This will probably get downvoted quickly, but Chrome's updater is one of few things I quarantine on my machine. I just don't trust Google enough to let it run stuff that "works quietly in the background, never notifying you." The technology is interesting (though not exactly a rocket science and certainly not magical ... which it would've been if it could update a running instance of Chrome without restarting it), but I am wee bit uncomfortable letting a company who is in business of collecting data and tracking people to run anything in my background.
I just run the Canary build and get auto-updated nightly. Until Google does something egregious, why not just help them build a great browser as quickly as possible?
Google, and now Mozilla too, is essentially crowd-sourcing, hopefully throwing a few million extra eyes on the problem.
And you are within your right to do that. But for non-tech elite that either don't care or would make an uninformed decision it is magical that they continuously the best features and security available with zero effort.
I used to think the same way, but after letting the stable version do its thing for a while on several computers, mine and my relatives', with no issue whatsoever, I stopped worrying.
I haven't investigated this, but I'd guess you could add a "chrome" user, chown the chrome directory to that user, and basically give it permission only to touch the stuff in its own directory. Would that help allay concerns about auto-updating software?
There's some convenience/security tradeoff here anyway. I don't know about you, but I don't inspect the source code of most apps I install or update.
"Stop! Whatever you were going to do, it couldn't possibly be more important than checking if fart-button-xpi has been updated from 1.0.4 to 1.0.5! Now just five more clicks and I'll restart"
I agree with this. Chrome has effectively changed the entire nature of client-side computing with this feature. If you want to run stuff client-side any more (hello Windows? Anybody listening?), you're going to need to implement this.
In general, the user should extremely rarely be interrupted for anything, especially not anything program-related. Each program having a tray icon, an update alert, update restarts, and flow interruption because it thinks something is important is what has turned windows from a productive computing platform to some kind of cross between a Kafkaesque X-box and a slot machine.
After getting used to Chrome's silent updates, I started to find it breathtakingly ridiculous the way Firefox kept interrupting its startup asking about updates. When I start Firefox, it is because I want to go to a website. Giving attention to updates is not what I want to do.
Google have open-sourced their auto-update mechanism to a project called 'Omaha'. But it's so complicated an google-specific that nobody else seems to use it:
"It is magical because it continuously updates an entire development platform invisibly, frequently"
That "frequently" is every 30 minutes, by the way... I accidentally removed the goog updater from my Lil Snitch rules and noticed that it then started asking permission every 30 minutes, on the dot (I started recording the times for a while).
I don't know why it needs to check so often - except that that kind of data would be very useful for noting how often your users were on 'puters, and if they moved around etc.
Out of curiosity, were you allowing it to check? If you denied permissions I could see it asking every 30 minutes since it failed the previous attempt.
My group is currently having discussions about the new paradigm of browsers updating frequently and silently. We currently have to support a wide array of browsers and versions for our apps (due to the nature of the product), and our QC group is grappling with how to manage this.
Personally, I don't think we need to worry about a Chrome or FF update suddenly breaking our apps--they don't use cutting edge HTML5/CSS3 features, and I don't suspect that either browser will suddenly change an HTML4 implementation.
While I've never seen an update cripple our software. I have noticed changes in rendering engines that change how things appear slightly. Minor stuff, only a few pixels here and there.
Also, I was forced to change our browser checking software to only do lower bound checking. Before, I would explicitly specify which versions were allowed. Now it's more like Firefox 4+, etc.
I notice on Ubuntu auto-update doesn't work. I wonder if this is a technological issue (they can't or haven't bothered to get it working) or a cultural one (like if Ubuntu programs shouldn't auto-update ever).
On Linux, the chrome team chose to integrate with system package managers instead of using their native updater - arguably the native updater would have worked better (many Linux distros still don't support delta updates!), but they wanted to buy goodwill with the Linux community.
When you install Chrome/Chromium in Ubuntu it adds a repository for the channel (stable, beta, dev, canary) that you chose. When you update Ubuntu, via the Update Manager or the terminal, it will fetch the latest version of Chrome and install it.
