5 ms·

> Raymond inspected the modifications added by the new developers (which was not published to GitHub), revealing their dubious intentions. and chrome will auto

> Raymond inspected the modifications added by the new developers (which was not published to GitHub), revealing their dubious intentions. and chrome will auto-update the extension for you transparently so you don't miss out on these new amazing features!

rightbyte 6y ago
Auto-update is such a antifeuture. There is like no circumstances where it is beneficial since you can mever trust it wont break your stuff or add malicoius code. Since it is pushed instantly there is no chance anyone had the time to review it. Eg. Steam ask if it should update a game. Windows just does it and adds Candy Crush and spyware. Two different takes on the same thing.
- wongarsu 6y ago
  Windows tried manual updates for years, and even after switching to automated updates still received lots of bad press for security holes that were fixed years earlier. Home Edition taking away the ability not to update is the logical conclusion. Also Microsoft controls the code they push on your computer, they paid the people who wrote it and they take liability for it. Browsers are automatically pushing other people's code to your computer
  - ziml77 6y ago
    I don't care much about the bad press for holes that were patched years back, but I do care about those unupdated machines becoming zombies in a botnet. Those things are so disruptive and the mitigations only work so well.
  - russh 6y ago
    "Also Microsoft controls the code they push on your computer, they paid the people who wrote it and they take liability for it. Browsers are automatically pushing other people's code to your computer" No, Microsoft does not take liability, they expressly disclaim any and all liability in the users agreement.
    - DylanDmitri 6y ago
      They are indirectly if not legally liable. If they tried something as damaging as Nano Defender here, it would be massive bad PR and they would be forced to backpedal or lose industry trust.
      - pietroglyph 6y ago
        I agree that they’re liable for some things in the court of public opinion (which happens to have a very short attention span and limited agency), but I don’t see how they’re legally liable unless you’re implying that the EULA would be found to be unenforceable in court.
  - thatswrong0 6y ago
    Automatic updates from trusted first-party developers is pretty different than automatic updates from random Chrome 3rd party extension devs..
  - noxer 6y ago
    I agree, everyone who knows what they are doing can still disable windows auto update. The option is only gone for "normies" which is perfectly fine. If you don't know enough about how windows works to turn it off, you are the reason for it being enabled by default.
  - feanaro 6y ago
    Then Microsoft can push security updates automatically but that in no way excuses them to push anything else.
- fireattack 6y ago
  > there is no circumstances where it is beneficial Do we really need to be this hyperbolic? And Steam can auto update games just fine (I even remember it being the default, but not sure.)
  - wongarsu 6y ago
    Pretty sure it's still the default. Updates are more frequently delayed now (shown as "scheduled" in the download list), but I believe that's for traffic shaping.
  - rightbyte 6y ago
    It is a bit hyperbolic but I wrote "there are like no" which means "kinda" right? Sure I get it. Autoupdates are fine if used wisely and I am not dogmatic really it is more that I am bitter. However a simple prompt just makes ones life so much easier so that I know why something breaks. I think Steams delayed updates as default are to decrease bandwidth during covid lockdowns?
- athenot 6y ago
  Auto-update is a good feature normally; I just wished there was a way to roll back when things go wrong.
  - rightbyte 6y ago
    If you can afford that it breaks stuff, like multiplayer games where a missed patch would make it unplayable anyway, maybe ye. If Windows only force pushed security updates in secirity labeled patches like in XP it would probably be fine in practice. But I never know what happens when I restart my work Win 10 laptop. Maybe wifi gives up. Or the docking station wont work. Who knows it happened to me and my collegues multiple times. I actually wonder if the corparate IT is to blame since I don't have the same instability problems on my Win 10 gaming rig, or maybe laptops just are way more sensitive.
    - skinnymuch 6y ago
      I’ve never had a problem with W10 updates in my household. All personal laptops / Surface devices
- wnevets 6y ago
  > There is like no circumstances where it is beneficial since you the days before Windows auto update meant millions of unpatched machines running wild on the internet. I know it gets a lot of hate these days but its gotta be better than the alternative.
- _jal 6y ago
  I want everyone else on auto-updates, but refuse to allow them myself, for exactly the reasons you specify. A tragedy of the walled-gardens.
- pabs3 6y ago
  I trust Debian's automatic updates, since they are only about fixing security issues or other important issues.

