Self-updating software

[TheWebAtom]

I'm doing some research for university on software deployment; particularly the notion of software that automatically updates itself. I was hoping you insightful people of this forum could share your thoughts.

 

I'm largely ignoring the web-based model of updating software, focusing on the 'Google Chrome' approach. This involves each new version being automatically downloaded to the users personal computer, then installed silently without any user intervention.

 

So basically, what are your thoughts on software that automatically updates itself? Do you find it frightening or time saving?

 

If you're against it, what kind of protection should developers put in place to make you more comfortable?

[Winapp2.ini]

I think it depends on the software, Shane. For a web browser- it makes a lot of sense. Most end users really don't care what changes under the hood so long as they can still use Facebook. Power users can usually toggle off the auto updater if they're wary of it and change logs are usually enumerated somewhere.

 

CCleaner it makes more sense to have a presented changelog, especially since when new options are added, they're sometimes on by default, and it's good to have a heads up about that.

 

Then again, I make nightly change logs for Firefox and still don't know what's going on sooo..

[Derek891]

Have you ever used Linux Mint 15? There's a small white shield on the taskbar. If there's a green checkmark on the shield, the system software is up to date. If there's a red "X", you can click the shield and the update process starts. It's not automatic, it doesn't harass you with warnings, and it doesn't take over the system while you're in the middle of doing something more important. It only reminds you. Simple and unobtrusive. I like it.

[TheWebAtom]

CCleaner it makes more sense to have a presented changelog, especially since when new options are added, they're sometimes on by default, and it's good to have a heads up about that.

 

So you could say it's okay, so long as the user is made aware of significant changes or new features that are defaulted to on?

[Andavari]

Panda Cloud Antivirus also self-updates

 

what are your thoughts on software that automatically updates itself? Do you find it frightening or time saving?

 

It can be time consuming/wasting when the next version is buggier than the previous, or completely unusable due to bugs. I'd personally like to wait and manually update myself after reading peoples comments on the software forum to see if the update is worth it such as if it's trashed any systems, etc., before subjecting my system to the update.

[hazelnut]

I'm not keen on self-updating software especially when it does it in a silent manner.

 

I much prefer the 'you have an update available for this software' type of info message first. Then, like Andavari, I would research the update first.

 

I beta test software and having something do that could cause 'complications'

[TheWebAtom]

Thanks Andavari and hazelnut!

 

Just to press further, would your opinion change if the automatic updating was only enabled for extremely minor or extremely critical releases?

 

Using CCleaner as an example; if it was discovered a new version of CCleaner was deleting critical system files, would you object to an automatic update going out to disable that specific winapp.ini entry?

[mta]

i also like the updates that only download the changes required, not download the whole software again.

but whenever presented the choice, i always turn off auto updates and manually get them say once a month or when some other prompt reminds me (like this forum!)

or like @hazelnut i go for the 'remind me but let me get them' option.

[Winapp2.ini]

delta changes are cool. Cyanogenmod (android ROM) is working on them (i think they had it working but it borked) and the Play Store uses deltas when updating installed applications. I can't think of any other examples but I'm sure they're out there.

 

To answer your question posed to me, Shane, I think the end user needs to be informed of anything major. Ex with Firefox, the end user doesn't need to know that this crash (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=907986) was fixed, but if Australis suddenly landed, I'd expect that to be explicitly mentioned somewhere.

[Alan_B]

Using CCleaner as an example; if it was discovered a new version of CCleaner was deleting critical system files, would you object to an automatic update going out to disable that specific winapp.ini entry?

I would object because :-

1) It is far too late to tame the product if it has already deleted the critical system file ;

2) It is tampering with the evidence of who and what has sabotaged my system.

[Andavari]

Using CCleaner as an example...

 

For me my aspect of the thinking is with deeply integrated security software, and Windows Updates alone. Other software like CCleaner, web browsers, etc., don't fall under the same risk/high risk category of me ever being paranoid of them.

 

I'm more concerned about software such as antivirus which could have some bug slip through that makes a system unbootable - like what some antivirus' have been known to cause in the past (AVG Antivirus, Avast Antivirus, etc), and what AOL Internet software did over a decade ago.

[login123]

Thanks Andavari and hazelnut!

 

Just to press further, would your opinion change if the automatic updating was only enabled for extremely minor or extremely critical releases?

 

Using CCleaner as an example; if it was discovered a new version of CCleaner was deleting critical system files, would you object to an automatic update going out to disable that specific winapp.ini entry?

 

That wouldn't be important to me. I would still want to be asked about the update beforehand. My opinion of what is important might disagree with the software developer's. Not that I know more than the developer, but i do know how I use my computer.

[DennisD]

I have one simple rule I never deviate from Shane.

 

I never let anything self update or auto update. That includes windows updates and Avasts virus definitions.

 

I keep them current, but it's always my choice as to when anything is downloaded to my hard drive, and it's partly to have full control always, and partly because a CPU intensive process like video conversion can be screwed by something deciding to update at the same time.

 

And if I had a super duper PC which enabled video conversion not be CPU intensive and so critical, I would still never relinquish full control of what gets onto my hard drive, and when.

 

 

EDIT:

Just to press further, would your opinion change if the automatic updating was only enabled for extremely minor or extremely critical releases?

 

Using CCleaner as an example; if it was discovered a new version of CCleaner was deleting critical system files, would you object to an automatic update going out to disable that specific winapp.ini entry?

 

No exceptions whatsoever for auto or silent updating. I would not trust any software manufacturer to modify my computer in any way without my knowing about it.

 

We know this has happened, eg Microsoft and it's unsolicited Windows Presentation Foundation install containing the "DotNetAssistantExtension" plugin for Firefox.

 

That's gone from my computer, but it's an example of how you can't trust those you should be able to trust with any level of unfettered access to your hard drive.

[Andavari]

We know this has happened, eg Microsoft and it's unsolicited Windows Presentation Foundation install containing the "DotNetAssistantExtension" plugin for Firefox.

 

I made a winapp2.ini entry for that when .NET Framework 3.5 was installed on my system, it's easily dispatched.

[login123]

Slightly different spin this time. One factor may be the users familiarity with windows and computers generally.

 

I recommended to a friend of mine that he simply keep Norton updated, and pay the fee every year. Norton is pretty dependable, although they have had at least one disastrous update (don't remember details).

 

He uses his computer for business and has no interest in how it works. Also has no time to explore and learn about it if he wanted to. I don't mind a bit if Outpost firewall or Avast! antivirus generates a popup now and again, but such an event would be a great worry for him. He has no frame of reference for interpreting them.

 

What would really be nice would be an information message to accompany any suggested update, with meaningful details describing what is about to change. Not the generic microsoft blurb.

 

Just a thought.

[Andavari]

Not the generic microsoft blurb.

 

So many of the Microsoft Updates have the same description plastered on them.

[Winapp2.ini]

"This update fixes a security flaw that allows a remote attacker to gain control over the system..."