Slashdot Mirror
Google Earth 5.0 Silently Changes Update Policy
mario_grgic writes "Recently announced Google Earth version 5.0 adds interesting new features like images of ocean floors and some detailed images of Mars. But it also brings another unwelcome change for Mac OS X users. Google Software update daemon is installed when the application is launched for the first time. The user is greeted with an uninformative message that does not really explain what is about to happen. After the user accepts, Google Update Agent is downloaded and installed. It updates all Google applications and not just Google Earth. Also, it runs on an unchangeable schedule of its own (instead of, say, only when one of Google's apps is launched), consuming system resources. Worst of all it can not be simply removed, since it is downloaded and installed again once Google Earth is launched. Users really have only two choices: live with it, or uninstall all Google apps. There's a discussion about the updater in this Google Group, including details of a way to disable it (not for the faint of heart). So fellow Slashdotters, has Google crossed the line?"
And I want to be in control of if it's going to crap or not.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
I am slowly being more and more convinced that Google will become the "skynet" we are all afriad of!
about the EULA not allowing it to be in the Ubuntu repositories.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
usually when i want to disable anything on mac (dash board, spotlight, etc) i usually change the file permissions to 000. this wont work with google updater?
I don't see what the big deal is. Apple installs a similar program on Windows systems when you install iTunes. Heck, I still have no idea what Bonjour is. The only real annoyance I find is that it keeps asking me to download Safari whenever I upgrade iTunes.
The only way to tell the difference between a hamster and a gerbil is that the hamster has more white meat.
I am using Picasa 3 beta on my imac and have no issues with their updater. Although it came as a surprise to me when it first popped up an alert that a new version was out. Resource usage is minimal (didn't even know it was running - which I guess is the issue some are having.
Conservative, mod down for violating
Does anyone have an "in" with somebody at Google Earth or the outfit they contract with to provide the imagery? A large portion of central and northern Arizona hasn't been updated in years i.e. the images are still in low resolution. The reason I ask is that I belong to a Search & Rescue team and we are currently looking for evidence of a downed aircraft reported missing two years ago. However, much of the possible crash area is still way out of date. In general, not having current imagery makes our job more difficult than it should be.
YES
Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
... so you bought a Mac???
I still don't understand why all these companies feel like they need to create their own bloated ecosystem on top of the OS. All the #$%@#! application needs to do is check for an update and link me to its website (even that is not necessary). Adobe is the worst at the this-they have their own $^$#&*$@ file browser, for $@#%'s sake! And their updater nags and doesn't work properly half the time.
I'm not excited to see Google go down this path. If this is cloud computing, I'd rather be from the moon!
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Why on Earth can't they use something like Sparkle, which is so much less obnoxious - this only warns you when you launch your application, and also self updates if you say yes. If all software started acting like Google Software Update, then we would spend half our day simply closing update windows for software which we haven't used in a month.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I would mind this less if Google was known for care in developing its client code. I specifically remember uninstalling Google Desktop last time due to its consumption of system resources and nasty vulnerabilities.
Exactly so. I also don't want to be disturbed with whatever I'm doing by an updater happily sloshing in data in the background. I love Google Earth, but it's been uninstalled now; I might try killing the updater later with the command line, but can't be bothered right now. Seems to be, the best thing we can do is bombard Google. Send them emails with complaints. They'll get the picture, and I think they'll adjust the code - at least enough to only run when you want it to, or on selected components. Now, this might be part of a bigger plan of theirs (world domination, anyone?), likely to force updates of Chrome and other software, but they usually do listen to public opinion. We just have to make it public, and this /. articls is a good start.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it well worth the effort.
I really love the unified update system of the Linux distributions. One process updates all the software.
Right now, I have the following updaters running:
Windows
Adobe
Kapersky (Anti-virus)
Java
Apple
Isn't it time everyone gets on board with 1 system? This way, Apple can't sneak Safari in, we can set a coordinated restore point, and there is only one update user interface.
As software releases become a more fluid experience relying on weekly builds and not annual or semi-annual releases, I think all these updaters are going to eventually create a clusterfuck and a negative user experience if we don't get everyone on the same system.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Change the permissions on its files so it can't run, and can't automatically install.
I mean, it is disappointing that a company I respect would do something like that. It could be worse, like installing software you didn't already have (yes Apple, I'm talking to you). At the same time, I have a feeling the power of us in the community will prevail and find a way to circumvent this unwanted action. Give us time... Most of the products I love, I stay with for one reason alone, the community. And of course, if enough of us complain on here, maybe Google will hear.
Admittedly, I moved to Mac after 10 years running Linux, but the procedure, cut 'n' pasted below, seems simple enough.
Best Slashdot Co
HP is yet another one of those companies that insists on a background process to update printer drivers, etc. I realized one of the last updates fixed a security flaw. I think my next move will be to uninstall the updater altogether, and thus not have to worry about security holes in a freakin' updater.
It used to be every software house insisted on a systray icon, even though it didn't need it.
Now the latest trend are background "updater" processes, even for stuff that doesn't need it(Adobe reader, etc).
Typically there's no indicators of it being installed, and trying to uninstall it is a mystery.
This needs to change. Identify it as malware or something. Anything.
On a windows machine, whenever quicktime it run, it's adds a process to the startup. You can uncheck it in msconfig but if you ever run quicktime again it puts it back.
I'm sure the automatic updater will remove itself the day Google Earth comes out of beta.
Yes, that's crossed the line. Not just google does it. I know this article is about Mac, but I don't have a Mac. I do come into contact with Windows regularly. Half of the apps you install on Windows, have their own background application for updates. That's stupid. What Windows (and appearantly Mac too, right?) need, is a package management system, like Linux, where the user can, with one simple command, update all his software at once, without needing to run annoying background applications that auto check for updates all the time.
This is a non-story. Google gives you the option of not using their software. It is not like they are trying to sneak it by you, and you can remove it if you realize that you do not like it.
I can understand why the updater runs on its own schedule. If the software updates itself when you aren't using it, then it will be ready to use when you want to use it! I hate it when software checks for an update when I run it, and then download and install the update. Google wants the software to be up to date and start when I use it. Makes sense to me, though I understand your concerns about the auto-update policy if you are concerned about bugs and regressions.
