27 ms·

Mozilla has defeated Microsoft’s default browser protections in Windows

840 points by hadrien01 5y ago

heywherelogingo 5y ago
"Wow, Microsoft has really changed!"
_fat_santa 5y ago
As I was reading this article I kept thinking to myself "Microsoft is going to boot Firefox from Windows" before realizing that MS doesn't have that sort of power (compared to say Apple). It's really interesting how MS will approach this. Unlike Apple, MS doesn't have direct control over which apps go on the operating system, they aren't even in a position like Google where their app store is the dominant platform for getting apps. This will be interesting, interesting to see how MS responds. Will they give in and let users easily set their default browser or will this turn into a cat and mouse game. Lastly I think what MS is doing with the default browser is foolish. Did they learn nothing from the antitrust cases of the 2000's
- barryvan 5y ago
  I suspect they will buckle -- but only partially, with an allowlist of browsers blessed with this ability. This will quiet the noise, but will also make it harder for small and innovative browsers to compete, as I doubt Microsoft will build out the processes to become blessed due to cost/benefit.
  - bluGill 5y ago
    Probably, but for security reasons the only correct thing to do is remove the ability of Edge to set default browser within the browser. The only option app developers - including internal Microsoft ones - should have is open some OS settings app in a supported way, but the user has to accept the selection.
    - blendergeek 5y ago
      It should work like an Android permission prompt. The OS should have an official method for apps to request to become the default (not merely link to the default apps page of settings). The OS prompt should look like this: Would you like to make <APP NAME> the default app for <APP CATEGORY>? [No and don't ask again] [Yes] Any app that wants to become the default (including Edge) should go through the official prompt. If the user has already said no, and the app wants to continue nagging, at this point the app will be able to link into the settings (but not pop up the official prompt).
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    This seems to be an industry-wide trend. Google, somewhat recently, also banned "unauthorized" browsers from logging into Google accounts at all.
    - account42 5y ago
      All browsers already claim to be "Mozilla" so it's not like there is no way to work around that.
      - heavyset_go 5y ago
        They're doing far more when fingerprinting browsers than looking at the User-Agent.
- anothernewdude 5y ago
  That's silly. Chrome has become so dominant that it'd be a good move on MS's part to help segment the browser market by supporting Firefox
  - joncrane 5y ago
    Isn't Google the single largest contributor to the Mozilla Foundation?
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      No. The Mozilla Corporation is the largest contributor to the Mozilla Foundation, though most of their money comes from selling the default search rights to Google.
      - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
        That sounds like '"yes" but I don't like to admit it'. I mean their money comes from the bank account that others pay in to, but that's a stupid and irrelevant distinction ...
        LanceH 5y ago
        His point is that Google is a customer, not a contributor.
        e3bc54b2 5y ago
        Which in this case is equivalent to 'if you owe 10k to Bank its your problem, but if you owe 10M its the bank's problem'. One way or another Mozilla relies on Google remaining its customer for vast majority of money, while Google being their biggest competitor who eats out ever more of Mozilla's market share every year, further reducing any reason for Google to remain their customer going forward.
        5y ago
- orbital-decay 5y ago
  Microsoft were doing this for ages... From the NT kernel to the shell. To stay above competition, they have tons of different undocumented APIs they keep for themselves to use, and don't guarantee it to exist or stay unchanged in future. In fact this is the response. Nothing special about this particular one. Developers reverse engineer those, and try to rely on them, all the time.
  - kmeisthax 5y ago
    Every OS and library has some form of undocumented/internal APIs that they don't want users of that library or OS to be relying upon. Hell, Linux even uses DRM (not the Direct Rendering Manager, Digital Rights Management) to check if your LKM is licensed properly to call those APIs. GPL-incompatible libraries only get to link to functions that are rough equivalents to syscalls.
    - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
      Calling what you describe DRM is pretty deceptive. Can you get access to DRM-ed materials by promising to share them freely under an open license? That said I'm surprised by what you describe as I'm struggling to understand how that works -- you're saying the Linux kernel has a secret API, surely one can read the source and/or documentation and find the API details. Or are you saying calls to kernel APIs are cryptographically protected? Could you give details of what this system is called, thanks.
      - icefo 5y ago
        The zfsonlinux developers complained a while ago that some API they were using became GPL only and I think they had to write a wrapper in GPL to get around it. I'm on mobile so I can't give you more details but you can probably find more if you look in that direction
        vetinari 5y ago
        It was API, not API key. Kernel is GPL, so only GPL modules can touch its internal APIs. For non-derived works, there is a subset of APIs, that are declared to be fine if used by non-GPL code. ZFS had a problem, where they were using something that should not be used (fp in kernel), which got removed and they had to find a replacement, which was GPL-only. It is also necessary to say, that this is honor-based. Any module declares its license and the linker either allows or not allows resolving a symbol. There are no checks whether the module is really GPL or not, it is to show intent, and if you want to cheat, you must do it willfully, not by accident.
- ilaksh 5y ago
  They do have some control though. If you don't list with their app store they default to accusing your software of being malware and hiding the run button.
  - whywhywhywhy 5y ago
    > and hiding the run button This isn't completely accurate, if the app is being seen only in very small numbers the run button is hidden under "More Info" but when Smartscreen has seen your app enough that it can be more confident it's less harmful the "Run Anyway" button is surfaced.
  - garaetjjte 5y ago
    That's not related to app store though, just the CA protection racket.
    - ilaksh 5y ago
      It is because they waive the CA if you go through the store.
- pc86 5y ago
  My guess is they'll just leave it. You'll have the one-click for Edge, whatever this workaround/RE is for Firefox, and everything else will be the same. Maybe Mozilla will open source this workaround.
  - iggldiggl 5y ago
    They'd have to go out of their way to not open-source it.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  > Did they learn nothing from the antitrust cases of the 2000's They learned for awhile- until the rest of the industry caught up. This might sound weird but I've actually been rooting for Microsoft a lot lately. A majority of their revenue is not from ads and lock-in BS and they weren't called in front of Congress recently over antitrust concerns. I was hoping they would set themselves apart from the pack in an odd way by making good software and hardware products that people enjoy using. (xbox, windows, office, WSL, VSCode, Visual Studio, hololens, phones, laptops, Halo on Steam, etc.) Seeing the new browser war and direction Windows 11 is headed, now has me worried. The widgets pane is obviously for serving ads. I understand that these public companies are required to act in the best interests of shareholders but I fear that the obsessive push for revenue gains only benefits short term shareholders. Long term shareholders get the shaft when every decision is aimed at squeezing revenue just for the next quarter. Edit: I'm not a Microsoft/Windows-Stan either, I've been using Linux intermittently since 2006-ish and now daily drive Fedora as my main.
  - bayindirh 5y ago
    I was also kinda liked The New Microsoft and prepared to put my anger towards them to the side (I remember the ACPI memo days). Also, as a grown-up computer user, I got appropriate number of licenses (for every Microsoft application we use) for my family and personal computers. However, the latest GitHub Copilot stuff, their agreement with OpenAI, return of their embrace, extend, extinguish tactics with GitHub, VSCode and other stuff undone everything. It's their DNA now. All Microsoft Empire is built with crushing monopoly as their core value and driving force. Changing this requires more than changing a mere CEO and posting a "We Love Linux" banner. The only really good thing they do is hardware. Posted from my Debian 11 box using Microsoft Keyboard.
    - flatiron 5y ago
      I recently left Apple and my new company gave me a choice of windows or macOS as my device and I chose windows. I’m not really sure why. But I do have to say after not using windows for 10+ years it’s come a long way. Wsl simply is amazing. Vscode works perfectly with it. The office apps are leaps and bounds better than there macOS counterparts. I certainly have never been a MS lover but I think they are much better now than their 90s reputation.
- Angostura 5y ago
  > MS doesn't have that sort of power (compared to say Apple) That's an interesting question. I suppose Apple could refuse to sign the executable, which would make things tricky but could they actually boot Firefox from MacOS? I think not.
  - cma 5y ago
    Yes, remember this? > Apple has released a silent update for Mac users removing a vulnerable component in Zoom Removed not by antivirus you can disable, removed by an OS update.
    - Angostura 5y ago
      Do I remember Apple updating XProtect to remove a Zoom component that allowed attackers to potentially hijack users' webcams? I do. Zoom had installed a hidden web server on users' computers that was (a) exploitable and (b) not removed upon deletion of the app. As a result, users who had previously deleted Zoom might not even realize they were vulnerable to this potential attack. Zoom worked with Apple and updated the app hours later. You can kill XProtect if you want by disabling System Integrity Protection and modifying the malware signature file.
- vishnumohandas 5y ago
  > Apple FWIW, on iOS, links from Google apps open up on Chrome if it's installed, regardless of what your default browser is. Apple seems to be okay with that.
  - dev_tty01 5y ago
    Any app can do app specific URLs on iOS to invoke particular apps with content. I would guess that Google apps detect the presence of Chrome and modify the URLs to be Chrome specific rather than generic https URLs. Its ok with Apple because that is a standard supported mechanism on iOS.
    - vishnumohandas 5y ago
      As a user who expects all https links to open within my default browser, Google's exploitation of this workaround breaks the guarantees I expect out of the OS. There are a lot of other "features" that are technically feasible but not allowed on AppStore. This to me should have been on that list.
      - dev_tty01 5y ago
        Good point. Yeah, I don't like it either. Thinking about it a bit more, I share your surprise that they allowed this. I guess they need it for google.com links to make things work together, but Apple could have told them non-google links should be opened in the default browser.
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    Any browser on iOS is just UI over Safari's rendering engine and JS runtime. Chrome, as in Blink and V8, is banned by Apple from running on iOS.
- cabalamat 5y ago
  > This will be interesting, interesting to see how MS responds Maybe they'll make a better browser, so people will prefer theirs to Firefox and Chrome? Nah, that's unlikely.
  - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
    That can just cripple Office.com to browsers other than Edge, then it looks like they have a better browser -- much easier!
  - worrycue 5y ago
    To be fair, Edge is basically just Chrome now no? It isn’t too bad although I stuck to Firefox.
    - cabalamat 5y ago
      > Edge is basically just Chrome now no? Exactly. MS have given up on the idea of making a better browser.
