5 ms·

modern software (especially browsers) with auto-update = SAAS. What you experience is a synced remote interface, you don't own your software anymore. Granted,

modern software (especially browsers) with auto-update = SAAS. What you experience is a synced remote interface, you don't own your software anymore. Granted, the secret lies in providing such an excellent and subtle service that the majority of users actually either endorse or not even notice the dependency. Which means changes should be subtle and consistent.

deno 7y ago
Firefox is fully open source. Runs locally and even works offline. How is it SaaS exactly? The auto-update mechanism exists almost exclusively for the benefit of Windows users. None of the Linux distros use it.
- Althorion 7y ago
  I guess the application changing it’s behaviour remotely, as is the case with Normandy, can be somewhat reasonably considered SaaS.
  - deno 7y ago
    Changing a default setting is SaaS?
    - Althorion 7y ago
      Changing a default setting _remotely_. That is a huge field of possibilities, from not SaaS-y at all to very SaaS-y. Like for example you could make it so the script to be run when a browser encounters a pdf file is put directly in the settings. Thus changing that setting changes what the browser does—you can add, remove or change an in-browser pdf viewer that way. It’s not what Normandy currently does, but it is something it’s at least theoretically capable of. And hitting that extreme would, in my opinion, made it reasonable to start calling it SaaS.
      - deno 7y ago
        You could do all that with a regular update as well.
        Althorion 7y ago
        No, not with the _regular_ update. Only with the _remote_ update, which is a part of what makes SaaS SaaS.
        deno 7y ago
        What is a “remote update”? All updates are remote until you download them.
        Althorion 7y ago
        The one that is remotely done for you, without any action on your part. Typically, a user has to click the installer or use package manager or something to get the update, it’s their decision they make locally. If a setting is in place where this decision can be made somewhere else, it’s now a remote thing, a remote update. Quite useful thing in some cases and one of the things that make SaaS possible in the first place.
        mlthoughts2018 7y ago
        The distinction is between auto-update and user-chosen update. Some users strongly prefer all software running on their owned hardware is incapable of auto-updating in a way that bypasses explicitly requiring the user to choose to update each time. It may come across as a nasty dark pattern if a user must opt out of auto-updates (which is loosely what Normandy is, if you extend “auto-update” to also mean tacit enrollment in an experiment). Instead it should be off by default, with a clear and unambiguous description of the functionality on a menu page if a user wants to opt in. For example, I am a very privacy-focused browser user, relying on many special settings & extensions. Despite frequently reading about browser updates, I had no idea Normandy functioned like this, nor that it was enabled by default, until reading into this current Firefox certificate bug. Upon learning what Normandy is and that it is opt-out by default with unclear connections to the traditional privacy dropdown menus to disable experiments or usage stat sharing, I feel that Mozilla violated my trust in a profound and deeply upsetting way.
hexo 7y ago
Firefox is not SAAS. Is it? If it is, show me where it is disclosed. So we can finally migrate away from it. There should be exactly zero change to it UNLESS I said so, because I am admin of my machines - not someone from Mozilla, nor Microsoft, nor Apple. Is it that hard to understand? And stop talking about "owning" anything, you clearly do not understand ownership rights - your idea of it does not apply to whole world AND this is not USA. I'm too old for this "word plays". It seems like there is a need to pay someone, to not listen to mozilla and finally strip firefox from it's newly introduced "features".
- Sphax 7y ago
  Good thing is you can do just that. Pay someone to fork Firefox and task them to build the browser you want.
zzzcpan 7y ago
Vendor controlled auto-update is worse than SaaS. It's effectively a control over your machine. Your entire security depends on a random employee of a random organization you entrusted with this control to not get compromised, not compelled by the government, not made shady deals with other parties to ship a backdoor to you. But if speaking about the issue. Why Mozilla even need so much control over extensions? Seems like they built an infrastructure to be able to disable any installed extension remotely. That's just evil.
- orbital-decay 7y ago
  > Your entire security depends on a random employee of a random organization you entrusted with this control to not get compromised, not compelled by the government, not made shady deals with other parties to ship a backdoor to you. As opposed to what? How do you test for all that with manual updates, as an individual or a small organization? Even for a huge organization which reviews most of the updates it installs, critical updates should be applied immediately, to avoid the lag.

deno 7y ago

Firefox is fully open source. Runs locally and even works offline. How is it SaaS exactly? The auto-update mechanism exists almost exclusively for the benefit of Windows users. None of the Linux distros use it.

