3 ms·

It seems there is a major conflict between the following two goals: 1. Allow app (or extension) developer to push new updates to the users without the consent

It seems there is a major conflict between the following two goals: 1. Allow app (or extension) developer to push new updates to the users without the consent of the users. 2. Not allow the app (or extension) developer to push malicious/dangerous updates. I would prefer a system where all extensions that are installable by default without jumping through hoops are hand-reviewed by the same people who package my browser for me. I generally oppose automatic updates and granting app/extension developers the ability to push code to my computer without my consent. I support a walled garden controlled by benevolent package maintainers. This is where I think the traditional Linux package maintainer shines, protecting the user from malicious software. If a package-maintainer (generally independent from the developer) packages software for a Linux distro, the package-maintainer can drop harmful updates. If instead we give the developers free-reign to push updates without user consent, the developers can and will sell out to the highest bidder.

gleenn 5y ago
Seems valid to want someone to vet your software, especially if it’s capable of self-upgrade. But I also think that’s an expensive process, and one that Google probably doesn’t want to pay for. People seem very up-in-arms about App Store fees but then complain when unmanaged stores produce mounds of garbage and/or malicious software.
- blendergeek 5y ago
  I feel Linux distros have this problem solved. 1. Only distribute Free/Open Source software. 2. Only distribute software that somebody is there to package. 3. Allow the users to install other software and shoot themselves in the feet if they so desire.
  - e3bc54b2 5y ago
    And absolutely no auto-anything. Every operation by package manager is a result of explicit user action.
    - KronisLV 5y ago
      To me it seems like there is a different trend happening - Ubuntu now has snaps which auto update and you no longer can get some software without them, whereas even Debian comes with unattended upgrades enabled in some cloud vendors. Of course, only security update being enabled isn't such a bad thing, but in my experience and and all updates can break things sooner or later.
    - throwaway2037 5y ago
      By default, many distros already install urgent security patches automatically. I'm pretty sure Debian does it for me, but I cannot remember all of the details. In 2021, "absolutely no auto-anything" seems to guarantee your host will fall out of compliance and fall prey to hackers. How do you respond?
belltaco 5y ago
>This is where I think the traditional Linux package maintainer shines, protecting the user from malicious software. If a package-maintainer (generally independent from the developer) packages software for a Linux distro, the package-maintainer can drop harmful updates. If instead we give the developers free-reign to push updates without user consent, the developers can and will sell out to the highest bidder Sounds good in theory but that hasn't been battle tested in a mass product used by non-tech savvy people like Chrome extensions that are heavily targeted. On the other hand there have been breaches even in the packaging landscape.
- blendergeek 5y ago
  I have never heard of malware actually making into a mainstream Linux distro. Has this happened? Which distro?
  - e3bc54b2 5y ago
    To expand on this, the opposite has been true. IIUC Firefox telemetry is enabled for all binary downloads from Mozilla website by default, but every distdo package manager worth its salt has it disabled. So the system is actually working as intended.
  - chakkepolja 5y ago
    Arch btw, it was in AUR though, cannot blame maintainers.
rvp-x 5y ago
Note that browser extensions are reviewed by humans, as are updates to them. You also need to pay a nominal fee ($5 by credit card) to submit an extension to the Chrome store, to avoid spammers.
- kevingadd 5y ago
  Chrome extensions are generally not subject to human review. I maintained one with 50k+ weekly actives for about 3 years and I think out of probably ~500+ updates I had at most 10 go through human review, and most of those were due to a fraudulent DMCA claim (they started doing manual reviews afterward for a bit, then stopped again)

gleenn 5y ago

Seems valid to want someone to vet your software, especially if it’s capable of self-upgrade. But I also think that’s an expensive process, and one that Google probably doesn’t want to pay for. People seem very up-in-arms about App Store fees but then complain when unmanaged stores produce mounds of garbage and/or malicious software.

blendergeek 5y ago
I feel Linux distros have this problem solved. 1. Only distribute Free/Open Source software. 2. Only distribute software that somebody is there to package. 3. Allow the users to install other software and shoot themselves in the feet if they so desire.
- e3bc54b2 5y ago
  And absolutely no auto-anything. Every operation by package manager is a result of explicit user action.
  - KronisLV 5y ago
    To me it seems like there is a different trend happening - Ubuntu now has snaps which auto update and you no longer can get some software without them, whereas even Debian comes with unattended upgrades enabled in some cloud vendors. Of course, only security update being enabled isn't such a bad thing, but in my experience and and all updates can break things sooner or later.
  - throwaway2037 5y ago
    By default, many distros already install urgent security patches automatically. I'm pretty sure Debian does it for me, but I cannot remember all of the details. In 2021, "absolutely no auto-anything" seems to guarantee your host will fall out of compliance and fall prey to hackers. How do you respond?

belltaco 5y ago

>This is where I think the traditional Linux package maintainer shines, protecting the user from malicious software. If a package-maintainer (generally independent from the developer) packages software for a Linux distro, the package-maintainer can drop harmful updates. If instead we give the developers free-reign to push updates without user consent, the developers can and will sell out to the highest bidder Sounds good in theory but that hasn't been battle tested in a mass product used by non-tech savvy people like Chrome extensions that are heavily targeted. On the other hand there have been breaches even in the packaging landscape.

blendergeek 5y ago
I have never heard of malware actually making into a mainstream Linux distro. Has this happened? Which distro?
- e3bc54b2 5y ago
  To expand on this, the opposite has been true. IIUC Firefox telemetry is enabled for all binary downloads from Mozilla website by default, but every distdo package manager worth its salt has it disabled. So the system is actually working as intended.
- chakkepolja 5y ago
  Arch btw, it was in AUR though, cannot blame maintainers.

rvp-x 5y ago

Note that browser extensions are reviewed by humans, as are updates to them. You also need to pay a nominal fee ($5 by credit card) to submit an extension to the Chrome store, to avoid spammers.

kevingadd 5y ago
Chrome extensions are generally not subject to human review. I maintained one with 50k+ weekly actives for about 3 years and I think out of probably ~500+ updates I had at most 10 go through human review, and most of those were due to a fraudulent DMCA claim (they started doing manual reviews afterward for a bit, then stopped again)