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  I suspect Microsoft will modify their undocumented API that they have no obligation to maintain as-is so that it only accepts EXEs in Edge's program folder or something.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  >that MS doesn't have that sort of power (compared to say Apple). They could mark the install executable as malicious in Windows Defender.
  - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
    Or the domain as having PUP so people visiting get a warning and hoops to jump through.
  - bogwog 5y ago
    Which is similar to what Apple does for MacOS (and Google for Android). They haven't prevented people from installing untaxed software, but they have made it a scary and difficult process for the average user, and made it very difficult for anyone to sell software without giving Apple/Google a cut.
    - cma 5y ago
      And they said desktop signing was only for security, then blocked Epic's desktop apps for an iOS non-security business dispute.
  - account42 5y ago
    It would be funny if Firefox would warn you about downloading Firefox because it is marked as malware. Would server Mozilla right for letting Google maintain that list, who have shown they do not care about false positives.
- dev_tty01 5y ago
  Of course Apple allows Mac users to set the default browser as a choice on the very first General preferences panel. Trivial to change.
  - sitzkrieg 5y ago
    yea the flawless mac experience, what next being able to uninstall apple music or podcasts?
- jonnycomputer 5y ago
  I can install apps on Mac that aren't in the store.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- zaat 5y ago
  So I was at my parents house some time ago and my mom's computer is for some reason set allow installing software from the Microsoft store only. Nobody knows how that was set, my mom's computer usage is characterized by randomly clicking on things until the website she wants open, but somehow that option have appeared for her to click on.
  - criley2 5y ago
    Windows 10S only allows Microsoft Store downloads and you have to change to Home/Pro to allow .exe's to run at all.
- Iv 5y ago
  > Did they learn nothing from the antitrust cases of the 2000's They learnt that all they risk is a slap on the wrist a decade later, and a fee that's a drop in their profits.
- tgtweak 5y ago
  Just wait for those "store-only" versions of windows to grow in distribution, then Microsoft touting store policy for not allowing Firefox in the store...
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  > I kept thinking to myself "Microsoft is going to boot Firefox from Windows" before realizing that MS doesn't have that sort of power (compared to say Apple). Actually, when it comes to Windows and macOS, Microsoft has about the same power as Apple does when it comes to limiting what software can and can't run on their operating systems. Defender on Windows works like Gatekeeper does on macOS. Defender gets to decide what runs or doesn't run on a Windows system, using a similar approach to Gatekeeper. Both Apple and Microsoft require developers to regularly buy certificates to sign the software they intend to distribute to macOS and Windows users, and they require developers to remain in good standing with either company. Unsigned software is treated as if it is radioactive by both operating systems, and macOS on M1 Macs goes one step further by deprecating unsigned binaries entirely. If Apple or Microsoft want to, they can revoke a developer's certificates, and any app that was signed with them will be prevented from running by Gatekeeper or Defender. They can also choose not to renew a developer's certificates, preventing apps from running when the certificates they were signed with expire. To 99.9% of users, apps signed with revoked or expired certificates will be portrayed as either being broken or malicious by macOS or Windows.
krzyzanowskim 5y ago
let's not forget 2001 antitrust law case triggered by Internet Explorer itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... Everything old is new again.
- metalliqaz 5y ago
  except now the US' will to prosecute antitrust is essentially dead the land of corporate power
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    Honestly its will wasn't even that strong back then, hence the slap on the wrist settlement on appeal.
- dataflow 5y ago
  They probably look at their market share and decide they're not a monopoly anymore.
- NelsonMinar 5y ago
  Unfortunately the US kind of has forgotten. The Bush administration took power and undermined all that anti-trust stuff and it lay forgotten for most of 20 years. The Biden administration is picking up some of it now.
approxim8ion 5y ago
They're not really "protections", to be fair.
- notRobot 5y ago
  Exactly. They're not protections. They're strategies to make it harder for non-super-users to change their default browser. As technical people, it's easy to underestimate just how well these tactics that introduce friction work at making "regular" folks shurg and say "meh, okay, whatever -- sure, I'll use Edge" just because they don't want to repeatedly have to figure out how to change their default browser.
- sebazzz 5y ago
  They are. Default file associations are protected in Windows 10 [0][1]. The default browser is in essence also an file association. [0]: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20170517-00/?p=96175 https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20170517-00/?p=96... [1]: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20190724-00/?p=102730 https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20190724-00/?p=10...
  - dralley 5y ago
    They are not. This is not some generic "are you sure" prompt, it is specifically coded to nag users to use Edge instead. https://www.itsupportguides.com/wp-content/uploads/Windows10-ChangeBrowser.gif https://www.itsupportguides.com/wp-content/uploads/Windows10...
  - approxim8ion 5y ago
    It's one thing to push "protections" on your users because you think you know better and they can't navigate their way around their devices without ruining them. That's the Apple way. But what Microsoft has done here is push their own product in the name of protection. That's much more malicious. To argue whether it is a protection because they call it one is semantics.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    Get back to us with that when it's less of an utterly transparent lie. When, for instance, switching your default handler for .txt files leads you through three dialogs that ever more insistently extol the virtues of MS Notepad for this purpose.
thrower123 5y ago
Good. The better product will win out. If I was working on the Edgeium team, I would beg the Windows and Bing people to be less heavy-handed. It's a quality product, but the advertising and nudging is souring me.
- jfk13 5y ago
  Yes, indeed. I do choose to run Edge sometimes, but the constant attempts to push or trick me into making it the default are really grating.
- ilaksh 5y ago
  Why should we have to keep begging them or something? Using Linux instead of Windows is a moral issue.
  - LeonB 5y ago
    Software constantly uses dark patterns and even “well-behaved” software asks questions with answers like “yes” (large writing) and “maybe later” as the only no option. It’s completely normalised.
  - burnished 5y ago
    It's not a realistic answer for the vast majority of users.
    - dotancohen 5y ago
      Honest question: Why not? What application does "the vast majority of users" need that is Windows only, today? From my experience with family, coworkers, friends, and neighbors, the vast majority of people today need a web browser. That's it.
      - burnished 5y ago
        Switching costs! I suspect there is a high degree of knowledge and experience you posses that you are discounting. Most people would need to learn a really tremendous amount to understand what they were switching to and why. Hell, I've got enough know how that I could figure it out, but it doesn't rise high enough in my priority to do. You might also be discounting people who use their machines to play games with. Although I hear good things about SteamOS, that might push the needle.
kuschkufan 5y ago
TFA seems to say that Chrome and others don't yet do it like Firefox does. If this really turns out to be an advantage watch the others copying the reverse-engineered code. I assume you could look it up in the Firefox repo now?
- wyattpeak 5y ago
  I think it's very likely Firefox want everybody to copy them. This is a fight best fought with everyone against Windows, and it's no particular skin off Firefox's nose if Chrome is also easy to use: since Chrome is basically the default non-Edge browser, everybody choosing Firefox is already aware of Chrome and has decided against it.
CA0DA 5y ago
The default browser switch in Windows 10 was using multiple dark patterns to get you to stay with Edge. Good for Firefox.
squarefoot 5y ago
Wait a minute. Firefox is Open Source; wasn't Microsoft in love with Open Source? (their words) So it appears they are only when they don't smell competition. One of the reasons why I'm extremely worried by whatever they're planning to do with Linux.
- trutannus 5y ago
  > whatever they're planning to do with Linux. Why? Microsoft does not own Firefox or Linux? If you don't use MS products then you're not going to be subject to their choices.
  - p_j_w 5y ago
    They don't need to own it to EEE it.
    - trutannus 5y ago
      Triple E?
      - aembleton 5y ago
        Embrace, extend, and extinguish - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
        trutannus 5y ago
        I'm not holding my breath for Microsoft to 'extinguish' Linux. That's not really how open source works, especially Linux given the sorts of folks who develop it.
        squarefoot 5y ago
        They don't need to physically destroy Linux, all they need is to offer something similar with the Microsoft name attached to it. Communities and hackers may ignore it, but businesses will always see it as a better choice. Still no problem for die hard enthusiasts, now, but say one day 75% of Linux developers are employed in companies where they work only from a Windows machine under WSL, using VSC and possibly some closed blobs nicely donated by Microsoft, that day the penguin corpse will be already cold.
wasmitnetzen 5y ago
Related bugzilla entries: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1637357 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1637357 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1703578 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1703578 Apparently, the new one-click method is called UserChoice.
- userbinator 5y ago
  "UserChoice" - what a doublespeak name. It's been there since Win8 or so, and defeated just as long ago: https://danysys.com/set-file-type-association-default-application-command-line-windows-10-userchoice-hash-internal-method/ https://danysys.com/set-file-type-association-default-applic... http://kolbi.cz/blog/2017/10/25/setuserfta-userchoice-hash-defeated-set-file-type-associations-per-user/ http://kolbi.cz/blog/2017/10/25/setuserfta-userchoice-hash-d... (Note the messages about "fixed false positive from Windows Defender"...)
lawl 5y ago
Here's the relevant commit: https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/e928b3e95a6c3b7257d0ba475fc2303bfbad1874 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/e928b3e95a6c3b725... (I think)
- vxNsr 5y ago
  This is what I was looking for.
- jftuga 5y ago
  An interesting excerpt: // When Windows creates this key, it is read-only (Deny Set Value), so we need // to delete it first. // We don't set any similar special permissions.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Someone1234 5y ago
  Looks like it is going to: Computer\HKEY_CURRENT_USER\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\FileExts For ".html", ".htm" and: Computer\HKEY_CURRENT_USER\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Shell\Associations\UrlAssociations For "https", "http" then: - Nuke the UserChoice key because Microsoft put special permissions on it. - Re-create the UserChoice key setting the ProgId to Firefox and then calculating the hash. - The hash is calculated using, in part, a hard-coded Windows internal GUID see FormatUserChoiceString here: https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-release/diff/7e775ce432b599c6daf7ac379aa42f1e9b3b33ed/browser/components/shell/WindowsUserChoice.cpp https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-release/diff/7e775ce... The whole thing looks super easy for Microsoft to break in a future Windows release unfortunately.
  - Egoist 5y ago
    Interestingly, the first two registry steps are actually the same as the previous windows. Having it behind a hash seems way too user hostile though.
  - bob1029 5y ago
ndiddy 5y ago
In Windows XP the "set default programs" control panel had a one-click "non-microsoft" setting that would change all default programs to your installed alternatives. It seems like the effects of their 90s antitrust trial seem to be wearing off.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  Many here would argue they have less of a monopoly than ever. Even as someone who thinks Windows does and will continue to dominate the desktop for at least another decade, I find that hard to disagree with given the mass migration of users from desktop to mobile.
kunagi7 5y ago
I expect that Microsoft won't like this and they will patch it. Even if Firefox does this with good intentions, malware creators can follow Firefox's example to do the same. Since Firefox is open source they only need to copy the code from the repo.
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  The way to do this has been known for years. https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/vstudio/en-US/bb630780-e878-4edd-90a1-b205966aaedb/how-to-set-default-browser-to-ie-using-c-in-windows-10?forum=csharpgeneral https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/vstudio/en-US/bb630...
causi 5y ago
While Microsoft offers a method to switch default browsers on Windows 10, it’s more cumbersome than the simple one-click process to switch to Edge. Where the hell are the regulators who handed out billion dollar fines just for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows?
- jeroenhd 5y ago
  Those regulators have let Apple enforce Safari for years, I don't think they care about browsers like they used to.
  - yborg 5y ago
    Enforce what? My default is set to Firefox on macOS, took one click.
    - Sander_Marechal 5y ago
      They enforce Safari on iOS, not on macOS
      - SimeVidas 5y ago
        Apple enforces WebKit, not Safari. You can set Firefox as default on iOS. The only problem is that it’s WebKit-based.
- bserge 5y ago
  Working for Microsoft or retired.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  You mean the same regulators who stripped the initial remedy of its teeth and essentially slapped MS on the wrist?
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  Where were they when AT&T joined all of the Baby Bells back together? It was ok because the competitive landscape changed during the decades in which AT&T was broken up. Same here. Microsoft has nowhere near the power over general computing that it once had. What they did with IE back in the day was only a problem because of their dominant market position. Others doing the same from a minority market position would have been fine. Now that the majority of devices are running something other than Windows, it's more difficult to claim Microsoft dominates the market unless you define the market very narrowly, in which case, lots of other companies would also be in trouble.
userbinator 5y ago
Every time you hear something being done for "security" or "protection", think more carefully about what they're actually trying to protect or secure. That's something I wish more people would do. In this case, it's protection for securing Micro$oft's monopoly.
sdflhasjd 5y ago
Microsoft is using "protected associations" to keep people using Edge, but I think people are forgetting how badly this used to be abused before Microsoft added this feature. Applications would regularly change default associations without any user notice or consent. For example, installers would bundle Adware and even Google Chrome (hidden with common dark patters of the time), setting your default browser or changing your homepage.
- Semaphor 5y ago
  I think it’s less that they block this (as much as us powerusers might prefer them not to), and more that they decided they obviously deserve to be exempt.
- Someone1234 5y ago
  You're right. The issue is mostly one of fairness: If Microsoft played by the same rules as Firefox/Chrome, then there is no issue (e.g. UI pops up, you have to select Edge). The problem is that Microsoft has one rule for them and another for everyone else, then designed an incredibly hostile defaults UI on Windows 11 to make changing it to non-Edge time-consuming.
  - sdflhasjd 5y ago
    Yup, the fact the settings dialogue behaves differently if your current browser is Edge is clearly unfair, and Edge has already been doing what Firefox is doing how, and skips the UI entirely by spoofing the signature in the registry that served to protect against non-consensual changes.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  The concept of protected associations is reasonable. What's completely unreasonable is giving Edge an exception to the protection.
  - tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
    The concept of protected associations is only reasonable if you ignore the fact that there will be a default. It is, de facto for many users, making it impossible to change that default.
aitchnyu 5y ago
Outlook and Teams on Android force me to install Edge to view links. I can't even paste links to non MS apps since the plaintext will be a notice instead.
- hamilyon2 5y ago
  Wait, what? Isn't it a definite violation of android rules around usage of intents and actions?
  - itsme-alan 5y ago
    I am using Teams for Android and Outlook and I don't have even have Edge installed and links work fine.
- rejectfinite 5y ago
  That is probably a configuration/compliance policy set by your IT department via Microsoft Endpoint Manager. That is not standard I think?
aeharding 5y ago
If Microsoft's concern is default app hijacking by malicious players, why isn't there some sort of app-signing process to provide programs the better API?
- kevincox 5y ago
  It should just be a one-click UAC window probably "Are you sure you want Firefox to do this". But these dark patterns are common.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    I'd be fine with this if a UAC approval were also needed to make Edge the default browser.
    - cge 5y ago
      This is particularly frustrating, yes. I think I'd actually prefer it if applications could not make arbitrary changes to system/user defaults on their own. I've had problems with this on Windows, when I've needed to use it, but also on Android, and even desktop Linux (Chromium in Debian sid currently, rather bafflingly, seems to make itself the xdg-open default even with $BROWSER, Gnome's default browser setting, and x-www-browser all set to Firefox). But to ostensibly create central, user-controlled methods and restrictions for setting defaults to prevent unwanted default changes and hijacking, and then actually use that space as an advertisement for your own products (Are you sure you want to change away from Edge? Have you tried Edge? Do you want to switch back to Edge? Microsoft recommends Edge!), while exempting your products from the restrictions, completely destroys the point of those controls, and any respect people would have for it.
gadders 5y ago
Offtopic, but does anyone find Firefox really slow for gmail? I'm wondering if Google do stuff to slow Firefox down deliberately.
- dralley 5y ago
  Gmail performance is pretty horrific, for what it does. It used to be even worse (twice as much memory and CPU as Youtube according to about:performance), but they've improved a bit since then. It's still pretty bad, though.
- trident5000 5y ago
  You're getting downvoted but they actually did this with Youtube. So the answer is yes its possible.
- maskros 5y ago
  Not really, but I'm still using Basic HTML gmail! It's a very well hidden option, but the https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/h/ https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/h/ link should take you there.
- fleaaaa 5y ago
  It was once unusually fast on FF right after google shortage a couple of month ago. Everything I click was instant, never had those kind of experience. Now I feel like it's slow on both. There might be a priority issue but I doubt its slowness is FF only.
iamAtom 5y ago
Imagine how many decisions were made similar to this at the cost of smooth user experience. This is why windows or any MS products will never be my favourite because user experience takes back seat mostly.
tyingq 5y ago
Somewhat related, also see "EdgeDeflector": https://github.com/da2x/EdgeDeflector https://github.com/da2x/EdgeDeflector It's a really handy utility to force windows to actually use your default browser in spaces where it currently forces Edge. You've probably seen this opening links from other Microsoft products where Edge unexpectedly pops up. Like from MS widgets on your toolbar, some links within MS Teams, etc.
- nuxi7 5y ago
  I need this, but for all the android apps that are refusing to open links in my chosen browser.
- hashworks 5y ago
  This. Changing the default browser in Windows and the application for *.htm? links is not enough - especially Microsoft Apps just ignore that and call Edge directly.
Strom 5y ago
The new Windows 11 defaults manager is amazingly user hostile. [1] Microsoft decided it's a great idea to make non technical users manually adjust 15 different file and protocol associations in order to change the default browser. Microsoft's statement on this: we are implementing customer feedback to customize and control defaults at a more granular level, eliminating app categories and elevating all apps to the forefront of the defaults experience. More granular control is nice and all, but I don't buy for a second that it couldn't be behind some "advanced" button. I think the most probable explanation for removing the app categories is a calculated move to steer people towards Microsoft products which have access to backdoor internal functions to change all of these automatically. I do remember how bad things were back in Windows XP days when every random toolbar would change all the associations. I don't wish for that experience to come back for non technical users either. Microsoft could perhaps look into allowing digitally signed apps to change the associations automatically (a single summarizing OS confirmation prompt might be wise), and non-signed apps would have to instruct users to manually change things. -- [1] https://www.theverge.com/22630319/microsoft-windows-11-default-browser-changes https://www.theverge.com/22630319/microsoft-windows-11-defau...
- syshum 5y ago
  If only we had actual Anti-Trust enforcement, because this is EXACTLY what they got wrist slapped for in the 90's
- nvrspyx 5y ago
  > More granular control is nice and all, but I don't buy for a second that it couldn't be behind some "advanced" button. In fact, they could've just kept it the same as Windows 10 because this exact system was under "Choose defaults by app", along with a "Choose defaults by protocol" option, at the bottom of the defaults apps pane. Windows 11 is a step back from more granular control considering there is no longer the option to change defaults by protocol. Instead, you need to go through multiple apps to see which protocols each app supports rather than going straight to the protocol/file type you want to change the default for.
  - warning26 5y ago
NazakiAid 5y ago
This explains why the other day on a fresh Windows install, Firefox set its self to the default browser with just 1 click. Very easy and great especially as the computer was very slow. Though I will admit, I thought something had gone wrong and it didn't work as it couldn't open the default apps dialog.
tester34 5y ago
Holy shit I noticed that lately and thought Windows stopped doing this
rk06 5y ago
The key point here is that Microsoft has made a way to bypass those protections, so that people could switch to Edge from IE easily. Firefox reverse engineered it and implemented it. I suspect that in windows 11, edge will be set as default browser, and the backdoor will be removed :(
faebi 5y ago
I recently had to help my parents since they could not login to their email service anymore because Microsoft silently switched the default browser to edge. And of course their saved credentials aren't available anymore. They asked me what they did wrong. I had no other words to say than that Microsoft is literally abusing their position to force them to use something else. It's Microsofts fault and we can't do anything about it. Then I had to video call them to guide them through the anti-patterns when switching the default browser. So, I do like Mozillas behavior and wish Chrome offered the same.
tgtweak 5y ago
The amount of dark design patterns around getting edge as the default browser is sickening. Opera was flagged as PUA by many AVs for simply changing the default browser after asking users post-install if they wanted to use that browser as their default - just as edge does (and before Firefox copied that same mechanism here). Now every post-windows update screen (which takes place before you even log in...) comes with a full-page nag screen asking you to "Use Microsoft recommended browser settings" [1]... This is on the heels of a screen that says "Let's make Windows even better - this shouldn't affect what you've already set up" [2]. Even more disappointing is not that they're doing this but that nobody is taking these platforms to court over it in a meaningful way. [1] https://www.windowslatest.com/2020/11/15/windows-10-is-now-nagging-users-with-microsoft-edge-recommendations/ https://www.windowslatest.com/2020/11/15/windows-10-is-now-n... [2] https://www.windowslatest.com/2020/06/07/windows-10-full-screen-setup-prompts-are-back/ https://www.windowslatest.com/2020/06/07/windows-10-full-scr...
