4 ms·

Show HN: Chromium Updater

32 points by benbristow 12y ago

byoogle 12y ago
Cool project, OP (I couldn’t actually get things up and running but filed a bug with details). If you want to do a v2 (or somebody else is looking for a project), try extending Google’s autoupdater (Omaha): https://code.google.com/p/omaha/ https://code.google.com/p/omaha/. The client is open source, the client-server protocol is documented (https://code.google.com/p/omaha/wiki/ServerProtocol https://code.google.com/p/omaha/wiki/ServerProtocol), but an open-source server implementation is missing.
dsl 12y ago
I highly recommend Chromatic if you are a Mac user. https://mrgeckosmedia.com/applications/info/Chromatic https://mrgeckosmedia.com/applications/info/Chromatic
Theodores 12y ago
With a proper linux box things get updated as if by magic. There is no need to manually update your software unless it is one of those rare things that does not deal with the repo manager. Seriously, in 2014, Windows machines don't have this core functionality?
- antihero 12y ago
  They don't. Avoid at all cost.
- w-ll 12y ago
  It does for apps that you get via the Windows app store.
- quanticle 12y ago
  >There is no need to manually update your software unless it is one of those rare things that does not deal with the repo manager. That's not quite true. Ubuntu, for example, is notorious for shipping old and broken versions of software in its package manager, and then never actually updating them. I've personally run into issues with leiningen, rvm, pip, and a few other packages where the version in the apt repository is known to be buggy and is never updated.
  - dikei 12y ago
    It's not that bad. Linux distro with point-release will always be become outdated over time because they don't upgrade there package to new major version. If you want always up-to-date software, use a rolling-release distro. In my opinion, the packages shipped with Ubuntu-server are pretty solid. No comment about the desktop version though, since I don't use it.
- J_Darnley 12y ago
  On linux you need the distribution to update its package before most people get it. That is just wrong! You end up with old versions of just about everything. Very old versions if you use some Debian relative. What's worse is that you force software to have "releases" even if it is just some commit arbitrarily designated as "version 2.2.2". Windows does it much better. The people who provide the software are responsible for updating. What Windows could use is a unified update checking mechanism so that every software didn't install their own service, or nag you at startup or while in use that there is a newer version. I even prefer the Windows method of installing but that is a little beyond this rant.
JelteF 12y ago
I have a ninite executable in my startup filder, so about all my software gets updated automatically. https://ninite.com https://ninite.com
Lx1oG-AWb6h_ZG0 12y ago
Why is Pepper Flash dismissed so handily in tech circles? It is ridiculously better than Adobe's version, in every aspect. Even with click-to-play enabled, lots of sites still continue to use flash, so how can anyone justify using Adobe's sleazy bug ridden updater?

32 points by benbristow 12y ago

Cool project, OP (I couldn’t actually get things up and running but filed a bug with details). If you want to do a v2 (or somebody else is looking for a project), try extending Google’s autoupdater (Omaha): https://code.google.com/p/omaha/ https://code.google.com/p/omaha/. The client is open source, the client-server protocol is documented (https://code.google.com/p/omaha/wiki/ServerProtocol https://code.google.com/p/omaha/wiki/ServerProtocol), but an open-source server implementation is missing.

dsl 12y ago

I highly recommend Chromatic if you are a Mac user. https://mrgeckosmedia.com/applications/info/Chromatic https://mrgeckosmedia.com/applications/info/Chromatic

Theodores 12y ago

With a proper linux box things get updated as if by magic. There is no need to manually update your software unless it is one of those rare things that does not deal with the repo manager. Seriously, in 2014, Windows machines don't have this core functionality?

antihero 12y ago
They don't. Avoid at all cost.
w-ll 12y ago
It does for apps that you get via the Windows app store.
quanticle 12y ago
>There is no need to manually update your software unless it is one of those rare things that does not deal with the repo manager. That's not quite true. Ubuntu, for example, is notorious for shipping old and broken versions of software in its package manager, and then never actually updating them. I've personally run into issues with leiningen, rvm, pip, and a few other packages where the version in the apt repository is known to be buggy and is never updated.
- dikei 12y ago
  It's not that bad. Linux distro with point-release will always be become outdated over time because they don't upgrade there package to new major version. If you want always up-to-date software, use a rolling-release distro. In my opinion, the packages shipped with Ubuntu-server are pretty solid. No comment about the desktop version though, since I don't use it.
J_Darnley 12y ago
On linux you need the distribution to update its package before most people get it. That is just wrong! You end up with old versions of just about everything. Very old versions if you use some Debian relative. What's worse is that you force software to have "releases" even if it is just some commit arbitrarily designated as "version 2.2.2". Windows does it much better. The people who provide the software are responsible for updating. What Windows could use is a unified update checking mechanism so that every software didn't install their own service, or nag you at startup or while in use that there is a newer version. I even prefer the Windows method of installing but that is a little beyond this rant.

JelteF 12y ago

I have a ninite executable in my startup filder, so about all my software gets updated automatically. https://ninite.com https://ninite.com

Lx1oG-AWb6h_ZG0 12y ago

Why is Pepper Flash dismissed so handily in tech circles? It is ridiculously better than Adobe's version, in every aspect. Even with click-to-play enabled, lots of sites still continue to use flash, so how can anyone justify using Adobe's sleazy bug ridden updater?