Surprised!

[Sunny]

"Hot-text" wrote in message

news:2815D742-A531-4C8A-918D-336B7D22E3C5@microsoft.com...

>I hope that traffic for win 98 go up and win 98 always be open!

> I say I HOPE!



What part of "Microsoft is withdrawing from Usenet news groups" don't you

understand ?

If you need Microsoft "discussions" in future you will be forced to use

their Web based "forums"

One more time "-



Microsoft is withdrawing their NNTP server from Usenet.

 

[Tim Meddick]

Not entirely true....





Although microsoft IS discontinuing their newsgroups You CAN still access

the new Microsoft Forums on NNTP clients such as Outlook Express.





Here is a quote from one of their recent posts on this group :



"In addition to offering a compelling online browser experience, for

those

users who prefer to use an NNTP (newsgroup) reader to participate in the

newsgroups community, we have developed a solution called the NNTP

Bridge

which allows a user to connect a variety of supported NNTP readers to

the

forums they would like to participate in and continue having the NTTP

reader

functionality. You can find instructions on how to download and set up

the

NNTP Bridge here: http://connect.microsoft.com/MicrosoftForums/ "



(From post: "Final Reminder - Microsoft Responds to the Evolution of

Community" 28/05/10)



==



Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.









"Sunny" wrote in message

news:%23gsJ5lCCLHA.1888@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>

> "Hot-text" wrote in message

> news:2815D742-A531-4C8A-918D-336B7D22E3C5@microsoft.com...

>>I hope that traffic for win 98 go up and win 98 always be open!

>> I say I HOPE!

>

> What part of "Microsoft is withdrawing from Usenet news groups" don't you

> understand ?

> If you need Microsoft "discussions" in future you will be forced to use

> their Web based "forums"

> One more time "-

>

> Microsoft is withdrawing their NNTP server from Usenet.

>

 

[webster72n]

"Tim Meddick" wrote in message

news:#VLH3tCCLHA.1888@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Not entirely true....

>

>

> Although microsoft IS discontinuing their newsgroups You CAN still access

> the new Microsoft Forums on NNTP clients such as Outlook Express.

>

>

> Here is a quote from one of their recent posts on this group :

>

> "In addition to offering a compelling online browser experience, for

> those

> users who prefer to use an NNTP (newsgroup) reader to participate in the

> newsgroups community, we have developed a solution called the NNTP

> Bridge

> which allows a user to connect a variety of supported NNTP readers to

> the

> forums they would like to participate in and continue having the NTTP

> reader

> functionality. You can find instructions on how to download and set up

> the

> NNTP Bridge here: http://connect.microsoft.com/MicrosoftForums/ "

>

> (From post: "Final Reminder - Microsoft Responds to the Evolution of

> Community" 28/05/10)



I am beginning to see the whole picture now, since I never red the entire

notice from MS.

Thanks to every participant in this thread.

Maybe this is a forerunner to 'cloud computing'?



Harry.



>

> ==

>

> Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.

>

>

>

>

> "Sunny" wrote in message

> news:%23gsJ5lCCLHA.1888@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>

>> "Hot-text" wrote in message

>> news:2815D742-A531-4C8A-918D-336B7D22E3C5@microsoft.com...

>>>I hope that traffic for win 98 go up and win 98 always be open!

>>> I say I HOPE!

>>

>> What part of "Microsoft is withdrawing from Usenet news groups" don't you

>> understand ?

>> If you need Microsoft "discussions" in future you will be forced to use

>> their Web based "forums"

>> One more time "-

>>

>> Microsoft is withdrawing their NNTP server from Usenet.

>>

>

 

[Peter Foldes]

Tim



Have you looked at the NNTP Bridge as per the link below. Most of us are using this

one since it is more versatile and it has 2 less steps to achieve the connection



http://communitybridge.codeplex.com/



--

Peter



Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others

Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

http://www.microsoft.com/protect



"Tim Meddick" wrote in message

news:%23VLH3tCCLHA.1888@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Not entirely true....

