6 ms·

I doubt anyone gives a toss if Chrome is having a "10th birthday" except Google. Never liked how this browser forces updates down your throat including "new lo

I doubt anyone gives a toss if Chrome is having a "10th birthday" except Google. Never liked how this browser forces updates down your throat including "new looks" without any choice. Feels like software I have zero control over, if every time I open it, a new version of itself downloads and installs without my permission. Google enjoys forcing itself on users regularly without consent. Which is creepy when put like that.

fixermark 8y ago
You can disable auto updates [https://www.chromium.org/administrators/turning-off-auto-updates https://www.chromium.org/administrators/turning-off-auto-upd...]. But the risk, of course, is that security updates are then also disabled. There's a case to be made that one could develop security updates separate from "look-and-feel" updates, but I think, sadly, it's a weak case; it's all one software package, and look-and-feel changes can impact security and vise-versa. I don't think the system would actually be more secure if Chrome tried to maintain various mini-forks of versions with different look-and-feels. I'm curious though: how is this handled in your browser of choice? IE updates look-and-feel all the time and so does Mozilla. Perhaps it's the auto-updating that's the issue? But we already know what happens if the auto-updating is removed from the equation: the web has to collectively support IE6 approximately forever.
- exodust 8y ago
  That doesn't work. You've linked to outdated information. If you search the web for how to disable Chrome updates, you'll find people on StackOverflow etc saying the same thing... that it's not easy or not possible when following that page you linked to. In my case, I don't even have that Google Update registry key you've linked to. So they're doing some other nasty hacky thing to silently install new versions over itself without my permission. Google REALLY doesn't want people disabling auto updates. It's like other things they do, they don't hesitate to build-in arrogant patterns in order to herd everyone into the same behaviour. Like with the account chooser, it's no longer possible to simply sign out of Google and be properly signed out, so your name doesn't appear on the sign in page. Google remembers your login and shows your email address on the sign in page, even though you're logged out. This is Google REALLY not wanting anyone to sign out.
orf 8y ago
Browsers have a huge, huge attack surface that is persistently exploited. Every single release contains a lot of nasty bugs fixed in various places. Not to single Firefox out here, but take a look at their release notes[1]. - 4 critical, 5 high vulns fixed in 61. - 2 critical, 7 high in 60. - 4 critical, 4 high in 59. Your feelings on not liking security updates 'forced down your throat' are kind of immaterial. They absolutely should be. And that's the price you pay. Not a huge one, by any means. 1. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/known-vulnerabilities...
- exodust 8y ago
  Nonsense. > Every single release contains a lot of nasty bugs fixed in various places. Oh please. "Nasty bugs fixed in various places"? You're not replying to your mum here. Nothing, ever, should be forced down anyone's throat. Your attitude is what is making software become some kind of time-locked online service, even when it's installed on our machines. I will update software when I choose to, not when some commercially driven product manager decides to. How can you be so naive at the motivation behind taking away control of software installs on your machine? You think they're doing it to "keep you safe" because "your safety is their number one priority". Wow. Go ahead and let tech giants control your life at the granular level, but I will choose to control software updates on my machine, thanks.
  - orf 8y ago
    Thankfully for the world this kind of nonsense, naive and borderline militant stance against your own security has not caught on. And yeah I would describe multiple remote code execution vulnerabilities that can be triggered with pretty much no user interaction as 'nasty'. You can find out just how vulnerable you are if you'd like, just find whatever crusty Firefox (or better yet a crusty fork!) version you are running here[1] and take a look. 1. https://www.cvedetails.com/version-list/452/3264/1/Mozilla-Firefox.html https://www.cvedetails.com/version-list/452/3264/1/Mozilla-F...
    - exodust 8y ago
mimsee 8y ago
>Feels like software I have zero control over, if every time I open it, a new version of itself downloads and installs without my permission. Just like all of the websites that you browse, you can't have control over the styles or the updates that someone pushes to their servers, forcing you to download the latest page and install the latest service workers without your permission.
- dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
  First, there is a huge difference between the software installed on my own computer and websites I visit. Second, I can and regularly do change their looks and the way they work. I do understand Google in this case and support their decision though. And if someone wants more control, fortunately they can always use Firefox.
- exodust 8y ago
  A website is obviously something that changes according to third party wishes. I am visiting their domain from my machine using my browser. Software I decide to install on my machine, is under my control. I could update it, re-install it, delete it, change it. I don't appreciate this mindset that software is like a "website" that is controlled by someone else. If that's what you want, then that's your preference.