It does not make sense for an application to autoupdate itself when there's a system wide package management with updates available. There are also other reasons that are more cultural than technical in nature.
If you want bleeding edge versions of Chromium (or some other popular program), there are non-standard/third party repositories available. Then you can get nightly builds but still update your system with the package manager.
My guess is that Chrome/Chromium is installed system-wide from a distribution package, and when you run it as a normal user you don't have write permission for updating it.
Good thing they are still not evil.
Seriously, this is a very powerful way to run software, but what if they, or some other company who emulated this idea, took that great power we have granted them and used it for evil? They could suddenly 0wn millions of computers.
I really want a Linux version of the binary with the updater. There's an open feature request for it, but no activity on it.
Flash is unfortunately still a requirement for a lot of websites. The 32bit binary chrome has flash bundled, so updates are received as quickly as possible (I know, I should run some flash-blocking plugin, but I don't right now). On 64bit Linux (which is what I need most of the time), you have to maintain the flash plugin separately, and run it through nspluginwrapper, which makes it much less stable in my experience.
You used to be able to run the 32 bit debs on 64bit Ubuntu, but that broke a couple versions ago, and I never had time to see if it could be fixed. You also lose the package manager updates when you do this, since apt isn't multi-arch aware.
It's nice, but I really don't find it vastly preferable to a friendly update notification and a quick application restart - especially now that most applications open in the state they were closed in, and with an SSD the restart is barely a blink. In fact, I like to know the feature additions or design adjustments happening to an app, so I enjoy the notifications - it's like I'm getting something for free (which I am, actually).
I don't think it's a huge advantage for average users, either - %90-percent of iPhone users are on the latest available major OS version, and that (until 5.0) involved a huge non-delta download, physically docking your phone and an onerous, lengthy (well over 30 minute) process, during which you had limited use of your phone.
The only issue with this otherwise wonderful feature is that often when chrome starts doing something weird/broken it turns out it installed an update and is ready to be restarted.
So it appears there is a bug where the update messes up currently running processes.
On a related note, for a side project that requires a windows download (http://www.getbugcam.com), I've been experimenting with Microsoft's "ClickOnce" installer + autoupdate technology. Obviously (per the name and Microsoft reputation), it's not quite as simple and straightforward as Chrome's autoupdate process, but it is pretty good.
Although it is a nice feature, for me the most important Chrome feature is unifying the address and search box.
Even non-technical people know to respond to a software update prompts, but the number of people I see (including normally quite tech savvy people) that still search for a url, or enter a search in the address field surprises me.
OK, you could argue it is bowing down the lowest common denominator, but I believe it's a great feature that saves the frustration of people that just want to do go somewhere or find something on the web quickly.
Users in countries with slow/expensive internet connections will hate the feature. It might not even work as the machine is not connected to the network 24/7. And when its connected they do not want Google to use bandwidth for updating software. I know many people in India turn off autoupdate on their windows machines because it eats bandwidth (of course I try to talk them out of it).
Only those running admin accounts benefit from this feature. If you run Chrome in a limited user account on Windows 7, or a Standard User account on OS X 10.7, Chrome may or may not prompt you for an admin password (depending on the configuration). I've always had to quit all my applications, log out of my everyday account, login as admin, update, logout, then login again.
From my experience Chrome installs itself into %appdata% to avoid requiring admin permissions. And not once has Chrome asked for my admin password on OS X.
I would have thought it's best features are that it's fast and clutter free compared to other browsers. Whether chrome updated every 5 minutes silently in the background or never updated at all would not make a difference to me.
They have releases their updated as open source under the name Omaha: http://code.google.com/p/omaha/
Several of their products use it but afaik no other product is making use of it yet.
[+] [-] eps|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] melling|14 years ago|reply
Google, and now Mozilla too, is essentially crowd-sourcing, hopefully throwing a few million extra eyes on the problem.