>

>

> Although microsoft IS discontinuing their newsgroups You CAN still access the new

> Microsoft Forums on NNTP clients such as Outlook Express.

>

>

> Here is a quote from one of their recent posts on this group :

>

> "In addition to offering a compelling online browser experience, for

> those

> users who prefer to use an NNTP (newsgroup) reader to participate in the

> newsgroups community, we have developed a solution called the NNTP

> Bridge

> which allows a user to connect a variety of supported NNTP readers to

> the

> forums they would like to participate in and continue having the NTTP

> reader

> functionality. You can find instructions on how to download and set up

> the

> NNTP Bridge here: http://connect.microsoft.com/MicrosoftForums/ "

>

> (From post: "Final Reminder - Microsoft Responds to the Evolution of Community"

> 28/05/10)

>

> ==

>

> Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.

>

>

>

>

> "Sunny" wrote in message

> news:%23gsJ5lCCLHA.1888@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>

>> "Hot-text" wrote in message

>> news:2815D742-A531-4C8A-918D-336B7D22E3C5@microsoft.com...

>>>I hope that traffic for win 98 go up and win 98 always be open!

>>> I say I HOPE!

>>

>> What part of "Microsoft is withdrawing from Usenet news groups" don't you

>> understand ?

>> If you need Microsoft "discussions" in future you will be forced to use their Web

>> based "forums"

>> One more time "-

>>

>> Microsoft is withdrawing their NNTP server from Usenet.

>>

>

 

[VanguardLH]

Sunny wrote:



> What part of "Microsoft is withdrawing from Usenet news groups" don't

> you understand ? If you need Microsoft "discussions" in future you

> will be forced to use their Web based "forums" One more time "-

>

> Microsoft is withdrawing their NNTP server from Usenet.



Yes, just *Microsoft* is dropping their own NNTP server. Microsoft is

not Usenet. Usenet won't disappear because Microsoft decided to end

their Usenet usurping experiment back in 2006. Giganews, Albasani,

Eternal-September, Earthlink, and other NSPs have already stated that

they will continue carrying the microsoft.public.* newsgroups (i.e.,

they will ignore any rogue 'rmgroup' control message issued by a

self-appointed netcop).



The microsoft.public.* newsgroups are NOT going away from Usenet. It

is *Microsoft* that is scrambling away from Usenet. No one is getting

forced to use Microsoft's inane web-based forums to continue

participating in these newsgroups.



You can, if you feel so inclined to self-torture, use Microsoft's (well,

Microsoft didn't write it but they proffer it as their software) NNTP

Bridge to access the web-based forums (well, only some of them as not

all have been brought under the same umbrella for access control).

Rather than operate a forum-to-NNTP gateway server on their end (which

is what all the Usenet-leeching web sites do), Microsoft wants you to

run a local NNTP-to-forums proxy on your host. It has lots of problems

and deficiencies. That it is workable doesn't mean it is preferred.



If you want to continue participating in the microsoft.public.*

newsgroups then do so by using any other NNTP server. There are free

and paid NSPs you can use to access these newsgroups. You do NOT need

to use Microsoft's NNTP server. The groups are not going away because

Microsoft is.

 

[98 Guy]

VanguardLH wrote:



> Giganews, Albasani, Eternal-September, Earthlink, and other NSPs

> have already stated that they will continue carrying the

> microsoft.public.* newsgroups



Where have they stated that? In what newsgroup(s) have they posted that

they will continue to carry the microsoft.public hierarchy?



> (i.e., they will ignore any rogue 'rmgroup' control message issued

> by a self-appointed netcop).



Many of them have been following that "self-appointed netcop" for years

(Julien Elie). Like it or not, he is the recognized authority for that

hierarchy, and he intends to administrate those groups out of existance.



The server nntp.AIOE.org recognizes the "official" list of newsgroups

generated by ISC.org, and ISC.org recognizes the authority of Julien's

PGP key and his control messages.



But otherwise I agree that Microsoft turning off it's usenet server

would not or should not automatically mean that the microsoft.public

groups will disappear from usenet.