Or you could always block the updater's Internet access with your firewall.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
It's only happening on macs. And macs are used to being told what to do with out any options. I think Google is just customizing their suite to match other mac suites. Like iTunes http://slashdot.org/articles/08/03/22/1536250.shtml its just trying to make the user feel more comfortable by taking away all control. I know to a linux or a pc it makes no sense but to a mac its fine i'm sure.
"I don't see what the big deal is" The opening gambit of every ignorant twerp who lacks the empathy to understand other people's concerns.
I don't know that this rises to the level of "evil." On the other hand, I would call it inconsiderate, self-important, and shoddy workmanship.
On Windows myself, and I'd just updated to GE5, and found this this morning. Of course, no way to uninstall.
Deleted the service entries under HKLM/System/CCS. Rebooted, removed PF/Google/Updater/*
Removed inherited permissions on Updater and made the folder read-only (never thought I'd be truly thankfull for NTFS).
I totally disagree about this, but GE and GTalk seem to run ok with the above changes.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you end up with a GoogleUpdaterService background process running in Windows, too?
In principle, YES Google crossed the line, clearly. (Reasons are already espoused in other threads, too tiresome to repeat.) In practice, it probably depends on whether end users perceive a clear change in the performance of their PCs.
If the app isn't visually intrusive and doesn't hork throughput, I would guess most won't care one way or the other. Problem is, if the updater causes problems, the simplest option is to uninstall the software -- and who will reinstall it later?
What ticks me off is that with this choice Google seems to be catering those with a surfeit of bandwidth... I never have enough bandwdith, never; now you want to steal a slice of what little I have for your own purposes? Bad Google, bad, evil Google!
I envision a conversation between two typical users:
"Hey, you seen that new Google Earth? Looks cool."
"Yeah, but if you install it nothing else on your computer will work right."
"Oh, dude... screw that."
Sometimes I have to say to hell with it and just eat my jellybeans.
I agree. They're now one step closer to being nearly as evil as Apple, Lenovo, HP, and EA, all of which install more intrusive auto updaters that are more annoying to remove, and just reinstall themselves if you do.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Of course there are Mac (and windows) users for whom that is true. However, OS X is a BSD variant, and as such makes a very powerful and very geeky platform for those of us who like it that way. In fact, disabling the Goog's updater by changing its permissions is trivial using chmod. As for "cannot be simply removed", that is false. I can easily remove anything I want in OS X via the terminal. If you want it "simple", use sudo mc F8. :)
Caveat Utilitor
Actually no, that sort of stuff only seems to happen with Apple's Windows offerings. There's a system-wide software updater on the Mac, kind of like Windows Update, that updates various things. But individual programs like iTunes or whatever won't update themselves or try to download other stuff.
Saw the message on the install screen, clicked cancel, and I won't install it.
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
I like the Google Updater. It's one less thing I have to remember to update. Until Microsoft and Apple gets it's shit together and provide a unified software update mechanism for all software on the system, you're going to have to get used to this kind of thing. Either that or use Linux.
If I were you, I would phone Google and ask for my money back!
Oh wait...
I have one XP box for running Windows software in the house. I only run the PC with Standard User privileges (which takes a lot of work with some apps, Process Monitor can be your friend). I made the mistake of trying Picassa 3 on this machine. It has the same behavior of running Google's updater in the background. Now at random times when my wife tries to view a picture, she is greeted with a "Run Setup As" dialog. Dismissing the dialog causes allows you to preview the picture, but when you close the preview window Picassa starts up. Then after closing Picassa, it restarts itself.
I've reported it to Google a while back, but I'm on the fence as to hacking the updater or removing Picassa altogether.
The problem with 'self-updating' apps is you have to ensure that you never change the way they check for updates or at least always maintain the old paths. If you don't, then that person who only runs the app three times a year is never going to get the update.
On top of that, you now have to maintain this setup for each app you distribute.
Having a 'mother program' which watches over all the apps and downloads updates for them on a regular schedule is a far more stable and reliable way of doing things.
What really needs to happen is these 100+ companies that have enough apps that they think they need to install a background "update" service need to come together to define an open protocol for apps to register with one 'services/daemon/app' so instead of 100 programs all attempting to check for their own programs, you have one service that is covering them all.
Imagine that, as taken from the Apple iTunes/Safari/Quicktime playbook. Sneak in your other software when users update. Who'd thought that?
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
They have.
Any software application that doesn't let you remove the services, turn of updates, or downloads other applications has crossed the line.
Ideally I would like to be able to easily turn off any software. For example, I would love to right click on my Anti-virus application(AVG Free) and have it completly shut down and remove itself from memory.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I agree. Google Earth is no longer on my machines.
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
New InstallShield does the same sort of update agent install. It's a very big mess. I had it pop today, seven days after I installed a Turtle Beach driver. It's gone now.
They make the software, so really they can do whatever they want with it. Our choice is to take it as is, or choose not to install it. (Well, there is the 3rd choice of hacking/circumventing it.) Anyway...
So, if Google wants people to use their software, then they've crossed the line from encourage to discourage. It's their software, but I, for one, will not use it now.
The difference is Some of us actually like Google. itunes is crap people put up with when they get ipods. They chose to buy the ipod so they are forced to deal with apples BS.
They crossed the line a long time ago (with Google Desktop originally copying stuff to their servers by default as one example. Data mining Gmail without permission is another).
If you think they are just now crossing the line, you're not paying attention to what Google has been up to.
Just my $0.02.
If you things being downloaded without your knowledge, don't install any software and unplug your computer from the network. Just visiting this page caused your browser to download text, images and javascript without your knowledge or consent.
I'm thinking that many of you do not seen to grasp how network apps like google earth work and how they are supposed to be updated regularly when the services they depend on are updated.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
People buy macs because they are streamlined, cool, boxes that you turn on and just use. They don't want the control offered by Linux/Windows. The argument I hear constantly from my brainwashed friends/family who use macs is that it just works without tweaking. (They think that is a good thing...)
Finally, Mac users get a taste of how Apple treats their Windows customers.
