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
Someone add a feature to turn it off completely.
It's not the privacy and security aspects of having Googel Update always running in the background that concerns me, it's that a process that is only needed once in a while is constantly running using up resources unnecessarily.
Adobe seems to have got it right with its latest version of Adobe Updater - only launch when an Adobe product is launched and in addition allow the user to modify the schedule. I can set Adobe Updater to never check for updates (do it manually) only once a month, or every time, but the crucial part is that it only runs when I run Photoshop (or whatever).
No need to have an updater constantly running in the background at all.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Yes, but as always happens when you open source software, a huge community will immediately spring up from the ground to fork it and start adding features to it. After a few months, that community will decide what it really needs is a ground-up rewrite. After 5 years and several hundred alpha releases, you'll be able to download the first beta of the rewritten app, which by this point will have morphed into an entire Linux distribution which, unfortunately, lacks decent software update capabilities.
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.
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.