5 ms·

OK, what issues does it cause? And are those issues outweighed by the security and standardization issues raised by non-updating software? I don't know who all

OK, what issues does it cause? And are those issues outweighed by the security and standardization issues raised by non-updating software? I don't know who all remembers having to develop websites compatible with outdated versions of Internet Explorer but I do and still have nightmares about it.

bluedino 6y ago
Crashes, freezes, stopping systems from sleeping... I don't want Google's (or anyone else's) code running in the background doing whatever it wants. Want to check for an update and notify me? Great. But don't do anything else.
- capableweb 6y ago
  You might be on the wrong operating system if you don't like "code running in the background doing whatever it wants" as Apple has never shied away from doing just so. Try inspecting what your computer does when you've been away from it for 30 or so minutes, and you'll see a lot of chatter from Apple apps.
- ordinaryperson 6y ago
  > I don't want Google's (or anyone else's) code running in the background doing whatever it wants. Is it really "doing whatever it wants" or just updating itself? Doing whatever it wants seems like a much broader range of activities. Crashing or freezing is a problem, but isn't all software susceptible to those bugs? What if Chrome was crashing or freezing on other people's computers and the latest update fixed it for them? The problem with your preferred methodology of opting in to updates is that 90% of users won't do it, which leads to security and compatibility nightmares. I get that an update can cause problems. But to say that all auto-updating is terrible and it just breaks things and software is doing "whatever it wants" in the background seems like an exaggeration and misses the larger benefits.
- lonelappde 6y ago
  If you want to professionally sysadmin your system, don't use a consumer convenience-oriented OS and userspace apps.
vageli 6y ago
Software companies are not infallible, and I've received updates in the past that have broken things. Enterprises don't get compensated for lost productivity when an auto-updating app results in broken workflows. Also, we recently got hit with a bug in a new auto-updated version. [0] It's great that this was finally fixed but silently rolling out updates like this make it harder to catch these issues before they are problems in the wild. [0]: https://paul.kinlan.me/correct-image-orientation-for-images-chrome-81/ https://paul.kinlan.me/correct-image-orientation-for-images-...
- ordinaryperson 6y ago
  OK, so there was an image orientation bug in that specific release of Chrome. But it's estimated there are 1 billion users of Chrome. One billion! How wide of an attack surface does that present? Or how much of a nightmare would it be if they were all on wildly different versions? I get that this specific bug may have caused problems for you. But if I had to choose between security and compatibility for 1 billion software users vs an occasional image orientation bug, I'll choose the former, personally.
  - vageli 6y ago
    > But if I had to choose between security and compatibility for 1 billion software users vs an occasional image orientation bug, This is a disingenuous characterization of my argument. The image orientation bug was a simple example. Further, why can't there be some kind of compromise where security updates are automatically applied and feature updates are not (of course I understand that the line can get blurry)? Lastly, in a philosophical sense, I don't want to cede control of my machine to a third party. Automatically updating apps removes the chance for me to consent to changes and puts me at the mercy of a third party. It removes my ability to make an informed choice.
    - ordinaryperson 6y ago
      It's a simple example but that's the kind of tradeoffs platforms are trying to make. Small bugs in favor of security and compatibility. It could be a thousand image orientation bugs. Same arguments still apply. And yes, you can't cordon off security updates from everything else. They accidentally break other things. But this is a general problem of software development. If you're using a third-party's software, aren't you already consenting to their "control"? How much control do you have over someone else's software?
qilo 6y ago
Google has confirmed a Chrome update is at fault for a mysterious reported wave of unbootable Macs. The update was causing issues by corrupting an operating system folder, which prevented those impacted from being able to log in to macOS. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2019/09/26/google-confirms-buggy-chrome-update-is-breaking-apple-macs/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2019/09/26/goog...
yyyk 6y ago
Some of us also remember Internet Explorer 'updates' breaking printing and having to deal with upset PHBs. Microsoft itself ended up developing a somewhat more nuanced understanding of autoupdates than the current Canonical standard - business clients have various ways to override autoupdates. Surely Canonical can improve upon this standard, rather than learn the hard way the same lessons.