Many people believe (incorrectly) that Microsoft's servers play some

important, critical technical role in the existance and message

transport of these groups, and the shut-down of their server will

automatically mean the loss of these groups to the rest of usenet.



Other people believe (incorrectly) that even if Microsoft's servers do

not play a critical or necessary technical role for the operation of

these groups, that Microsoft nonetheless can *force* the world-wide

usenet to discontinue their use because the groups are Microsoft's legal

property.

 

[Peter Foldes]

You are a hooplehead at it's best



--

Peter



Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others

Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

http://www.microsoft.com/protect



"98 Guy" wrote in message news:4C10E7CD.6A48B642@Guy.com...

> VanguardLH wrote:

>

>> Giganews, Albasani, Eternal-September, Earthlink, and other NSPs

>> have already stated that they will continue carrying the

 

[98 Guy]

Top-Poaster Peter Foldes wrote:



> You are a hooplehead at it's best



And you are a hit-and-run top-poaster.



I will summarize my last post (which you did not quote), and you will

most likely not respond to the points I'm making, or state exactly how

any of my statements are incorrect:



------------



- In what newsgroup(s) have they (various NNTP operators) posted that

they will continue to carry the microsoft.public hierarchy?



- Many of them (nntp operators) have been following that "self-appointed

netcop" for years (Julien Elie). Like it or not, he is the recognized

authority for that hierarchy, and he intends to administrate those

groups out of existance.



- AIOE follows the ISC.org list of newsgroups, and ISC.org accepts

Julien's control messages. AIOE has already removed some microsoft

newsgroups, and by all indications will remove all of them, as per

Julien's actions.



- Otherwise, Microsoft turning off it's usenet server would not or

should not automatically mean that the microsoft.public groups will

disappear from usenet.



- Many people believe (incorrectly) that Microsoft's servers play some

important, critical technical role in the existance and message

transport of these groups, and the shut-down of their server will

automatically mean the loss of these groups to the rest of usenet.



- Other people believe (incorrectly) that even if Microsoft's servers do

not play a critical or necessary technical role for the operation of

these groups, that Microsoft nonetheless can *force* the world-wide

usenet to discontinue their use because the groups are Microsoft's legal

property.

 

[Bickford Schmeckler]

Ignorant twit: Were you born a HoopleHead or did you work your way down?



"98 Guy" wrote in message news:4C10FA66.A557761C@Guy.com...

: Top-Poaster Peter Foldes wrote:

:

: > You are a hooplehead at it's best



:

: I will summarize my last post (which you did not quote), and you will

: most likely not respond to the points I'm making, or state exactly how

: any of my statements are incorrect:

:

: ------------

:

: - In what newsgroup(s) have they (various NNTP operators) posted that

: they will continue to carry the microsoft.public hierarchy?

:

: - Many of them (nntp operators) have been following that "self-appointed

: netcop" for years (Julien Elie). Like it or not, he is the recognized

: authority for that hierarchy, and he intends to administrate those

: groups out of existance.

:

: - AIOE follows the ISC.org list of newsgroups, and ISC.org accepts

: Julien's control messages. AIOE has already removed some microsoft

: newsgroups, and by all indications will remove all of them, as per

: Julien's actions.

:

: - Otherwise, Microsoft turning off it's usenet server would not or

: should not automatically mean that the microsoft.public groups will

: disappear from usenet.

:

: - Many people believe (incorrectly) that Microsoft's servers play some

: important, critical technical role in the existance and message

: transport of these groups, and the shut-down of their server will

: automatically mean the loss of these groups to the rest of usenet.

:

: - Other people believe (incorrectly) that even if Microsoft's servers do

: not play a critical or necessary technical role for the operation of

: these groups, that Microsoft nonetheless can *force* the world-wide

: usenet to discontinue their use because the groups are Microsoft's legal

: property.

 

[T Shadow]

"98 Guy" wrote in message news:4C10E7CD.6A48B642@Guy.com...

