Google Earth 5.0 Silently Changes Update Policy 535
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?"
It's my computer (Score:4, Informative)
And I want to be in control of if it's going to crap or not.
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Informative)
So don't install Google Earth.
Wow, that was easy!
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Informative)
It's modded funny, but it is accurate. If you don't like Google's policy and they won't change it....vote with your feet. I actually uninstalled google earth because of this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you dont want to fight, retreat. If you keep retreating you will lose a war without a single battle being fought, a cowards way to go out.
If a company is acting abusively you need to punish it via the government. If you `vote with your feet they will take away every right you have. Companies should not be able to modify your computer at their discretion, EULA or not.
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Insightful)
No, actually, because companies need customers to survive.
Wow, that's just scary. Wait, I get it... I'm feeding a troll, right?
And they're not. People are voluntarily installing the software Google provided and agreeing to the terms they set. The article summary clearly points out that the software warns that it's going to install the updater. If a person doesn't agree to the terms, then they shouldn't use the software. It's that fucking simple. Where did you get the idea that you get to set the terms at which you get other people's stuff?
If Google has something, and you want to use it, you're gonna have to play by the rules they set for it, or not use their shit. That's just the way it works. What would you do if Google said "Well, we're just not going to release Google Earth at all."?
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Insightful)
No, actually, because companies need customers to survive.
But in the case of Google, you're not the customer, you're the product. Google's customers are the advertisers, and they're selling your eyeballs.
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Insightful)
If people would stop being so apathetic to the world around them and start taking a stand, then industry would attempt to police itself more. The problem doesn't lie with abusive corporations, the problem lies in lazy people who don't do anything about it.
And before you say "well I'm powerless to do anything", I'm saying the problem isn't you personally, but society as a whole. Writing a harshly worded letter to your politician is boring, the majority of the population, en masse, quickly moving loyalties from one company to another over perceived trust issues, that will keep corporations on their toes. History has taught us, the truth always comes out.
Corporations aren't innocent, but their guilt exists due in big part to lack of consumer pressure.
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, that's fine with me, because I'm not an idiot. I actually read the shit I'm about to agree to, so I wouldn't use your product after seeing that in the EULA. Problem solved.
<sarcasm>Yeah, the "right" to use other people's shit on any terms you want is right up there with free speech and freedom of the press. I can't believe they left that one off the Bill of Rights...</sarcasm>
The difference is that interactions with a company are voluntary. You don't have to use Google's products. There's Yahoo, Gigablast, Clusty, and hundreds more. There's MapQuest and WorldWind and others. There's OpenOffice, Abiword, KOffice, Microsoft Office, and more. You have all of those alternatives, and you can use whichever one you want, without anybody telling you otherwise.
You don't have a choice with the government - you do what they say or they throw you in jail.
If that's an "American point of view", then you're probably right. We are supposed to be the shining example of a free country, so it only makes sense that we'd prefer freedom over government bullying.
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Insightful)
If you dont want to fight, retreat. If you keep retreating you will lose a war without a single battle being fought, a cowards way to go out.
This isn't a war... If you don't like Google's policy don't install the software. That's not retreating, that's taking power away from Google (the less people using their software the less power they have.) If everyone "retreats" Google loses (it's hard to maintain a company with no customers), it's as simple as that.
If a company is acting abusively you need to punish it via the government.
What is Google doing that's worthy of government intervention? Google isn't breaking into your home and installing their software on your computer. You make the choice whether you want to use their software or not, if you don't like what the software does then don't install it.
If you `vote with your feet they will take away every right you have. Companies should not be able to modify your computer at their discretion, EULA or not.
I'm sorry but what rights do you have as far as Google's concerned? Software companies can't take away your "rights" since your rights aren't granted by the software companies. As long as you aren't being forced to install Google's software (and you're not) you still have your rights.
Re:It's my computer (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't a war... If you don't like Google's policy don't install the software.
Yes, it is.
I remember when CDs were CDs. Not disks that fit into my CDROM drive and install rootkits.
