Google debuts Chrome for Mac, Linux

*Looks at list of problems* Ouch

 

FYI it adds a cron job for updating and sets itself as default browser

i havent tested it myself but i read it from someone who has.

 

No thanks.....

 

I haven't tried Google Chrome either, but Chromium is downloadable as a program in a self-contained directory, with no hidden extras.

Seriously, though, what's so wrong about automatic updating? Every other browser does it as well, and for a darned good reason.

 

linux has package managers which are used for updating.
so they should provide a google chrome repo to use instead of the standard .deb file on its own.
setting the browser as default was more the reason for

 

"Should"?

I don't get it. What's wrong with the present method? Would you rather Chrome silently change your repository settings and import PGP keys in the background? (I think this would be far more likely to piss off users.)

I agree, that's pretty rude behavior. But Chrome certainly doesn't do this on Windows, and considering how this is second-hand information you got from someone else I think it might be a good idea to verify it.

 

Hello,
for a start google shouldnt force auto updating......
surely it could ask the user if they want to add the repo and import the key?


for example when I install opera in debian i add the opera deb repo, then install opera using apt-get or via synaptec.
then the package manager will list opera update as soon as its avaliable along with the other updates.

in fedora I couldnt find a rpm opera repo so i simply used the bultin update thing which doesnt download and install but tells me an update is avalible so i can download it manually from opera.com

 

They could, it's just that I don't understand what's wrong with the current approach and the need to it.

As you mentioned, Opera is another browser that uses a separate updating mechanism from the repos (unless you install the repo version), and it works just fine.

 

the problem with the current approch is that the cron job automatically updates the program without asking the user. the newer version may have issues with inpact the user. with firefox,IE,opera etc they ask the user if they want to update. with those you can choose not to install the upgrades and wait awhile. google forces the new update as soon as its stable acording to google without any user interaction. thats the issue i have.
Do you understand what im trying to say?

 

Yes, I see your point now.

In the case of browsers, though, I think an argument can be made for automatic silent updates. Firefox for example has been doing this in Windows for ages.

 

I thought firefox always came up with the dialog box that says an update is avaliable do you want to install it now or later?

 

Assuming default settings: by the time you see that prompt, an update has already been downloaded, Ff is just asking for permission to restart and install the update.

At least, that's the behavior on my end for Shiretoko and Minefield.

 

It really doesn't matter to me either way as long as Chrome's updating method is transparent. If Google wants to set up its own repository for updates (along with providing PGP keys) then it makes no difference to me if I get updates directly from google or from my distro.

But, seeing how all the distros I have used have always released browser updates within a day of the upstream release, I don't think the current method is inadequate.

 

Um, it's worse on windows... scheduled updating task as well as a reg entry for bootup, plugins for IE and Fx to update chrome...

 

ye i know lol but its always worse on windows.
thats why i ditched it on windows.