>

> Other people believe (incorrectly) that even if Microsoft's servers do

> not play a critical or necessary technical role for the operation of

> these groups, that Microsoft nonetheless can *force* the world-wide

> usenet to discontinue their use because the groups are Microsoft's legal

> property.



I feel better knowing a copyright and trademark attorney is posting here!



Especially one that's lost in the last Millennium.

 

[98 Guy]

Numbnuts Schmeckler spewed:



> Ignorant twit: Were you born a HoopleHead or did you work your

> way down?



So when exactly did you become infatuated with the word "hooplehead" ?



Was it when you lost the ability to have an intelligent conversation?



-----------



- In what newsgroup(s) have they (various NNTP operators) posted

that they will continue to carry the microsoft.public hierarchy?



- Many of them (nntp operators) have been following that "self-

appointed netcop" for years (Julien Elie). Like it or not, he

is the recognized authority for that hierarchy, and he intends

to administrate those groups out of existance.



- AIOE follows the ISC.org list of newsgroups, and ISC.org accepts

Julien's control messages. AIOE has already removed some microsoft

newsgroups, and by all indications will remove all of them, as per

Julien's actions.



- Otherwise, Microsoft turning off it's usenet server would not or

should not automatically mean that the microsoft.public groups

will disappear from usenet.



- Many people believe (incorrectly) that Microsoft's servers play

some important, critical technical role in the existance and

message transport of these groups, and the shut-down of their

server will automatically mean the loss of these groups to the

rest of usenet.



- Other people believe (incorrectly) that even if Microsoft's

servers do not play a critical or necessary technical role for

the operation of these groups, that Microsoft nonetheless can

*force* the world-wide usenet to discontinue their use because

the groups are Microsoft's legal property.

 

[98 Guy]

T Shadow wrote:



> > Other people believe (incorrectly) that even if Microsoft's servers

> > do not play a critical or necessary technical role for the operation

> > of these groups, that Microsoft nonetheless can *force* the world-

> > wide usenet to discontinue their use because the groups are

> > Microsoft's legal property.



I will now give you an example of one such person:



> I feel better knowing a copyright and trademark attorney is

> posting here!



The useage of "microsoft" in a usegroup name is free speech.



Just as if I wrote a book titled "Microsoft: History of a criminal

organization".



Just as countless other books, magazines, periodicals, websites, etc.



Speaking of a criminal organization, how many of you are aware that

Microsoft's last auto-update package delivered a firefox add-on that

tampers with your browser's search functionality - while calling it a

"critical" security update?

 

[Hot-text]

VanguardLH you right!



But who is go to be the ROOT NNTP server to Upstream the Microsoft groups

messages?

Will it be a pay or Free ROOT SERVER?



For Microsoft was the root server and for Microsoft groups



You have to have a root server to Share, Upstream, Download and filter Post

messages on the Usenet!



So who is the Usenet server that will do the Job?







"VanguardLH" wrote in message

news:huq6oq$ut6$1@news.albasani.net...

> Sunny wrote:

>

>> What part of "Microsoft is withdrawing from Usenet news groups" don't

>> you understand ? If you need Microsoft "discussions" in future you

>> will be forced to use their Web based "forums" One more time "-

>>

>> Microsoft is withdrawing their NNTP server from Usenet.

>

> Yes, just *Microsoft* is dropping their own NNTP server. Microsoft is

> not Usenet. Usenet won't disappear because Microsoft decided to end

> their Usenet usurping experiment back in 2006. Giganews, Albasani,

> Eternal-September, Earthlink, and other NSPs have already stated that

> they will continue carrying the microsoft.public.* newsgroups (i.e.,

> they will ignore any rogue 'rmgroup' control message issued by a

> self-appointed netcop).

>

> The microsoft.public.* newsgroups are NOT going away from Usenet. It

> is *Microsoft* that is scrambling away from Usenet. No one is getting

> forced to use Microsoft's inane web-based forums to continue

> participating in these newsgroups.

>

> You can, if you feel so inclined to self-torture, use Microsoft's (well,

> Microsoft didn't write it but they proffer it as their software) NNTP

> Bridge to access the web-based forums (well, only some of them as not

> all have been brought under the same umbrella for access control).