On Windows, every piece of software wants to install a daemon like this Google one into the tray thingy and periodically yell at you about updates and stuff (Sun's JVM does this, do most people even know what java is?).
My point, is that if we don't install any software, then what is the point of having a computer? Its easy to say, don't install X or Y, but when every company has a PHB who thinks its cool to have these terdlets that run outside of the program that I intended to install, well we have to put a stop this somehow. So, yeah, I would consider it a war in some sense.
Re:It's my computer (Score:4, Insightful)
That's like saying, "My Yugo sucks. What's the point of having a car?"
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Insightful)
Sun Tzu says:
A good general can fight a hundred battles and win them all
A great general can win a war without fighting a single battle
(or something like that, with apologies to the Master :-))
Guerillas all over the world are winning from large armies by retreating and refusing to fight a large battle. If you don't use google and badmouth google to your less tech-savvy friends, they will feel the pain.
Re:It's my computer (Score:4, Informative)
I dunno where AC gets his information, I haven't found this to be the case with my mac.
For one...you can turn the software updater off.
2nd, I have set it to auto check and prompt me for what updates I want...when I accept, it downloads and installs them. And at the installation phase, I have to give it a password with authority to install..so, that is also a place you can stop the process.
I've not come across the problem with them sneaking software on my computer without my knowledge yet...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"It's modded funny, but it is accurate. If you don't like Google's policy and they won't change it....vote with your feet. I actually uninstalled google earth because of this."
It's not funny. I also uninstalled all Google software from my machine, and then ran the directories removing any leftovers.
A.
(and don't blather on about Apple Software Update - you can turn that off/tell it how often to update/etc.)
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Informative)
I actually got this upgrader on my system from installing Google SketchUp on my Mac last month, so I don't think Google is limiting this to Earth.
Re:It's my computer (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Interesting)
For goodness sake. Am I the only one that likes the Google Updater?
Let's review the benefits it has:
I think people overestimate the resource drain this app has. Really, this should be a core part of Windows. I'd much rather desktop apps behave like web apps and just get silently better instead of expecting me to give a rats ass about the existence of a 0.0.1 point release.
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Interesting)
Looks like it
No, it bloody isn't. That's the sort of thing malware does. My computer is mine and things on it get installed and updated only under my consent.
It's the principle of the thing. This action alone ensured nothing else of Google's will get on my computer.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This really does confuse me. Google should be smarter than this.
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Insightful)
why not make it a "check for updates on startup" (of the app), and allow the user to disable that? Is that so hard? OR, be forthright enough to tell users AT THE TIME OF THE INSTALLATION that they're agreeing to install an app that they have no control over, and one that keeps coming back even if you get rid of it? I don't see the point, nor do I see why Google insists on making it some kind of requirement that they are obtuse about in their instructions? What happened to "Don't be evil"?
I remember what these sorts of things are called... malware.
"Don't be evil" (Score:5, Insightful)
Google went public, that's what happened.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The complaint is for the use on OSX, and yet Apple basically did the same thing with iTunes\Safari updater.
Its all wrong no doubt but people in glass houses...
Re:It's my computer (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it's not the same thing at all. The OS X system update daemon (which is responsible for updating the OS and a few applications that came with the OS) can be disabled by the user, and the user has the option of refusing individual updates. The default behavior is to download the updates automatically, but prompt the user before installing them. The Google updater, on the other hand, gives the user no control whatsoever.
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, I guess you don't know how to read: "So don't install Google Earth."
i.e. don't install it to begin with
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Insightful)
So are you just not ever going to install anything on your computer? Or did you not bother to read the part that said:
Would you tell someone finds out the toys his kid has been playing with were painted with lead-based paints "just don't buy your kid any toys and you'll be okay?" Or do you think that when we find out someone is doing something that is just plain unacceptable, we should shine a light on that behavior and motivate them to smarten up?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Shitty software is an old problem, and what Google Earth is doing here, is just one of the hundreds of ways that software can screw you.
