OTOH, the
No, its not.
It's a security update to
It's also been out for like a year.
It's also (ClickOnce support in FF) something that there is HUGE demand for, and has been for years.
You know, I'd expect someone with that low of a UID would have a better understanding of how computers work.
More to the point, why are plugins being installed into program files to begin with? There's the All Users folder for shared data, or the users profile path for user specific data.
This is really simple stuff. Machine wide software is installed centrally, some would even say, 'machine-wide'. In which case Firefox doesnt have the ability or desire to uninstall 3rd party software from the machine, and most folks wont have the privs anyway since that requires admin elevation.
However, there is a per-user Enable/Disable setting. So you cant uninstall
Note that this is exactly how the JRE, Flash, PDF, etc all work. If this is news to you, then you havent been paying attention for the past 10 years.
Only plugins that were installed per-user can be installed/uninstalled by FF.
See FF has two kinds of plugins. Per-user and per-machine.
Does that help?
Well, a solution would allow people to tell the difference between what was subvertedly installed, and intended to be kept that way, and what was installed without the standard process, but wasn't intended to be hidden.
Good Lord, the ignorance on slashdot about how computers work is alarming.
This plugin WAS installed in the normal way. Just like Flash and the JRE was installed in the normal way to FireFox.
There are two ways to install plugins on firefox. Machine-wide and user-specific. This was done machine-wide.
Your statements do not in any way reflect reality. You're expecting XP, which was designed and release in 2001, to behave the same way your other modern OS's do.
That being said, running as non-admin DOES work quite well in XP, and even in Windows 2000. I've been doing it at every company or IT shop I manage since about 2002. It works great as long as there is an IT dept to work out the few misbehaving apps.
It doesnt work for home users, maybe thats what you're talking about?
You use RunAs, and more latterly, MakeMeAdmin. Works like a charm.
For the few apps that misbehave, you either make the vendor fix the damn software, or you make minor registry and file acl tweaks to make the software work. It's really not a big deal.
Are you trying to be clever and not-so-subtly imply that the
I think you should do some research, or at least get slightly informed.
Nearly all of the people complaining about this will have the JRE, Flash, and likely PDF installed as plugins. All of which are swiss-cheese as far as security holes, compared to
If people wanted to restrict their plugins to reduce security vulnerabilities, then they should have started complaining about this many, many years ago with the JRE and flash.
If the IT guy is using removal techniques that are sensitive to quantity and/or location, then he/she is a bad IT guy, and your company needs to find someone better.
It's part of the way Microsoft interfaces the internet with the operating system.
This statement makes no sense. I dont think you know what
Why would Firefox want to support ClickOnce? It's a Microsoft product after all, most likely patented or patent pending, and more hassle to deal with than it's worth.
Why would Firefox want to support Adobe? Or Java? Who asked them to? Your statements lack logic and make little sense. No one asked the FireFox non profit US corporation to be involved with this in any way.
The Mozilla Foundation has a set method of submitting Firefox addons for a reason. Microsoft bypassing the process and willy-nilly installing something in Firefox as a 'favor' does not make friends in the Mozilla camp, especially when the app installed makes things more insecure for Firefox in the process. Firefox and Mozilla Foundation are all about choice. Where's the choice here?
This also makes no sense. FireFox doesnt have an 'approval system' for addons/plugins as you seem to suggest.
And MS doesnt write
First you need to know it's there. Next, you need to know how to deal with the Registry.
Or just install the latest updates, which fix the uninstall problem. Or disable the addon. No need to modify the registry.
Well, they installed changes to another companies application without asking the user first
Are you purposely trying to mislead people, or are you just posting about something which you know little about?
Installing a plugin to a piece of software that explicitly supports plugins from 3rd parties in NO WAY qualifies as 'installed changes to another companies application". The JRE, Flash, and PDF plugins all do this.
these changes, while more convient, open up security holes (the down side of 'just work' technologies) that many people go to firefox specifically to get away from
Not really. As far as plugins like this go (JRE,Flash, PDF, etc), the
and then they make it difficult to uninstall
This was a mistake, but also an easy mistake to make given how the Firefox plugin mechanism works when installing system wide software.
Big deal or not I could see why people would be pissed, esp network admins that do not want this kind of functionality on their network.
Again, you're either being disingenuous or ignorant. Network admins run WSUS or some other patch management tool, and make an explicit choice of what software patches to run. And the vast majority of them want/need
Ignore the idiot AC who responded to you. Password storage has nothing to do with Kerberos. The two things are related, but orthogonal.
Windows still uses NTLM without a salt in the current versions.
