Firefox still struggling with Vista changes

[dbarrow]

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=223

...However as more people started using Vista it became clear that Microsoft had made a number of changes, many in order to make Internet Explorer 7 more secure on Vista, and that some of those changes broke Firefox. In August, the Firefox team even accepted some help from Microsoft to get these issues addressed but problems remain.

Version 2.0.0.1 lets Firefox work on Vista with a few caveats outlined in the release notes. One of the important ones is that you can't set Firefox as the default browser. Another is that you can't install the browser to a directory name other than the default one the installer suggests. That's because Microsoft has added a "shim" in Vista to let it run in a backwards-compatible way, and the shim apparently recognizes applications by directory name. The shim will expire with version 2.0.0.3, so hopefully by then Mozilla developers will be ready by then to run in "native" Vista mode. ...

[athomsfere]

I've been running FF 1.5 in Vista for months error free.. wonder whats up with that!

[jcampi]

This topic is really interesting because many who complain about Windows security problems are the same people that will moan about not being able to have the flexibility to use other software, browsers, etc. on the OS. I guess this is a tough balance for the MS staff to address. It's good to learn that MS actually works with the Mozilla staff to assist on this effort. After all, it benefits both companies (but MS does have vested interests in IE).

[Tortanick]

So logically the highly secure virus proof OS I'm running will logically be even less flexible than Windows Vista? :p

Its not a straightforward tradeoff between security and customiseability in this case its either Microsoft has a bad security design thats a hastle for legitimate apps. Or that Vista is a highly diffrent environment to XP (at least for brosers) and it just need a bit of work to port a browser.

Note: don't take this for my usual anti-M$, I think both are equally likely.

[jcampi]

I'm trying not to generalize, but I find it interesting that SOME that constantly complain about MS (and use the cute M$) give themselves away. SOME seem to only embrace open source and free everything. Let's face it - without capitalism we likely wouldn't have the Apple and Windows OS. Sometimes the saying is true - you get what you pay for. This also applies to computing. Let the marketplace decide what is better. If people don't flock to a free OS or software doesn't that say something?? If the freeware or opensource stuff were so great why do most users pay for certain software? I really think that is an interesting question? We all have our own dislikes and likes. I like the freedom to choice what I want.
I don't either of us will convince one another when it comes to this subject. But, that's ok with me. I still respect your point of view and comments.

[Tortanick]

Hehe, Jcampi for once I wasn't promoting Linux and saying Microsoft was bad. I was just saying that you're point

This topic is really interesting because many who complain about Windows security problems are the same people that will moan about not being able to have the flexibility to use other software, browsers, etc.

isn't true, and that you can be secure and highly customiseable at the same time.