Main > Everything Else
firefox and windows update
Sasquatch!:
--- Quote from: shadowdrak on December 05, 2004, 05:06:36 pm ---Well, microsoft's official position is that you can download all of their updates manually from their download page(which is true)... There is no technical reason for microsoft to disallow using other browsers for updates though
--- End quote ---
The reason is exactly a "technical" one though: Windows Update uses ActiveX, and IE is the only browser that implements it. The lack of ActiveX implementation is exactly why Firefox is a much more secure browser to use, but it's needed for Windows Update. So the reason isn't some kind of marketing ploy; it actually is "technical".
shadowdrak:
So microsoft exclusively using an entirely proprietary technology that they control is not a marketing ploy?
Sasquatch!:
--- Quote from: shadowdrak on December 05, 2004, 05:50:28 pm ---So microsoft exclusively using an entirely proprietary technology that they control is not a marketing ploy? I know for a fact though that there is an activeX plugin for mozilla (Don't know how well it works if it does at all); You can download it from their website. The point is rather moot though, because even if mozilla were to support activex to the letter, Microsoft would still disallow mozilla from windowsupdate, citing security concerns or something similar. Granted though, that its activex support would be in it's infancy at best. I am probably just so fed up with microsoft that I am inventing things(I wouldn't put it past em though).
--- End quote ---
You can't automatically update programs like pcAnywhere without using the Symantec LiveUpdate, right? Same thing, at least as far as I'm concerned.
Yes, using Windows Update forces you do to it via IE (I'm pretty damn sure that it does a user agent check on the browser, so that would disqualify even Mozilla's ActiveX implementation...you HAVE to use IE for it). Believe me, I'm not a fan of IE at all, but from a purely technical (and not a marketing) standpoint, I can see where it makes sense: If I was going to push down something as comprehensive as operating system updates, I'd want to make sure that I had control over how it happened too. Their marketing is shady, but the Windows Update / IE thing does make sense from a technical standpoint.
Look, despite the uttlerly baseless accusation of me being a "brown-nosing kissass" I don't agree with how MS conducts some of their business practices, and that's a fact. But my point remains that the accusation of "OMG CRIMINAL M$ VIRUS BROWSER MONOPOLY" is completely off base and untrue for the reasons that were given.
DYNAGOD:
i was under the impression that part of the court order issued to microsoft was for them to remove IE as a core element of their operating systems..
their browser is not supposed to able to communicate/function/or otherwise interface in any way above and beyond that which potential competitors may with their software..
the heart of the legal battle was that they had a monopoly becuase IE was so closely intertwined with the core operating system..
that coupled with the fact that the code for the OS is not available to those third party developers gave them an enourmous, and deemed illegal advantage over the competition..
hence my ILLEGAL accusation..
its not a rant or some conspiracy theory.no tin foil hats... its from what i understand to be legal prescedent....one that they,if indeed i cannot use their update function with a competitors browser ,constitutes a breach of that order..
as for manually downloading ::)
come on..they dont even list whats critical or not.hell they dont list any updates on the page..you need to know EXACTLY what your looking for, and without the ability to view the auto update page ,you have no idea what that is without sifting through a sea of windows documents...lets be serious!
i took a look at their manual download area, its about as user friendly as an accounting manual..
can you imagine an average 70 year woman trying to keep her computer up to date by those means..its just not gonna happen..
their basically saying if you dont use our browser technology, you have no chance of privacy or security on your machine..
i take that as being strong armed into using their product..one that time after time has been deemed a security risk and clearly something that your average joe user should be steering well clear of..
Sasquatch!:
--- Quote from: DYNAGOD on December 05, 2004, 08:22:47 pm ---i was under the impression that part of the court order issued to microsoft was for them to remove IE as a core element of their operating systems..
their browser is not supposed to able to communicate/function/or otherwise interface in any way above and beyond that which potential competitors may with their software..
the heart of the legal battle was that they had a monopoly becuase IE was so closely intertwined with the core operating system..
that coupled with the fact that the code for the OS is not available to those third party developers gave them an enourmous, and deemed illegal advantage over the competition..
hence my ILLEGAL accusation..
its not a rant or some conspiracy theory.no tin foil hats... its from what i understand to be legal prescedent....one that they,if indeed i cannot use their update function with a competitors browser ,constitutes a breach of that order..
--- End quote ---
Well, yes and no. A judge did find in 1999 that Microsoft was creating a monopoly with it's IE integration, but that decsion was overturned, as was that mandate that they break the company up into separate "OS" and "software" divisions. So what your understanding of the case was true up until 2001 when the charge was formally overturned. Ironically, based on the conversation that we're having, the basis for the ruling being overturned was that the judge that made the monoploy ruling gave "an appearance of bias against Microsoft" in interviews. So long story short, they are NOT in violation of any law.
--- Quote ---as for manually downloading ::)
come on..they dont even list whats critical or not.hell they dont list any updates on the page..you need to know EXACTLY what your looking for, and without the ability to view the auto update page ,you have no idea what that is without sifting through a sea of windows documents...lets be serious!
i took a look at their manual download area, its about as user friendly as an accounting manual..
--- End quote ---
Eh, this is personal opinion. I'll admit that it's not as easy as letting it do the automatic update, but it's not IMPOSSIBLE.
--- Quote ---can you imagine an average 70 year woman trying to keep her computer up to date by those means..its just not gonna happen..
--- End quote ---
No, but that's who should be using the automatic update, don'tcha think? :)
--- Quote ---their basically saying if you dont use our browser technology, you have no chance of privacy or security on your machine..
--- End quote ---
I guess...kind of. But again, like I said, Windows Update can co-exist with Firefox quite peacefully. I guess that's why I don't see this as being THAT big of a deal.
--- Quote ---i take that as being strong armed into using their product..one that time after time has been deemed a security risk and clearly something that your average joe user should be steering well clear of..
--- End quote ---
I totally agree with you here: IE's security model is fundamentally flawed. I guess my overall point is that you're NOT really strong-armed into using it. For Windows Update alone, yes, but I guess I don't see that as being that big of an "intrusion".
(By the way, I'm glad this conversation has swung back to being civil. Have a beer and pretend that I bought it for ya or something, 'K? :))