RSSSky not falling after the latest Firefox 3.5.2 dust-up with .NET plug-in
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published August 18, 2009, 10:26 AM
Mozilla Firefox users awoke this morning to the news in their RSS feeds that the organization had dared to send push notes to its users urging them to upgrade to a Web browser version that was, as the report put it, ".NET incompatible." Hopefully, Firefox veterans knew what was really going on.
Users who upgrade their Firefox versions a few times per month anyway have seen this all before, and have long since discovered there's no need to panic: Microsoft's .NET Framework Assistant add-on has a habit of showing up in users' Firefox plug-ins list without them even asking for it. Its purpose is not to make Firefox compatible with .NET -- anyone who's installed Silverlight 3 in Firefox knows that. What it does is give .NET apps designed to be run through the browser a kind of hook to the .NET runtime -- a hook that Internet Explorer includes by design -- so that these apps can check their servers and update themselves.
Again -- and this is important -- the plug-in does not make .NET compatible with Firefox. It enables the ClickOnce hook -- in fact, in the plug-ins list, that's exactly what the listing explicitly says.
It's not Mozilla's responsibility to maintain this plug-in, it's Microsoft's. In fact, the main problem that users have had with the plug-in up to this point has been that they didn't ask for it. Secondary to that has been the suspicion that ClickOnce could open up a channel for exploitability, letting software install itself on a PC without the user's permission. However, there's no evidence of such an exploit ever taking place; and technically, ClickOnce only enables the automatic installation of updates to the application making the contact.
But apparently Microsoft is not too adept in the practice of making Firefox add-ons, otherwise it wouldn't explicitly code the browser version number into its plug-in's attributes. If every plug-in were built that way, they'd all be rendered incompatible every time Mozilla issued an update. And then we'd have an opportunity for more fatalistic blog posts.
By the way, this incompatibility happens for us with every Firefox update, and eventually Microsoft gets around to issuing a security patch that includes an updated add-on. But in the meantime, we do not notice any functionality detriments or pitfalls in Firefox or .NET while the incompatible plug-in is disabled.
"But apparently Microsoft is not too adept in the practice of making Firefox add-ons, otherwise it wouldn't explicitly code the browser version number into its plug-in's attributes."
The only-way a company with such vast resources won't do this is because it doesn't want to.
and .NET has two versions, one visible and one hidden that installs the visible one if it isn't there. Nasty!
> I see you disabled the printing of comments with the articles, seems that my latest posts about Ogg in Firefox didn't please your sponsors and/or biased journalists.
Score: 0
|"and .NET has two versions, one visible and one hidden that installs the visible one if it isn't there. Nasty! "
Source?
Score: 0
|This is such old news... The plugin installs with any .net release, so any .Net app you've installed (and thus having installed the runtimes) installs the plugin.
Contrary to past articles , it is easily removable.
I have Silverlight, Office, and several .Net apps. I am running Windows 7 (Technet). I do *not* have the plugin in Firefox (as I have never installed a .Net runtime (it's part of Win7).
Gotta wonder how I'd go about getting the plugin if I decided I needed it for something...haven't had the desire to Google it yet though.
So...much ado about nothing, as usual. Scott's playing for the Trolls again. :)
Score: -4
|"So...much ado about nothing, as usual. Scott's playing for the Trolls again. :)"
Yep, and you took the bait like always.
Score: 2
|Meh...
Just because it's a troll doesn't mean *everyone* will ignore it. Some poor souls out there would take it as gospel just because it's an article on a website.
Score: 0
|lol, i have to ask whos screenshot that is? well, whoever owns that, should not be surprised if firefox is a tad slow, just saying
Score: 1
|Mine. Yes, I tend to run with a lot of add-ons. (Yes, Tab Mix Plus is one of them.) No, when I run Firefox tests for performance, it's not the browser with all these add-ons added on -- it's a plain vanilla version on a completely separate account.
-SF "Whose Add-ons Tend to Show in Other Departments As Well These Days" 3
Score: 0
|i just wish Firefox would issue an update already for its own damn browser, the thing has some minor but annoying bugs! i don't see why they haven't rushed a fix :S
i'm tired of an odd site hanging (not loading entirely) and freezing firefox process in background after Exit, ugh
sad part is, there seems to be nowhere to report bugs where anyone listens at all
support.mozilla.org is a joke
Score: 1
|"But apparently Microsoft is not too adept in the practice of making Firefox add-ons, otherwise it wouldn't explicitly code the browser version number into its plug-in's attributes. If every plug-in were built that way, they'd all be rendered incompatible every time Mozilla issued an update....."
