

Google Update Goes Open Source - ossreleasefeed
http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2009/04/google-update-goes-open-source.html

======
nickb
_Omaha checks for updates in the background, when it won't interfere with the
user, even if an application isn't running._

They do the same thing on a Mac and this is why I've blocked it and removed
the daemon. Google's explanation for doing it is complete BS. They should do
what every other app does: check for updates when you start the app.

<http://blog.wired.com/business/2009/02/why-googles-sof.html>

~~~
dsil
I disagree. Whats wrong with their reasoning: "Omaha does not perform updates
when an application launches, because we understand people want to use the
software when starting it up, not perform maintenance tasks first."

I don't like having to wait for, say, firefox, to install new updates when it
starts up. Why not have it update itself when its not in use?

~~~
nickb
It's _very_ simple: Google update takes away control from users. This is
absolutely the _wrong_ way to handle this.

Say I'm at a coffee shop with wi-fi or using my notebook through a cellular
3G/EDGE network and this update starts downloading a large Google Earth update
that I never asked for. Why should I be paying for the charges because Google
wants to update their software without telling me?

Another issue is versioning. If I'm working in one version of the software and
don't want to use the newer version until others thoroughly test it and fix
the critical bugs, why should i be forced to upgrade? I've used a lot of newer
versions of software and many were actually worse than their older versions.
Again, why should they force users to upgrade? Why not ask?

This Google Update is bad news all around. It installed itself like a virus
rootkit on my machine with Google Earth installation and I was never notified
(yeah, a note is probably buried deep in a TOC somewhere). Luckily,
LittleSnitch told me about it and I removed it from the Launch Daemons... and
I also removed Google Earth because of it.

Finally, why should Google get updates about my location at all times? Every
time this thing pings their server, my IP is inevitably transmitted to them.

Sparkle does this perfectly. You can completely disable update checking or
allow it to check on periodic intervals. And when it finds an update, it
informs you with an update window and shows you exactly why it is updating and
what was fixed and what more you get. This Ohama thing gives you none of these
options and it also runs at all times like a virus.

If MS did this, people would be all over MS. But when Google does it, people
defend them.

Any software that adopts this Omaha crap will be blocked from my machine as
well.

~~~
skolor
While the control issue does have some relevance, I think that Omaha is
definitely a step in the right direction. I typically put off updating any of
my products, simply because they notify me about it instead of just doing the
update in the background. I always want the new versions, especially since so
many of my browser/OS updates are security updates, but because I'm always
notified about it when I either start the application, or when I close it, I
never want to do it and spend extra time waiting while it does the update
process when I had something in mind I wanted to do.

Making it open source is definitely the right direction. If it gets modified
so that there is a control panel of sorts so that you an control the updates I
think it will be considerably better for people.If it is set up as it is now
(Updating at some time of low computer usage), with options that can be
changed to only update through a specific connection, to only update when the
computer has been idle for X amount of time, and similar times.

Look at the recent Conficker worm. There are estimates that over 10 million
computers were infected with it (and are now having that annoying fake
antivirus software downloaded onto it), because they hadn't installed a
security update that was published in October. If they would just push the
update after 1-2 months (Assuming that no major problems have been reported)
to all Windows computers, much of the spread and potential damage would have
been avoided. Since you use a Mac, you might not be used to this kind of
problem. Windows always has some sort of a security hole, which is constantly
being exploited. Anyone in IT can tell you how much of their time would be
saved if Microsoft would stop nagging users about the security updates and
just install them after they've been verified as stable. At the end of March
we lost quite a bit of time having to scan all of the machines, and then going
out and removing it from the one that had been infected, all because a higher
up had heard about Conficker and was worried about what might happen on 4/1.

------
mellis
I hope this doesn't lead to one instance of the application for every program
that needs updating. What would be more useful is a way for third-party
applications to work with the existing Google Update. That way, you could
update all your applications from a single interface. This would be a better
experience than being asked to update an application it starts (and you're
probably in a hurry to start using it).

Of course, you'd need to figure out some standard way of locating available
updates. Is there anyone out there doing this sort of thing?

------
ankhmoop
I much prefer Sparkle's approach of opt-in, in-application updates, and I
sincerely hope that Mac application developers will not adopt Omaha.

<http://sparkle.andymatuschak.org/>

------
bluefish
Having a background daemon running to automatically update software without
informing the user is a poor solution, but trying to solve the problem
introduced by checking for updates on startup and thus interrupting the
workflow of the user is a good idea.

------
edgeztv
This is terrible news. If every other windows application starts using their
code, you can expect hundreds of megs of RAM flushed down the drain on your
system (each google updater process takes up about 10 megs). I hate this
process always reviving itself after I kill it. Having multiple instances of
it will be a nightmare.

