Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th May 2009 08:24 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 362232
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I would instead prefer auto-updates like Chrome with the ability to change the setting for users who wants to.
I, too, would prefer if Google Update provided settings for frequency and notifications. Vote for relevant bugs here:
http://code.google.com/p/omaha/issues/list
(edit: fixed the link)
Edited 2009-05-07 09:44 UTC
This is the best solution for most people.
You simply can't trust the average user to update their installated apps, have silent updates as the default with the option to turn them off somewhere deep in the preferences menus. Don't give average users the chance to reject an update, otherwise they might end up constantly ignoring it if they consider it to be annoying.
Even though i personally find it intrusive that software updates itself (even if you turn it off, acrobat anyone?) i find it a nessessity in this day and age that browsers keep themselves uptodate. I will find a way to turn it off, but the average joe won't know or care. So the fact that her/his browser keeps itself uptodate security wise, is a good thing for all of us!







Member since:
2007-09-23
I would instead prefer auto-updates like Chrome with the ability to change the setting for users who wants to.
Cause we all know that average Joe will go with defaults, and they need updates the most. So to protect ME from spam and botnets, I want all the Joes out there to have updated software. And we will only get that if we just skip asking about it.