There's other software out there that turns your computer into a spammers' botnet node. You can also find software that deletes your data, shows you ads, treats foreign-fetched supposedly-static data as executable code, contains easily-exploitable buffer overflows, implements DRM, or uses lots of memory
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Insightful)
It has nothing to do with installing the software and everything to do with a major change in policy with no warning. If Microsoft makes a change like this people never say "so don't use their product" they wail on and on about user rights. Google on the other hand is defended like a religion.
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is just as bad in this regard.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You want to be in control... (Score:5, Insightful)
... so you bought a Mac???
Re:You want to be in control... (Score:5, Insightful)
the troll has a point. Apple is the king of installing background crap on your computer. (well, they are if you use their software on windows, at least)
Even if you kill apple software updater, no matter how many times I click "no" and "don't ask me again" iTunes still pops up a (@*&(#*&$@(* do you want to update box whenever I start it.
Re:You want to be in control... (Score:5, Funny)
I have you beat. Everytime I close iTunes (without my iPod plugged in even), it decides I didn't really want to do that and opens back up again. I have to camp on the process monitor and premptively kill the process two or three times before it'll stop trying to come back to life.
I've been told an uninstall/reinstall will fix it, but if it does, the problem seems common enough that it only 'does' for a couple of runs.
Re:You want to be in control... (Score:5, Informative)
When this happened to me, it turned out to be another process that was polling iTunes for my currently playing tune. I think it was a chat app.
I'm not saying that's the problem in your case, but it might help you debug.
Re:You want to be in control... (Score:4, Funny)
iTunes keeps opening for me.
I don't even have it installed.
Re:You want to be in control... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple is the king of installing background crap on your computer. (well, they are if you use their software on windows, at least)
Indeed. That's precisely the reason I do not have iTunes or Quicktime installed on my computer (and if somebody really wants to show me a quicktime-format video, I tell them to encode it to something else).
We all know Google runs Windows on all their computers... maybe this is their way of secretly getting back at Apple for all the trouble they've caused our RAM chips.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I do not have iTunes or Quicktime installed on my computer because apparently Windows 2000 is not shiny enough for watching mov files. /me thinks it is drm related
Re:You want to be in control... (Score:5, Informative)
Or you can't read... here's a clicky-clicky link [apple.com].
Here's how I got there:
1) www.apple.com
2) Click on "iPod + iTunes" button at the top
3) Click on "Download iTunes"
4) Scroll down, just under the Spanish option, you see, OMG - "Windows 2000 Users". If you have NoScript enabled, the link may be obscured behind the text, but it's at the left column at the bottom. Not at the very bottom of the page, though. If javascript is enabled, it's plainly visible.
It's not iTunes 8, but they're apparently still supporting iTunes 7.5.2.
Anyhow, remember to right-click on the QuickTime icon and set your QuickTime preferences to not startup at windows startup to eliminate that annoying process.
Re:You want to be in control... (Score:5, Informative)
It does pop up at random times when you don't have iTunes running.
I don't use iTunes. Never have. It's installed on my computer because my wife uses it, but she has her own account. I still get the stupid updater asking if I want to update iTunes and all the cruft that comes with it.
Worse, I use a non-admin account for day-to-day stuff. Even if I did want to update iTunes, the account I'm logged in to doesn't have the privileges to do so. You'd think someone would have thought to check that.
Re:You want to be in control... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, come on..... I've been primarily a Mac user since around 2000, and yes, one reason I did so was because I want to feel in control of my computers.
That is, I don't like web sites arbitrarily pushing out and launching apps/applets via Active-X and security vulnerabilities in Windows, and I don't like having to run a bunch of resource-intensive software in the background to help "shield" my PC from malware.
Apple's built-in updater in OS X allows you to deselect any update you'd like it not to install, and it lets you select the frequency it goes out to check for updates. As updaters go, I always thought it was quite well-behaved and well-integrated.
(By contrast, look at something like Microsoft's whole "Microsoft Updates" thing. They've got the process that you can let run in the background to notify you and optionally auto-install any "critical updates" they push out. But at the same time, you have to visit their "Microsoft Updates" web page and manually select the rest of the stuff. Many times, it wastes double the bandwidth because you'll visit their page to grab a slew of updates, only to find the background process is ALSO simultaneously trying to download the critical updates the update site tagged and is downloading. It's not smart enough to integrate the two together.)
Re:It's my computer (Score:4, Interesting)
Right. Updaters are fine, I love them, but I want to be in control, and I want to be able to turn them off if I want to. I should be able to run them when I want to run them, not on their schedule.
(I also would like to choose which applications get the auto-update).
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Informative)
You can turn it off with Lingon [tuppis.com] which is a launchd [wikipedia.org] editor. I would suggest taking this route over trying to just delete all the files. You can probable even change the schedule to only trip every night at 3 am or so. The program may see the config files are gone and just re-install them.
Second, does this 'run constantly in the background' or is it launched like a cron event? For those that don't know, launchd [wikipedia.org] is Apple's replacement for "init, rc, the init.d and rc.d scripts, SystemStarter (Mac OS X), inetd and xinetd, atd, crond and watchdogd". You can set up launchd events for about anything. Launch on startup, launch every X seconds, launch when a folder is changed, etc, etc. I can't imagine that this is actually a daemon but instead just a scheduled event.
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Informative)
Second, does this 'run constantly in the background' or is it launched like a cron event?
To me, it looks like it is run once through launchd on startup, and then uses launchd to fire it up every 2 hours. So yeah, I don't think it's a daemon.
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Insightful)
and users should also be allowed to pick & opt out of any update they want. i hate how Apple Software Update, which comes with the Windows version of iTunes, will keep prompting the user about the same "updates" (often completely unrelated to iTunes or any other application the user has installed) until the user downloads and installs it. if you don't, the update will keep popping up or remain in the notification area/system tray.
just because i want to keep iTunes updated doesn't mean i want to install Safari (how is that an update anyhow?) or Bonjour/Rendezvous. at least now Apple makes an attempt (though a feeble one, as they're still using their "updater" to peddle unrelated & unsolicited software).
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
yes, that's what i eventually did. but it certainly would have been nice if Apple had made that option more visible instead of hiding it in a "Tools" menu--or they could simply use the updater to provide updates to installed applications.
really, these are almost malware-like tactics clearly designed to frustrate the average user into installing software that they neither need nor want. using an updater to push other applications is simply dishonest and undermines the purpose of an automatic updater, destroy [jubjubs.net]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
All of which is entirely fair, and should apply equally to iTunes for Windows, which forever wants to keep installing more and more of the MacOS desktop instead of fixing the fact that it's by an order or magnitude (no exaggerating, here, really) the least responsive app on my desktop.
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Interesting)
They did fix one thing in this version that several people complained about: GE 4.3 for Linux required a certain processor flag (SSE2) that 32 bit AMD processors don't have. Strangely, they did not require it for the Windows version; I was able to use GE 4.3 on this AMD Sempron without a problem under Windows.
Fortunately, GE 5.0 doesn't require that flag under Linux. I'm glad they fixed it, because I wasn't going to upgrade my desktop computer just to run the latest GE. GE 4.3 Linux requirements update [google.com].
So it appears the team does listen to feedback. I hope they'll listen to this new concern as well.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
chmod 444 $updater
Dang straight. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's my computer (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes indeed. It just strikes me that Google is beginning to show it's true face of an advertising empire that it is, with a technology front to keep our minds from thinking about it too much.
I'm more angry... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You might want to check it out. Altough the software says that it supports GE4.3, I did build GE5.0 ant it runs.
disable on mac (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Slightly OT: Obtaining current imagery? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Slightly OT: Obtaining current imagery? (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you considered paying for a commercial product?
Re:Slightly OT: Obtaining current imagery? (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering that they're probably volunteers in a rural area, they probably don't have the money to pay for it.