What do you mean? Google has been sitting on both sides of that line for so long. You've just stumbled on the stuff that lies beneath its shiny surface. They're a bit like the CIA, except that they're not a government intelligence agency. They know who you are and what you do, and they aren't telling you why they need to know that. Google "does no evil", for varying definitions of evil.
And to think some people trust them enough to exclusively use Chrome and Gmail.
When I said "can not be simply removed" I meant for average user. If average user even managed to figure out where the lauchd config file is and removed it, they would find out it got put back by google earth again.
Of course any proficient user can remove or disable it. I opted to remove not only the agent but also any trace of google apps or google on my machines as a matter of principle.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
C'mon, it's a business. I'm amazed how long they have sustained this "universal friend" image. Director of information systems yesterday used "google is not evil" as an argument for handing over the university's mail systems to google. google has shareholders that want profits and that is what google is up to, period.
If selling their soul to do business in China wasn't crossing the line then I don't see how this could be.
When Microsoft did this with the .NET 3.5 upgrade the article was tagged "malware" yet with this Google Earth update it's missing the tag.
Come on now guys. Let's be fair ^_^
----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
I simply cut off its internet access with Little Snitch. Problem solved (and yes, it was a big, stupid problem in the first place). This updater was also installed during the recent release of Picasa 3 for Mac.
actually, the closest example for Windows is "Microsoft Update", because Windows Update only does the OS components not apps. And yet Windows Update STILL relies on internet fucking explorer. why the hell do we need to use a web browser to update an OS/App??
What is...?
If Sony did this, then uproar
If microsoft did this, then uproar
Now google does this, then ????
Theres an Iphone app for Google. It can't have the updater. Apple wouldn't allow it. So people desperate, but not willing to live with the lost resources could always go out and get a touch.
For the 6th gen and up yes. I got a 5th gen ipod when they came out and itunes has never touched any of my computers. When something with big enough storage for my purposes came around I jumped on it. After I found out about the DRM crap with the 6th gen models I swore I would never buy apple products again. (only reason I even got that ipod was the storage size) I now have an archos 5. And yes, it does run Linux.
Where's the news? It's been like this on Windows for ages. It even manages to install itself without any elevated privileges. I hate it.
I still don't understand why all these companies feel like they need to create their own bloated ecosystem on top of the OS. All the #$%@#! application needs to do is check for an update and link me to its website (even that is not necessary). Adobe is the worst at the this-they have their own $^$#&*$@ file browser, for $@#%'s sake! And their updater nags and doesn't work properly half the time.
I'm not excited to see Google go down this path. If this is cloud computing, I'd rather be from the moon!
Mod this guy up. You know the app that annoys me the worst? It's FF. That app pops up almost every time I start it asking either to update extensions or install downloaded extensions. Adobe's updater crashes most of the time. Flash is evil. You don't know until you hit something like youtube and then presto half the sites you visited yesterday magically don't work today because you need the next flash. I seriously doubt youtube changed their stuff. I think that's just flash's annoying way to force people to update. I actually don't mind windows update half the time. The Sun Java app seems like the quietest app that checks for updates.
I really think that its about time for MS or some one to say enough is enough. We need an app updater as part of windows. I'd also like to set never check for updates and never be bothered by them. That's what I do 98% of the time when given the option. I'm sorry if you want me to install your latest greatest or all your patches. I'm happy with my version. I don't hate breaking things to update them. Today there is no way to roll back to yesterdays crap most of the time either. Once you get that update, you are stuck with the update.
Original Post asked the question: "So fellow Slashdotters, has Google crossed the line?"
I vote YES. this crosses the line
I would much rather see this run using Sparkle update, versus a root cron job.
http://guimkie.com/tutorials/adding-the-sparkle-framework/
http://foolsworkshop.com/applescript/2008/05/adding-a-check-updates-feature/
You don't have to rely on IE if you run Vista. Just saying.
My addiction: Arguing with idiots. AKA Slashdot!
hmmm what size did you go for. I am pretty sure the creative has a 60 GB monster or more I had a 30 GB one. Many people don't know about these things I like the ipod I think it is great especially the touch but there is usually other choices just are harder to find. I wonder if there is a zen touch yet :D
Funny... when I install something like iTunes for Windows on my machine, I automatically get the Apple Updater. Which runs on its own schedule and not just when I run the programs that are installed. Sounds like someone at Google was just making sure that OSX users had the same experience.
Doesn't iTunes and other bundled stuff with it already do this? The Mac OS is a pretty solid platform, so who knows if the end user would even notice. Besides, Mac users probably don't even think about stuff updating and doing things in the background without their explicit consent...its a Mac, it does that.
That being said...it really sucks that Google did this. I mean, its not as bad as the Chrome EULA thing, but c'mon Google, seriously.
Hey.. you are supposed to know Unix on slashdot.
chmod +a -x binary and way it goes.
My ipod was a 60GB. It was the biggest at the time. My archos 5 is 250GB. It is a touchscreen too. Only thing with more space is the archos 7 but the unit is just too big for me. (that's what she said. ZING!)
I imagine that it will only change when MS or Apple release an API that allows apps to update themselves through Windows Update/Software Update, by providing some sort of trusted repository. It's one of the best features in Linux and short of self-updating applications like Firefox I can't think of a good alternative.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
they could even call the thingie yum
So now Apple fans know what us Windows users have to suffer with Apple update and the Bonjour DNS service!
Sucks doesn't it :p ?
This might be problematic for some, but all sorts of software installs background processes.
I understand full well how network apps like Google Earth work. They run on my Mac as *me*, a user account with restricted privileges.
The updater runs as *root* with full access to the system, and updates anything it wants at whim without even prompting me first. So the privacy issue is that it can read anything on my system, not just the "sandbox" I've put it in.
The other issue is that there is simply no reason for any aspect of Google Earth to ever be installed/run as anyone but my own user account. In fact, Adium, Skype, Firefox ... they all handle this quite well in regular-user mode by checking on their own and telling me if they need an update, and even going through the motions of downloading and installing themselves if I click "Ok", but always in the confines of not-root (not administrator).
Of course, there simply aren't any useful applications that actually run on open source operating systems, so the point is moot.
The problem with 'self-updating' apps is you have to ensure that you never change the way they check for updates or at least always maintain the old paths. If you don't, then that person who only runs the app three times a year is never going to get the update.
