Firefox add-on displays Word 2007 documents

Is this how the hijacks will begin ? I dunno bout this..

Quoting:Is this how the hijacks will begin ?

No.

Quoting:I dunno bout this.

Yes.

Unless "linux" converges on some monoculture, this is unlikely to cause any problems.

There's just too much variation in the way of versions, and variants, a sort of "natural immunity".

Quoting:the OpenXML Document Viewer extension for Firefox translates Word 2007 documents saved in the Open XML format into HTML for direct display in the web browser.

When did HTML suddenly become a security risk?

What is it with some Linux/FOSS supporters? Why is there this Pavlovian response when ever Microsoft ans Windows are mentioned?

The Document viewer in question converts one XML (Word 2007 Office Open XML) format into another XML format (HTML), it applies CSS to that HTML according to the rules embodied in the converter, based on the atributes applied to the source XML.

XML, like HTML is a text based format for encasulating data in a form that is both human and machine readable.

HTML isn't a risk, but dynamic web sites that offload the processing to the client are. I think we all know how poorly-coded most sites are, and the core flaw of Windows is how it welcomes the execution of remote code. Just like modern web browsers. Just try to browse sites with all scripting turned off- lotsa luck.

I can't find a good reference, but the last security briefing I listened to said the biggest security problems for Linux servers are LAMP stacks, and the biggest holes for clients are Web browsers, especially Firefox. It's popular and there are zillions of unsafe extensions, and even the official ones don't get security-audited before they are released.

Linux is definitely safer than windows, but there are real risks. So what if an exploit fails at privilege escalation and only compromises your data files? I'd say that's a bigger problem because you easily reinstall the OS, but compromised data can carry some severe consequences.

Whether the OOXML plugin is a risk I dunno. In terms of "FOSS carries the interoperability load yet again" it's business as usual. I suspect that MS' contribution consisted of giggling as they converted the 6000-page OOXML spec to a PDF and emailing it to the Firefox devs.

They probably sent it in Metro format.

@hkwint, it is one thing to dislike Microsoft products, it's another to understand the history of Microsoft and how they play the game, but it's an entirely different kettle of fish when the mere mention of the name causes outbreaks of unfounded and outrageous claims.

The first two are healthy, the last is paranoia, and that's what the first post of this thread was, that's what Roy does. I'll informed, ill conceived beliefs about the situation, or any situation, do not improve your ability to deal with it, only reason and well researched information are useful. Everything else leads to ill conceived action -panic, and that's what it looks like a lot of Linux/FOSS people are doing, panicing.

Paniking? Not so.

The FOSS world is doing fine. The corporate world? No so much.

Knee jerk responses to the mere mention of the entity, or headless chookery.

Quoting:it's an entirely different kettle of fish when the mere mention of the name causes outbreaks of unfounded and outrageous claims.

That's something I can wholeheartedly agree with; it's not necessary at all.

Someone must explain the meaning of the term "headless chookery". I'm a big dumb American, I live in the middle of North America.

Also, can someone explain the meaning of the British newpapers? It would appear that the UK has about 4 big newpapers: The Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph and The Sun. Citing each of these seems to have distinct connotations and opaque-to-Americans implications.

'Chooks' is Australian for chickens.

And "Headless Chookery" is to run around in circles achieving nothing, to respond in a paniced or unreasoned manner. If you've ever lived on a farm, you are bound to know what I mean.

> And "Headless Chookery" is to run around in circles achieving nothing...

LIke a chicken with its head cut off, which would be the equivalent US saying.

Quoting:LIke a chicken with its head cut off

We 'd say "A chicken without pate" - in our own language off course, but it's entertaining to hear someone in the US would immediately assume the head is cut off.

> ...but it's entertaining to hear someone in the US would immediately assume the head is cut off.

AFAIK it was the default way to kill a chicken on farms. I know some people merely wrung their necks, but cutting the head off seems to have been more common.