> Rather than operate a forum-to-NNTP gateway server on their end (which

> is what all the Usenet-leeching web sites do), Microsoft wants you to

> run a local NNTP-to-forums proxy on your host. It has lots of problems

> and deficiencies. That it is workable doesn't mean it is preferred.

>

> If you want to continue participating in the microsoft.public.*

> newsgroups then do so by using any other NNTP server. There are free

> and paid NSPs you can use to access these newsgroups. You do NOT need

> to use Microsoft's NNTP server. The groups are not going away because

> Microsoft is.

 

[glee]

"98 Guy" wrote in message news:4C116778.C64C4E05@Guy.com...

> snip

> Speaking of a criminal organization, how many of you are aware that

> Microsoft's last auto-update package delivered a firefox add-on that

> tampers with your browser's search functionality - while calling it a

> "critical" security update?



The Firefox extension and IE add-on from the "Search Enhancement" update

were only installed on systems that had the Live, MSN, or Bing browser

toolbar installed, since it is part of an update that involves those

toolbars.



It was not installed as a "critical" update, it was listed as an

"important" update.



Exactly how does it "tamper" with your search functionality? It updates

browser integration for the toolbar, and is only installed if the

toolbar is already installed.



As usual, you report half-truths, and are only interested in attacking

Microsoft....why don't you say a word about the Java Quick Starter

extension that Sun has been silently installing in Firefox for years,

and which actually can lead to security issues? It's from Sun, not

Microsoft, so you aren't interested in it....it doesn't fit your attack

plan.



--

Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

A+

http://dts-l.net/

 

[T Shadow]

"98 Guy" wrote in message news:4C116778.C64C4E05@Guy.com...

>T Shadow wrote:

>

>> > Other people believe (incorrectly) that even if Microsoft's servers

>> > do not play a critical or necessary technical role for the operation

>> > of these groups, that Microsoft nonetheless can *force* the world-

>> > wide usenet to discontinue their use because the groups are

>> > Microsoft's legal property.

>

> I will now give you an example of one such person:

>

>> I feel better knowing a copyright and trademark attorney is

>> posting here!

>

> The useage of "microsoft" in a usegroup name is free speech.

>



Where is you law degree from?



Box of Frosted Flakes doesn't count.

 

[Bickford Schmeckler]

:

: So when exactly did you become infatuated with the word "hooplehead" ?

:

: Was it when you lost the ability to have an intelligent conversation?

:



No, it was when your Mom started charging for her services.

 

[glee]

Microsoft inserts Firefox add-on with new updates (was: Surprised!)

Microsoft Basher "98 Guy" excerpted only the parts he

wanted to respond to, and replied in message

news:4C1246C6.2DB57565@Guy.com...

> glee wrote:

>

>> > Speaking of a criminal organization, how many of you are aware

>> > that Microsoft's last auto-update package delivered a firefox

>> > add-on that tampers with your browser's search functionality

>>

>> The Firefox extension and IE add-on from the "Search Enhancement"

>> update were only installed on systems that had the Live, MSN, or

>> Bing browser toolbar installed, since it is part of an update that

>> involves those toolbars.

>

> http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/ne...ips-ie-firefox-add-on-into-toolbar-update.ars

>

> ---------

> 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.

>

> 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.

>

> 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.

> ---------

>

>> It was not installed as a "critical" update, it was listed as

>> an "important" update.

>

> My mistake. It was listed as important - not optional. Which means

> it

> will likely be downloaded automatically on most systems - without

> their

> owners knowledge or approval.

>

>> Exactly how does it "tamper" with your search functionality?

>

> This is the second time that Microsoft has tried to tinker with

> Firefox

> on people's PC's. Some people don't like it when new tool bars appear

> in their browser.

>

>> It updates browser integration for the toolbar, and is only

>> installed if the toolbar is already installed.

>

> Not true - read above. This firefox add-on is being installed even

> when

> those systems did not previously have a Bing / MS search add-on

> installed.