Does the person who runs the app 3 times a year really *need* to have the latest version of the app?
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
When I was looking at Lively I ran into Google Update, and I'm pretty unhappy with it. It installs a component in your browser that will initiate an update or a new product install without you even having to click on a link... the download is triggered by the Google Update API just by a javascript call on any web page.
See the comments on this Google Code trouble ticket and the linked discussion here. It's allegedly using some component created by Microsoft called Click Once... but I don't recall getting that or any other dialog when I installed Lively.
So fellow Slashdotters, has Google crossed the line?"
Yes. This proves it: google is officially evil.
Wanker.
Did netcraft confirm it?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
That depends, doesn't it?
If the latest version of the app includes bug fixes which correct issues that could cripple your OS, don't you think it'd be best to get them?
If the latest version of the app simply changes the colors of the buttons to match the scheme used in the most recent version of the company's favicon, I'd think that was a bit frivolous.
But the point is if you build the update checking into the app itself, then regardless of the necessity of the update, they won't get it unless the way the update check works now is the same as it was the last time they opened it. That locks you into supporting that method forever, assuming that you as the app developer consider having people use the most recent version of the app important.
If, on the other hand, you split that out into a separate program, one 'small enough' to run 24/7, or at least regularly in the background, it doesn't matter if you change the update methods as long as you leave the old method up long enough for all the updater apps to update. Then the only people missing your updates are the ones who voluntarily and consciously went out of their way to disable the updates and thus 'made their own bed'.
Well, suppose Birkoff wants to hack your computers. He puts one computer to act as Man-In-The-Middle and pretend to be google and when the google updater tries to fetch an update, it will get a trojan that will steal your secret data.
Paranoid?
Not really. There are programs as complex as Mozilla Firefox and Vmware. Why do you think that a program that sends custom trojans to custom users is so hard for whichever agency would like to be in control in the case of a national emergency, war on terror, etc.
Google Software update daemon is installed when the application is launched for the first time. The user is greeted with an uninformative message that does not really explain what is about to happen. After the user accepts, Google Update Agent is downloaded and installed [...] it runs on an unchangeable schedule of its own (instead of, say, only when one of Google's apps is launched), consuming system resources. Worst of all it can not be simply removed, since it is downloaded and installed again once Google Earth is launched
This is the behaviour of malware.
Do you ever wonder why your Mac/PC seems to get slower over time? Here is one example, we bought a cheap Lexmark all-in-one printer which didn't appear to have a driver for the Mac, Linux, Solaris... only Microsoft Windows. I thought I'd try the OSX driver for a previous printer model. It didn't work so I tried another. That didn't work so I uninstalled them and gave up. It was only much later that I noticed these drivers still running consuming hefty CPU resources even though the printer they were designed for was no where to be seen.
Listen, I'm a software developer and I work on Linux, AIX, Solaris, HPUX and Windows on a daily basis, but at home I use OS X.
What control do you assume you have on Windows that you presumably don't on OS X? I can see how you can customize Linux beyond what is provided by default (modify and customize the kernel etc, but how many people do that?), but Windows?
Yes, OS X is usable out of the box, and as a matter of fact of all the OSes I mentioned above it is the most usable OS, and a pure joy to use. Perhaps you should try one before you whine about it?
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
Keep in mind that those "published and open standards" were actually reverse-engineered from the Mac implementation. Apple never originally shared them.
Google went public, that's what happened.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
How many times has a new update "broken" things on your machine? I prefer to install the updates when I choose to, not when Google chooses to.
Now to address some of the inaccuracies I see in the previous postings...
Those of you comparing the Google mechanism to Apple's update mechanisms are way off base. (Windows AND Mac versions)
Unlike Google, Apple clearly tells you up front that it wants to install a software update mechanism and gives you the option NOT to use it. Windows users who claim it automaticgally turns itself back on when you turn it off need to loosen their neckties and get some oxygen up to their brains. This just isn't accurate.
And enough with the phony claims that Apple sneaks software onto the user's machine. That's just not true either. They are VERY clear about what is being installed and always offer you the option to NOT install the extra software.
On the Mac, Software Update can be configured NOT to automatically install updates, and there is much transparency regarding the update process. It isn't sneakily hidden in the background. They are up front about it.
On Windows, you can easily configure the software update mechanism to ignore updates and never darken your door again. Use the prefs, folks. That's what they are there for.
Next, what on earth (the real one, not the google one) does google need to be doing in the system space. This is an end user app. There is no reason that the update mechanism can't reside within the app. Why do they feel the need to install a system level daemon to accomplish the task. (Yes, I know they are not alone in this respect. I resent it just as much in the other vendors as well.)
So let's have an accurate discussion about this. I DO think Google has crossed the line here and I don't think the comparison's to Apple's approach are valid.
Just my .02 dollars.
This tends to large companies,the more they grow, they loose their core values...and just obsessed in creating critical mass and some unfair game.
Slashdot has been looking for ways to enhance revenue growth. From now on, only PCs running Windows Vista with Google Earth installed, will be allowed to post.
Thank you for your support.
Couple of weeks ago my G1 browser started getting Google Mobile for my homepage instead of the fully-featured Google page. Turns out Google started directing ALL mobile browsers to Google Mobile pages based on user agent. The iPhone fanboyz went ballistic. I just screamed. Among the things I lost was the Bookmarks gadget. Pus.
Their logic was, from several forum posts, that Google wanted mobile (actually 'phone' browsers was how they put it) users to have a 'consistent' experience across platforms.
If I want a consistent browser experience similar to that of, say a Motorola RazrV3 user, or a BlackBerry Pearl user, I WOULD HAVE PURCHASED A RAZR OR PEARL!!!!!
Sorry. I still get angry.
I bought a G1 mostly to get an enhanced browser, 3G/WiFi service to be able to use the browser, and therefore have a more *useful* experience. Google has essentially downgraded my browser.
I do have a workaround - the Steel browser lets me set the user agent to 'Desktop'. Now I get my Google pages like I like them.
I'm not sure this is Google becoming evil, or Google becoming Nanny. Or is that the same thing?