fixermark 8y ago

You can disable auto updates [https://www.chromium.org/administrators/turning-off-auto-updates https://www.chromium.org/administrators/turning-off-auto-upd...]. But the risk, of course, is that security updates are then also disabled. There's a case to be made that one could develop security updates separate from "look-and-feel" updates, but I think, sadly, it's a weak case; it's all one software package, and look-and-feel changes can impact security and vise-versa. I don't think the system would actually be more secure if Chrome tried to maintain various mini-forks of versions with different look-and-feels. I'm curious though: how is this handled in your browser of choice? IE updates look-and-feel all the time and so does Mozilla. Perhaps it's the auto-updating that's the issue? But we already know what happens if the auto-updating is removed from the equation: the web has to collectively support IE6 approximately forever.

exodust 8y ago
That doesn't work. You've linked to outdated information. If you search the web for how to disable Chrome updates, you'll find people on StackOverflow etc saying the same thing... that it's not easy or not possible when following that page you linked to. In my case, I don't even have that Google Update registry key you've linked to. So they're doing some other nasty hacky thing to silently install new versions over itself without my permission. Google REALLY doesn't want people disabling auto updates. It's like other things they do, they don't hesitate to build-in arrogant patterns in order to herd everyone into the same behaviour. Like with the account chooser, it's no longer possible to simply sign out of Google and be properly signed out, so your name doesn't appear on the sign in page. Google remembers your login and shows your email address on the sign in page, even though you're logged out. This is Google REALLY not wanting anyone to sign out.

orf 8y ago

Browsers have a huge, huge attack surface that is persistently exploited. Every single release contains a lot of nasty bugs fixed in various places. Not to single Firefox out here, but take a look at their release notes[1]. - 4 critical, 5 high vulns fixed in 61. - 2 critical, 7 high in 60. - 4 critical, 4 high in 59. Your feelings on not liking security updates 'forced down your throat' are kind of immaterial. They absolutely should be. And that's the price you pay. Not a huge one, by any means. 1. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/known-vulnerabilities...

exodust 8y ago
Nonsense. > Every single release contains a lot of nasty bugs fixed in various places. Oh please. "Nasty bugs fixed in various places"? You're not replying to your mum here. Nothing, ever, should be forced down anyone's throat. Your attitude is what is making software become some kind of time-locked online service, even when it's installed on our machines. I will update software when I choose to, not when some commercially driven product manager decides to. How can you be so naive at the motivation behind taking away control of software installs on your machine? You think they're doing it to "keep you safe" because "your safety is their number one priority". Wow. Go ahead and let tech giants control your life at the granular level, but I will choose to control software updates on my machine, thanks.
- orf 8y ago
  Thankfully for the world this kind of nonsense, naive and borderline militant stance against your own security has not caught on. And yeah I would describe multiple remote code execution vulnerabilities that can be triggered with pretty much no user interaction as 'nasty'. You can find out just how vulnerable you are if you'd like, just find whatever crusty Firefox (or better yet a crusty fork!) version you are running here[1] and take a look. 1. https://www.cvedetails.com/version-list/452/3264/1/Mozilla-Firefox.html https://www.cvedetails.com/version-list/452/3264/1/Mozilla-F...
  - exodust 8y ago

mimsee 8y ago

>Feels like software I have zero control over, if every time I open it, a new version of itself downloads and installs without my permission. Just like all of the websites that you browse, you can't have control over the styles or the updates that someone pushes to their servers, forcing you to download the latest page and install the latest service workers without your permission.

dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
First, there is a huge difference between the software installed on my own computer and websites I visit. Second, I can and regularly do change their looks and the way they work. I do understand Google in this case and support their decision though. And if someone wants more control, fortunately they can always use Firefox.
exodust 8y ago
A website is obviously something that changes according to third party wishes. I am visiting their domain from my machine using my browser. Software I decide to install on my machine, is under my control. I could update it, re-install it, delete it, change it. I don't appreciate this mindset that software is like a "website" that is controlled by someone else. If that's what you want, then that's your preference.