Google Chrome 5.0 vs Mozilla 3.x
in [Freeware]
|
Prev: alt.comp.freeware links at Mon Jun 7 21:20:01 2010
Next: alt.comp.freeware newsgroup statistics for 05/2010
From: John Corliss on 9 Jun 2010 07:19 Bear Bottoms wrote: > John Corliss wrote: >> >> I think the one thing I object to the most in Chrome is that it checks >> for updates automatically whether or not you want it to. > > Yeah, I hate my software to be up-to-date. Depends. Sometimes updating is done for a valid reason, other times it's done to remove functionality. In the case of Chrome though, it checks every day and sends your unique ID to their servers. That just doesn't sit right with me. It establishes a precedent for other programs and companies to start doing likewise. But then, who do I think I'm talking to? You think that cloud computing is a good thing and don't seem to believe in privacy. -- John Corliss BS206. Because of all the Googlespam, I block all posts sent through Google Groups. I also block as many posts from anonymous remailers (like x-privat.org for eg.) as possible due to forgeries posted through them. No ad, CD, commercial, cripple, demo, nag, share, spy, time-limited, trial or web wares OR warez for me, please. Adobe Flash sucks, DivX rules.
From: John Corliss on 9 Jun 2010 07:26 VanguardLH wrote: > Spamblk wrote: > >> VanguardLH<V(a)nguard.LH> wrote in news:hujrt1$9bt$1(a)news.albasani.net: >> >>> As I recall, Google doesn't give users the ability to disable their >>> automatic update of Chrome >> >> According to the Chrome promo video titled "Browsers, privacy and you" this >> is stated: >> >> : Chrome helps protect you and your personal information from malicious >> : websites through our safebrowsing technology. And to make sure that >> : Chrome is up to date with the latest security updates, Chrome >> : automatically checks for updates on a regular basis. >> >> Or put another way Chrome automatically phones home, with its unique ID, on >> a regular basis. > > I don't remember for which version and thereafter, but it looks like > Google removed the ClientID string to identify your particular install. > I think that change was pretty recent. You're right: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/16/google_chrome_unique_identifier_change/ -- John Corliss BS206. Because of all the Googlespam, I block all posts sent through Google Groups. I also block as many posts from anonymous remailers (like x-privat.org for eg.) as possible due to forgeries posted through them. No ad, CD, commercial, cripple, demo, nag, share, spy, time-limited, trial or web wares OR warez for me, please. Adobe Flash sucks, DivX rules.
From: John Corliss on 9 Jun 2010 07:31 John Corliss wrote: > Bear Bottoms wrote: >> John Corliss wrote: >>> >>> I think the one thing I object to the most in Chrome is that it checks >>> for updates automatically whether or not you want it to. >> >> Yeah, I hate my software to be up-to-date. > > Depends. Sometimes updating is done for a valid reason, other times it's > done to remove functionality. > > In the case of Chrome though, it checks every day and sends your unique > ID to their servers. > > That just doesn't sit right with me. It establishes a precedent for > other programs and companies to start doing likewise. But then, who do I > think I'm talking to? You think that cloud computing is a good thing and > don't seem to believe in privacy. One more thing: If an update causes a problem (and I've experienced such a thing on a couple of occasions with MS Windows updates), I will be stuck with that problem. I prefer to allow updates to get "aired out" by others a little before I install them. This alone is good enough reason for me to not want companies to be able to screw around with my computer without my permission, but there are other reasons. -- John Corliss BS206. Because of all the Googlespam, I block all posts sent through Google Groups. I also block as many posts from anonymous remailers (like x-privat.org for eg.) as possible due to forgeries posted through them. No ad, CD, commercial, cripple, demo, nag, share, spy, time-limited, trial or web wares OR warez for me, please. Adobe Flash sucks, DivX rules.
From: Franklin on 9 Jun 2010 09:32 John Corliss wrote: > John Corliss wrote: >> Bear Bottoms wrote: >>> John Corliss wrote: >>>> >>>> I think the one thing I object to the most in Chrome is that it checks >>>> for updates automatically whether or not you want it to. >>> >>> Yeah, I hate my software to be up-to-date. >> >> Depends. Sometimes updating is done for a valid reason, other times it's >> done to remove functionality. >> >> In the case of Chrome though, it checks every day and sends your unique >> ID to their servers. >> >> That just doesn't sit right with me. It establishes a precedent for >> other programs and companies to start doing likewise. But then, who do I >> think I'm talking to? You think that cloud computing is a good thing and >> don't seem to believe in privacy. > > One more thing: If an update causes a problem (and I've experienced such > a thing on a couple of occasions with MS Windows updates), I will be > stuck with that problem. I prefer to allow updates to get "aired out" by > others a little before I install them. This alone is good enough reason > for me to not want companies to be able to screw around with my computer > without my permission, but there are other reasons. Where's a good place to check out problems with MS updates without having to research each one?
From: Jeffrey Needle on 9 Jun 2010 15:06
>> That just doesn't sit right with me. It establishes a precedent for >> other programs and companies to start doing likewise. But then, who do I >> think I'm talking to? You think that cloud computing is a good thing and >> don't seem to believe in privacy. > > One more thing: If an update causes a problem (and I've experienced such > a thing on a couple of occasions with MS Windows updates), I will be > stuck with that problem. I prefer to allow updates to get "aired out" by > others a little before I install them. This alone is good enough reason > for me to not want companies to be able to screw around with my computer > without my permission, but there are other reasons. > John, this really resonates with me. I've been skittish about updating any piece of software until a lot of others have done so. I prefer to wait it out. And version 1.0 of anything just makes me sweat. |