Re:Slightly OT: Obtaining current imagery? (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe you should threaten google that you will stop paying them if they don't update the images.
Re:Slightly OT: Obtaining current imagery? (Score:5, Funny)
Let me amend my earlier posting. Our Search & Rescue Team is 100% voluntary. We provide our own gas and vehicles. To say we don't have a pot to p*ss in would be an understatement. The area we cover is around 8000 square miles. Much of that is pretty rugged country and more often than not, the Google Earth imagery is useless to us. At the same time, we're dealing with USGS topo maps that haven't been updated since man walked erect. What I'm seriously asking for is a point of contact who can at least enlighten me as to why some areas are updated on what appears to be a monthly basis when there are so many areas that are woefully out of date. And yes I have looked at a commercial product. It's VERY expensive. Clearly there is some method that Google uses to get current imagery. I'd just like to find out how you get on their satellite schedule. BTW, snarky comments aren't helpful. I'll remember them next time you get lost.
Re:Slightly OT: Obtaining current imagery? (Score:4, Insightful)
I know what you mean about sketchy updates. I can view the exact hut I used to live in when I was a volunteer in Africa, but until last summer, the city where I live, near Toronto, had only low-res maps. It was difficult to even pick out where the streets and highways were!
Re:Slightly OT: Obtaining current imagery? (Score:4, Informative)
Google doesn't commission the images to be made, they pay to license already existing images. Then google patches them together. For example, my city commissioned some satellite images a while back for a certain stretch of town for highway construction purposes. A couple years later, some higher resolution images showed up on Google Earth. I guess no one has taken an interest in your area enough to have recent pictures taken.
Re:Slightly OT: Obtaining current imagery? (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems they get them from all over the place, look at the message on the bit of map you're looking at, that usually gives you a clue where they come from. Being voluntary, you may be able to approach whoever-it-is directly and see if they will be kind.
For example, where I live (Isle of Man) we didn't have even a street map let alone images that were better than about 1 pixel per km^2. However, a couple of years ago the Isle of Man Government flew a light plane up and down the island - and guess what the information provider shown by Google is - Isle of Man Govt. (Many of the hi-res "satellite images" aren't from a satellite at all, but from an aircraft flying relatively low).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have no idea how they get their images, but they can be a bit weird about it. I work for a county government that maintains it's own GIS system. In general, our data and images for our area are in MUCH greater detail that the ones shown on Google Earth. Knowing how many people use that tool, our GIS department actually tried to get in touch with Google's map division in order to offer (freely) to send over our data so that they could use it as they saw fit. They were basically brushed off.
Re:Slightly OT: Obtaining current imagery? (Score:5, Interesting)
I am not in the PR team here at Google, so this is not an official, accurate answer but I'll do the best I can. If these answers aren't quite accurate, well, tough noogies, it's Slashdot. That said, here are some answers to your questions:
So fellow Slashdotters, has Google crossed the li (Score:4, Insightful)
YES
Re: So fellow Slashdotters, has Google crossed the (Score:3, Informative)
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 $0.02.
Re: So fellow Slashdotters, has Google crossed the (Score:3, Insightful)
If selling their soul to do business in China wasn't crossing the line then I don't see how this could be.
Evil? No. Annoying? Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
I still don't understand why all these companies feel like they need to create their own bloated ecosystem on top of the OS. All the #$%@#! 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 $@#%'s sake! And their updater nags and doesn't work properly half the time.
I'm not excited to see Google go down this path. If this is cloud computing, I'd rather be from the moon!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with 'self-updating' apps is you have to ensure that you never change the way they check for updates or at least always maintain the old paths. If you don't, then that person who only runs the app three times a year is never going to get the update.
On top of that, you now have to maintain this setup for each app you distribute.
Having a 'mother program' which watches over all the apps and downloads updates for them on a regular schedule is a far more stable and reliable way of doing things.
