5 ms·
They don't do this on Linux, right? Why?
by mehrdadn 7y ago
They don't do this on Linux, right? Why?
- petre 7y agoThankfully they don't. It's the package manager's job to update packages and the vendor's job to repackage upstream.
- ben0x539 7y agoHaving to wait for a security update to make it through the various update pipelines of all the different linux distros isn't a great situation for users either. Installing browsers by hand in your homedir specifically so they can update themselves and you don't rely on the system package manager seems like a fairly widespread recommendation, but maybe I'm talking to a biased set of people.
- noir_lord 7y ago> you don't rely on the system package manager seems like a fairly widespread recommendation. Not from me to others using Fedora, the chrome you get via dnf install fedora-workstation-repositories dnf config-manager --set-enabled google-chrome Is rapidly updated. As a general rule I use what is in the repo's unless I absolutely can't or the version in the repo is so old that I can't.
- evmar 7y agoI wrote a post about how Chrome's Linux updates work: http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2011/08/zygote.html http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2011/08/zygote.... (Sorry to spam this thread multiple times with this, but it is very relevant.)
- mehrdadn 7y agoI feel your post is answering a different question than what I asked? You're answering "why is our process spawning model so obscure on Linux" rather than "why does Chrome not shove its updates down Linux users' throats out-of-band like it does on every other platform". (Unless you're suggesting the answer is the bit where you say they just didn't want to appear lame?)