3 ms·

Understandable... One other thing to keep in mind also is that you're using free software when it comes to Firefox. If someone wants to give me something for f

by bherms 14y ago

Understandable... One other thing to keep in mind also is that you're using free software when it comes to Firefox. If someone wants to give me something for free with the requirement that it automatically updates to both keep me secure and push the web forward, I'm all for it. Given that the majority of users don't know what the hell they're even using, I think it makes sense to turn on auto updates for the average user, while the power users like us dig deeper to turn it off. edit: also, to nitpick your analogy amendment of my fictional alarm company copying a key without your knowledge, I don't think opening software and having it "fix itself" automatically is anything akin to having a person steal a key to your house and enter it without your knowledge... However, I do agree my analogy was a bit flawed and that the reality is somewhere in between both of our views.

nocman 14y ago
I figured the "yeah but it's free software" thing would be part of the comeback. My response is that Firefox being free is completely irrelevant to my point. I'm the owner of the computer. You should never install anything on my computer without my consent. And yes, I think it is bad for you to do that with an average user also. I, as a user, downloaded Firefox 3.x (or whatever version) and installed it. I expect Firefox 3.x to be the one that is running after I install it. I don't have a problem with the installation program putting up a dialog that says "We'd like to keep this software up to date. May we turn on automatic updates for this software? (yes/no)". As I said in my previous post, I can even begrudgingly live with the "Yes" option being checked by default. To me, it is the fact that all of this is done by default without ever asking me about it that is bad bad bad. The user should be told. A simple explanation is not difficult, and most users who would go to the trouble of installing something should be able to understand a reasonably well-written explanation. And even if only 40% of them do, it is still better that the option be given. If they don't want to be bothered with it, they are most likely going to just take the defaults anyway. As to the nitpick about the analogy -- of course it isn't the same level of severity. It's an analogy. Installing a fire alarm system can't be compared to installing Firefox on my computer either. One takes hours, the other takes only minutes. I wasn't trying to say that breaking and entering was equivalent to covertly installing program updates without user consent. I was merely trying to complete the analogy (perhaps remote wireless fire alarm firmware updates without homeowner consent would have been a better choice -- but I didn't think of that possibility until just now. :-D ) The semi-amusing part about this whole discussion is the reason that I'm replying again. I'd installed Firefox on one of the machines in my house a while back, and I forgot to turn off the automatic updates. Started up Firefox only to have it apply the update it had automatically downloaded without my knowledge. Grrrrrrr. Sorry, this just rubs me the wrong way, and I don't like Firefox running a background service to install updates either (also an option that I didn't chose).

by bherms 14y ago

nocman 14y ago

I figured the "yeah but it's free software" thing would be part of the comeback. My response is that Firefox being free is completely irrelevant to my point. I'm the owner of the computer. You should never install anything on my computer without my consent. And yes, I think it is bad for you to do that with an average user also. I, as a user, downloaded Firefox 3.x (or whatever version) and installed it. I expect Firefox 3.x to be the one that is running after I install it. I don't have a problem with the installation program putting up a dialog that says "We'd like to keep this software up to date. May we turn on automatic updates for this software? (yes/no)". As I said in my previous post, I can even begrudgingly live with the "Yes" option being checked by default. To me, it is the fact that all of this is done by default without ever asking me about it that is bad bad bad. The user should be told. A simple explanation is not difficult, and most users who would go to the trouble of installing something should be able to understand a reasonably well-written explanation. And even if only 40% of them do, it is still better that the option be given. If they don't want to be bothered with it, they are most likely going to just take the defaults anyway. As to the nitpick about the analogy -- of course it isn't the same level of severity. It's an analogy. Installing a fire alarm system can't be compared to installing Firefox on my computer either. One takes hours, the other takes only minutes. I wasn't trying to say that breaking and entering was equivalent to covertly installing program updates without user consent. I was merely trying to complete the analogy (perhaps remote wireless fire alarm firmware updates without homeowner consent would have been a better choice -- but I didn't think of that possibility until just now. :-D ) The semi-amusing part about this whole discussion is the reason that I'm replying again. I'd installed Firefox on one of the machines in my house a while back, and I forgot to turn off the automatic updates. Started up Firefox only to have it apply the update it had automatically downloaded without my knowledge. Grrrrrrr. Sorry, this just rubs me the wrong way, and I don't like Firefox running a background service to install updates either (also an option that I didn't chose).