Slashdot Mirror
Google Open Sources Updater
Jamie noticed the news that Google Update is now Open Source. The article acknowledges the privacy and security concerns of an application that is always running in the background of your machine, and authorized to install new software. And Google made the logically obvious conclusion that releasing the source code would alleviate those concerns.
Well I feel much safer now knowing that the updater is open source. I have for one have no worries about the code actually being updated... that of course is completely kosher.
Get a web developer
to the "do no evil" slogan.
And of course, this goes hand-in-hand with keeping Chromium easy to use.
I would prefer it if they fixed Google Update instead of releasing the source.
Thanks to the source release, you now have more than just one "they" to look at.
There are several reasons why Google Update runs all the time that you're missing, but the crucial assumption you seem to be making is that the process is "constantly running using up resources".
Google Update was coded pretty carefully to sleep nearly all the time and have as minimal a footprint as possible. I challenge you to detect any degredation of system performance with it running, especially since its CPU and memory load is less than any of several dozen always-running services that come with the OS.
Why do we need GoogleUpdater anyway?
OK, you could make a case that security updates, especially for 'critical' apps like Chrome, should be 'pushed', but what's wrong with doing that the way other people do, namely checking for an update when you run the program?
On my Mac I just changed permissions on the /Library/Google/GoogleSoftwareUpdate and ~/Library/Google/GoogleSoftwareUpdate folders to 000, and Google Earth no longer reinstalls the updater or asks me to do so. I never gave GE my password. I'm not sure what the workaround is for Windows.
1. Install Linux
2. Follow above instructions.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Google doesn't have an updater on Linux, at least not one that came with Google Earth or Google Picasa.
My blog
First, an always running updater is a security hole of the first order. Gain access to it, and someone malicious could do anything it could do, meaning alter applications without our knowledge.
Second, there's in this the now-typical Google 'we rule the world' attitude in this--much like that at Microsoft fifteen years ago. Why should Goggle applications has an always running updater while other don't? Not even Apple makes that sort of demands and OS X is one heck of a lot more important to a Mac than anything Google might do.
Third, CmdrTaco is being naive if he thinks open sourcing an abomination leads to the "obvious conclusion" that it's to be trusted. He forgets that the danger lies in the code that's being downloaded, not the code that is doing the downloading. It's the idea itself that's bad not the implementation.
Finally, what does Google intend this open sourcing to do? Do they want every application on our computer to have an auto-update-without-asking running continually in the background? Bad as what Google is doing, that'd be an even worse horror. And like Google, they're not likely to tell us what they're doing.
I believe it was the philosopher Kant who offered as a moral test the question, "What would the world be like if everyone did this?" One person lying doesn't usually do much harm. Everyone lying would make life almost unbearable.
Having every application behaving like Google's would be an utter disaster. Open-sourcing Google's code makes as much sense as marketing a "Do It Yourself A-Bomb Kit" in the Middle East. The malicious genie is out of the bottle. Now we have to consider the possibility that every obscure application we download contains Google's dastardly code. A seemingly benign application could mutate on command into a monster. And because it spreads any time we're online, it could spread like wildfire. Google doesn't even seem to have been thinking when they came up with open-sourcing their monster.
What the Greeks called hubris, overweening pride, has struck again. Google has replaced Microsoft as the giant, high-tech business that seems most clueless about the distinction between good and evil, sensible and foolish. They censored the Internet for China, they claimed to own every book not in print, and now they want to determine what's on our computers without our consent and without our knowledge.
There are several reasons why Google Update runs all the time that you're missing, but the crucial assumption you seem to be making is that the process is "constantly running using up resources".
All of this handwaving is unnecessary, since the problem is "ethical" in a sense. The user does not want to have google updater running for whatever reason => the user should be able to remove it whenever he wants. I suppose the rootkit sony installed back in the day didn't consume too much resources either.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
There are several reasons why Google Update runs all the time that you're missing, but the crucial assumption you seem to be making is that the process is "constantly running using up resources".
Google Update was coded pretty carefully to sleep nearly all the time and have as minimal a footprint as possible. I challenge you to detect any degredation of system performance with it running, especially since its CPU and memory load is less than any of several dozen always-running services that come with the OS.
Doesn't matter. Just have it run once a week on startup like most apps do and we're fine.
As far as Windows goes, it'd be nice if third parties could register with Windows update. You install app X, it now gets to be polled on Windows update at whatever schedule you use. Update available, there you go. It'd be like what the Linux distros do with their lovely updaters.
I just hate extraneous shit that gets installed and harshes your computer's well-being. Perfect example are the shitty printer TSR's that just sit there in the corner hogging up resources waiting for you to print. Why? Unnecessary! And when you uninstall them it's like your computer gets a needle of adrenaline right in the heart, it's ten times faster than you're used to.
About only half of what sucks about Windows can be directly blamed on Microsoft. The rest of it has to be blamed on the third party apps.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Yes, because the tiny geek population has a fractional percentage of paranoid people who demand updater be turned off constantly, they need to completely change their model. How about this, people who suffer from extreme paranoia just don't use google products, and the updater stays the way it is? I know that for 99% of the population I deal with, everything possible needs to automated or they will never get any security fixes at all. Those of us with the knowledge to turn services on and off, etc, and just turn the thing off.
The problem is fundamentally social. Companies, and social groups in general, are always both growing socially and dying socially. In a company as well-established as Google, the challenge is to keep the processes of growth stronger than the processes of death.
More and more, Google seems to be out of control. There seems to be insufficient friendly oversight of the many initiatives inside the company. That typically occurs because everyone is busy, and because there is no one inside the company who both understands particular social processes and has the power and insight to influence them. Friendly, creative management is a lot more difficult than the average person realizes.
Of course, Google started from a very high level of excellent management. Google's management ability was initially not only in providing an excellent search engine, but also in being able to build the infrastructure necessary to serving billions of queries of a database, each in less than a second.
I'm very interested in such issues: Futurepower®.
Google Update installs itself without my permission, runs without notifying me, and is difficult to disable and uninstall. This fits my definition of malware. I'd like to have an option for my anti-virus and anti-malware software to start detecting and destroying programs like these.
-- 77IM
Student: Is it true that the foundation of the universe is paradox?
Master: Well, yes and no.
MOD PARENT UP! '... the problem is "ethical" in a sense.'
Processes that run all the time make computer administration more complicated. The issue is not just one process; many, many companies want control over user's computers and believe that a system process is the way to achieve that.
Google Updater should run only when a program supplied by Google is running. Unnecessary control is always a reason for criticism, not just unnecessary control over other people's computers. Google managers must weigh whatever hidden benefits they hope to get with the widespread bad public relations that comes from being discussed on Slashdot for doing something many people don't like.