>

>> As usual, you report half-truths, and are only interested in

>> attacking Microsoft...

>

> Now that you know the full story, are you still sure that this add-on

> behavior is desirable for end-users, or is it desirable for Microsoft?

> Is it really an important add-on?

>

> Or will you be a Micro$haft appologist and psycophant and believe

> otherwise?



Oh I see....if I don't agree with you, I'm an apologist for Microsoft,

or Microshaft as you so childishly put it? It's obvious you're the one

with an agenda here.



So far, none of us knows the "full story", and I'd rather reserve

judgment until details of the update are made available, than just start

making unfounded conjecture. So far MS has not given details, which

certainly makes them look bad....something they don't need help doing.



You again made an inaccurate statement, when you wrote:

"Not true - read above. This Firefox add-on is being installed even

when those systems did not previously have a Bing /MS search add-on

installed."



I did "read above" and the article you cited clearly states:

"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."



The update installs on the "system" into a folder tree that contains the

files for every browser that can install the toolbars and the "search

enhancement". If the toolbar is installed in IE but not in Firefox,

when the update is installed (with the files for both browsers), the

add-on for Firefox is installed from those files. I don't think that's

unreasonable, as otherwise the updater has to snoop into the Firefox

profile folders to determine whether the toolbar is installed in that

particular browser for EACH user profile (Firefox has separate profiles

for each user on the system)....and THEN you would be screaming bloody

murder that the update process was spying into the Firefox profile

folders! So the PROCESS used to install is actually not bad, given the

details of what's involved.



That said, is the update itself needed in the first place? Is it

actually "important" as it is listed? We don't know, because MS hasn't

given any info about it. Why not? Good question. Possibly because the

update is only delivered and installed by the Microsoft Update team, but

was written by the Windows Live Team...which covers all the

Windows Live applications. My Guess is it is far from important, and

doesn't do a darn thing of use for the user.



Graying out the Uninstall button for the add-on? Really bad practice!

Not indicating that it will install the add-on in Firefox, and that it

will even if the toolbar is only installed in IE? REALLY bad practice!



From what I've heard, the MS Update Services team is "looking into" what

this update does....they'll probably have to pull teeth from the Live

team to get answers. Left hand not knowing what Right hand is doing is

typical of large corporations, and MS is especially good at it.



Now, I'm still waiting to hear why you've had nothing to say for years

about the Sun Java Firefox add-on that's installed without warning by

Sun Java updates. It allows Java apps to run in the browser...not in a

sandbox...a potentially large security risk. Yet we hear not a peep

from anyone about that....why is that, I wonder? Because you're not

really interested in bringing real security issues to light, your only

interested in bashing Microsoft.

--

Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

A+

http://dts-l.net/

 

[Dan]

Microsoft inserts Firefox add-on with new updates (was: Surpri

"glee" wrote:



> Microsoft Basher "98 Guy" excerpted only the parts he

> wanted to respond to, and replied in message

> news:4C1246C6.2DB57565@Guy.com...

> > glee wrote:

> >

> >> > Speaking of a criminal organization, how many of you are aware

> >> > that Microsoft's last auto-update package delivered a firefox

> >> > add-on that tampers with your browser's search functionality

> >>

> >> The Firefox extension and IE add-on from the "Search Enhancement"

> >> update were only installed on systems that had the Live, MSN, or

> >> Bing browser toolbar installed, since it is part of an update that

> >> involves those toolbars.

> >

> > http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/ne...ips-ie-firefox-add-on-into-toolbar-update.ars

> >

> > ---------

> > 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.

> >

> > 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.

> >

> > 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.

> > ---------

> >

> >> It was not installed as a "critical" update, it was listed as

> >> an "important" update.

> >

> > My mistake. It was listed as important - not optional. Which means

> > it

> > will likely be downloaded automatically on most systems - without

> > their

> > owners knowledge or approval.

> >

> >> Exactly how does it "tamper" with your search functionality?