bluedino 6y ago

Crashes, freezes, stopping systems from sleeping... I don't want Google's (or anyone else's) code running in the background doing whatever it wants. Want to check for an update and notify me? Great. But don't do anything else.

capableweb 6y ago
You might be on the wrong operating system if you don't like "code running in the background doing whatever it wants" as Apple has never shied away from doing just so. Try inspecting what your computer does when you've been away from it for 30 or so minutes, and you'll see a lot of chatter from Apple apps.
ordinaryperson 6y ago
> I don't want Google's (or anyone else's) code running in the background doing whatever it wants. Is it really "doing whatever it wants" or just updating itself? Doing whatever it wants seems like a much broader range of activities. Crashing or freezing is a problem, but isn't all software susceptible to those bugs? What if Chrome was crashing or freezing on other people's computers and the latest update fixed it for them? The problem with your preferred methodology of opting in to updates is that 90% of users won't do it, which leads to security and compatibility nightmares. I get that an update can cause problems. But to say that all auto-updating is terrible and it just breaks things and software is doing "whatever it wants" in the background seems like an exaggeration and misses the larger benefits.
lonelappde 6y ago
If you want to professionally sysadmin your system, don't use a consumer convenience-oriented OS and userspace apps.

vageli 6y ago

Software companies are not infallible, and I've received updates in the past that have broken things. Enterprises don't get compensated for lost productivity when an auto-updating app results in broken workflows. Also, we recently got hit with a bug in a new auto-updated version. [0] It's great that this was finally fixed but silently rolling out updates like this make it harder to catch these issues before they are problems in the wild. [0]: https://paul.kinlan.me/correct-image-orientation-for-images-chrome-81/ https://paul.kinlan.me/correct-image-orientation-for-images-...

ordinaryperson 6y ago
OK, so there was an image orientation bug in that specific release of Chrome. But it's estimated there are 1 billion users of Chrome. One billion! How wide of an attack surface does that present? Or how much of a nightmare would it be if they were all on wildly different versions? I get that this specific bug may have caused problems for you. But if I had to choose between security and compatibility for 1 billion software users vs an occasional image orientation bug, I'll choose the former, personally.
- vageli 6y ago
  > But if I had to choose between security and compatibility for 1 billion software users vs an occasional image orientation bug, This is a disingenuous characterization of my argument. The image orientation bug was a simple example. Further, why can't there be some kind of compromise where security updates are automatically applied and feature updates are not (of course I understand that the line can get blurry)? Lastly, in a philosophical sense, I don't want to cede control of my machine to a third party. Automatically updating apps removes the chance for me to consent to changes and puts me at the mercy of a third party. It removes my ability to make an informed choice.
  - ordinaryperson 6y ago
    It's a simple example but that's the kind of tradeoffs platforms are trying to make. Small bugs in favor of security and compatibility. It could be a thousand image orientation bugs. Same arguments still apply. And yes, you can't cordon off security updates from everything else. They accidentally break other things. But this is a general problem of software development. If you're using a third-party's software, aren't you already consenting to their "control"? How much control do you have over someone else's software?

qilo 6y ago

Google has confirmed a Chrome update is at fault for a mysterious reported wave of unbootable Macs. The update was causing issues by corrupting an operating system folder, which prevented those impacted from being able to log in to macOS. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2019/09/26/google-confirms-buggy-chrome-update-is-breaking-apple-macs/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2019/09/26/goog...

yyyk 6y ago

Some of us also remember Internet Explorer 'updates' breaking printing and having to deal with upset PHBs. Microsoft itself ended up developing a somewhat more nuanced understanding of autoupdates than the current Canonical standard - business clients have various ways to override autoupdates. Surely Canonical can improve upon this standard, rather than learn the hard way the same lessons.