20 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older
20.
 
Re: Errrmmmm hello?
Oct 21, 2005, 09:35
20.
Re: Errrmmmm hello? Oct 21, 2005, 09:35
Oct 21, 2005, 09:35
 
Sierra Goddamn Utilities.

AYYYEEEEEE!!!!11!!! YOU SAID THE FORBIDDEN WORDS!!!

*backs far away*

Creston


Avatar 15604
19.
 
Re: Errrmmmm hello?
Oct 21, 2005, 09:14
19.
Re: Errrmmmm hello? Oct 21, 2005, 09:14
Oct 21, 2005, 09:14
 
Quite a few people have "stepped up", but there are exceptionally few people with commit access to the code.
Ah, thanks for the correction.
Thing is, Asa and other devs seem to have a stick up their ass over this issue
I guess that's the disappointing bit, then. I think I know what they're thinking, but given that they also appear to be trying to get as many people to switch to Firefox as possible (or at least the firefox web sites love to proudly tell us how many downloads they've served up), I would say that if you're aiming at the masses, you also have to cater to them, which I'm pretty sure means avoiding any possibility of wiping out their files with your software.

Here's hoping they come around before someone without a decent backup scheme loses their files...

18.
 
Re: Errrmmmm hello?
Oct 20, 2005, 19:15
18.
Re: Errrmmmm hello? Oct 20, 2005, 19:15
Oct 20, 2005, 19:15
 
The fact that no one has even stepped up to improve the warnings is disappointing.

Quite a few people have "stepped up", but there are exceptionally few people with commit access to the code. So even if you provide a patch it doesn't mean that it'll be added (for many various reasons -- it's a poor fix, it doesn't meet coding guidelines, it's the wrong way to do things, etc.)

Thing is, Asa and other devs seem to have a stick up their ass over this issue, so it's not being addressed (although at least the latest bug entries aren't being marked NOFIX anymore and actually have someone assigned).

17.
 
Re: Errrmmmm hello?
Oct 20, 2005, 18:37
17.
Re: Errrmmmm hello? Oct 20, 2005, 18:37
Oct 20, 2005, 18:37
 
Creston, there was actually another poorly-coded setup program back in the day that was just as bad as Myth 2: Sierra Goddamn Utilities. I think I was one of the unlucky few to have provoked it.

I am usually doing lots of things at once, with lots of hard drive thrashing, so I didn't notice it was screwed until half my hard drive was gone. Sometimes I don't know why I even bother using uninstallers.

16.
 
Re: Errrmmmm hello?
Oct 20, 2005, 18:37
16.
Re: Errrmmmm hello? Oct 20, 2005, 18:37
Oct 20, 2005, 18:37
 
This one's been around for ages, and the attitude of the developers is poor. No programmer enjoys putting time into fixing problems that 'sensible' people will never encounter when they could be spending the time working on more interesting things, but that's undeniably bad behaviour no matter how unlikely. If you're going to delete an entire directory, you should ensure that nothing else besides your own files will be in that directory.

In this instance it sounds like there's a really easy (if mildly inelegant) solution: if the user elects to choose their own profile location, just nest it under another directory. (And in any case, DON'T default to "My Documents" as the location. Sheesh. At least start out by suggesting "My Documents\My Profile" to prompt users to only edit the latter part of the name).

The fact that no one has even stepped up to improve the warnings is disappointing. This story will probably generate significant bad publicity for them that could probably have been avoided just by writing the better warning messages that I gather had long-since been requested.

15.
 
Re: Errrmmmm hello?
Oct 20, 2005, 15:11
15.
Re: Errrmmmm hello? Oct 20, 2005, 15:11
Oct 20, 2005, 15:11
 
Extensions can also create/remove files in your profile directory -- like GreaseMonkey creates a "gm_scripts" directory under your profile directory.

I should have been more clear, by "plugins", I meant extensions (I consider "extensions" to simply be another name for "plugins"). And as I said, each plugin should be responsible for identifying any files/directories they create.

Considering any extension is installed by Firefox itself, Firefox would have no problem keeping list of the files.

14.
 
Re: Errrmmmm hello?
Oct 20, 2005, 15:04
14.
Re: Errrmmmm hello? Oct 20, 2005, 15:04
Oct 20, 2005, 15:04
 
The cache is stored in a subdir, so isn't really an issue. All of the files in the 'main' dir are static except for plugin related files. And those should be marked by the plugin that uses them. It should be possible to delete the specific files instead of deleting everything.