rightbyte 6y ago

Auto-update is such a antifeuture. There is like no circumstances where it is beneficial since you can mever trust it wont break your stuff or add malicoius code. Since it is pushed instantly there is no chance anyone had the time to review it. Eg. Steam ask if it should update a game. Windows just does it and adds Candy Crush and spyware. Two different takes on the same thing.

wongarsu 6y ago
Windows tried manual updates for years, and even after switching to automated updates still received lots of bad press for security holes that were fixed years earlier. Home Edition taking away the ability not to update is the logical conclusion. Also Microsoft controls the code they push on your computer, they paid the people who wrote it and they take liability for it. Browsers are automatically pushing other people's code to your computer
- ziml77 6y ago
  I don't care much about the bad press for holes that were patched years back, but I do care about those unupdated machines becoming zombies in a botnet. Those things are so disruptive and the mitigations only work so well.
- russh 6y ago
  "Also Microsoft controls the code they push on your computer, they paid the people who wrote it and they take liability for it. Browsers are automatically pushing other people's code to your computer" No, Microsoft does not take liability, they expressly disclaim any and all liability in the users agreement.
  - DylanDmitri 6y ago
    They are indirectly if not legally liable. If they tried something as damaging as Nano Defender here, it would be massive bad PR and they would be forced to backpedal or lose industry trust.
    - pietroglyph 6y ago
      I agree that they’re liable for some things in the court of public opinion (which happens to have a very short attention span and limited agency), but I don’t see how they’re legally liable unless you’re implying that the EULA would be found to be unenforceable in court.
- thatswrong0 6y ago
  Automatic updates from trusted first-party developers is pretty different than automatic updates from random Chrome 3rd party extension devs..
- noxer 6y ago
  I agree, everyone who knows what they are doing can still disable windows auto update. The option is only gone for "normies" which is perfectly fine. If you don't know enough about how windows works to turn it off, you are the reason for it being enabled by default.
- feanaro 6y ago
  Then Microsoft can push security updates automatically but that in no way excuses them to push anything else.
fireattack 6y ago
> there is no circumstances where it is beneficial Do we really need to be this hyperbolic? And Steam can auto update games just fine (I even remember it being the default, but not sure.)
- wongarsu 6y ago
  Pretty sure it's still the default. Updates are more frequently delayed now (shown as "scheduled" in the download list), but I believe that's for traffic shaping.
- rightbyte 6y ago
  It is a bit hyperbolic but I wrote "there are like no" which means "kinda" right? Sure I get it. Autoupdates are fine if used wisely and I am not dogmatic really it is more that I am bitter. However a simple prompt just makes ones life so much easier so that I know why something breaks. I think Steams delayed updates as default are to decrease bandwidth during covid lockdowns?
athenot 6y ago
Auto-update is a good feature normally; I just wished there was a way to roll back when things go wrong.
- rightbyte 6y ago
  If you can afford that it breaks stuff, like multiplayer games where a missed patch would make it unplayable anyway, maybe ye. If Windows only force pushed security updates in secirity labeled patches like in XP it would probably be fine in practice. But I never know what happens when I restart my work Win 10 laptop. Maybe wifi gives up. Or the docking station wont work. Who knows it happened to me and my collegues multiple times. I actually wonder if the corparate IT is to blame since I don't have the same instability problems on my Win 10 gaming rig, or maybe laptops just are way more sensitive.
  - skinnymuch 6y ago
    I’ve never had a problem with W10 updates in my household. All personal laptops / Surface devices
wnevets 6y ago
> There is like no circumstances where it is beneficial since you the days before Windows auto update meant millions of unpatched machines running wild on the internet. I know it gets a lot of hate these days but its gotta be better than the alternative.
_jal 6y ago
I want everyone else on auto-updates, but refuse to allow them myself, for exactly the reasons you specify. A tragedy of the walled-gardens.
pabs3 6y ago
I trust Debian's automatic updates, since they are only about fixing security issues or other important issues.