It couldn't have anything to do with wireless providers asking if there were some way Google could minimize the amount of bandwidth mobile suers were sucking through the straw, could it?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Yes
...I take it there's nothing analogous to WinPatrol for OS X?
I just click on the little Scotty dog in my tray and tell it to disable Google Updater at startup. And he says, "Startup disabled. By the way, this program is currently running. Should I kill it?" And I say, "Yeah, cool. Thanks, Scotty dog."
Safari
The hubris of the programmer in thinking his app is the most important program anyone will ever run is the only thing keeping them at their desks. If they didn't believe it, they couldn't go on.
Uh... Little Snitch, anyone?
Google on the other hand is defended like a religion.
Thanks for saying this. It is nice to see that I am not alone in recognizing that Google gets a pass of far worse actions than we would put up with out of any other companies.
It's not silent at all. I upgraded to 5.0 today, and it popped up a dialog asking me to agree to the new updater policy with a link to read more about what it did/how it works.
I downloaded the lastest google earth to see what all the fuss is about. In preferences / advanced options you can select no auto-update, i will check myself. whats the problem tech savvy people? sub
My question to all of you is, "What exactly does Google owe us?" I sense an entitlement mentality that somehow because they have decided to do things this way that we have been grievously injured.
Several previous posters correctly observed that if you don't like it, uninstall it completely and don't run it anymore. I mean it's a free (as in free beer) program that they provide in hopes that you'll like it enough to use it and see the ads.
However, may others here, instead of exercising some discretion and backbone to uninstall it and walk away, want to play like they are victims and that they are somehow powerless to stop using Google Earth.
Discuss. :)
Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
That's what you THINK!
If the latest version of the app includes bug fixes which correct issues that could cripple your OS, don't you think it'd be best to get them?
What kind of Google Earth bug is going to cripple my OS, especially when I'm not running it? Presuming I used it at least briefly after I installed it, then it's probably not going to cause my computer to explode the next time I open it. And the next time I open it, it can bug me about updates.
But the point is if you build the update checking into the app itself, then regardless of the necessity of the update, they won't get it unless the way the update check works now is the same as it was the last time they opened it. That locks you into supporting that method forever, assuming that you as the app developer consider having people use the most recent version of the app important.
It should be easy enough to have maintain a file at specific address on your website that contains a link to the latest version. Worst case scenario, if the software can't access that address, pop up a dialog and tell the user to go find the update themselves.
If, on the other hand, you split that out into a separate program, one 'small enough' to run 24/7, or at least regularly in the background, it doesn't matter if you change the update methods as long as you leave the old method up long enough for all the updater apps to update.
The problem is when every Tom, Dick, and Harry software company decides they need an update client of their own. "Small enough" times a few dozen stops being so small. Plus, the odds that any one client is buggy or insecure goes up by the same factor. We are talking about daemons running 24x7 that can remotely fetch and execute arbitrary code here.
Then the only people missing your updates are the ones who voluntarily and consciously went out of their way to disable the updates and thus 'made their own bed'.
Except it would appear you can't do that with the Google update client.
I built myself a new computer about 1 month ago. Completely new install of XP, and I've only been installing programs as needed/wanted. In the last week I've had two bluescreens happen. What did I do a week ago? I installed Google Earth. And in both cases of blue screen, the app that was listed as causing the fault in the debug was the Google Updater. So hopefully removing Google Earth fixes this. The only other "google app" I run is Picasa, which I don't think uses the Google Updater.
* What kind of bugs could an app like Google Earth have that could screw up your system?
- Uninstaller bugs, I remember a number of games which were mistakenly coded to wipe out the root folder of the drive you installed them to instead of the actual app folder.
- Security bugs, or did you forget that there are online and sharing components to Google Earth? What sort of fun could you do with a malformed KML file if Google's parser was fucked up enough to allow buffer overflows?
- Accidental file corruption. "Whoops, we were supposed to just load that Window's DLL, but we accidentally got it caught up in a write operation to save your KML file."
- Many other screw ups that are possible with ANY program you run regardless of its intent, if it was written poorly or has a mistake coded in.
Maybe they don't kick in every time you run the program. Maybe you have to have the stars aligned for them to kick in. Does it really matter? The point is, just because the program is not an "OS Utility" doesn't mean it can't have a bug in it that could cause you problems.
*Regarding the "Website and hardcoded address" solution.
Did I ever say that wouldn't work? No. I said having an updater is a more reliable and stable option. No offense but especially with your next comment, you need to start paying attention to the conversation you are participating in.
*"The real problem is every Tom, Dick, and Harry does it."
Thank you for completely ignoring the point of my comment that the person I was replying to originally responded to.
No, really. I love arguing in circles.
Go back, read what I said. If you really feel the need to point out the above again, refrain.
Three words: FileHippo's Update Checker.
I would really like the ability to disable all applications checking for newer versions. I check almost my entire system for newer versions on my own schedule.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
The problem is when every Tom, Dick, and Harry software company decides they need an update client of their own. "Small enough" times a few dozen stops being so small. Plus, the odds that any one client is buggy or insecure goes up by the same factor. We are talking about daemons running 24x7 that can remotely fetch and execute arbitrary code here.
Exactly. I personally use FileHippo's thingy.
As Microsoft seems unable to build a basic update checker in, it's up to third parties.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
From that link you posted:
I would say that unless you're having problems with Sparkle, you probably
wouldn't want to move away from it. We did not build Update Engine to steal
Sparkle usersâ"we really like Sparkle! We built Update Engine to do a few
things that Sparkle doesn't do (or at least didn't do at the time we
designed Update Engine). We needed something that could update
non-bundle-based apps in addition to regular Cocoa apps. We needed something
that could update root-owned products and things with, for example, kernel
extensions . And we needed something that could update multiple products all
at once. We also needed something that was flexible and could be extended in
a number of different ways to support future products.
Our intent was not to build competition for Sparkle. We focused on different
problems than those that Sparkle solves. Update Engine is a lower-level
solution than Sparkle. For updating an ordinary Cocoa application, I don't
see anything wrong with using Sparkle.
I'd be weary of any software update agent that is capable of installing kernel extensions and updating root owned files and that does not use SSL or encrypted traffic to the server.
All malware has to do is take control of the Google update agent and install what ever else they need. Why bother re-inventing the wheel?