Hmm.. how about if they automatically did a privacy "clear all" (under options|privacy) instead of deleting the entire directory tree? That'd get rid of alot of specific junk and vulnerable data.

13.
 
Re: Errrmmmm hello?
Oct 20, 2005, 14:57
13.
Re: Errrmmmm hello? Oct 20, 2005, 14:57
Oct 20, 2005, 14:57
 
All of the files in the 'main' dir are static except for plugin related files.

Nope. Extensions can also create/remove files in your profile directory -- like GreaseMonkey creates a "gm_scripts" directory under your profile directory.

Extensions are generally not installed by Windows Installer, but directly as well, so if the Profile Manager doesn't remove them then they will just hang around.

As one of the bug reporters noted, the real issue is that when you change the default directory during profile creation it defaults to "My Documents". This isn't necessarily a problem in and of itself, but maybe they should enforce that it be installed into an empty subdirectory. There might be some who would have issues with that, but I don't see it as being a serious issue. The extremely few who do would be capable of hand editing the relevant files to change the Profile Directory after creating it (and dealing with the danger of deleting that profile later...)

Oh, and just to be sure, I went off and recreated the steps necessary for this. The default behavior is to not delete files in the profile directory. So not only do you have to change the default profile directory (which is several clicks by itself), but you have to then tell it to remove the files when you go off to delete the profile. And, again, this is a process that most users will never encounter. Not even once.

12.
 
Re: Errrmmmm hello?
Oct 20, 2005, 14:46
12.
Re: Errrmmmm hello? Oct 20, 2005, 14:46
Oct 20, 2005, 14:46
 
Better yet, do you have a reasonable alternative that still accomplishes the proper behavior when requested (removes all profile files)?

The cache is stored in a subdir, so isn't really an issue. All of the files in the 'main' dir are static except for plugin related files. And those should be marked by the plugin that uses them. It should be possible to delete the specific files instead of deleting everything.

11.
 
Re: Errrmmmm hello?
Oct 20, 2005, 14:43
11.
Re: Errrmmmm hello? Oct 20, 2005, 14:43
Oct 20, 2005, 14:43
 
I'm not a Firefox dev, so why quote me?

As Zathrus said, you have to do a considerable number of things 'wrong', and ignore warnings for this to be a problem. And despite that, I still think it's something they should fix/change.

10.
 
Re: Errrmmmm hello?
Oct 20, 2005, 14:43
10.
Re: Errrmmmm hello? Oct 20, 2005, 14:43
Oct 20, 2005, 14:43
 
yup, very poor Human Interface awareness on the part of the developers.

Sigh. Have you looked at what's necessary to replicate this? Do you understand how many non-default selections you have to make?

Better yet, do you have a reasonable alternative that still accomplishes the proper behavior when requested (removes all profile files)?

9.
 
Re: Errrmmmm hello?
Oct 20, 2005, 14:36
9.
Re: Errrmmmm hello? Oct 20, 2005, 14:36
Oct 20, 2005, 14:36
 
It's mainly the computer illiterate (or, I guess, less computer literate) folks that would have problems with this.
Anyway, for 99% of the people who run Firefox, this is never an issue.
as one reply put it:
"If this is the attitude of the developers of Firefox I cannot see Firefox ever becomming a threat to IE. "

yup, very poor Human Interface awareness on the part of the developers.
It's what happens when engineers run projects.

frankly it boils down to users doing bad things.
nay, it's an example of poor design, of not taking into account how people normally, intuitively do things; of forcing the User to conform to the Program, when instead the Program should conform to the User.

The fact that they have multiple Warnings is a designers 'red-flag' telling him that something is wrong with the design itself.

This comment was edited on Oct 20, 15:00.
8.
 
Re: Errrmmmm hello?
Oct 20, 2005, 14:15
8.
Re: Errrmmmm hello? Oct 20, 2005, 14:15
Oct 20, 2005, 14:15
 
Ok, I've read through the Bugzilla bug reports that are most relevant to this issue:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=270705
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=302087

And frankly it boils down to users doing bad things. And they're presented with several dialogs that would prevent them from doing bad things, but, being users, they masterfully avoid them. You have to go through several non-default options to do this, and when you delete the profile you have to respond in non-default ways to delete the data. They could probably add more warnings, but frankly I don't think they'd do any good. You can only protect someone from their own actions to a certain degree.

The one case where a non-expert user could end up in Profile Manager is being eliminated in FF 1.5.

And Creston, you can stay away -- but it won't change things

7.
 