> >

> > This is the second time that Microsoft has tried to tinker with

> > Firefox

> > on people's PC's. Some people don't like it when new tool bars appear

> > in their browser.

> >

> >> It updates browser integration for the toolbar, and is only

> >> installed if the toolbar is already installed.

> >

> > Not true - read above. This firefox add-on is being installed even

> > when

> > those systems did not previously have a Bing / MS search add-on

> > installed.

> >

> >> As usual, you report half-truths, and are only interested in

> >> attacking Microsoft...

> >

> > Now that you know the full story, are you still sure that this add-on

> > behavior is desirable for end-users, or is it desirable for Microsoft?

> > Is it really an important add-on?

> >

> > Or will you be a Micro$haft appologist and psycophant and believe

> > otherwise?

>

> Oh I see....if I don't agree with you, I'm an apologist for Microsoft,

> or Microshaft as you so childishly put it? It's obvious you're the one

> with an agenda here.

>

> So far, none of us knows the "full story", and I'd rather reserve

> judgment until details of the update are made available, than just start

> making unfounded conjecture. So far MS has not given details, which

> certainly makes them look bad....something they don't need help doing.

>

> You again made an inaccurate statement, when you wrote:

> "Not true - read above. This Firefox add-on is being installed even

> when those systems did not previously have a Bing /MS search add-on

> installed."

>

> I did "read above" and the article you cited clearly states:

> "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."

>

> The update installs on the "system" into a folder tree that contains the

> files for every browser that can install the toolbars and the "search

> enhancement". If the toolbar is installed in IE but not in Firefox,

> when the update is installed (with the files for both browsers), the

> add-on for Firefox is installed from those files. I don't think that's

> unreasonable, as otherwise the updater has to snoop into the Firefox

> profile folders to determine whether the toolbar is installed in that

> particular browser for EACH user profile (Firefox has separate profiles

> for each user on the system)....and THEN you would be screaming bloody

> murder that the update process was spying into the Firefox profile

> folders! So the PROCESS used to install is actually not bad, given the

> details of what's involved.

>

> That said, is the update itself needed in the first place? Is it

> actually "important" as it is listed? We don't know, because MS hasn't

> given any info about it. Why not? Good question. Possibly because the

> update is only delivered and installed by the Microsoft Update team, but

> was written by the Windows Live Team...which covers all the

> Windows Live applications. My Guess is it is far from important, and

> doesn't do a darn thing of use for the user.

>

> Graying out the Uninstall button for the add-on? Really bad practice!

> Not indicating that it will install the add-on in Firefox, and that it

> will even if the toolbar is only installed in IE? REALLY bad practice!

>

> From what I've heard, the MS Update Services team is "looking into" what

> this update does....they'll probably have to pull teeth from the Live

> team to get answers. Left hand not knowing what Right hand is doing is

> typical of large corporations, and MS is especially good at it.

>

> Now, I'm still waiting to hear why you've had nothing to say for years

> about the Sun Java Firefox add-on that's installed without warning by

> Sun Java updates. It allows Java apps to run in the browser...not in a

> sandbox...a potentially large security risk. Yet we hear not a peep

> from anyone about that....why is that, I wonder? Because you're not

> really interested in bringing real security issues to light, your only

> interested in bashing Microsoft.

> --

> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

> A+

> http://dts-l.net/

>

> .



Thank you for your input Glen. I noticed this was added on to my Mozilla

Firefox in Windows Vista and I do not even use their toolbar but do use a few

of the Windows Live Services with Windows Vista so I guess it got tagged as a

download. I manually updated it and did see it as an important update.

Anyway, I have currently disabled it but was surprised that the unistall

button is grayed out unlike the Java Console that will let you unistall it

and not just easily disable it. It should certainly have been offered as an

optional update and also allow for easy unistall for the user. This is a

good example of why people should not use automatic updates and regard all

updates that are less than critical with a grain of salt before automatically

downloading and installing. I plan to research this some more. Finally,

companies should not add anything else to products other than their own

software in my opinion and this goes not just for Microsoft but also to

Oracle/Sun Java and every other software company, imo.



http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/ne...-mystery-firefox-extension-fixes-update-1.ars

 

[glee]

Microsoft inserts Firefox add-on with new updates (was: Surpri

"Dan" wrote in message

news:0B71DB5B-7551-4C73-A739-9121A973CB89@microsoft.com...