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
Satellite internet providers such as Hughes and WildBlue have usage caps - and I tend to be just under my limit most of the time.
This means that any auto-updating app can put me over, which typically means no usable internet for a week, so it's bye-bye to google earth, which was one of my favorite time wasters =(
So, it's just like iTunes now. Ever installed iTunes, Safari, or QT on your PC? It automatically installs an updater too.
Well, the difference is, in OS X, they only have ONE central place you go to for the updates. Whenever Apple downloads one to you (if you've set it up to download them first, and THEN notify you they're ready to install), it's managed through the one updater application.
They don't have any web page to visit like MS does, for the "recommended" or "optional" updates, while simultaneously having a background process that runs independently to grab the "critical" ones for you.
And yeah, I'm aware you can de-select some of the updates ... but by default, when an XP based system visits the "Microsoft Updates" web page, all "critical" updates are selected.
In ubuntu, this would be done by adding a new apt repository and signing key. Then company X would have a nice secure way to manage their own updates, in a way that integrates well with the current update environment.
How nice do you think google would need to ask to get microsoft to let them update google apps with microsoft update?
Microsoft and apple really should work on having a more open software update system. It should be trivial to just add the google/adobe/sun catalog to the microsoft update system, and just select the apps you want.
From there it wouldn't be too rough to drop in a payment system, so home users would pay 3 dollars a month for office, and 2 dollars a month for acrobat professional. It could also stimulate the software economy the same way the app store helped out the iphone.
in startup create a shortcut: taskkill.exe /f /im GoogleUpdate.exe
It runs for a couple of secs, but basically that's it. Wasn't so hard, was it?
delete me
Mod this guy up. You know the app that annoys me the worst? It's FF. That app pops up almost every time I start it asking either to update extensions or install downloaded extensions.
You want Tools/Preferences/Advanced/Update
Flash is evil.
Currently it's the safest way to get embedded video to most people.
You don't know until you hit something like youtube and then presto half the sites you visited yesterday magically don't work today because you need the next flash.
I've never encountered that, my last upgrade was April 2008, from 9.0.115 to 9.0.124.
I understand 10 is out, might upgrade at some point. I've never been pestered to upgrade, although I do run apt-get upgrade fairly frequently.
The Sun Java app seems like the quietest app that checks for updates.
We have some windows servers at work, when I tsclient in I'm shocked by the fack there's a java icon in the corner. I have a single place to upgrade my system, it's an advanced package tool, been around for years. It runs when I tell it to.
According to my installation of Google Updater, it consumes a whopping 804KB of Physical memory, and 2.5MB of virtual memory.
So far it's working flawlessly, although I did change it to only notify me of updates instead of automatically updating. I do understand that they should make the updater more configurable (ie: removable), but c'mon it's a good first start.
They're beginning to act like Microsoft. All your cycles are belong to us....
What really needs to happen is these 100+ companies that have enough apps that they think they need to install a background "update" service need to come together to define an open protocol for apps to register with one 'services/daemon/app' so instead of 100 programs all attempting to check for their own programs, you have one service that is covering them all.
No need to develop anything, there is already one integrated in each major OS: Windows Update, Apple Software Update, and yum/apt/emerge/etc (one per Linux distro). I don't know what barriers Apple (or MS) pose to prevent software companies from distributing software updates via those mechanisms like Linux does, but it sure would beat having every app decide when and how it should update itself.
Maybe the OS vendor doesn't want to be liable when an update breaks a working app? (it's an honest question, I really don't know why nobody does this on Windows or OSX)
gcc: no input sig
Its the same old Windows trick: Google earth will run standalone out of a folder just fine, the only changes it would make at runtime are restoring a few registry settings and the cache folder. This would mean installing it somewhere first however and I haven't tested this with version 5.0 yet - installer may want to make low-level changes to the system that would prevent the application from running (like so many other Windows apps).
Then there are other tricks like simply disabling the thing from loading on boot.
Windows XP / Vista 32-bit users should consider Altiris SVS, google updater will work fine within this. Because it is virtualised when you disable the application, there will be effectively no trace on your machine.
I think not installing or uninstalling software because you don't agree with the EULA is silly. Voting with your feet doesn't really work, you need to take tangible action. In many cases the corporation would rather you walk away, since it keeps you quiet.
If you find a EULA bothersome what I say is, breach it, violated it, pirate it and hack the product to work how you want it.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
You call that a troll? That was as subtle as a planet to the forehead. What on Earth are they teaching in schools today?
Fucking kids!
You're being irrational. The point is that it can be simply removed or just deactivated via the terminal. There is no fuel here for your religious hatred of Apple's OS.
Since ISPs (like Charter) are instituting bandwidth caps, why are application vendors and companies like CNN playing all free and loose with users machines, consuming resources, bandwith and Gnu knows what else?
First, that is not the issue. The issue is that they ADDED that requirement without warning. If you don't accept that new requirement, you cannot run the new software.
Second, I don't want every fucking software company from the earth to add services for various kind of updaters. If they want to check for updates, they can check at app startup. Better yet, as I actually "grasp how network apps like google earth work", there should be version numbers in the data protocol.
We all know how this will end: you'll end up having hundred of processes calling home to search for update for software you've uninstalled ages ago. Each software company will jump on the idea of having their own updater sucking cycles on you machine, because everyone think that their software is the most important thing in the world...
This was meant to be funny I'm sure :D.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
Anyone who knows about this and leaves installed any Google webapp is basically asking for it.
Sorry if you find those apps useful. They are also inherently treacherous. They inherently give power over your data and your computer to a third party. You can trust them only to the extent that you trust that third party. I suppose you could run them from a separate unprivileged account and not put anything sensitive through them...but once you're doing that, then using them is so much hassle that you might as well not bother.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Apple has been doing this to Windows users for a while not. Why shouldn't Google do this to Mac users?
Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc
Nasa's Worldwind is an open source tool that has the same functionality, plus access to local plats as well. Despite the fact that I genuinely like google earth, I have found for most puposes I actually prefer Worldwind.
Currently windows only, and I have not tried it under Wine. The next version is being done in java and I presume should be cross platform.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
The problem with all of these is they are the reverse of what is needed. Every single one of those only tracks what it already knows about and all of them rely on central repositories.
