Disabling auto updates, saving certificates, displaying full url and grouping tabs?
-
blackbird71 last edited byThe problem with the disable option from a shortcut is that this option only works when using the shortcut. If you open Opera from an email web link or link form another program (such as Keypass)then update will be active.
Which is precisely the reason why I am so opposed to auto-updating schemes that can't be turned off by a user from within a program itself. There may be a hundred legitimate reasons why a user wants/needs to block updating, but there are dozens of ways around his blocking unless it's done within the program itself, by design. Probably the most assured method of blocking Blink Opera currently is to change the updater file extension to .xxx or something similar... but even that has some risks attached (a repair re-install, for example).
-
berng last edited by
The problem with the disable option from a shortcut is that this option only works when using the shortcut. If you open Opera from an email web link or link form another program (such as Keypass)then update will be active.
Which is precisely the reason why I am so opposed to auto-updating schemes that can't be turned off by a user from within a program itself.
That is my complaint too.The same applies to the command line override of the cache location. It can be a serious issue for those who have SSD drives not being able to fully control cache location or size.
-
suntana last edited by
In my case, in my inquiry in that other thread yesterday, I was referring to an OFFICIAL method of disabling the Auto Update thing. You know ... as in perhaps a hidden button or link that I just wasn't seeing.
I've never been into Frankensteinizing, McGuyvering or Shade Tree Mechanic-ing Opera or any other App into doing something that it's not doing as per the official functionality of the finished product.
Using one of the various methods mentioned would just be a Band-Aid. Not practical. I periodically close Opera and then bring it back up if I'm having problems with sluggishness, Etc. If I had to ... say --- perform that modification on the Opera Shortcut EVERY TIME that I bring up Opera, that would get old and seriously irritating very quickly.
-
suntana last edited by
It is seriously very ridiculous and warped thinking to go the route of forcing Auto Update on Users like that. Many times with Apps, we find a version that we really like and is working great for us on OUR system and we want to stay with that version. Why should we be forced to take on another newer version that might then have introduced problems and / or that now won't work as great on OUR system as the old version?
-
samkook last edited by
You only have to perform the modification on the opera shortcut once, it will stay there and it is an official method since it's the opera developers that implemented this command line switch.
With that said, it's not an ideal fix and I seriously hope the opera devs will reconsider such a ridiculous behavior in future upgrades.
-
suntana last edited by
Oh Okay. Then I MIGHT decide to give the Shortcut thing a try. But, it'll be after I finish recreating my bookmarks so that I can then back them up. This way if something goes seriously wrong and the entire Opera is FUBARed and I have to reinstall it, I don't lose my bookmarks.
Has Chrome always had this Auto Update setup or is it something that is only incorporated into Opera 20?
Question: Okay, so far from what I can tell over in the About Opera page, I still have the same Opera 20.0.1387.91 that I installed. So that would mean that since when I installed it, which was just recently ... there haven't been any updates installed? Or is that not necessarily correct? Anyway, when there ARE updates ... is the current version just tweaked and has the new changes incorporated? Or does an update mean that the ENTIRE new version of Opera gets downloaded and installed?
I mean, an update wouldn't consist of downloading the whole shebang of 33 Meg or whatever of a new version of Opera, does it? That would not work for me.
-
christoph142 last edited by
Has Chrome always had this Auto Update setup or is it something that is only incorporated into Opera 20?
Not sure if Chrome does it the same way. Silent AU is sth. Opera developed just now by themselves.does an update mean that the ENTIRE new version of Opera gets downloaded[?]
No, Opera started to offer differential updates when they introduced the silent AU. So it only downloads a small package and alters your files accordingly. -
samkook last edited by
If the version hasn't changed, then yes, it means there haven't been any updates installed.
I'm pretty sure it does download/re-install the whole shebang(which is the safest thing to do to avoid update problems) since I have a folder named after the previous version with all the same files(at first glance) as the folder with the new version name.
So it seem to also keep a backup of the previous version in case things go wrong(but that means it also use pretty much double the disk space).
Or I guess it makes a copy of the whole files and then only download what's necessary to patch them in the new folder if what christoph142 says is accurate.
-
suntana last edited by
Well, Silent AU is more like Sneaky AU ... Unauthorized, undesired AU. THAT's what it is.
I sure hope it is as you say and only small differential updates are downloaded and installed, Christoph. I guess that would be like my avast Anti-Virus does with the daily Virus Definitions Updates. That wouldn't be too bad. I'd still VERY much prefer the option to disable Auto Updates though.
Samkook, I agree that by all accounts, downloading and installing the whole shebang would be the safest way to do things to avoid update problems. But, by the same token, it should be left up to us to decide when WE want to pull the trigger and introduce the new version into our system.
For example: When new versions of avast Anti-Virus come out, I prefer to wait, to hold off on upgrading to the new version. I like to first read the chatter on the avast forums regarding whether it's a very good, stable and virtually problem free version ... or whether it is a problematic nightmare or just exactly what. I wouldn't care to have avast automatically shove it's new versions down my throat 'silently'.
And so here with Opera 20, the having it take place 'silently' doesn't make the Auto Updates any more desirable or worry free. Even Firefox gives an option if I saw that correctly the other day.
-
samkook last edited by
It is very undesirable, there's no question about it and not having the option to disable such a behavior is totally unheard of to me, you don't have to search which software doesn't give you such option.
It might be desirable for the average user to always have an up-to-date version since they are often afraid or forget to upgrade and it will bring security issues, but the fact that it is completely silent will also make identifying problems even more difficult when they eventually occur since they won't know it's been updating all along and they'll think the problem appeared out of nowhere for no reason which will make finding the cause when they ask on this forum even harder than usual to pinpoint since they can't tell us they've upgraded recently or if they skipped a few updates because they didn't open their browser on a regular basis.
-
lem729 last edited by
Something more to be looked at on disabling auto--updates. Also is it limited to opera 15.? Don't know.
-
suntana last edited by
Hmmm??? If someone can confirm that that UpdateFreezer really works and without any side effects ... and without any shady activity behind the scenes, that could be the ticket, Lem.
-
samkook last edited by
By looking at the description, all it does is rename the opera_autoupdate.exe which was already discussed in here, but it also set the next update time for extensions very far in the future inside the preferences file which is nice to know how to do and is still there in v20.
It also suggest that the extensions also get updated silently.
-
blackbird71 last edited by
I only wish I had a dollar for every software update/patch that broke something on users' systems. Over the many years I've used computers (from the very earliest days), I've seen one program after another get updated and break somebody's system... DOS, Windows, AVs, browsers (of all kinds), drivers, and apps of every description. In every single case, the software creators were "absolutely, positively" certain their updates were thoroughly tested to be OK before issuing them - and in every case where problems occurred, it was eventually found there was something the creators had overlooked in the update that collided and broke something in certain system configurations. In most cases, updates/patches were fairly quickly re-issued with "fixes" for the user-encountered problems - but that is small comfort to the users who had to repair/rebuild/restore their messed up software after the crashes. And I simply cannot believe Opera ASA will suddenly, magically break that universal pattern.
"Bold" users employ auto-update for every piece of software on their systems. "Old" (experienced) users employ manual updates for virtually all their software, only applying them if the early-adopters encounter no problems. Note: there are no both "bold" and "old" users. Silent/auto-updating is a recipe for eventual user disaster, the only questions being when and how a problem will hit. That is what turns "bold" users into "old" users - and it's called 'wisdom gained by experience'. Opera seriously needs to rethink not putting an auto-update disable option into Blink Opera, if only in the Flags section.
-
lem729 last edited by
I certainly think the option ought to be with the user. If one has the option, I can think there are two views on whether to use auto-update. Quite frankly, I just have no time to manually deal with automatic updates across the board (and if I tried to (if I added this additional work to my life) I think I'd have a breakdown :). Further, even if I see the update sitting in my inbox (for my decision on installation or not), it would be hard for me to have any idea whether it is harmful or not. In most cases, if I have the choice, I will, therefore, hell be damned, auto-update. (And I believe, probably 95 percent or more of users would choose that course). I do it with Windows, with my browsers and with extensions. And I don't feel that bad about it. I choose to let go a little bit. The work and agony of trying to control every nickel and dime, isn't worth in value what I will get in return. I have on occasion been burned
But usually, there's a way back from the abyss even then. Reinstalling a program, system restores, etc.A few times in the past though, I have chosen against automatic updates.. For instance there was an Opera Presto browser I really liked. Opera forced an install -- new version -- on me I didn't like. I had to hunt to find the old browser, and then I restored it, and chose no updates. I also once needed an earlier version of Flash because the latest version was preventing Dragon Naturally Speaking from working on my computer, so I prevented updates there. I didn't want to be automatically updated into Dragon not working again. On my Ipad, I had an app that was letting me read supposedly premium articles at a new site. Now, haha, I wanted to find out how to prevents updates to save the wonderful feature (but I wasn't quick enough to solve that problem and got auto-updated out of the feature. So I do understand why some people might opt for no automatic updates, and others might want to have the ability on a case by case basis (as I have occasionally done) to opt out.