> snip

>

> Thank you for your input Glen. I noticed this was added on to my

> Mozilla

> Firefox in Windows Vista and I do not even use their toolbar but do

> use a few

> of the Windows Live Services with Windows Vista so I guess it got

> tagged as a

> download. I manually updated it and did see it as an important

> update.

> Anyway, I have currently disabled it but was surprised that the

> unistall

> button is grayed out unlike the Java Console that will let you

> unistall it

> and not just easily disable it. It should certainly have been offered

> as an

> optional update and also allow for easy unistall for the user. This

> is a

> good example of why people should not use automatic updates and regard

> all

> updates that are less than critical with a grain of salt before

> automatically

> downloading and installing. I plan to research this some more.

> Finally,

> companies should not add anything else to products other than their

> own

> software in my opinion and this goes not just for Microsoft but also

> to

> Oracle/Sun Java and every other software company, imo.

>

> http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/ne...-mystery-firefox-extension-fixes-update-1.ars



Thanks for the link, Dan.....at least it gives a little more info on

what the update is for.



Although it would be nice if no updates were installed by any company to

any software but their own, it can't work out that way. If Sun Java is

installed, components have to be added to the installed web browsers,

because Java will be implemented in those browsers. In this case, a

toolbar is installed in the browser, and updates to that toolbar may add

components to the browser.

The two most prevalent browser toolbars, Google Toolbar and Yahoo

Toolbar, add items not only to the browsers but also to Windows startup

axis, run regular updaters, and if enabled send info back to Google or

Yahoo....and no one finds this intrusive?

It amazes me that people get up in arms over a browser add-on that

supports an installed toolbar from Microsoft, but ignore similar or

worse behavior from Sun, Google or Yahoo.

--

Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

A+

http://dts-l.net/

 

[98 Guy]

Microsoft inserts Firefox add-on with new updates (was: Surpri

glee wrote:



> Although it would be nice if no updates were installed by any

> company to any software but their own, it can't work out that

> way.



Yes, it can work that way. Microsoft wanted to do what-ever it could to

insure that Firefox users might at least stumble upon Bing as a search

option as they used their browser, thereby increasing there market share

of the search market and increase their advertizing revenue.



Give me one example of how any of Sun's wayward or inappropiate updates

were designed to accomplish the same end.



> It amazes me that people get up in arms over a browser add-on that

> supports an installed toolbar from Microsoft,



How can you say that, when Microsoft is now admitting that they made a

mistake as to how the update applied itself?



Of course we should be up-in-arms about these instances, because if we

are not, Microsoft will become accustomed to doing them more often.



---------------

Microsoft explains mystery Firefox extension, "fixes" update:



http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/ne...-mystery-firefox-extension-fixes-update-1.ars



"In other words, the update will no longer be distributed to toolbars

that it shouldn't be added to."

---------------



It's too late for those systems that have already performed the last WU

session. This particular "update" does not show up in Control Panel =>

Programs and Features => Installed Updates. Furthermore, the Uninstall

button for the extension is greyed out in Firefox.



Ya sure, you say that it could have been a simple configuration mistake

for it to apply itself to Firefox when firefox has NO

previously-installed msn or bing tool bar (who cares if the user's IE

has such a tool bar - that doesn't mean the update should also install

itself on Firefox if the user did not install an MS-based tool bar or

add-on for Firefox).



But when the update intentionally removes the mechanism to allow the

user to delete or uninstall it, and when MS classifies the update as

"important", then all together this points to intent to plant a Bing

search option on the Firefox settings panel that Microsoft hopes for

casual users to stumble upon it and turn it on. Their motive was purely

financial. Microsoft's mindset surrounding this update came purely from

their sales and marketing divisions. It was no mistake the way this was

rolled out by Macro$haft.