Google Chrome Has the Most Effective Updater
-
Google Chrome Has the Most Effective Updater[^] OK, this will get many of you going... A paper published last week titled "Why Silent Updates Boost Security" showed that Google Chrome is the browser that has the most effective updating mechanism. Google Chrome's updater works automatically, it requires no user interaction and it can't be disabled from the interface.
Kevin
This may be ok for typical user, but not for me. I need to have full control as to what goes on. While having auto-update is nice, but it can break havoc as well. There are times I need to delay update for sometime, for example, at the time of release.
Yusuf May I help you?
-
As Rama notes, Christopher Duncan ranted about this[^] a while back... IMHO, it's one of those things that has become near-essential for software targeted at average home users, who really can't be bothered to manually install updates for all their applications. But it does tend to send the more tech-savvy users into fits...
I have nothing against setting it as the default. But we should be able to control it.
Kevin
-
Funny enough, Chrome's update mechanism is the very reason I never installed Chrome on any of my machines.
I dislike non-configurable auto-updates. But I have Chrome installed nonetheless. However, it's not my default browser.
Kevin
-
Google Chrome Has the Most Effective Updater[^] OK, this will get many of you going... A paper published last week titled "Why Silent Updates Boost Security" showed that Google Chrome is the browser that has the most effective updating mechanism. Google Chrome's updater works automatically, it requires no user interaction and it can't be disabled from the interface.
Kevin
Google can afford to do that atm since they aren't a key system component like IE. Updating IE automatically could screw up a lot of businesses.
Todd Smith
-
Google Chrome Has the Most Effective Updater[^] OK, this will get many of you going... A paper published last week titled "Why Silent Updates Boost Security" showed that Google Chrome is the browser that has the most effective updating mechanism. Google Chrome's updater works automatically, it requires no user interaction and it can't be disabled from the interface.
Kevin
Now we know why every Google product stays in beta. They have a corporate policy against even the most basic configuration management principles. Of course, their 'silent updater' will remain so until someone hacks it and uses it to deliver a malicious payload...
Software Zen:
delete this; -
I have nothing against setting it as the default. But we should be able to control it.
Kevin
To be fair, you can, if you know what you're doing. The updater is fired up by a scheduled task - Windows provides a standard UI for modifying or removing those from the Control Panel. It's not like it's really hidden away somewhere. Heck, you could download the source and modify the updater to prompt you if you really want...
-
This may be ok for typical user, but not for me. I need to have full control as to what goes on. While having auto-update is nice, but it can break havoc as well. There are times I need to delay update for sometime, for example, at the time of release.
Yusuf May I help you?
I agree. Google seem to be quite stubborn about this. I would have no objection to their setting it as a default, so long as I could override it. Even if it was only offered via something like FF's about:config that would be an improvement, although not ideal.
Kevin
-
To be fair, you can, if you know what you're doing. The updater is fired up by a scheduled task - Windows provides a standard UI for modifying or removing those from the Control Panel. It's not like it's really hidden away somewhere. Heck, you could download the source and modify the updater to prompt you if you really want...
There should be a regular way of doing it though.
Kevin
-
Now we know why every Google product stays in beta. They have a corporate policy against even the most basic configuration management principles. Of course, their 'silent updater' will remain so until someone hacks it and uses it to deliver a malicious payload...
Software Zen:
delete this;Gary Wheeler wrote:
Now we know why every Google product stays in beta
Gary Wheeler wrote:
Of course, their 'silent updater' will remain so until someone hacks it and uses it to deliver a malicious payload...
That will complete Beta testing and mark the start of ver 1.0 shipment. :doh:
Yusuf May I help you?
-
Regardless of whether it is most effective what are your own views of the feature?
Kevin
Software that tries to patch my system without telling me does not get installed on it. The only thing I agree with is that Opera needs to get a more light weight patch system than a full up installer. (O10.0 alpha has one, but who knows when it'll be final.)
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains. -- Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
-
There should be a regular way of doing it though.
Kevin
Control Panel -> Scheduled Tasks -> Right-click, delete If such a thing as a "regular way" of disabling periodic tasks could be said to exist under Windows, this would be it. It's not like there's some "application updates" applet that all the other browsers hook into.
