3 ms·
As a user, I find this pretty easy to argue with, since the preceding 10 years have largely been about how software companies can't be trusted with silent updat
by roc 18y ago
As a user, I find this pretty easy to argue with, since the preceding 10 years have largely been about how software companies can't be trusted with silent update capability.
- tptacek 18y agoThis is a really weak argument, since vendors can undertake the same illicit actions you're averring using opt-in updates. Updates that aren't what they say they are remain a problem regardless of opt-in/opt-out.
- roc 18y agoExcept that the opt-in process enables transparent third party verification. Updates can be tested individually. When an opt-in update misbehaves, word can (and does) spread. It can be avoided. If a silent update misbehaves, how do we have a chance to -do- anything? The update was likely applied before we could even open an app to get the news. Should we go online in a VM to verify that it's safe to connect with our preferred OS/software?
- tptacek 18y agoThe argument is for transparent opt-in updates. It's not for eliminating opt-out. I agree that there should be an opt-out. The argument about third-party verification is a red herring. I feel somewhat qualified to argue that third parties will "verify" updates no matter how they're disseminated; reversing patches is a bread-and-butter part of security product development.