The ideal solution would be something that doesn't keep a 'list' of apps it can track but instead keeps of list of apps that have registered with it on install. It shouldn't rely on a central location to pull down files but allow the app to indicate where to find updates and (in a perfect ideal) how to poll and pull them.
Microsoft doesn't even track all of its OWN apps on Window's Update. And while I imagine Apple's OCD level obsession with maintaining an iron grip on it's products means it probably covers a better percentage of it's own apps, all you need to do is browse the tech news regarding it's handling of the iPhone/iTouch app store to know why it would be a horrible horrible idea for any third party dev to rely on Apple to be kind regarding distributing their updates.
Linux has its sundry package management systems, and they all work well as long as you only install items using them, and the central repositories are great for finding the software you need. But if you don't happen to fit in with the "open source" world view, how likely do you think your software and its updates are going to even be in the repository?
I suppose, for the systems that can handle multiple repositories, your app could just make sure to add it's own to the list and add a "I'm installed" value wherever the system keeps track of that info, if you coded it to be able to detect and understand all of the various systems and how they store data (and of course, hopefully to detect if the version and flavor of package management you use is newer than it, since you'd get a lot of love mail if you happened to trash someone's config file by not realizing they changed formats between 0.0.1.2.a.RC1 and 0.0.1.2.a.RC1.2210).
Another person pointed out File Hippo, and that works on the user side as long as you are willing to trust a third party to track your updates. I used to when I was on a Mac (but that was pre X days). The thing is, you really have to trust them. Both in the sense that they aren't going to send you a trojan and in the sense that they'll keep up to date on updates and not make mistakes like send you alpha crap or an update four versions old that doesn't check what version you have before munging your install.
http://dl.google.com/earth/client/GE5/release_5_0/GoogleEarth-Win-Plus-5.0.11337.1968.exe
It's the program, there's no additional software like the updater. That's from a bit of Googling (funnily enough).
Now you can all go back to complaining about Google for some reason.
I don't know if the current version of Chrome still does this but the first beta of Chrome installed a windows service that checked for updates very frequently - whether you were running their browser or not. I would have thought that checking for an update once a day would be sufficient to keep most people up to date. Their updater was checking once an hour or so - google must be one of the few companies making sure that they have a system that will handle 4x software updates made on the same day. imo google uses the updater as a ping that tracks your IP. Couple that with the info they collect from "safebrowsing", search and their analytics and they have it all. Updater - yeah right. Needless to say, chrome is history.
The line is a lie. If your 'n' key is broken, that is.
... and then they built the supercollider.
This is something that software makers tend to assume and that is that the main reason I bought my machine was to run their software. But in most cases that is no true. One of the reasons I switched to Mac was that I found that applications installed on a Mac tended to stick with their own little set of directories; Not muddling with a registry or adding services and whatnot. My HP printer drivers are real bastards and I can't wait to toss my printer because of them. What I would love is an OS that would have a selective commit for installations. It would advise you of all the changes that some stupid application is planning on making with checkboxes beside each change. Then when the app installed the OS would politely ignore the unchecked changes. But ideally all applications that don't absolutely need it would just install themselves into a single set of directories, one set for each application. Then with a single rm -f any given application would vanish like it was never there.
Not to troll, but the common refrain that Macs are safer because people can't write malware for them seems to be falling down. A program whose operation you can't control, that gets instructions from elsewhere, and does things you don't want...isn't that the basis for a botnet? For a worm?
At least a few people here do seem to be realizing that any OS and website, no matter how sacred, is going to reach that line where it decides what's good for you and your computer, and not you.
I'm especially cowardly and anonymous now.
- Uninstaller bugs, I remember a number of games which were mistakenly coded to wipe out the root folder of the drive you installed them to instead of the actual app folder.
Use a standard uninstaller. IIRC, in Windows the installer/uninstaller is a separate program that gets updated with the OS.
- Security bugs, or did you forget that there are online and sharing components to Google Earth? What sort of fun could you do with a malformed KML file if Google's parser was fucked up enough to allow buffer overflows?
- Accidental file corruption. "Whoops, we were supposed to just load that Window's DLL, but we accidentally got it caught up in a write operation to save your KML file."
- Many other screw ups that are possible with ANY program you run regardless of its intent, if it was written poorly or has a mistake coded in.
None of these are going to hurt anything if the program isn't running. Despite your disparaging comments, I did read the thread. Gizzmonic's premise is that this is an app you run very rarely.
When you finally do run the program, the first thing it should do is check for updates. The risk is limited to a catastrophic bug that gets triggered immediately upon execution before the program can notify you of the update.
Now consider that any of these bugs could happen in the updater itself, a program designed to fetch and execute arbitrary code that runs 24x7. A bug in an program on your hard disk is one thing. A bug in a constantly running application is quite another.
Did I ever say that wouldn't work? No. I said having an updater is a more reliable and stable option.
And my retort is that the worst case scenario is acceptably reliable and stable. It's not reason enough to warrant a separate client just for updating.
I agree with you that there needs to be a standard update daemon. That's why I didn't quibble on that point. Where we disagree is the comparative utility of running per-application daemons versus just checking for updates on startup. You seem to think the former is always better. I think the latter is perfectly acceptable, especially for rarely used apps. I've explained why. There's no need to get angry about it.
It amazes me how easily those who are knowledgeable about computer technology accept abuse. It seems to me that the head of that department of Google should be fired. After a few executives are fired, all the rest would get the message. It Google moving to Microsoft's business model of as much abuse as possible?
msconfig is useful for disabling crapware/nagware from running on boot. In msconfig,
Startup > Disable All
Services > Hide All Microsoft Services > Disable All
Reboot. You may not get it all, but you probably took care of 80-90% of it. Vista may require some additional hassle.
In the Windows world, selectively removing software ("slimming down" your system) is often more dangerous than simply preventing it from starting up automatically. Who knows what took place during the install -- the installer basically had free reign of the system. Don't expect "add/remove programs" to account for it all.
Atleast I didn't run the javascript.
You get their damn bloatware updated which installs a service on the computer.
However you can install a version of the program in say VirtualPC and copy the Google Earth folder back to your real PC and get rid of the installer that way. For now at least.
