spend their time here to keep renewing their > membership of the Pig-Society" > > > hth > > > > "Gene3" <Gene3(a)not.valid> wrote in message > news:uSJh25zuKHA.5940(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> You may be right but more likely, I believe, is the MS software engineers >> are inept and out of touch. The whole .NET complex is a big mess, very >> difficult to install and update properly. After several tries and a major >> effort, I finally got .NET 1.0 thru 3.5 completely installed and patched, >> working OK except for the subject of this thread. Then I get only strange >> responses to my research in this MS WU group, suggesting that the >> MS-MVP's here aren't up to the task either. So I can't be very optimistic >> that they'll ever fix it... >> >> "ybS2okj" <ybS2okj(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:upXtVwzuKHA.6140(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>> >>> "Gene3" <Gene3(a)not.valid> wrote in message >>> news:uFpOrjzuKHA.5940(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>>> Why is Windows Update installing Firefox add-ons without any prior >>>> notice to user, especially buggy incompatible ones? >>> >>> It could be so that it becomes easier for M$ to sabotage Firefox on your >>> system to force you to start re-using IE8!!! >>> >>> Now this is just a guess. In Europe, people are offered a choice of >>> browsers and the patch is so bad that it has become a nuisance because >>> of pop-ups every now and then. Surely, M$ could have done a better job >>> but no. It has to cause inconvenience to its users to teach EU >>> Commissionaires a lesson!! Now this is called capitalism at its best! >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
From: Harry Johnston [MVP] on 3 Mar 2010 22:18 On 2010-03-04 2:20 p.m., Gene3 wrote: > I thought this was the MS Windows Update group. Maybe I was mistaken - but > if not here, then where? At least I'd like a reasonable response to my > primary question... Why is Windows Update installing Firefox add-ons without > any prior notice to user, especially buggy incompatible ones? As PA Bear already pointed out, nobody here works for or represents Microsoft. Therefore, we are unable to provide useful answers to questions about Microsoft's motives for doing something. If you need technical assistance to remove the update or prevent it from reinstalling, we'll be happy to help. ... on the technical side, I will add a few corrections: strictly speaking Windows Update is not installing the add-on. The add-on is a part of .NET, which Windows Update will install, if you permit it to do so. It should also be noted that the "uninstall" option Microsoft added was purely cosmetic - there isn't really anything to uninstall, so if "uninstall" has stopped working, "disable" is just as good. Harry. -- Harry Johnston http://harryjohnston.wordpress.com
From: Harry Johnston [MVP] on 3 Mar 2010 22:27 On 2010-03-04 1:36 a.m., Gene3 wrote: > In fact Mozilla has their own version of Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant 1.2 which works OK as I can verify with Firefox 3.6. [...] Could you provide a link for this? I'd like to investigate. Harry. -- Harry Johnston http://harryjohnston.wordpress.com
From: Gene3 on 3 Mar 2010 22:33 Thanks for the clarification. I didn't know for sure where it came from, just that it was installed by MS or WU without prior user knowledge and it didn't work right. A lot of people seem to agree about those points, for example: https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/forum/1/562619 -- G3 "Harry Johnston [MVP]" <harry(a)scms.waikato.ac.nz> wrote in message news:erlohl0uKHA.4752(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > On 2010-03-04 2:20 p.m., Gene3 wrote: > >> I thought this was the MS Windows Update group. Maybe I was mistaken - >> but >> if not here, then where? At least I'd like a reasonable response to my >> primary question... Why is Windows Update installing Firefox add-ons >> without >> any prior notice to user, especially buggy incompatible ones? > > As PA Bear already pointed out, nobody here works for or represents > Microsoft. Therefore, we are unable to provide useful answers to questions > about Microsoft's motives for doing something. > > If you need technical assistance to remove the update or prevent it from > reinstalling, we'll be happy to help. > > ... on the technical side, I will add a few corrections: strictly > speaking Windows Update is not installing the add-on. The add-on is a > part of .NET, which Windows Update will install, if you permit it to do > so. > > It should also be noted that the "uninstall" option Microsoft added was > purely cosmetic - there isn't really anything to uninstall, so if > "uninstall" has stopped working, "disable" is just as good. > > Harry. > > -- > Harry Johnston > http://harryjohnston.wordpress.com
From: Ottmar Freudenberger on 4 Mar 2010 15:47
"Gene3" <Gene3(a)not.valid> schrieb: > Why is WU putting add-ons into Firefox? WU doesn't while KB951847 does. > It's Mozilla's responsibility to take care of their own browser, > and I imagine they would prefer it that way. And why the heck does/did Mozilla allow to "install" Add-Ons/Extensions silently the way it has been used by KB951847? Kuckuck: http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2009/10/16/net-framework-assistant-blocked-to-disarm-security-vulnerability/ Just in case you may get me wrong: No Update pushed via WU/AU *SHOULD* install any extensions/Add-Ons to which 3rd-party software ever. I have had a "little" conversation with some of the MS guys for nearly a half year in 2009 regarding KB951847, its original size for Windows XP machines (280(!) MB in case you're running a localized, non-english Windows XP version), why it has been (and still is) pushed via WU/AU to Windows systems (with at least .NET Framework 2.0 installed) as an important update at all and why it installed the Fx Extension (there hasn't been any word of that in any MSKB article at this time). I'm kind of sure, that these won't happen again with .NET Framework 4.0 which seems to be around the corner. Anyhow, that's a decision MS (or to be specfic: the .NET Dev guys) made and no one other than these are in the position to change that. You most likely won't find a satisfying (if any) answer by a MS representative in this very newsgroup related to KB951847 and the issue you mention. Bye, Freu"don't shoot the messenger"di |