-
Google Chrome Has the Most Effective Updater[^] OK, this will get many of you going... A paper published last week titled "Why Silent Updates Boost Security" showed that Google Chrome is the browser that has the most effective updating mechanism. Google Chrome's updater works automatically, it requires no user interaction and it can't be disabled from the interface.
Kevin
Never used that since there is no linux version. Anyways from my gentoo linux background I much prefer the operating system to automatically handle the updates (like gentoo does with all installed applications) although this probably will never happen in windows. My second choice is an OS supported auto update mechanism instead of a lot of installed application having their own (buggy memory hogging) background process to check for and download updates.
John
-
Software that tries to patch my system without telling me does not get installed on it. The only thing I agree with is that Opera needs to get a more light weight patch system than a full up installer. (O10.0 alpha has one, but who knows when it'll be final.)
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains. -- Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
dan neely wrote:
Software that tries to patch my system without telling me does not get installed on it.
That gets my vote!
No trees were harmed in the sending of this message; however, a significant number of electrons were slightly inconvenienced. This message is made of fully recyclable Zeros and Ones
-
Google Chrome Has the Most Effective Updater[^] OK, this will get many of you going... A paper published last week titled "Why Silent Updates Boost Security" showed that Google Chrome is the browser that has the most effective updating mechanism. Google Chrome's updater works automatically, it requires no user interaction and it can't be disabled from the interface.
Kevin
-
That is Christopher Duncan's favorite Chrome feature.
Troublemaker. :)
Christopher Duncan Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalUSA.com
-
Control Panel -> Scheduled Tasks -> Right-click, delete If such a thing as a "regular way" of disabling periodic tasks could be said to exist under Windows, this would be it. It's not like there's some "application updates" applet that all the other browsers hook into.
What I really meant was an official way in the application itself.
Kevin
-
Software that tries to patch my system without telling me does not get installed on it. The only thing I agree with is that Opera needs to get a more light weight patch system than a full up installer. (O10.0 alpha has one, but who knows when it'll be final.)
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains. -- Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
dan neely wrote:
O10.0 alpha has one, but who knows when it'll be final
It won't take them ages to get 10.0 out based on past form, unless 10 has major new features. But yes a patcher is long overdue.
Kevin
-
Google Chrome Has the Most Effective Updater[^] OK, this will get many of you going... A paper published last week titled "Why Silent Updates Boost Security" showed that Google Chrome is the browser that has the most effective updating mechanism. Google Chrome's updater works automatically, it requires no user interaction and it can't be disabled from the interface.
Kevin
Absolutely. I tried Chromium for a while but couldn't be bothered updating it by myself and went back. Windows update can occasionally get out of your way but I get sick of the reboots, and especially reboot nag screens. I remember being told that MS was going to treat a reboot as a bug in Vista, obviously not a very high priority one. The last thing that wanted a reboot was an update for the compatibility view list for Internet Explorer. That just seems lazy.
Matt Dockerty
-
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
Most users prefer to disable automatic updates where they can
mmm... Firefox, which does allow you to easily disable automatic updates, still has 85% of its userbase updated within 21 days. That's a sizable majority. Personally, the only browser I have automatic updates disabled for is IE, due WU's habit of requiring me to reboot after installing updates. Of course, IE stats aren't included in this study, so who knows how many users are doing the same...
Shog9 wrote:
so who knows how many users are doing the same...
I would guess more are doing the same than not. Like you, I hate that my computer can restart without my explicit permission. I leave my computer on 24/7 so that any attempts to contact me are waiting for me whenever I show up to unlock my computer. I was out of the office on Friday and when I came back in on Monday I found an instant message that had been sent just a little while after I'd left for the day on Thursday. It wasn't life-changing, but if it had been and if my computer had rebooted itself over the weekend it could have caused some trouble. Partially, I would say it's also a trust thing. With Chrome I know that it'll do its update without adversely affecting my system. With Microsoft, too many experiences say you can't be so sure.
-
To be fair, you can, if you know what you're doing. The updater is fired up by a scheduled task - Windows provides a standard UI for modifying or removing those from the Control Panel. It's not like it's really hidden away somewhere. Heck, you could download the source and modify the updater to prompt you if you really want...
Shog9 wrote:
Heck, you could download the source and modify the updater to prompt you if you really want...
Last I knew, that wasn't quite true. Granted, it has been a while, but all you could get was the Chromium code which is where Chrome came from, but Chrome has had a lot of changes since then. Chrome's code could be fully available now though I guess.
