Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I love the silent updates.

You raise a valid point about not knowing exactly what is being installed, but the flip side of the coin is that security fixes and new feature support get adopted much faster.

It's nice knowing that mom's laptop will automatically receive that security patch.



> It's nice knowing that mom's laptop will automatically receive that security patch.

Even though I still use Firefox personally, this is why I've transitioned every family member to Chrome.


As have I. When you have to support other people it just makes sense (silent update).


Security and convenience at the expense of control and privacy.

I like knowing what's installed on my computer. I realize that I'm going to have to go into the future kicking and screaming.


You know what's installed on your computer. Chrome updates.

The only thing which you don't really know anymore is when or to what version it is currently updating. But why would you care anyway about that.


Because it's a usurpation of my role as the administrator of my system. Because it necessitates a level of comfort with a company—whose business model is based on collecting and selling user data—rooting my system, and trusting that they're not going to abuse that privilege, or forget my best interest when acting in their own best interest. I think that's a good enough reason.


That is a good reason.

It's also possible to turn off the autoupdates.

It's debatable what the best default setting would be, and wether or not average users:

a) know how to disable this b) care to disable it

Like you say, it necessitates a level of comfort with a company. I suppose most people don't give this a lot of thought, and thus feel pretty comfortable with any company.

Wether this is "good" or "bad" is a separate discussion imo.


I think the problem here is the "one size fits all" assumption of the Google-centric future the article describes.

The browser update policy is a great example. Probably the world would be a better place on average if mom and pop auto-updated, but the policy has serious downsides. For one, it's a pain for me as a geek who likes to know what is running on his machine (and who, frankly, doesn't trust Google as far as he could throw it). It's also a pain for me as a web developer, because of the various breaking changes Google is demonstrably willing to make in its browser, as discussed in several recent HN threads.

There are other problems with "one size fits all" that I think undermine the entire premise of the article, though. If Chrome is to be the new OS, then does that mean every application front-end in the world has to be written in JavaScript? On the evidence to date, this is not going to be a success...

Similarly, "[Google App Engine] just runs the code you give it, and you don’t much care how" sounds like a great argument, until you realise that you have to write your code using the tiny fraction of the available programming tools that happen to be supported by GAE.

Given that in this business, the two most common scenarios are keeping geek opinion on your side or your company failing rather horribly, I think we can safely assume that nothing Google offers today is even close to comprehensive enough to displace native apps and make cloud/browser software the norm. Oh, and if the article author thinks that broadband-speed wireless is going to become as ubiquitous as electricity within a few years, I think he probably needs to go back to physics school. :-)


No need to kick and scream, Google has a solution for you: Chromium. No automatic updates, 100% open source.


I started using SRWare Iron, which is like a more tinfoil version of Chromium, for this reason.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: