Comments on: Google releases open-source Mac updater software

Search giant uses the open-source framework to keep multiple Mac OS X applications updated--and now anyone else may use it, too.

[Chapmaniac]

This is potentially dangerous. Anything that can allow access to "things that require root" has to be severely tested before being released - something Google does not do well enough. Google makes some extraordinary software but tends to foist beta products onto the public to get feedback for later improvements. The OS underpinning is no place for beta software!

[BNUX]

Good argument! I was question myself about some security issues while reading this.

Thank you for your contribute.

[samkass]

Google can't do anything at the "OS underpinnings" layer. Their updater runs as an app just like anything else, and thus will require a user to have "Administrator" rights AND type their username/password if the updater tries to change any of those files. While I worry about de-sensitizing users to typing their passwords, this app isn't in itself any more insidious than any custom-hacked code from any other app's upgrader.

[eagledrc]

this is just like synaptic for ubuntu! yes! this needs to be on windows...
but, see, linux has had this for years...

[BNUX]

Had anybody tried the software? And what is your opinion about security issues? Anything different from the usual security permissions we have to give? Like to read some more technical opinions.

[eyepoker]

Its been on Windows for years too......

[hexor]

It has been on Mac for years too.. called Sparkle. This is just another one.

[Seaspray0]

Word of caution; not only can you receive software updates, but the possibility exists for you to receive software installations. You must have an explicit trust of your update source and who is controlling it before you should consider changing your update service to something other than the default. In the windows corporate world, the update service is generally changed by computer policy to point to the corporate windows software update service so that corporate computers only get updates from a controlled corporate source. I don't suggest the average person change their update service unless they truely know what they are doing.

[Penguinisto]

@eyepoker - windowsupdate.microsoft.com is nothing like apt-get, yum, ports, or up2date...

WU only updates Windows components, adds options OS-specific components (e.g. .Net framework), and does a very limited amount of optional apps (IE7, WMP), security patches - and that's it.

This new Google creature can update existing apps (OSX or not) on your Mac. Kinda neat, like (as mentioned earlier) Sparkle does.

Meanwhile... YUM (RedHat), apt-get(Ubuntu, Debian), up2date(RHEL, old-style, replaced by YUM), YaST (SuSE) and Ports (*BSD) can install any of thousands of new apps entirely, manage/patch existing apps, delete any you don't need, manages system and library dependencies (to avoid the *nix version of ".dll Hell"), and much, much more. On top of that, Ports (again, in *BSD) will download the source code for the apps you add (if the option is present, which in most cases it is) and compile them on the spot for optimum performance.


We're talking Oranges to "Fruit Salad" comparisons here. ;)


/P

[Gennx30]

and just WHO thinks this a good idea?