But yes, they crossed a line a long time ago - now they are getting close to being Microsoft Light
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
If you vote with your feet, be sure to let the company know WHY you are leaving and tell them where they can contact if/when they change their policy.
Just 10 people giving active feedback about what is 'wrong', is worth 1000 people quitting for no reason.
google can do what they want, you have to agree to play on their terms or go home.
I dislike how firefox auto downloads the update. There must be a way to disable that. Often this happens while I am using a slow proxy.
+1, and Adobe's file browser doesn't even offer an improved experience or value compared to the computer's own.
One issue with this is maintaining your user's privacy. I'm certain many tinfoiler hatters would think twice before letting Microsoft (or another OS developer) know that they're using certain apps (Tor, for example).
OS X software amde by Apple!
The last time Google Toolbar turned up on my computer it asked me to accept the EULA and I declined. I have not heard a peep out of it since.
Mike
A few years ago they took out the option to let you choose where to install Google Earth, so I stopped using it (I didn't have the space to spare on my C drive).
Is it fixed yet?
"What is Google trying to be, Microsoft?"
If Google absorbed enough layoff refuse from Microsoft, it's not that much of a jump to figure out that their culture is being influenced by the spawn of Redmond.
I interviewed over at MSFT, and I've never met a more closed-minded, not invented here group of .. of... many words for NIH come to mind.
Reading thru the posts at the Goog Groups link just pounded home that the Goog person answering the posts came off as MSFT or ex-MSFT.
Google Updater = Facebook Beacon = Vista
I wonder if the support critters came from any of those previous teams?
Oddly enough, this is something many Linux distros already do automatically. On Ubuntu, I have one program that updates everything I have installed. And it doesn't even surprise me with an automatic reboot like Windows Update.
I guess Microsoft just doesn't have the manpower to put useful things like this in its 7th/8th generation Windows OS.
Microsoft's lack of innovation in its core OS function is the reason why other companies are building mini-OS functions on top of it.
Google's customers / audience are the advertisers and the INVESTORS as they are a publicly traded company.
The only thing they're really scared of is 'bad press' as this drives away advertisers and puts little hammer dings in their stock price.
Therefore, generate enough bad press and they'll be shamed into changing [but not stopping] the practice; all you have to do is look at the FaceBook Beacon fiasco to see the power of shame in action
So is there a pirated one without the updater to keep things all piratey and not break them?
Looks like Google just crossed the line into doing something, dare I say it...... Evil.
So you would think the phuckers at Apple would get it right wouldn't you?
The fact is that they can only do web software with all this fancy ajax and shit. Take google on mac: can't switch off VERY EXHAUSTING indexing of google desktop if on battery power (they should only run indexing with looow priority, if on batter and so on) and the fact that you can't fucking control the update mechanisms as every other sensible software (even macosx itself) allows you to.
Luckily little snitch helps on macosx and network problems. But they still suck. But I still use their softwar....
I am too of the opinion that updates (at least minor ones) should be silent and efficient.
FF, Nod32, Microsoft Media Center and others do it well, you get a little notification which can be turned off that says your software has been updated and that's it. The computer is a tool for me, not me being a tool for my computer. I don't have to waste any time going over all my apps and upgrading them, instead I want it all be automatic and unobtrusive.
The real question is: do you trust the application provider.
If you do, then you should have no problem allowing them to make silent updated. I trust Google, Microsoft and Apple to make sure that all their updates are good for my PC and Mac. That's me. If you don't then just don't install the software, it's really simple.
People, no one forces you to use Google Earth or any other Google product for that matter. I got this updater thingie when I installed Picasa 3 for Mac and what do you know ? I'm happy.
They are re-inventing the wheel. Everyone from GNU die-hard developers to big evil (!) commercial companies rely on a single framework, Sparkle.
http://sparkle.andymatuschak.org/
Users even suggest Apple to acquire it but IMHO it is good this way, as independent software/framework.
If they are insist on re-inventing the wheel and add a launch daemon running as "root" to everyone's macs while Sparkle runs basically as user, people has right to go paranoid. That "We are not evil" isn't really credible anymore, it is only Google and their fans believing it.
Sounds like they took a page from Apple's iTunes and/or Quicktime Software on the PC. How many pc's have I seen that started with the Quicktime plugin and then ended up with Itunes and Safari only a matter of months later. (I often get asked int hese situations, What's Safari?)
Welp guys, to the posts that have said "Really, there should be some centralized thing to take care of these updates, I have so many update checks on my (Windows/Mac OSX) system....
Linux distros don't have this problem. Software updates are done via the update manager (Ubuntu) or package manager (in general). Acrobat doesn't have an auto-updater. Java doesn't have an auto-updater. Azureus/vuze has a reminder thingy that shows up at startup, but the several distros I've run it on set the "check for updates" option to *off* (since the package manager takes care of this.) The few proprietary drivers I've used (Samsung color laser -- has an open driver but the proprietary has better color... and of course nvidia driver..) -- no autoupdater. And so on.
It's simple -- it shows the "you have updates" balloon, click the baloon, click "install updates", put in root password. Except instead of having to do this for every app, you do it once and you're up to date on everything. For somewhat more control you can uncheck individual updates, the security ones are up top with normal ones below (clicking each one shows a description of what it's actually fixing). If you want even more control you can set it to never check for updates, then you run update-manager yourself to check for updates. If you want less control, you can set it to download updates automatically, or update and install automatically.
Google apps installed.
It really makes the Earth look a lot more realistic
Google crossed that line a long time ago.
The file to patch is libgoogleearth_lib.dylib
x86:
InstallKeystoneIfNeeded()
+22 0006ec66 7418 je 0x0006ec80
Patch to NOPs (0x90).
PowerPC:
InstallKeystoneIfNeeded()
+32 000716b0 409e02c0 bne cr7,0x71970
Patch to unconiditional jump: 4800 instead 409e.
Glass, Fuck Google in the Ass
Google Earth crossed the line when it was first announced, because the
client is non-free software. Being non-free means the developer
controls it and you don't, so the developer can pull many kinds
of fast ones. This one is visible -- others are not.
Defend your rights: insist on free software.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/
Richard M Stallman