- inetknght 5y ago
  > Even more disappointing is not that they're doing this but that nobody is taking these platforms to court over it in a meaningful way. Average citizens don't have the money needed to fight big corporate lawyers. FTC, FCC, SEC, etc are all neutered in will and in budget. Will nobody rid us of a corrupt collusion between government and corporation?
  - p_j_w 5y ago
    >Will nobody rid us of a corrupt collusion between government and corporation? We could by changing who we vote for.
    - lnxg33k1 5y ago
      Yeah, considering the amount of money needed to be known and collect votes i guess it's either the government starting to fund campaigns and disallowing corporate donation or i see it as very hard to change that
    - oehpr 5y ago
spodek 5y ago
Mozilla should consider creating an option to switch the whole operating system to Linux. Obviously huge, but for some users maybe not hard. For some users welcome.
- chris_wot 5y ago
  The only truly crappy part of Windows, IMO, is drive letters and ridiculous legacy file system layout. And WinSxS (people will disagree with me). Other than that, it’s a robust, well written system.
sealeck 5y ago
I may be wrong (I am not a lawyer) but I suspect that if Microsoft prevent Mozilla from doing this, Mozilla may be able to win a lawsuit (probably not in the US, but in the EU seems likely) arguing that it is anti-competitive to restrict defaults in this way. See judgements against Google for similar restrictions on Android.
trident5000 5y ago
Sounds anti-competitive on Microsoft's part.
- p_j_w 5y ago
  "A tiger's never gonna change its stripes."
chriscjcj 5y ago
Meanwhile, Firefox released version 57 that killed most of their extensions and add-ons. Then it imposed terrible changes to their UI that you can't change with the new extensions. Want tabs below the address bar? Too bad. Github now has numerous projects for re-vamping Firefox's userChrome.css because its UI is THAT bad. And now there's Proton. I'm sure there's someone out there that likes it, but I haven't heard from anyone who does. Want to turn it off? Too bad. Mozilla thinks they know what's best for their users and seems incapable of internalizing any criticism. If Firefox is so great, why would so many calories get burned creating Waterfox? If Mozilla were really doing a great job with Firefox, giving people what they really wanted in a browser, they wouldn't need to be quite so concerned about Microsoft's shenanigans. If it were a great and wonderful browser, people would want it and do what they needed to do to install it. This is not an argument that what MS is doing is okay; it's not. But after everything Firefox has dished out over the last few years, it's just difficult for me to feel too sorry for them.
- mftb 5y ago
  So when FF reduces customization by changing the extension system they are bad. When they let you customize the UI ad-infinitum through userChrome.css it's because, "its UI is THAT bad.". Right, got it, FF bad. Some of the devs who have worked on the FF extension system over the years both before and after the changes have blogged about why they had to do what they did, https://yoric.github.io/post/why-did-mozilla-remove-xul-addons/ https://yoric.github.io/post/why-did-mozilla-remove-xul-addo..., are security and maintainability difficult to grok? FF is large and has had to live in an increasingly hostile web for a very long time. As for your reasoning about why there are alternative browsers and ecosystems, it's simply not good. One of the main reasons people work on alternative browsers is they like making things. This is evident everywhere in Free Software/Open Source, where there are options for almost every part of every stack.
  - chriscjcj 5y ago
    Your point that extensions to modify the UI vs. userChrome.css is well taken, but I would argue that it's apples and oranges. I did a poor job of explaining myself. I'll attempt to elucidate and apologize if I do a poor job again. My argument regarding breaking extensions was in the context of allowing users to modify the browser's UI/UX to their liking. Installing an extension is a common practice performed by many people who possess little-to-no "computer skills." (for lack of a better way to put it.) Just about anyone can search for an extension, perform a few clicks, and install it. And this used to be a popular method for those who disliked UI changes Mozilla foisted upon them so that they could easily return to a UI they enjoyed. Unfortunately, the UI modifications that can now be made with extensions are minimal. Users are encouraged to modify userChrome.css instead. While this may seem trivial and perhaps preferred by some in the HN demographic, this effectively takes it out of the mainstream. Most users are not going to find their FF profile folder, create a chrome folder (which doesn't exist by default), and start coding css to make their browser look different. Nor are they going to have any idea that there are projects on github which would provide solutions for them. But let's say, for argument's sake that one did go to the trouble. Would you like to move the tabs below the address bar? Good luck with that. And then watch your css no longer work when Mozilla makes further changes making your modifications ineffective. There is one project that does manage to move the tabs below the address bar but it leaves a blank area above the address bar where the tabs would be. Mozilla has dug in on their tab bar dogma, user preference be damned. We're seeing it again with proton. It seems to be universally reviled, but guess what: you're gettin' it whether you like it or not. Want to use your operating system's printer dialog box instead of FireFox's incomplete and buggy one? Too bad. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1322589?page=2#answer-1422371 https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1322589?page=2#a... I also understand that people create derivatives of open source projects as an intellectual pursuit, which is wonderful. However, I used Waterfox as an example. Indeed, Waterfox appears to have begun its existence in much the way you describe. But fast-forward to now, on their website's main page, they trumpet their tab bar thus: "Fan-tab-u-lous - Everyone likes to use their browser in a specific way." And indeed, in the preferences there is a simple way to set the position of the tab bar. Why would that be so hard for Mozilla to do in Firefox? Why? They also highlight, "Limited Data Collection," "No Telemetry," and "The most extension support of any browser." Do you not think it safe to infer that this may be their current raison d'être and how they would like to differentiate themselves from Firefox? Yes, I know there are alternative projects. My criticism is directed primarily toward the Firefox UI team. It is a mystery to me why an organization that expends so much energy and money marketing itself in an attempt to get new users, regularly angering its existing users to the point where they want to bail. This article is nice explainer: https://www.inc.com/karl-and-bill/its-cheaper-to-keep-em.html https://www.inc.com/karl-and-bill/its-cheaper-to-keep-em.htm...
awinter-py 5y ago
I don't understand -- US v microsoft was about literally this, except it was netscape. How do you go through the largest tech antitrust action ever and then just forget. Why does msft even want their thing to be default? The only site I've ever seen recommend it is the NY DMV, and it was a bad recommendation -- they actually needed IE11.
swamp40 5y ago
In the end of days, amongst the smoldering ruins, a cockroach scurried over a keyboard and triggered yet another computer to default back to Microsoft Edge. As far as the eye could see, there was nothing left moving but the flitting of black vermin, illuminated by glowing screens filled with the sulky, impassioned, and now joyful gradient blue and green curved wave of the Microsoft Edge logo. It had won. It had finally won.
kipchak 5y ago
Fun Fact, if you go to Settings -> More Tools -> Math Solver, Edge has a built in math tool that will solve for equations in the browser window when highlighted. https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/articles/learn-how-to-solve-math-problems-with-math-solver-in-microsoft/m-p/2195689 https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/articles/learn-how-to...
- sitzkrieg 5y ago
  msft lunch break comment?
  - kipchak 5y ago
    I wish, just digging in Edge attempting to configure it for compliance purposes and I thought a Math Solver being a feature was mildly amusing
riofoxx 5y ago
T.o a.s.s.i.s.t y.o.u i.n t.r.a.d.e.s f.o.r b.e.t.t.e.r i.m.p.r.o.v.e.m.e.n.t on c.r.y.p.t.o.c.u.r.r.e.n.c.y W.h.a.t.s.A.p.p (+13052395906)
bobbob1921 5y ago
Keep in mind too- Microsoft is almost at the point of giving windows (as an OS) away for free. Whereas in the past they would charge around $99 for windows (or less per machine to OEMs). Other OSes have forced Microsoft to pretty much give their OS away for free. From a msft/revenue point of view, Microsoft will now feel less inhibitions with regard to using windows to drive revenue via other Microsoft products. (Ie Windows will now be seen internally as a “loss leader” product that must drive revenue via other sources such as Bing, edge, office 365 etc)
- tester756 5y ago
  >Whereas in the past they would charge around $99 for windows When was "the past"? 1990? 2000? 2004?
- bob1029 5y ago
  I would happily pay inflation-adjusted full price for a special edition of windows that doesn't treat me like cattle. How big do we think this market is? Maybe I'm the crazy one these days...
dehrmann 5y ago
This might not be an issue for default apps, but there was a time when websites and toolbars abused setting the default homepage, so I have mixed feelings about this. It also improves the user experience if you use two browsers because when Chrome reminds me it's not the default, it's harder to accidentally make it the default.
aSig 5y ago
Any idea on how you would go about reverse engineering something like this on windows?
tuankiet65 5y ago
To be honest, Mozilla isn't the first one here. SetUserFTA (https://kolbi.cz/blog/2017/10/25/setuserfta-userchoice-hash-defeated-set-file-type-associations-per-user/ https://kolbi.cz/blog/2017/10/25/setuserfta-userchoice-hash-...) has been around since 2017, and this pastebin (https://pastebin.com/yVhWeQ3X https://pastebin.com/yVhWeQ3X) even predates it.
bluedino 5y ago
I came in this morning to find my computer was opening PDF's in Edge, as well as the default browser had been changed from Chrome to Edge. Stupid.
heavyset_go 5y ago
Tangentially related, but I recently spun up a Windows VM and used Edge to search Bing for "Firefox" and this is result I got[1]. It's a giant banner that says, "You're already browsing in Microsoft Edge. Keep using to get world class performance with more privacy, more productivity, and more value." That banner is followed by another giant banner image telling me to get "Get Robux using Microsoft Edge. Join Microsoft Rewards and use Microsoft Edge. Get a 100 Robux eGift Card on us when you search with Microsoft Bing on Microsoft Edge for 5 days after you join." I had to scroll to even see the relevant search results for my search term. I'm assuming most non-power users won't scroll because they were just assured that they were "already browsing in Microsoft Edge", which is apparently more private, productive and valuable than what they intended to search for. [1] https://i.imgur.com/blHGMgX.png https://i.imgur.com/blHGMgX.png
- liamwire 5y ago
  Ostensibly this is the exact opposite function one wants out of a search tool, obscuring results. For Microsoft to design such an egregious UX for one of their key platforms, the incentives must be staggering. Calling this a dark pattern doesn’t go far enough, in my opinion. It’s outright user-hostile.
- aguasfrias 5y ago
  The targeted ad banner is hilarious. It reminds me of that scene in Silicon Valley where Dominos appears in a fantasy medieval universe because Dinesh mentions pizza.
bob229 5y ago
Sneaky behaviour but at this point who cares. I use Edge on all of my devices. It is superior to Firefox and no one in their right mind installs google spy software
Vanit 5y ago
Isn't this a security hole if an app can change Windows behaviour without prompts?