Umm, I hate to break it to you, but that's exactly how every add-on is made. Well, not quite: the plug-in specifies which version(s) it works with, which could be either an exact number or a range. You actually WILL find some plug-ins (and themes) that become incompatible during updates, but they're rarely made so by ".z" (x.y.z) releases. It's incredibly common to find ones that will not work across, for example, 3.0 and 3.5 for a similar reason, but that's to be expected with changes in the browser. Mozilla generally tries to make only nonbreaking changes for minor releases. *This* is why there is a reported incompatibility; Microsoft's specified version number apparently does not include this latest update in its acceptable range--which could be intentional (we never had this issue before, so perhaps MS wants to test it with even minor releases before officially releasing it now) or accidental.
Score: 1
|Exactly.
Apparently, these people forget that kind of thing pretty easily when Microsoft is doing it, though.
Tab Mix Plus, anyone? Rarely compatible with the latest builds.
Score: -4
|I just checked and the crappy, insecure .net plug-in was reinstalled in my Firefox again. Bad enough i am forced to run Windows at work to do a couple of things, but this Microsoft trojan ware is out of control. I guess you can do what you want when you are a convicted Monopolist so long as you pay off the right politicians.
It is funny how, if someone actually did want the Microsoft trojan installed in Firefox Microsoft makes it as painful as possible to use since they hardcode to an explicit version of Firefox. Typical Microsoft.
Score: -11
|Must....resist.....urge.......to........feed.......troll..........
Score: 4
|What's really amusing is that while the .Net plugin installs with....".Net", and Apple bundles "Safari" into a totally unrelated update for "iTunes" {betanews.com}.
Funny how I never hear fathead ranting about that one.. (actually, having gone back and read some of the comments in that article, I am nearly 100% positive "fatty" == "pitdingo".
It's funny what religion does to some people's critical thinking capacity.
Score: 1
|Funny how the Betanews policy states: "Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated", yet PC_Tool launches personal attacks constantly. "fathead"?
How is a rogue installation of a plug-in the same as installing a web browser? While personally, i do think Apple installing Safari without a user asking for it is terrible.
"fatty" == "pitdingo"...not following you there. Forget the meds again?
Score: -4
|its not rogue if you read what you're installing and updating with .NET and Windows Updates, its right there in black/white
Score: 0
|He's clueless, art. Don't even bother.
Fathead: If the Betanews policy was strictly enforced, you would have been banned long before *I* began insulting *you*. I'm just returning a long list of favors. You made yourself fair game in your first response to me. Get over it.
"How is a rogue installation of a plug-in the same as installing a web browser? "
How is the plugin installation rogue? Did you forget to read the documentation?
""fatty" == "pitdingo"...not following you there. Forget the meds again?"
On the off-chance you are actually just a exceedingly good facsimile of the past user, and not actually, him, I'll humor you: Pitdingo was my puppy before you got here. Much like you, he'd follow me around, posting the same Apple fanboy/MSFT troll drek you do. Much like you, he'd rant and rave like some mentally stunted child. Much like you, he'd use emotional rhetoric and baseless implications instead of facts, logic, or common sense. Much like you, he pretended he had a clue. As is the case with you, no-one fell for it.
Score: 0
|Well then...i see you have your knickers in quite a knot. As far as following you around...don't flatter yourself mate. It seems whenever i post, you are following me around with your nonsensical comebacks, just as I anticipate. Quite fun, actually. You are doing it in this thread too. :)
Exactly who replies to who?
Score: -3
|Funny how well you always manage to avoid the point. Though, I suppose with all the BS you throw around it's actually quite easy. As for the following, you've gotten a bit better at that, and I must admit I do find it hard not to revel in your idiocy whenever you mention Silverlight. You mght actually have a point there, surprisingly enough.
Let's make it harder for you to avoid the actual topic though, hmmm? Focus real close and concentrate:
Quote Fatty:
"How is a rogue installation of a plug-in the same as installing a web browser?"
Quote artfuldodga:
"if you read what you're installing and updating with .NET and Windows Updates, its right there in black/white"
Quote PC_Tool:
"How is the plugin installation rogue? Did you forget to read the documentation?"
Score: 0
|