[+] [-] abraham|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Florin_Andrei|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] charlieok|14 years ago|reply
There's some convenience/security tradeoff here anyway. I don't know about you, but I don't inspect the source code of most apps I install or update.
[+] [-] pornel|14 years ago|reply
"Stop! Whatever you were going to do, it couldn't possibly be more important than checking if fart-button-xpi has been updated from 1.0.4 to 1.0.5! Now just five more clicks and I'll restart"
[+] [-] sid0|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|14 years ago|reply
In general, the user should extremely rarely be interrupted for anything, especially not anything program-related. Each program having a tray icon, an update alert, update restarts, and flow interruption because it thinks something is important is what has turned windows from a productive computing platform to some kind of cross between a Kafkaesque X-box and a slot machine.
[+] [-] Hawramani|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MarkMc|14 years ago|reply
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3711435/has-anybody-used-...
[+] [-] bjc|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrspeaker|14 years ago|reply
That "frequently" is every 30 minutes, by the way... I accidentally removed the goog updater from my Lil Snitch rules and noticed that it then started asking permission every 30 minutes, on the dot (I started recording the times for a while).
I don't know why it needs to check so often - except that that kind of data would be very useful for noting how often your users were on 'puters, and if they moved around etc.
[+] [-] lojack|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rmc|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zakuzaa|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Florin_Andrei|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bmj|14 years ago|reply
Personally, I don't think we need to worry about a Chrome or FF update suddenly breaking our apps--they don't use cutting edge HTML5/CSS3 features, and I don't suspect that either browser will suddenly change an HTML4 implementation.
Anybody else dealing with this same issue?
[+] [-] maratd|14 years ago|reply
Also, I was forced to change our browser checking software to only do lower bound checking. Before, I would explicitly specify which versions were allowed. Now it's more like Firefox 4+, etc.
[+] [-] Florin_Andrei|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] larrik|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bdonlan|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ThePinion|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] exDM69|14 years ago|reply
If you want bleeding edge versions of Chromium (or some other popular program), there are non-standard/third party repositories available. Then you can get nightly builds but still update your system with the package manager.
[+] [-] wrl|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bitslayer|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] exDM69|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WettowelReactor|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ominous_prime|14 years ago|reply
Flash is unfortunately still a requirement for a lot of websites. The 32bit binary chrome has flash bundled, so updates are received as quickly as possible (I know, I should run some flash-blocking plugin, but I don't right now). On 64bit Linux (which is what I need most of the time), you have to maintain the flash plugin separately, and run it through nspluginwrapper, which makes it much less stable in my experience.
You used to be able to run the 32 bit debs on 64bit Ubuntu, but that broke a couple versions ago, and I never had time to see if it could be fixed. You also lose the package manager updates when you do this, since apt isn't multi-arch aware.
[+] [-] abraham|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marbletiles|14 years ago|reply
Exactly what I dislike about the web app model; I want it even less in my client apps.
[+] [-] sixcorners|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wgx|14 years ago|reply
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=update+server+not+available...
So, hilariously, I have to totally remove the app and re-install to update.
[+] [-] abraham|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonursenbach|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saturdaysaint|14 years ago|reply
I don't think it's a huge advantage for average users, either - %90-percent of iPhone users are on the latest available major OS version, and that (until 5.0) involved a huge non-delta download, physically docking your phone and an onerous, lengthy (well over 30 minute) process, during which you had limited use of your phone.
[+] [-] grandalf|14 years ago|reply
So it appears there is a bug where the update messes up currently running processes.
[+] [-] yarone|14 years ago|reply
For those interested in some of the available options for Windows apps, see here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/37030/how-to-best-impleme...
[+] [-] adthrelfall|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yalogin|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] covariance|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thatjoshguy|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mberning|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hammock|14 years ago|reply
In that case, the latest incarnations of Microsoft Windows ought to be doing pretty well for themselves.
[+] [-] Supermighty|14 years ago|reply
It would be pretty neat if someone use only the updater as part of other desktop software packages.
[+] [-] fbuilesv|14 years ago|reply