840 points by hadrien01 5y ago

"Wow, Microsoft has really changed!"

As I was reading this article I kept thinking to myself "Microsoft is going to boot Firefox from Windows" before realizing that MS doesn't have that sort of power (compared to say Apple). It's really interesting how MS will approach this. Unlike Apple, MS doesn't have direct control over which apps go on the operating system, they aren't even in a position like Google where their app store is the dominant platform for getting apps. This will be interesting, interesting to see how MS responds. Will they give in and let users easily set their default browser or will this turn into a cat and mouse game. Lastly I think what MS is doing with the default browser is foolish. Did they learn nothing from the antitrust cases of the 2000's

barryvan 5y ago
I suspect they will buckle -- but only partially, with an allowlist of browsers blessed with this ability. This will quiet the noise, but will also make it harder for small and innovative browsers to compete, as I doubt Microsoft will build out the processes to become blessed due to cost/benefit.
- bluGill 5y ago
  Probably, but for security reasons the only correct thing to do is remove the ability of Edge to set default browser within the browser. The only option app developers - including internal Microsoft ones - should have is open some OS settings app in a supported way, but the user has to accept the selection.
  - blendergeek 5y ago
    It should work like an Android permission prompt. The OS should have an official method for apps to request to become the default (not merely link to the default apps page of settings). The OS prompt should look like this: Would you like to make <APP NAME> the default app for <APP CATEGORY>? [No and don't ask again] [Yes] Any app that wants to become the default (including Edge) should go through the official prompt. If the user has already said no, and the app wants to continue nagging, at this point the app will be able to link into the settings (but not pop up the official prompt).
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  This seems to be an industry-wide trend. Google, somewhat recently, also banned "unauthorized" browsers from logging into Google accounts at all.
  - account42 5y ago
    All browsers already claim to be "Mozilla" so it's not like there is no way to work around that.
    - heavyset_go 5y ago
      They're doing far more when fingerprinting browsers than looking at the User-Agent.
anothernewdude 5y ago
That's silly. Chrome has become so dominant that it'd be a good move on MS's part to help segment the browser market by supporting Firefox
- joncrane 5y ago
  Isn't Google the single largest contributor to the Mozilla Foundation?
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    No. The Mozilla Corporation is the largest contributor to the Mozilla Foundation, though most of their money comes from selling the default search rights to Google.
    - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
      That sounds like '"yes" but I don't like to admit it'. I mean their money comes from the bank account that others pay in to, but that's a stupid and irrelevant distinction ...
      - LanceH 5y ago
        His point is that Google is a customer, not a contributor.
        e3bc54b2 5y ago
        Which in this case is equivalent to 'if you owe 10k to Bank its your problem, but if you owe 10M its the bank's problem'. One way or another Mozilla relies on Google remaining its customer for vast majority of money, while Google being their biggest competitor who eats out ever more of Mozilla's market share every year, further reducing any reason for Google to remain their customer going forward.
        5y ago
orbital-decay 5y ago
Microsoft were doing this for ages... From the NT kernel to the shell. To stay above competition, they have tons of different undocumented APIs they keep for themselves to use, and don't guarantee it to exist or stay unchanged in future. In fact this is the response. Nothing special about this particular one. Developers reverse engineer those, and try to rely on them, all the time.
- kmeisthax 5y ago
  Every OS and library has some form of undocumented/internal APIs that they don't want users of that library or OS to be relying upon. Hell, Linux even uses DRM (not the Direct Rendering Manager, Digital Rights Management) to check if your LKM is licensed properly to call those APIs. GPL-incompatible libraries only get to link to functions that are rough equivalents to syscalls.
  - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
    Calling what you describe DRM is pretty deceptive. Can you get access to DRM-ed materials by promising to share them freely under an open license? That said I'm surprised by what you describe as I'm struggling to understand how that works -- you're saying the Linux kernel has a secret API, surely one can read the source and/or documentation and find the API details. Or are you saying calls to kernel APIs are cryptographically protected? Could you give details of what this system is called, thanks.
    - icefo 5y ago
      The zfsonlinux developers complained a while ago that some API they were using became GPL only and I think they had to write a wrapper in GPL to get around it. I'm on mobile so I can't give you more details but you can probably find more if you look in that direction
      - vetinari 5y ago
        It was API, not API key. Kernel is GPL, so only GPL modules can touch its internal APIs. For non-derived works, there is a subset of APIs, that are declared to be fine if used by non-GPL code. ZFS had a problem, where they were using something that should not be used (fp in kernel), which got removed and they had to find a replacement, which was GPL-only. It is also necessary to say, that this is honor-based. Any module declares its license and the linker either allows or not allows resolving a symbol. There are no checks whether the module is really GPL or not, it is to show intent, and if you want to cheat, you must do it willfully, not by accident.
ilaksh 5y ago
They do have some control though. If you don't list with their app store they default to accusing your software of being malware and hiding the run button.
- whywhywhywhy 5y ago
  > and hiding the run button This isn't completely accurate, if the app is being seen only in very small numbers the run button is hidden under "More Info" but when Smartscreen has seen your app enough that it can be more confident it's less harmful the "Run Anyway" button is surfaced.
- garaetjjte 5y ago
  That's not related to app store though, just the CA protection racket.
  - ilaksh 5y ago
    It is because they waive the CA if you go through the store.
pc86 5y ago
My guess is they'll just leave it. You'll have the one-click for Edge, whatever this workaround/RE is for Firefox, and everything else will be the same. Maybe Mozilla will open source this workaround.
- iggldiggl 5y ago
  They'd have to go out of their way to not open-source it.
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
> Did they learn nothing from the antitrust cases of the 2000's They learned for awhile- until the rest of the industry caught up. This might sound weird but I've actually been rooting for Microsoft a lot lately. A majority of their revenue is not from ads and lock-in BS and they weren't called in front of Congress recently over antitrust concerns. I was hoping they would set themselves apart from the pack in an odd way by making good software and hardware products that people enjoy using. (xbox, windows, office, WSL, VSCode, Visual Studio, hololens, phones, laptops, Halo on Steam, etc.) Seeing the new browser war and direction Windows 11 is headed, now has me worried. The widgets pane is obviously for serving ads. I understand that these public companies are required to act in the best interests of shareholders but I fear that the obsessive push for revenue gains only benefits short term shareholders. Long term shareholders get the shaft when every decision is aimed at squeezing revenue just for the next quarter. Edit: I'm not a Microsoft/Windows-Stan either, I've been using Linux intermittently since 2006-ish and now daily drive Fedora as my main.
- bayindirh 5y ago
  I was also kinda liked The New Microsoft and prepared to put my anger towards them to the side (I remember the ACPI memo days). Also, as a grown-up computer user, I got appropriate number of licenses (for every Microsoft application we use) for my family and personal computers. However, the latest GitHub Copilot stuff, their agreement with OpenAI, return of their embrace, extend, extinguish tactics with GitHub, VSCode and other stuff undone everything. It's their DNA now. All Microsoft Empire is built with crushing monopoly as their core value and driving force. Changing this requires more than changing a mere CEO and posting a "We Love Linux" banner. The only really good thing they do is hardware. Posted from my Debian 11 box using Microsoft Keyboard.
  - flatiron 5y ago
    I recently left Apple and my new company gave me a choice of windows or macOS as my device and I chose windows. I’m not really sure why. But I do have to say after not using windows for 10+ years it’s come a long way. Wsl simply is amazing. Vscode works perfectly with it. The office apps are leaps and bounds better than there macOS counterparts. I certainly have never been a MS lover but I think they are much better now than their 90s reputation.
Angostura 5y ago
> MS doesn't have that sort of power (compared to say Apple) That's an interesting question. I suppose Apple could refuse to sign the executable, which would make things tricky but could they actually boot Firefox from MacOS? I think not.
- cma 5y ago
  Yes, remember this? > Apple has released a silent update for Mac users removing a vulnerable component in Zoom Removed not by antivirus you can disable, removed by an OS update.
  - Angostura 5y ago
    Do I remember Apple updating XProtect to remove a Zoom component that allowed attackers to potentially hijack users' webcams? I do. Zoom had installed a hidden web server on users' computers that was (a) exploitable and (b) not removed upon deletion of the app. As a result, users who had previously deleted Zoom might not even realize they were vulnerable to this potential attack. Zoom worked with Apple and updated the app hours later. You can kill XProtect if you want by disabling System Integrity Protection and modifying the malware signature file.
vishnumohandas 5y ago
> Apple FWIW, on iOS, links from Google apps open up on Chrome if it's installed, regardless of what your default browser is. Apple seems to be okay with that.
- dev_tty01 5y ago
  Any app can do app specific URLs on iOS to invoke particular apps with content. I would guess that Google apps detect the presence of Chrome and modify the URLs to be Chrome specific rather than generic https URLs. Its ok with Apple because that is a standard supported mechanism on iOS.
  - vishnumohandas 5y ago
    As a user who expects all https links to open within my default browser, Google's exploitation of this workaround breaks the guarantees I expect out of the OS. There are a lot of other "features" that are technically feasible but not allowed on AppStore. This to me should have been on that list.
    - dev_tty01 5y ago
      Good point. Yeah, I don't like it either. Thinking about it a bit more, I share your surprise that they allowed this. I guess they need it for google.com links to make things work together, but Apple could have told them non-google links should be opened in the default browser.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  Any browser on iOS is just UI over Safari's rendering engine and JS runtime. Chrome, as in Blink and V8, is banned by Apple from running on iOS.
cabalamat 5y ago
> This will be interesting, interesting to see how MS responds Maybe they'll make a better browser, so people will prefer theirs to Firefox and Chrome? Nah, that's unlikely.
- pbhjpbhj 5y ago
  That can just cripple Office.com to browsers other than Edge, then it looks like they have a better browser -- much easier!
- worrycue 5y ago
  To be fair, Edge is basically just Chrome now no? It isn’t too bad although I stuck to Firefox.
  - cabalamat 5y ago
    > Edge is basically just Chrome now no? Exactly. MS have given up on the idea of making a better browser.
ocdtrekkie 5y ago
I suspect Microsoft will modify their undocumented API that they have no obligation to maintain as-is so that it only accepts EXEs in Edge's program folder or something.
boomboomsubban 5y ago
>that MS doesn't have that sort of power (compared to say Apple). They could mark the install executable as malicious in Windows Defender.
- pbhjpbhj 5y ago
  Or the domain as having PUP so people visiting get a warning and hoops to jump through.
- bogwog 5y ago
  Which is similar to what Apple does for MacOS (and Google for Android). They haven't prevented people from installing untaxed software, but they have made it a scary and difficult process for the average user, and made it very difficult for anyone to sell software without giving Apple/Google a cut.
  - cma 5y ago
    And they said desktop signing was only for security, then blocked Epic's desktop apps for an iOS non-security business dispute.
- account42 5y ago
  It would be funny if Firefox would warn you about downloading Firefox because it is marked as malware. Would server Mozilla right for letting Google maintain that list, who have shown they do not care about false positives.
dev_tty01 5y ago
Of course Apple allows Mac users to set the default browser as a choice on the very first General preferences panel. Trivial to change.
- sitzkrieg 5y ago
  yea the flawless mac experience, what next being able to uninstall apple music or podcasts?
jonnycomputer 5y ago
I can install apps on Mac that aren't in the store.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
zaat 5y ago
So I was at my parents house some time ago and my mom's computer is for some reason set allow installing software from the Microsoft store only. Nobody knows how that was set, my mom's computer usage is characterized by randomly clicking on things until the website she wants open, but somehow that option have appeared for her to click on.
- criley2 5y ago
  Windows 10S only allows Microsoft Store downloads and you have to change to Home/Pro to allow .exe's to run at all.
Iv 5y ago
> Did they learn nothing from the antitrust cases of the 2000's They learnt that all they risk is a slap on the wrist a decade later, and a fee that's a drop in their profits.
tgtweak 5y ago
Just wait for those "store-only" versions of windows to grow in distribution, then Microsoft touting store policy for not allowing Firefox in the store...
heavyset_go 5y ago
> I kept thinking to myself "Microsoft is going to boot Firefox from Windows" before realizing that MS doesn't have that sort of power (compared to say Apple). Actually, when it comes to Windows and macOS, Microsoft has about the same power as Apple does when it comes to limiting what software can and can't run on their operating systems. Defender on Windows works like Gatekeeper does on macOS. Defender gets to decide what runs or doesn't run on a Windows system, using a similar approach to Gatekeeper. Both Apple and Microsoft require developers to regularly buy certificates to sign the software they intend to distribute to macOS and Windows users, and they require developers to remain in good standing with either company. Unsigned software is treated as if it is radioactive by both operating systems, and macOS on M1 Macs goes one step further by deprecating unsigned binaries entirely. If Apple or Microsoft want to, they can revoke a developer's certificates, and any app that was signed with them will be prevented from running by Gatekeeper or Defender. They can also choose not to renew a developer's certificates, preventing apps from running when the certificates they were signed with expire. To 99.9% of users, apps signed with revoked or expired certificates will be portrayed as either being broken or malicious by macOS or Windows.

krzyzanowskim 5y ago

let's not forget 2001 antitrust law case triggered by Internet Explorer itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... Everything old is new again.

metalliqaz 5y ago
except now the US' will to prosecute antitrust is essentially dead the land of corporate power
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  Honestly its will wasn't even that strong back then, hence the slap on the wrist settlement on appeal.
dataflow 5y ago
They probably look at their market share and decide they're not a monopoly anymore.
NelsonMinar 5y ago
Unfortunately the US kind of has forgotten. The Bush administration took power and undermined all that anti-trust stuff and it lay forgotten for most of 20 years. The Biden administration is picking up some of it now.

approxim8ion 5y ago

They're not really "protections", to be fair.

notRobot 5y ago
Exactly. They're not protections. They're strategies to make it harder for non-super-users to change their default browser. As technical people, it's easy to underestimate just how well these tactics that introduce friction work at making "regular" folks shurg and say "meh, okay, whatever -- sure, I'll use Edge" just because they don't want to repeatedly have to figure out how to change their default browser.
sebazzz 5y ago
They are. Default file associations are protected in Windows 10 [0][1]. The default browser is in essence also an file association. [0]: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20170517-00/?p=96175 https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20170517-00/?p=96... [1]: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20190724-00/?p=102730 https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20190724-00/?p=10...
- dralley 5y ago
  They are not. This is not some generic "are you sure" prompt, it is specifically coded to nag users to use Edge instead. https://www.itsupportguides.com/wp-content/uploads/Windows10-ChangeBrowser.gif https://www.itsupportguides.com/wp-content/uploads/Windows10...
- approxim8ion 5y ago
  It's one thing to push "protections" on your users because you think you know better and they can't navigate their way around their devices without ruining them. That's the Apple way. But what Microsoft has done here is push their own product in the name of protection. That's much more malicious. To argue whether it is a protection because they call it one is semantics.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  Get back to us with that when it's less of an utterly transparent lie. When, for instance, switching your default handler for .txt files leads you through three dialogs that ever more insistently extol the virtues of MS Notepad for this purpose.

thrower123 5y ago

Good. The better product will win out. If I was working on the Edgeium team, I would beg the Windows and Bing people to be less heavy-handed. It's a quality product, but the advertising and nudging is souring me.

jfk13 5y ago
Yes, indeed. I do choose to run Edge sometimes, but the constant attempts to push or trick me into making it the default are really grating.
ilaksh 5y ago
Why should we have to keep begging them or something? Using Linux instead of Windows is a moral issue.
- LeonB 5y ago
  Software constantly uses dark patterns and even “well-behaved” software asks questions with answers like “yes” (large writing) and “maybe later” as the only no option. It’s completely normalised.
- burnished 5y ago
  It's not a realistic answer for the vast majority of users.
  - dotancohen 5y ago
    Honest question: Why not? What application does "the vast majority of users" need that is Windows only, today? From my experience with family, coworkers, friends, and neighbors, the vast majority of people today need a web browser. That's it.
    - burnished 5y ago
      Switching costs! I suspect there is a high degree of knowledge and experience you posses that you are discounting. Most people would need to learn a really tremendous amount to understand what they were switching to and why. Hell, I've got enough know how that I could figure it out, but it doesn't rise high enough in my priority to do. You might also be discounting people who use their machines to play games with. Although I hear good things about SteamOS, that might push the needle.

kuschkufan 5y ago

TFA seems to say that Chrome and others don't yet do it like Firefox does. If this really turns out to be an advantage watch the others copying the reverse-engineered code. I assume you could look it up in the Firefox repo now?

wyattpeak 5y ago
I think it's very likely Firefox want everybody to copy them. This is a fight best fought with everyone against Windows, and it's no particular skin off Firefox's nose if Chrome is also easy to use: since Chrome is basically the default non-Edge browser, everybody choosing Firefox is already aware of Chrome and has decided against it.

CA0DA 5y ago

The default browser switch in Windows 10 was using multiple dark patterns to get you to stay with Edge. Good for Firefox.

squarefoot 5y ago

Wait a minute. Firefox is Open Source; wasn't Microsoft in love with Open Source? (their words) So it appears they are only when they don't smell competition. One of the reasons why I'm extremely worried by whatever they're planning to do with Linux.

trutannus 5y ago
> whatever they're planning to do with Linux. Why? Microsoft does not own Firefox or Linux? If you don't use MS products then you're not going to be subject to their choices.
- p_j_w 5y ago
  They don't need to own it to EEE it.
  - trutannus 5y ago
    Triple E?
    - aembleton 5y ago
      Embrace, extend, and extinguish - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
      - trutannus 5y ago
        I'm not holding my breath for Microsoft to 'extinguish' Linux. That's not really how open source works, especially Linux given the sorts of folks who develop it.
        squarefoot 5y ago
        They don't need to physically destroy Linux, all they need is to offer something similar with the Microsoft name attached to it. Communities and hackers may ignore it, but businesses will always see it as a better choice. Still no problem for die hard enthusiasts, now, but say one day 75% of Linux developers are employed in companies where they work only from a Windows machine under WSL, using VSC and possibly some closed blobs nicely donated by Microsoft, that day the penguin corpse will be already cold.

wasmitnetzen 5y ago

Related bugzilla entries: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1637357 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1637357 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1703578 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1703578 Apparently, the new one-click method is called UserChoice.

userbinator 5y ago
"UserChoice" - what a doublespeak name. It's been there since Win8 or so, and defeated just as long ago: https://danysys.com/set-file-type-association-default-application-command-line-windows-10-userchoice-hash-internal-method/ https://danysys.com/set-file-type-association-default-applic... http://kolbi.cz/blog/2017/10/25/setuserfta-userchoice-hash-defeated-set-file-type-associations-per-user/ http://kolbi.cz/blog/2017/10/25/setuserfta-userchoice-hash-d... (Note the messages about "fixed false positive from Windows Defender"...)

lawl 5y ago

Here's the relevant commit: https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/e928b3e95a6c3b7257d0ba475fc2303bfbad1874 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/e928b3e95a6c3b725... (I think)

vxNsr 5y ago
This is what I was looking for.
jftuga 5y ago
An interesting excerpt: // When Windows creates this key, it is read-only (Deny Set Value), so we need // to delete it first. // We don't set any similar special permissions.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Someone1234 5y ago
Looks like it is going to: Computer\HKEY_CURRENT_USER\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\FileExts For ".html", ".htm" and: Computer\HKEY_CURRENT_USER\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Shell\Associations\UrlAssociations For "https", "http" then: - Nuke the UserChoice key because Microsoft put special permissions on it. - Re-create the UserChoice key setting the ProgId to Firefox and then calculating the hash. - The hash is calculated using, in part, a hard-coded Windows internal GUID see FormatUserChoiceString here: https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-release/diff/7e775ce432b599c6daf7ac379aa42f1e9b3b33ed/browser/components/shell/WindowsUserChoice.cpp https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-release/diff/7e775ce... The whole thing looks super easy for Microsoft to break in a future Windows release unfortunately.
- Egoist 5y ago
  Interestingly, the first two registry steps are actually the same as the previous windows. Having it behind a hash seems way too user hostile though.
- bob1029 5y ago

ndiddy 5y ago

In Windows XP the "set default programs" control panel had a one-click "non-microsoft" setting that would change all default programs to your installed alternatives. It seems like the effects of their 90s antitrust trial seem to be wearing off.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
Many here would argue they have less of a monopoly than ever. Even as someone who thinks Windows does and will continue to dominate the desktop for at least another decade, I find that hard to disagree with given the mass migration of users from desktop to mobile.