Re: Errrmmmm hello?
Oct 20, 2005, 13:50
7.
Re: Errrmmmm hello? Oct 20, 2005, 13:50
Oct 20, 2005, 13:50
 
It's still a fucking dumb thing to have a program do. But I expect it'll be fixed... already.

___________________________________
This post is shamefully brought to you using someone else's unsecured wireless network
Avatar 18712
6.
 
Re: Errrmmmm hello?
Oct 20, 2005, 13:47
6.
Re: Errrmmmm hello? Oct 20, 2005, 13:47
Oct 20, 2005, 13:47
 
The profile gets created directly in your My Documents folder

Only if you tell it to. The default is to create in c:\Documents and Settings\username\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\profile_name_hash.profile_name

Of course, that can change if you change where your default Documents and Settings tree is, or your Application Data sub-tree is. And even then, it uses a hash of the profile name (e.g. -- "Default User" may become "88qfriam.Default User"). If you change this then you can hose stuff, but in that case you've already changed the default behavior so if you don't know what you're doing -- surprise, surprise -- it can cause problems.

And yes, it deletes the entire subtree when you remove a profile. There are a large number of files created in a profile folder that are not created by the installer -- cache, saved passwords, form data, plugins, extensions, etc. The alternative would be to leave all that there (which would be a massive security risk, since the default location is in Application Data which is a hidden folder), or to say "Hey, there are files here, are you sure?" which would always be answered "Yes" and then you'd have the same whining about it deleting subtrees -- all because the user was stupid and put stuff in the wrong place to start with.

5.
 
Re: Errrmmmm hello?
Oct 20, 2005, 13:27
5.
Re: Errrmmmm hello? Oct 20, 2005, 13:27
Oct 20, 2005, 13:27
 
ANY uninstaller / delete type program that simply deletes EVERYTHING in an entire folder has to be classified as a bug.

No, it's not a bug. A bug is something that happens unintended. This is FAD (functioning as designed). If you want to believe that makes them stupid or lazy, by all means, think that. But calling it a bug is just plain wrong.

4.
 
Re: Errrmmmm hello?
Oct 20, 2005, 12:34
4.
Re: Errrmmmm hello? Oct 20, 2005, 12:34
Oct 20, 2005, 12:34
 
It's not a bug. A poor design decision, certainly, but not a bug

I don't agree. ANY uninstaller / delete type program that simply deletes EVERYTHING in an entire folder has to be classified as a bug. If they truly designed it this way they are either

1) Godforsakingly stupid
2) Immensely lazy

take your pick.

Jeez, we haven't seen an uninstaller kill anything but its own files since the days of fucking Myth 2. And here's firefox, simply deltreeing everything.

Ermm, okay.

Creston


Avatar 15604
3.
 
Re: Errrmmmm hello?
Oct 20, 2005, 12:12
3.
Re: Errrmmmm hello? Oct 20, 2005, 12:12
Oct 20, 2005, 12:12
 
Heh, that's why any and all important work I have is saved to a completely different directory that I can easily back up, unknown to Microsoft and any other company that wants to play games with my profile or default folders. Paranoid? Maybe, but why run the risk of having all your work deleted when you can just use a different directory.

2.
 
Re: Errrmmmm hello?
Oct 20, 2005, 12:04
2.
Re: Errrmmmm hello? Oct 20, 2005, 12:04
Oct 20, 2005, 12:04
 
It's not a bug. A poor design decision, certainly, but not a bug. Apparently the developers mean for it to function in that fashion.

However, you can choose where you want the profile to be created. So the computer savvy will know to not create it in their root My Documents folder, and be fine. It's mainly the computer illiterate (or, I guess, less computer literate) folks that would have problems with this.

Anyway, for 99% of the people who run Firefox, this is never an issue. They still should change it, for the 1% who get screwed by it.

1.
 
Errrmmmm hello?
Oct 20, 2005, 11:36
1.
Errrmmmm hello? Oct 20, 2005, 11:36
Oct 20, 2005, 11:36
 
That firefox bug is nasty. The profile gets created directly in your My Documents folder (rather than a subfolder), and then when you want to delete it, it deletes the contents of your ENTIRE My Documents folder? Ie, a deltree *.* ???
What ever happened to just deleting the files that your own app installed? I guess writing a little install.log file is terribly complicated? So you just throw the files straight into My Documents, and when you want to delete a profile, it just deltrees the entire folder. That is some absolute QUALITY programming there!Holy shit...

And according to that forum, this is considered a "nonvalid" bug and gets assigned "wontfix" status?

Oooookay.

*Staying far away from Firefox.*

Creston

This comment was edited on Oct 20, 11:38.
Avatar 15604
20 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older