Althorion 7y ago
I guess the application changing it’s behaviour remotely, as is the case with Normandy, can be somewhat reasonably considered SaaS.
- deno 7y ago
  Changing a default setting is SaaS?
  - Althorion 7y ago
    Changing a default setting _remotely_. That is a huge field of possibilities, from not SaaS-y at all to very SaaS-y. Like for example you could make it so the script to be run when a browser encounters a pdf file is put directly in the settings. Thus changing that setting changes what the browser does—you can add, remove or change an in-browser pdf viewer that way. It’s not what Normandy currently does, but it is something it’s at least theoretically capable of. And hitting that extreme would, in my opinion, made it reasonable to start calling it SaaS.
    - deno 7y ago
      You could do all that with a regular update as well.
      - Althorion 7y ago
        No, not with the _regular_ update. Only with the _remote_ update, which is a part of what makes SaaS SaaS.
        deno 7y ago
        What is a “remote update”? All updates are remote until you download them.
        Althorion 7y ago
        The one that is remotely done for you, without any action on your part. Typically, a user has to click the installer or use package manager or something to get the update, it’s their decision they make locally. If a setting is in place where this decision can be made somewhere else, it’s now a remote thing, a remote update. Quite useful thing in some cases and one of the things that make SaaS possible in the first place.
        mlthoughts2018 7y ago
        The distinction is between auto-update and user-chosen update. Some users strongly prefer all software running on their owned hardware is incapable of auto-updating in a way that bypasses explicitly requiring the user to choose to update each time. It may come across as a nasty dark pattern if a user must opt out of auto-updates (which is loosely what Normandy is, if you extend “auto-update” to also mean tacit enrollment in an experiment). Instead it should be off by default, with a clear and unambiguous description of the functionality on a menu page if a user wants to opt in. For example, I am a very privacy-focused browser user, relying on many special settings & extensions. Despite frequently reading about browser updates, I had no idea Normandy functioned like this, nor that it was enabled by default, until reading into this current Firefox certificate bug. Upon learning what Normandy is and that it is opt-out by default with unclear connections to the traditional privacy dropdown menus to disable experiments or usage stat sharing, I feel that Mozilla violated my trust in a profound and deeply upsetting way.

hexo 7y ago

Firefox is not SAAS. Is it? If it is, show me where it is disclosed. So we can finally migrate away from it. There should be exactly zero change to it UNLESS I said so, because I am admin of my machines - not someone from Mozilla, nor Microsoft, nor Apple. Is it that hard to understand? And stop talking about "owning" anything, you clearly do not understand ownership rights - your idea of it does not apply to whole world AND this is not USA. I'm too old for this "word plays". It seems like there is a need to pay someone, to not listen to mozilla and finally strip firefox from it's newly introduced "features".

Sphax 7y ago
Good thing is you can do just that. Pay someone to fork Firefox and task them to build the browser you want.

zzzcpan 7y ago

Vendor controlled auto-update is worse than SaaS. It's effectively a control over your machine. Your entire security depends on a random employee of a random organization you entrusted with this control to not get compromised, not compelled by the government, not made shady deals with other parties to ship a backdoor to you. But if speaking about the issue. Why Mozilla even need so much control over extensions? Seems like they built an infrastructure to be able to disable any installed extension remotely. That's just evil.

orbital-decay 7y ago
> Your entire security depends on a random employee of a random organization you entrusted with this control to not get compromised, not compelled by the government, not made shady deals with other parties to ship a backdoor to you. As opposed to what? How do you test for all that with manual updates, as an individual or a small organization? Even for a huge organization which reviews most of the updates it installs, critical updates should be applied immediately, to avoid the lag.