6 ms·

@norberg or any other Google Chrome/Keystone engineers: WHY can you not make Chrome update like every other sane, well-behaved app? Update notification -> Use

@norberg or any other Google Chrome/Keystone engineers: WHY can you not make Chrome update like every other sane, well-behaved app? Update notification -> User confirmation (or an OPTION for auto-updating) -> Download status. Why do you insist on installing things into our startup sequence without our permission? If your intent is to "protect" users, increase the nagging. I'd be fine with Chrome refusing to load any website until Chrome is updated to the latest version. Even Apple, who is notorious for making users' decisions for them, lets us choose when to update apps and operating systems.

apostacy 7y ago
Obviously they could have a consensual and transparent updating mechanism. This was not some sort of oversight. Google's software is a cascade of lies and deceptions. Think about this: when you start to tamper with Keystone agent, it never says anything to you, it just silently reinstalls itself somewhere else like spyware. It will keep asking over and over for root access, without explaining why. They make it seem like your installation is incomplete without root access, but that is a lie. It will function fine running out of ~/Library/ as /Library. But there is no way to make it stop asking. Google Earth, Google Drive, or many other Google products will re-install Keystone agent. If I try deleting it, then that means I probably want it gone. They should prompt me to repair it or leave it alone. You would think that Google would want to show off their updater. Even just a growl notification that an update has occurred. But it makes sense why they don't want users thinking about it. If they were more transparent, they would say: We've installed this software that will monitor your filesystem and make irreversible changes whenever we feel like it. Sometimes we will break things, but most of the time we won't and if we do break something, we will fix it. It is possible to disable, but you will have to search for it, because you will never discover it yourself. Oh, we could just have a checkbox in Preferences, but we want to make you work for it. And all you are doing is requesting that we stop updating, but we'll still be running.
- pwr-n 7y ago
  Most accurate summation of Google I've seen. It boggles the mind how many users on HN defend google out of some sort of Stockholm Syndrome.
  - pjmlp 7y ago
    I guess because many of them deep down would like to be a Googler. They also used to shit on IE and WP, now everyone gets to enjoy Google's hegemony.
- maximente 7y ago
  it's telling that you're still willing to put up with all of this despite what appears to be several really, really angry posts about it. you have tons of complaints in this thread about google's "bad behavior" but you continue to put up with it to by patronizing the company and their tools, without even apparently asking the question, "do i really need chrome?" or whatever. have you asked yourself why you keep their software on your computer if it's such a headache? i'm sure i'll get the typical "but there's nothing better!!" response and there may not be, but it's telling of you personally that you are willing to get so upset with all of this and then... keep on keeping on.
  - apostacy 7y ago
    Are the issues I've brought up not worth being frustrated about? Do you think I'm a hypocrite for complaining about the thing that I use? What would you suggest I do? I use Chrome sometimes. Firefox is bad in its own way, often emulating the worst of Chrome. Like, at least the Keystone agent is unobtrusive and you don't even know it is there. Last time I checked, Firefox's Updater.app is just as disrespectful to the user, but it is horribly inefficient and clumsy.
dreamcompiler 7y ago
100% agree. I shouldn't have to go to war with Google to use their product on my update terms. It's my machine, not Google's. They can ask that I update but they cannot demand.
- cheeze 7y ago
  I deal with this problem by using Firefox.
  - dreamcompiler 7y ago
    Unfortunately there is no Fireearth.
    - robin_reala 7y ago
      There is the web version of Earth, but surprise surprise, it’s Chrome-only.
      - b2ccb2 7y ago
        The WASM beta[1] works fine on Debian/Firefox 60.9.0esr [1] https://earth.google.com/web?beta=1 https://earth.google.com/web?beta=1
est 7y ago
> WHY can you not make Chrome update like every other sane, well-behaved app? Because someone at the Chrome team has setup an OKR of newest version rollout rate. His/Her salary and promotion are at stake.
madeofpalk 7y ago
> WHY can you not make Chrome update like every other sane, well-behaved app? Because that's how you end up with software that isn't updated, running old insecure versions. As a user, I like it when my apps automatically update without me having to worry about it. The frustrating part about the Mac App Store is how it still makes you worry about updating apps.
- gumby 7y ago
  > The frustrating part about the Mac App Store is how it still makes you worry about updating apps. Wait, what? The Mac App Store updates your apps automatically in background (I know bc sometimes it tells me it can’t update a particular app until I exit it)
  - madeofpalk 7y ago
    > I know bc sometimes it tells me it can’t update a particular app until I exit it that's the part I find annoying. Contrast to iOS which doesn't have this problem. Obviously the model on iOS is a lot different (more restrictive backgrounding, apps are build to handle shutdown at any time), but its still a minor frustration I have with MAS.
- objc 7y ago
  Those of us who are fine with running slightly outdated software are probably safe from whatever minor vulnerabilities we might be exposing ourselves to. Regardless, the choice should always be left up to the user. It doesn't have to be one way or the other to make you and me both happy—there can be an "auto-update" setting and a "never check for updates" setting.
- mooman219 7y ago
  This honestly. I've considered getting my parents a Chromebook because they're not technically literate (by their choice) enough to manage a Windows install. Non-automated updates is part of how we got into supporting IE7 forever. If updates were optional, they'd be on the same version I originally installed for them. This non-technically literate demographic is much larger than any of the vocal minority on HackerNews.

apostacy 7y ago

Obviously they could have a consensual and transparent updating mechanism. This was not some sort of oversight. Google's software is a cascade of lies and deceptions. Think about this: when you start to tamper with Keystone agent, it never says anything to you, it just silently reinstalls itself somewhere else like spyware. It will keep asking over and over for root access, without explaining why. They make it seem like your installation is incomplete without root access, but that is a lie. It will function fine running out of ~/Library/ as /Library. But there is no way to make it stop asking. Google Earth, Google Drive, or many other Google products will re-install Keystone agent. If I try deleting it, then that means I probably want it gone. They should prompt me to repair it or leave it alone. You would think that Google would want to show off their updater. Even just a growl notification that an update has occurred. But it makes sense why they don't want users thinking about it. If they were more transparent, they would say: We've installed this software that will monitor your filesystem and make irreversible changes whenever we feel like it. Sometimes we will break things, but most of the time we won't and if we do break something, we will fix it. It is possible to disable, but you will have to search for it, because you will never discover it yourself. Oh, we could just have a checkbox in Preferences, but we want to make you work for it. And all you are doing is requesting that we stop updating, but we'll still be running.

pwr-n 7y ago
Most accurate summation of Google I've seen. It boggles the mind how many users on HN defend google out of some sort of Stockholm Syndrome.
- pjmlp 7y ago
  I guess because many of them deep down would like to be a Googler. They also used to shit on IE and WP, now everyone gets to enjoy Google's hegemony.
maximente 7y ago
it's telling that you're still willing to put up with all of this despite what appears to be several really, really angry posts about it. you have tons of complaints in this thread about google's "bad behavior" but you continue to put up with it to by patronizing the company and their tools, without even apparently asking the question, "do i really need chrome?" or whatever. have you asked yourself why you keep their software on your computer if it's such a headache? i'm sure i'll get the typical "but there's nothing better!!" response and there may not be, but it's telling of you personally that you are willing to get so upset with all of this and then... keep on keeping on.
- apostacy 7y ago
  Are the issues I've brought up not worth being frustrated about? Do you think I'm a hypocrite for complaining about the thing that I use? What would you suggest I do? I use Chrome sometimes. Firefox is bad in its own way, often emulating the worst of Chrome. Like, at least the Keystone agent is unobtrusive and you don't even know it is there. Last time I checked, Firefox's Updater.app is just as disrespectful to the user, but it is horribly inefficient and clumsy.

dreamcompiler 7y ago

100% agree. I shouldn't have to go to war with Google to use their product on my update terms. It's my machine, not Google's. They can ask that I update but they cannot demand.

cheeze 7y ago
I deal with this problem by using Firefox.
- dreamcompiler 7y ago
  Unfortunately there is no Fireearth.
  - robin_reala 7y ago
    There is the web version of Earth, but surprise surprise, it’s Chrome-only.
    - b2ccb2 7y ago
      The WASM beta[1] works fine on Debian/Firefox 60.9.0esr [1] https://earth.google.com/web?beta=1 https://earth.google.com/web?beta=1

est 7y ago

> WHY can you not make Chrome update like every other sane, well-behaved app? Because someone at the Chrome team has setup an OKR of newest version rollout rate. His/Her salary and promotion are at stake.

madeofpalk 7y ago

> WHY can you not make Chrome update like every other sane, well-behaved app? Because that's how you end up with software that isn't updated, running old insecure versions. As a user, I like it when my apps automatically update without me having to worry about it. The frustrating part about the Mac App Store is how it still makes you worry about updating apps.

gumby 7y ago
> The frustrating part about the Mac App Store is how it still makes you worry about updating apps. Wait, what? The Mac App Store updates your apps automatically in background (I know bc sometimes it tells me it can’t update a particular app until I exit it)
- madeofpalk 7y ago
  > I know bc sometimes it tells me it can’t update a particular app until I exit it that's the part I find annoying. Contrast to iOS which doesn't have this problem. Obviously the model on iOS is a lot different (more restrictive backgrounding, apps are build to handle shutdown at any time), but its still a minor frustration I have with MAS.
objc 7y ago
Those of us who are fine with running slightly outdated software are probably safe from whatever minor vulnerabilities we might be exposing ourselves to. Regardless, the choice should always be left up to the user. It doesn't have to be one way or the other to make you and me both happy—there can be an "auto-update" setting and a "never check for updates" setting.
mooman219 7y ago
This honestly. I've considered getting my parents a Chromebook because they're not technically literate (by their choice) enough to manage a Windows install. Non-automated updates is part of how we got into supporting IE7 forever. If updates were optional, they'd be on the same version I originally installed for them. This non-technically literate demographic is much larger than any of the vocal minority on HackerNews.