What r
Re:Evil? No. Annoying? Yes! (Score:4, Interesting)
I still don't understand why all these companies feel like they need to create their own bloated ecosystem on top of the OS. All the #$%@#! 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.
Sparkle (Score:5, Informative)
Why on Earth can't they use something like Sparkle [andymatuschak.org], 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.
I don't trust Google apps (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [hacker.co.il].
Proprietary OSs need a unified updater. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Proprietary OSs need a unified updater. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Proprietary OSs need a unified updater. (Score:4, Insightful)
That requires each of the companies you listed to cooperate.
Companies generally don't like to do that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's one option, but Microsoft could step in and develop an application that monitors the update requirements of programs.
It's done on Linux... why not MS? It could even save companies money buy not having to develop a fancy updater of their own.
Could be worse (Score:3, Interesting)
Not for the faint of heart? (Score:5, Informative)
Admittedly, I moved to Mac after 10 years running Linux, but the procedure, cut 'n' pasted below, seems simple enough.
Re:Not for the faint of heart? (Score:4, Funny)
HP's updater (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Only for the beta (Score:5, Funny)
You Still Have A Choice, Right? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Don't be rude? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Not only on MacOS X... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Not only on MacOS X... (Score:5, Informative)
FYI, the trick for googleupdate in windows is that it is now an entry in /windows/tasks ... so there is no service to kill, you have to remove the scheduled task.
Depends (Score:3, Insightful)
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."
Outrageous (Score:3, Funny)
If I were you, I would phone Google and ask for my money back!
Oh wait...
First freedom, slashdot is now redefining privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
And they said OSX is virus free.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Big Deal? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Big Deal? (Score:4, Interesting)
If you get a full install of Bonjour (downloading it from Apple directly instead of getting it with an install of iTunes) it's a fairly nice and useful tool. Unfortunately, the Windows install that comes with iTunes is loboitmized (probably in an effort to avoid complaints, but it's still a shame) and really doesn't do much more than let iTunes share it's library.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The difference is the similiar program on windows, has an Preferences menu item where you can set the 'check for updates' frequency to 'never'.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Big Deal? (Score:5, Informative)
Bonjour is the network discovery protocol (DAAP) that makes it so your computer can find and connect networked or wireless speakers, printers, share music libraries and more without having to manually find and type in IP addresses especially when you're on DHCP in your house (which you most likely are). I use it at work to advertise machines with certain services (like distributed computing/compiling) to the network so that I don't have to scan for them. It also gives you great DNS services without needing to configure a DNS server (like P2P for DNS).
Bonjour is one of the reasons networking is so 'easy' on Mac's and even on Linux (if you install it). It's similar to Windows' equivalent of Windows Zeroconfig (Microsoft's Link-local Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)) but it adheres to the published and open standards unlike Microsoft implementation which is also the reason that there is only 1 printer at my job that is discovered through Microsoft's protocol and ALL printers (HP Laserjet, Brother and inkjets) are discovered through Bonjour.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On Windows it is really easy to use the msconfig tool and stop things like the itunes updater, google updater, quicktime assistant, acrobat speedup, tkbell(the realplayer app) and a host of others from starting.
Uncheck what you don't want to start. Decide you really like the updater? Go back and click the check box.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yep, every time I run iTunes, it seems, I'm asked to install some new piece of the MacOS desktop. The real problem is that Apple is refusing to port iTunes to Windows. Instead, they're just adding the APIs and support services that they rely on under MacOS to Windows, which means that nothing performs well, as it's all a redundant layer over the Windows functionality that does the same thing.
Re:Scary! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you look at the economy, we're (potentially) on the verge of a 2nd great depression. That's because the people that ran companies around the great depression are now 1 or 2 generations removed from the people that run the things now. The new people just don't have any concept of the Great Depression, and just see ways to make money, and now we're winding up in a similar boat.
Right now Google is helmed by people that are incredibly smart and chant "don't be evil"... what happens in the 2nd or 3rd generation of management 40 years down the line? Will the montra still be there? I bet not.
Re:It just works. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.