There is a way to encrypt the SAM with a symmetric cipher, which requires that a floppy or USB key must be physically present for the SAM to be accessed. It's not widely used.
Here here.
Anyone who says that recovering passwords is never necessary, since you can just change them, obviously has never done much work in this field.
Dude, seriously. Its nice and all that you like to brag about multiple languages. Good for you.
But do you really know a language if you cannot communicate effectively with it?
Case in point, your post that I'm responding to.
It's fairly badly broken English. I've read worse, but its not good.
For example, how do you get 'too sticked to grammer', and what the hell does that mean? Is it some kind of dom/sub foreplay?
What is a 'juridical' document? Sounds kinky.
And I dont even have a clue what this is supposed to mean:
... when people try to teach grammar not by the error but by playing smarties.
Now there are alot of people who arent native english speakers here on
Bottom line, if you want to be able to be understood, and engage in conversation with people, then slow down a bit and at least try to make your posts intelligible. The couple of your posts I've read on this story are nearly incomprehensible. Strangely enough, the most clear you've been was in your bragging about how many languages you know, so that tells me you can speak clearly in English when you want to.
I think the issue is more the drivers.
If your equipment supports x64, then the drivers are either freshly written for Vista, or have gotten quite a bit of work.
I think a big part of the problem before was that alot of low-end, consumer level equipment shipped with drivers that were minimally modified from XP so that they (just barely) worked. But if the equipment was to support x64, they had to put some real resources into developing the drivers.
This leads to another general rule of thumb for vista: You'll do MUCH better if you buy equipment that is officially supported in x86 or x64. Stuff that is NOT supported in x64 seems to be lower quality, and more shoddy in the drivers.
And since Vista is heavily sensitive to bad drivers
Actually, I think you'll find that in the corporate space, HP has some of the best kit out there.
In corporate-level laptops (ie, things branded Compaq, not the crap you buy in BestBuy), they're absolutely fantastic. Nearly flawless.
In x86 servers, the ProLiant's are also fantastic.
In particular, the high end HP laptops run x64 Vista quite well. Seems like that class of machine is one of the only ones to have quality drivers.
The achilles heel of Vista is drivers. If the drivers have problems, then the whole thing falls over.
As a counter-example to yours, I'm running Vista x64 Business on an HP Compaq 8710w laptop. 2.4C2D, 4GB memory, 7200rpm hdd, and an Nvidia Quadro FX 1600M with 512MB onboard.
This machine shipped from HP as x64 ready, and has been the most flawless laptop I've ever owned. It runs basically until the once a month updates from MS, and I abuse it pretty heavily, running Oracle Enterprise 10g, Eclipse, and Tomcat with a couple big app servers, all a part of normal development. I actually am looking at moving up to 8GB of memory, as the 4 isnt really enough for that kind of use (I have the swappiness set really low).
It literally just keeps going, and keeps going, and keeps going, and never stops. It's also the most reliable Vista machine I've seen in the field, though I think that has more to do with it being a high-end engineering laptop from HP, so the drivers are high quality.
Be careful that many CAD/CAM/CAE apps dont really support 64-bit properly, though I cant speak specifically to SolidWorks. Too many apps in that space have near monopolies, and just never upgrade their software.
1. Group Policy management (the move to admx files has caused numerous backwards compatibility issues)
This is a pretty minor issue.
2. The ever-growing winsxs folder. There is no way to shrink or compress it.
Who cares? If you're trying to rollout Vista on machines with 20GB hard drives, then you made a bad choice to do so. Your equipment isnt ready for Vista, and there's no big rush, so why are you trying to move when you're not ready?
3. Try creating images with default software for imaging workstations due to #2.
I dont understand what #2 had to do with this. Creating images with default software works just fine. The size of the winsxs folder is irrelevant to that task.
4. In-house applications need to be recoded.
This means in-house apps were done wrong in the first place, and need to be fixed. This isnt a Vista problem, this is a lazy/incompetent/badly-managed in-house apps group problem. Thats like blaming your ISP because you have some users that are bottlenecking your internet connection with bittorrent.
5. Minimum requirements for Vista would require a major purchase of machines to be able to run it.
Then dont do it.
6. Activation process fails ~1/3 of the time, even when trying to use an in-house key server.
This is not the normal experience.
7. Random core dumps on Dell Latitude laptop line (have had 8 of them do this), even with the latest drivers and firmware.
Is this on the Dell Latitude E-series? If so, this is about Dell's problem, not Vista. There are BIG hardware problems with some of the E-lines, just do a quick google. It's all over the news.
Function reject.