-
samkook last edited by
The best of both worlds is to have a software check for updates automatically and ask you to install them or not with a changelog displayed. That way, one can judge if an update might break something important and one can choose to backup certain things, wait a few days or just go ahead and update if it all seems harmless.
FlashFXP updates work exactly like that and I love it, it makes life so much easier.About updates breaking stuff, there's a software I need to install on some computers and when it needs updating, we have to reformat the whole computer and reinstall everything with a fresh install of that particular software being the first thing done or things always go badly.
-
lem729 last edited by
The more knowledgeable the person is, the less the burden of making the decision. For me, I see constant windows updates, browser updates (all of browsers) (Opera 20 and Opera 12.17 are my prime but I have all of the other major browsers on my computer -- Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome), I have 20 extensions alone :)in Opera 20 , almost as many in Firefox and Chrome (some even in Opera 12.16) (So let's say 60 in all) (wow, no way do I want to deal with all of the updates. I choose "automatic" in order to keep "sanity" and let the flood come and sweep me away if it will. I accept that. For others -- who limit the extensions they take (and the browsers they have on their computer) -- it might be relatively easy to make an instant decision and no big deal. The choice should be with the user. And those users who have the background and knowledge to exercise it well are the ones who ought to be most concerned about having the option. And as I indicated, occasionally I have in the past and might in the future -- if I had the choice -- opt to review an update. Finally, users who choose not to take an update may risk losing security protection -- even if only a week or two while they test the waters to see what people are saying about the update before making a decision on whether to install it.
-
blackbird71 last edited by
I certainly think the option ought to be with the user. If one has the option, I can think there are two views on whether to use auto-update. Quite frankly, I just have no time to manually deal with automatic updates across the board (and if I tried to (if I added this additional work to my life) I think I'd have a breakdown :). Further, even if I see the update sitting in my inbox (for my decision on installation or not), it would be hard for me to have any idea whether it is harmful or not. In most cases, if I have the choice, I will, therefore, hell be damned, auto-update. (And I believe, probably 95 percent or more of users would choose that course). I do it with Windows, with my browsers and with extensions. I have on occasion been burned
...I use my computers quite heavily, and I believe in being largely in control of them and what they do. One of the major problems with auto-updates is that they occur at a time of the software creator's choosing, not the user's. This is one of the key problems that eventually turned me from a "bold' user into an "old" (experienced) user. The last thing I want, right in the middle of an intensive or critical computer operation, is for a piece of unrelated software to decide to auto-update itself - particularly if that involves rebooting. In the same vein, I want to be there at the computer when updates do occur to observe if any hiccups happen, especially upon a reboot, so using a task scheduler to delay auto-update to the dead of night has its own associated problems (assuming the software even allows scheduling its update checks).
The other major problem, of course, is that updates sometimes break systems. Most of the time, I wait about 1-2 weeks after an update is issued to test the waters about early-updaters' experiences... that's what Google is for. I'd much rather be a little late to the party with updates than risk crashing my systems the day of release. In the case of Windows, for example, every 2nd/3rd patch Tuesday or so, there will be reports of some patch that causes various users certain sometimes-major problems, and these can be easily avoided when I manually update. This has saved me from literally dozens of hiccups over the years. Likewise for AV program major updates, and so on.
Obviously, other computer users may have different thoughts about this. But I'm where I am on this because of hard lessons learned over the years. The most important lesson being that I, as a user, am the one who pays the full price of lost time and data when a flawed update is auto-pushed my way and crashes my systems or files. I simply will not accept that risk, and I know many others feel the same way. After all, they are my computers, not the software makers', and I am responsible for and in control of what is done to them. So I watch the effects of updates on others before committing my systems (and resources) to them. Hence it is essential that all my software have some means of disabling forced updates; that, or I will either find an "unofficial" but effective way to block updates or else remove the software off my system. Software creators can notify me that updates exist, but they must let me choose when or even if I will allow the updates to occur.
-
A Former User last edited by
You can also use an environment variable to make Opera auto-updates stop.
Go to Windows's System / Advanced System Settings, in the Advanced tab click the button to manage the Environment Variables and add one called "OPERA_AUTOUPDATE_DISABLED". Done.
-
lem729 last edited by
@rafaelluik
Do you know if that would include automatic updates for extensions (both the Opera ones, and the chrome ones that work in Opera)?