kunagi7 5y ago

I expect that Microsoft won't like this and they will patch it. Even if Firefox does this with good intentions, malware creators can follow Firefox's example to do the same. Since Firefox is open source they only need to copy the code from the repo.

tinus_hn 5y ago
The way to do this has been known for years. https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/vstudio/en-US/bb630780-e878-4edd-90a1-b205966aaedb/how-to-set-default-browser-to-ie-using-c-in-windows-10?forum=csharpgeneral https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/vstudio/en-US/bb630...

causi 5y ago

While Microsoft offers a method to switch default browsers on Windows 10, it’s more cumbersome than the simple one-click process to switch to Edge. Where the hell are the regulators who handed out billion dollar fines just for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows?

jeroenhd 5y ago
Those regulators have let Apple enforce Safari for years, I don't think they care about browsers like they used to.
- yborg 5y ago
  Enforce what? My default is set to Firefox on macOS, took one click.
  - Sander_Marechal 5y ago
    They enforce Safari on iOS, not on macOS
    - SimeVidas 5y ago
      Apple enforces WebKit, not Safari. You can set Firefox as default on iOS. The only problem is that it’s WebKit-based.
bserge 5y ago
Working for Microsoft or retired.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
You mean the same regulators who stripped the initial remedy of its teeth and essentially slapped MS on the wrist?
Mountain_Skies 5y ago
Where were they when AT&T joined all of the Baby Bells back together? It was ok because the competitive landscape changed during the decades in which AT&T was broken up. Same here. Microsoft has nowhere near the power over general computing that it once had. What they did with IE back in the day was only a problem because of their dominant market position. Others doing the same from a minority market position would have been fine. Now that the majority of devices are running something other than Windows, it's more difficult to claim Microsoft dominates the market unless you define the market very narrowly, in which case, lots of other companies would also be in trouble.

userbinator 5y ago

Every time you hear something being done for "security" or "protection", think more carefully about what they're actually trying to protect or secure. That's something I wish more people would do. In this case, it's protection for securing Micro$oft's monopoly.

sdflhasjd 5y ago

Microsoft is using "protected associations" to keep people using Edge, but I think people are forgetting how badly this used to be abused before Microsoft added this feature. Applications would regularly change default associations without any user notice or consent. For example, installers would bundle Adware and even Google Chrome (hidden with common dark patters of the time), setting your default browser or changing your homepage.

Semaphor 5y ago
I think it’s less that they block this (as much as us powerusers might prefer them not to), and more that they decided they obviously deserve to be exempt.
Someone1234 5y ago
You're right. The issue is mostly one of fairness: If Microsoft played by the same rules as Firefox/Chrome, then there is no issue (e.g. UI pops up, you have to select Edge). The problem is that Microsoft has one rule for them and another for everyone else, then designed an incredibly hostile defaults UI on Windows 11 to make changing it to non-Edge time-consuming.
- sdflhasjd 5y ago
  Yup, the fact the settings dialogue behaves differently if your current browser is Edge is clearly unfair, and Edge has already been doing what Firefox is doing how, and skips the UI entirely by spoofing the signature in the registry that served to protect against non-consensual changes.
josephcsible 5y ago
The concept of protected associations is reasonable. What's completely unreasonable is giving Edge an exception to the protection.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
  The concept of protected associations is only reasonable if you ignore the fact that there will be a default. It is, de facto for many users, making it impossible to change that default.

aitchnyu 5y ago

Outlook and Teams on Android force me to install Edge to view links. I can't even paste links to non MS apps since the plaintext will be a notice instead.

hamilyon2 5y ago
Wait, what? Isn't it a definite violation of android rules around usage of intents and actions?
- itsme-alan 5y ago
  I am using Teams for Android and Outlook and I don't have even have Edge installed and links work fine.
rejectfinite 5y ago
That is probably a configuration/compliance policy set by your IT department via Microsoft Endpoint Manager. That is not standard I think?

aeharding 5y ago

If Microsoft's concern is default app hijacking by malicious players, why isn't there some sort of app-signing process to provide programs the better API?

kevincox 5y ago
It should just be a one-click UAC window probably "Are you sure you want Firefox to do this". But these dark patterns are common.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  I'd be fine with this if a UAC approval were also needed to make Edge the default browser.
  - cge 5y ago
    This is particularly frustrating, yes. I think I'd actually prefer it if applications could not make arbitrary changes to system/user defaults on their own. I've had problems with this on Windows, when I've needed to use it, but also on Android, and even desktop Linux (Chromium in Debian sid currently, rather bafflingly, seems to make itself the xdg-open default even with $BROWSER, Gnome's default browser setting, and x-www-browser all set to Firefox). But to ostensibly create central, user-controlled methods and restrictions for setting defaults to prevent unwanted default changes and hijacking, and then actually use that space as an advertisement for your own products (Are you sure you want to change away from Edge? Have you tried Edge? Do you want to switch back to Edge? Microsoft recommends Edge!), while exempting your products from the restrictions, completely destroys the point of those controls, and any respect people would have for it.

gadders 5y ago

Offtopic, but does anyone find Firefox really slow for gmail? I'm wondering if Google do stuff to slow Firefox down deliberately.

dralley 5y ago
Gmail performance is pretty horrific, for what it does. It used to be even worse (twice as much memory and CPU as Youtube according to about:performance), but they've improved a bit since then. It's still pretty bad, though.
trident5000 5y ago
You're getting downvoted but they actually did this with Youtube. So the answer is yes its possible.
maskros 5y ago
Not really, but I'm still using Basic HTML gmail! It's a very well hidden option, but the https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/h/ https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/h/ link should take you there.
fleaaaa 5y ago
It was once unusually fast on FF right after google shortage a couple of month ago. Everything I click was instant, never had those kind of experience. Now I feel like it's slow on both. There might be a priority issue but I doubt its slowness is FF only.

iamAtom 5y ago

Imagine how many decisions were made similar to this at the cost of smooth user experience. This is why windows or any MS products will never be my favourite because user experience takes back seat mostly.

tyingq 5y ago

Somewhat related, also see "EdgeDeflector": https://github.com/da2x/EdgeDeflector https://github.com/da2x/EdgeDeflector It's a really handy utility to force windows to actually use your default browser in spaces where it currently forces Edge. You've probably seen this opening links from other Microsoft products where Edge unexpectedly pops up. Like from MS widgets on your toolbar, some links within MS Teams, etc.

nuxi7 5y ago
I need this, but for all the android apps that are refusing to open links in my chosen browser.
hashworks 5y ago
This. Changing the default browser in Windows and the application for *.htm? links is not enough - especially Microsoft Apps just ignore that and call Edge directly.

Strom 5y ago

The new Windows 11 defaults manager is amazingly user hostile. [1] Microsoft decided it's a great idea to make non technical users manually adjust 15 different file and protocol associations in order to change the default browser. Microsoft's statement on this: we are implementing customer feedback to customize and control defaults at a more granular level, eliminating app categories and elevating all apps to the forefront of the defaults experience. More granular control is nice and all, but I don't buy for a second that it couldn't be behind some "advanced" button. I think the most probable explanation for removing the app categories is a calculated move to steer people towards Microsoft products which have access to backdoor internal functions to change all of these automatically. I do remember how bad things were back in Windows XP days when every random toolbar would change all the associations. I don't wish for that experience to come back for non technical users either. Microsoft could perhaps look into allowing digitally signed apps to change the associations automatically (a single summarizing OS confirmation prompt might be wise), and non-signed apps would have to instruct users to manually change things. -- [1] https://www.theverge.com/22630319/microsoft-windows-11-default-browser-changes https://www.theverge.com/22630319/microsoft-windows-11-defau...

syshum 5y ago
If only we had actual Anti-Trust enforcement, because this is EXACTLY what they got wrist slapped for in the 90's
nvrspyx 5y ago
> More granular control is nice and all, but I don't buy for a second that it couldn't be behind some "advanced" button. In fact, they could've just kept it the same as Windows 10 because this exact system was under "Choose defaults by app", along with a "Choose defaults by protocol" option, at the bottom of the defaults apps pane. Windows 11 is a step back from more granular control considering there is no longer the option to change defaults by protocol. Instead, you need to go through multiple apps to see which protocols each app supports rather than going straight to the protocol/file type you want to change the default for.
- warning26 5y ago

NazakiAid 5y ago

This explains why the other day on a fresh Windows install, Firefox set its self to the default browser with just 1 click. Very easy and great especially as the computer was very slow. Though I will admit, I thought something had gone wrong and it didn't work as it couldn't open the default apps dialog.

tester34 5y ago

Holy shit I noticed that lately and thought Windows stopped doing this

rk06 5y ago

The key point here is that Microsoft has made a way to bypass those protections, so that people could switch to Edge from IE easily. Firefox reverse engineered it and implemented it. I suspect that in windows 11, edge will be set as default browser, and the backdoor will be removed :(

faebi 5y ago

I recently had to help my parents since they could not login to their email service anymore because Microsoft silently switched the default browser to edge. And of course their saved credentials aren't available anymore. They asked me what they did wrong. I had no other words to say than that Microsoft is literally abusing their position to force them to use something else. It's Microsofts fault and we can't do anything about it. Then I had to video call them to guide them through the anti-patterns when switching the default browser. So, I do like Mozillas behavior and wish Chrome offered the same.

tgtweak 5y ago

The amount of dark design patterns around getting edge as the default browser is sickening. Opera was flagged as PUA by many AVs for simply changing the default browser after asking users post-install if they wanted to use that browser as their default - just as edge does (and before Firefox copied that same mechanism here). Now every post-windows update screen (which takes place before you even log in...) comes with a full-page nag screen asking you to "Use Microsoft recommended browser settings" [1]... This is on the heels of a screen that says "Let's make Windows even better - this shouldn't affect what you've already set up" [2]. Even more disappointing is not that they're doing this but that nobody is taking these platforms to court over it in a meaningful way. [1] https://www.windowslatest.com/2020/11/15/windows-10-is-now-nagging-users-with-microsoft-edge-recommendations/ https://www.windowslatest.com/2020/11/15/windows-10-is-now-n... [2] https://www.windowslatest.com/2020/06/07/windows-10-full-screen-setup-prompts-are-back/ https://www.windowslatest.com/2020/06/07/windows-10-full-scr...

inetknght 5y ago
> Even more disappointing is not that they're doing this but that nobody is taking these platforms to court over it in a meaningful way. Average citizens don't have the money needed to fight big corporate lawyers. FTC, FCC, SEC, etc are all neutered in will and in budget. Will nobody rid us of a corrupt collusion between government and corporation?
- p_j_w 5y ago
  >Will nobody rid us of a corrupt collusion between government and corporation? We could by changing who we vote for.
  - lnxg33k1 5y ago
    Yeah, considering the amount of money needed to be known and collect votes i guess it's either the government starting to fund campaigns and disallowing corporate donation or i see it as very hard to change that
  - oehpr 5y ago

spodek 5y ago

Mozilla should consider creating an option to switch the whole operating system to Linux. Obviously huge, but for some users maybe not hard. For some users welcome.

chris_wot 5y ago
The only truly crappy part of Windows, IMO, is drive letters and ridiculous legacy file system layout. And WinSxS (people will disagree with me). Other than that, it’s a robust, well written system.

sealeck 5y ago

I may be wrong (I am not a lawyer) but I suspect that if Microsoft prevent Mozilla from doing this, Mozilla may be able to win a lawsuit (probably not in the US, but in the EU seems likely) arguing that it is anti-competitive to restrict defaults in this way. See judgements against Google for similar restrictions on Android.

trident5000 5y ago

Sounds anti-competitive on Microsoft's part.

p_j_w 5y ago
"A tiger's never gonna change its stripes."

chriscjcj 5y ago

Meanwhile, Firefox released version 57 that killed most of their extensions and add-ons. Then it imposed terrible changes to their UI that you can't change with the new extensions. Want tabs below the address bar? Too bad. Github now has numerous projects for re-vamping Firefox's userChrome.css because its UI is THAT bad. And now there's Proton. I'm sure there's someone out there that likes it, but I haven't heard from anyone who does. Want to turn it off? Too bad. Mozilla thinks they know what's best for their users and seems incapable of internalizing any criticism. If Firefox is so great, why would so many calories get burned creating Waterfox? If Mozilla were really doing a great job with Firefox, giving people what they really wanted in a browser, they wouldn't need to be quite so concerned about Microsoft's shenanigans. If it were a great and wonderful browser, people would want it and do what they needed to do to install it. This is not an argument that what MS is doing is okay; it's not. But after everything Firefox has dished out over the last few years, it's just difficult for me to feel too sorry for them.

mftb 5y ago
So when FF reduces customization by changing the extension system they are bad. When they let you customize the UI ad-infinitum through userChrome.css it's because, "its UI is THAT bad.". Right, got it, FF bad. Some of the devs who have worked on the FF extension system over the years both before and after the changes have blogged about why they had to do what they did, https://yoric.github.io/post/why-did-mozilla-remove-xul-addons/ https://yoric.github.io/post/why-did-mozilla-remove-xul-addo..., are security and maintainability difficult to grok? FF is large and has had to live in an increasingly hostile web for a very long time. As for your reasoning about why there are alternative browsers and ecosystems, it's simply not good. One of the main reasons people work on alternative browsers is they like making things. This is evident everywhere in Free Software/Open Source, where there are options for almost every part of every stack.
- chriscjcj 5y ago
  Your point that extensions to modify the UI vs. userChrome.css is well taken, but I would argue that it's apples and oranges. I did a poor job of explaining myself. I'll attempt to elucidate and apologize if I do a poor job again. My argument regarding breaking extensions was in the context of allowing users to modify the browser's UI/UX to their liking. Installing an extension is a common practice performed by many people who possess little-to-no "computer skills." (for lack of a better way to put it.) Just about anyone can search for an extension, perform a few clicks, and install it. And this used to be a popular method for those who disliked UI changes Mozilla foisted upon them so that they could easily return to a UI they enjoyed. Unfortunately, the UI modifications that can now be made with extensions are minimal. Users are encouraged to modify userChrome.css instead. While this may seem trivial and perhaps preferred by some in the HN demographic, this effectively takes it out of the mainstream. Most users are not going to find their FF profile folder, create a chrome folder (which doesn't exist by default), and start coding css to make their browser look different. Nor are they going to have any idea that there are projects on github which would provide solutions for them. But let's say, for argument's sake that one did go to the trouble. Would you like to move the tabs below the address bar? Good luck with that. And then watch your css no longer work when Mozilla makes further changes making your modifications ineffective. There is one project that does manage to move the tabs below the address bar but it leaves a blank area above the address bar where the tabs would be. Mozilla has dug in on their tab bar dogma, user preference be damned. We're seeing it again with proton. It seems to be universally reviled, but guess what: you're gettin' it whether you like it or not. Want to use your operating system's printer dialog box instead of FireFox's incomplete and buggy one? Too bad. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1322589?page=2#answer-1422371 https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1322589?page=2#a... I also understand that people create derivatives of open source projects as an intellectual pursuit, which is wonderful. However, I used Waterfox as an example. Indeed, Waterfox appears to have begun its existence in much the way you describe. But fast-forward to now, on their website's main page, they trumpet their tab bar thus: "Fan-tab-u-lous - Everyone likes to use their browser in a specific way." And indeed, in the preferences there is a simple way to set the position of the tab bar. Why would that be so hard for Mozilla to do in Firefox? Why? They also highlight, "Limited Data Collection," "No Telemetry," and "The most extension support of any browser." Do you not think it safe to infer that this may be their current raison d'être and how they would like to differentiate themselves from Firefox? Yes, I know there are alternative projects. My criticism is directed primarily toward the Firefox UI team. It is a mystery to me why an organization that expends so much energy and money marketing itself in an attempt to get new users, regularly angering its existing users to the point where they want to bail. This article is nice explainer: https://www.inc.com/karl-and-bill/its-cheaper-to-keep-em.html https://www.inc.com/karl-and-bill/its-cheaper-to-keep-em.htm...

awinter-py 5y ago

I don't understand -- US v microsoft was about literally this, except it was netscape. How do you go through the largest tech antitrust action ever and then just forget. Why does msft even want their thing to be default? The only site I've ever seen recommend it is the NY DMV, and it was a bad recommendation -- they actually needed IE11.

swamp40 5y ago

In the end of days, amongst the smoldering ruins, a cockroach scurried over a keyboard and triggered yet another computer to default back to Microsoft Edge. As far as the eye could see, there was nothing left moving but the flitting of black vermin, illuminated by glowing screens filled with the sulky, impassioned, and now joyful gradient blue and green curved wave of the Microsoft Edge logo. It had won. It had finally won.

kipchak 5y ago

Fun Fact, if you go to Settings -> More Tools -> Math Solver, Edge has a built in math tool that will solve for equations in the browser window when highlighted. https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/articles/learn-how-to-solve-math-problems-with-math-solver-in-microsoft/m-p/2195689 https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/articles/learn-how-to...

sitzkrieg 5y ago
msft lunch break comment?
- kipchak 5y ago
  I wish, just digging in Edge attempting to configure it for compliance purposes and I thought a Math Solver being a feature was mildly amusing

riofoxx 5y ago

T.o a.s.s.i.s.t y.o.u i.n t.r.a.d.e.s f.o.r b.e.t.t.e.r i.m.p.r.o.v.e.m.e.n.t on c.r.y.p.t.o.c.u.r.r.e.n.c.y W.h.a.t.s.A.p.p (+13052395906)

bobbob1921 5y ago

Keep in mind too- Microsoft is almost at the point of giving windows (as an OS) away for free. Whereas in the past they would charge around $99 for windows (or less per machine to OEMs). Other OSes have forced Microsoft to pretty much give their OS away for free. From a msft/revenue point of view, Microsoft will now feel less inhibitions with regard to using windows to drive revenue via other Microsoft products. (Ie Windows will now be seen internally as a “loss leader” product that must drive revenue via other sources such as Bing, edge, office 365 etc)

tester756 5y ago
>Whereas in the past they would charge around $99 for windows When was "the past"? 1990? 2000? 2004?
bob1029 5y ago
I would happily pay inflation-adjusted full price for a special edition of windows that doesn't treat me like cattle. How big do we think this market is? Maybe I'm the crazy one these days...

dehrmann 5y ago

This might not be an issue for default apps, but there was a time when websites and toolbars abused setting the default homepage, so I have mixed feelings about this. It also improves the user experience if you use two browsers because when Chrome reminds me it's not the default, it's harder to accidentally make it the default.

aSig 5y ago

Any idea on how you would go about reverse engineering something like this on windows?

tuankiet65 5y ago

To be honest, Mozilla isn't the first one here. SetUserFTA (https://kolbi.cz/blog/2017/10/25/setuserfta-userchoice-hash-defeated-set-file-type-associations-per-user/ https://kolbi.cz/blog/2017/10/25/setuserfta-userchoice-hash-...) has been around since 2017, and this pastebin (https://pastebin.com/yVhWeQ3X https://pastebin.com/yVhWeQ3X) even predates it.

bluedino 5y ago

I came in this morning to find my computer was opening PDF's in Edge, as well as the default browser had been changed from Chrome to Edge. Stupid.

heavyset_go 5y ago

Tangentially related, but I recently spun up a Windows VM and used Edge to search Bing for "Firefox" and this is result I got[1]. It's a giant banner that says, "You're already browsing in Microsoft Edge. Keep using to get world class performance with more privacy, more productivity, and more value." That banner is followed by another giant banner image telling me to get "Get Robux using Microsoft Edge. Join Microsoft Rewards and use Microsoft Edge. Get a 100 Robux eGift Card on us when you search with Microsoft Bing on Microsoft Edge for 5 days after you join." I had to scroll to even see the relevant search results for my search term. I'm assuming most non-power users won't scroll because they were just assured that they were "already browsing in Microsoft Edge", which is apparently more private, productive and valuable than what they intended to search for. [1] https://i.imgur.com/blHGMgX.png https://i.imgur.com/blHGMgX.png

liamwire 5y ago
Ostensibly this is the exact opposite function one wants out of a search tool, obscuring results. For Microsoft to design such an egregious UX for one of their key platforms, the incentives must be staggering. Calling this a dark pattern doesn’t go far enough, in my opinion. It’s outright user-hostile.
aguasfrias 5y ago
The targeted ad banner is hilarious. It reminds me of that scene in Silicon Valley where Dominos appears in a fantasy medieval universe because Dinesh mentions pizza.

bob229 5y ago

Sneaky behaviour but at this point who cares. I use Edge on all of my devices. It is superior to Firefox and no one in their right mind installs google spy software

Vanit 5y ago

Isn't this a security hole if an app can change Windows behaviour without prompts?