Opera automatically updating from version 22 to 23 without my knowledge or permission
-
-
-
Deleted User last edited by
This is the way Opera will work from now on, with small and silent updates.
-
-
blackbird71 last edited by...
I would say that this is how (almost) all software will work in a near future. In fact, many already do it unless you change the default behavior.In which case, tech support and forum helpers in many places can expect a growing wave of complaints that "my system suddenly started acting crazy," in some way or another. Auto-updates are not generally self-announcing, so that a user often has no obvious knowledge that they have occurred. Features may simply "spontaneously" start working differently or conflicting when they formerly worked fine on that system.
Once all manner of software on a system starts individually updating itself on an uncoordinated basis, the net result when considering the computer-plus-software as a total entity is that its code becomes unpredictably self-modifying. There is no configuration control at a 'system' level. This is inherently a recipe for chaos, in that it makes troubleshooting extremely difficult and risks de-stabilizing hitherto stable systems.
Certainly it can be argued that this is a way to improve security by forcefully and universally removing software holes and flaws as they are revealed, patched, and updates pushed. But that comes at a great 'instability' cost, particularly to technically-informed users who stay abreast of security issues, run "tight" systems, employ layered security, and strive to keep their systems "stable" above all else. The answer is to give users control over if/when software on a system updates itself.
The reality is that every single piece of software has bugs, including every update. A user sometimes has to thread through a minefield of software incompatibilities and hiccups to get a system fully stabilized and smoothly running. An update invariably introduces different software behavior at some point or another that may or may not be evident as a conflict or problem. When a user performs a manual update, has a known scheduled update, or receives a clear and prominent alert that an update has occurred, he at least has a definitive starting point to troubleshoot any performance hiccups that may be the consequence of the update. With silent, forced updates, the user has no starting point for figuring out why things broke on his system - and the more software that pushes auto-updates, the greater the likelihood both that something will be broken by an update and that it will be unclear what its cause is.
-
A Former User last edited by
In which case, tech support and forum helpers in many places can expect a growing wave of complaints that "my system suddenly started acting crazy," in some way or another. Auto-updates are not generally self-announcing, so that a user often has no obvious knowledge that they have occurred. Features may simply "spontaneously" start working differently or conflicting when they formerly worked fine on that system. Once all manner of software on a system starts individually updating itself on an uncoordinated basis, the net result when considering the computer-plus-software as a total entity is that its code becomes unpredictably self-modifying.
Oh my gosh, just like the internet websites. I know, it's a chaos. :rolleyes: -
blackbird71 last edited by
In which case, tech support and forum helpers in many places can expect a growing wave of complaints that "my system suddenly started acting crazy," in some way or another. Auto-updates are not generally self-announcing, so that a user often has no obvious knowledge that they have occurred. Features may simply "spontaneously" start working differently or conflicting when they formerly worked fine on that system. Once all manner of software on a system starts individually updating itself on an uncoordinated basis, the net result when considering the computer-plus-software as a total entity is that its code becomes unpredictably self-modifying.
Oh my gosh, just like the internet websites. I know, it's a chaos. :rolleyes:I'm not sure what you mean. But when a website continually changes their code "unannounced", it affects only their website and those choosing to visit it - not my system/software functions nor other websites I may choose to visit.
-
A Former User last edited by
when a website continually changes their code "unannounced", it affects only their website and those choosing to visit it - not my system/software functions nor other websites I may choose to visit.
When Opera changes their code "unannounced", it affects only their browser and those choosing to use it. Websites are software with functions too, there are web apps, etc. Also, it's very possible leaving Opera outdated will affect websites' functions in the same way or worse than code changes in the new version.
-
Deleted User last edited by
when a website continually changes their code "unannounced", it affects only their website and those choosing to visit it - not my system/software functions nor other websites I may choose to visit.
When Opera changes their code "unannounced", it affects only their browser and those choosing to use it. Websites are software with functions too, there are web apps, etc. Also, it's very possible leaving Opera outdated will affect websites' functions in the same way or worse than code changes in the new version.So the best thing to do is update
-
-
lem729 last edited by
I didn't notice it till someone mentioned it. Then I noticed the change in the heart feature in the right end of the address bar. I think they should announce it.
-
blackbird71 last edited by
When Opera changes their code "unannounced", it affects only their browser and those choosing to use it. Websites are software with functions too, there are web apps, etc. Also, it's very possible leaving Opera outdated will affect websites' functions in the same way or worse than code changes in the new version.
So when does it start to matter? A website coding change potentially affects user interaction with only one site. A browser change potentially affects interaction with all the sites the user visits, or perhaps all the sites using a particular technology (eg Flash, etc).
In any case, what I was responding to in my original statement was @leocg's mention that "(almost) all software will" update with small and silent updates in the near future. If that is an accurate prediction, the software on a user's system will then be auto-updating at all manner of times, and the problems (yes, there WILL be problems) will pop up out of the blue leaving a user mystified as to what suddenly started causing them. I believe a wise user stays in touch with his system's configuration at any given time. That means he either manually updates software or has his updates occur on a scheduled basis so that he can determine more quickly what caused a sudden-appearing problem. Moreover, it allows him to stay abreast of other users' problems with a given update before committing his system to it, so that he can avoid it if the other users' problems matter to him.
An all-too-common offender of this sort currently are antivirus updates, most of which are silent (at least for signatures, and in many cases for program files), and some of which have a track record of sometimes breaking things. If "all" software moves in the silent-update direction, then chaos will indeed reign when a problem suddenly pops up in using a system or any software on it. Did the user get hacked? Was it a browser update? A Flash update? An OS update? An extension update? a hardware failure/intermittent? An AV update? Something the user did wrong? There's no user-evident trail of configuration changes and when they occurred... just that a problem suddenly appeared. Hence my earlier comment.
-
myopera23 last edited by
Very succinctly put! Nothing wrong with O silently updating bug or security fixes, but updating to a new version of O with new features potentially add new problems.
I don't want to be a guinea pig to test the latest version of O. O22 updated to O23 without my knowledge or permission, and that resulted in taskbar problems(see 'Opera always in foreground' thread).
Certainly it can be argued that this is a way to improve security by forcefully and universally removing software holes and flaws as they are revealed, patched, and updates pushed. But that comes at a great 'instability' cost, particularly to technically-informed users who stay abreast of security issues, run "tight" systems, employ layered security, and strive to keep their systems "stable" above all else. The answer is to give users control over if/when software on a system updates itself.
The reality is that every single piece of software has bugs, including every update. A user sometimes has to thread through a minefield of software incompatibilities and hiccups to get a system fully stabilized and smoothly running. An update invariably introduces different software behavior at some point or another that may or may not be evident as a conflict or problem. When a user performs a manual update, has a known scheduled update, or receives a clear and prominent alert that an update has occurred, he at least has a definitive starting point to troubleshoot any performance hiccups that may be the consequence of the update. With silent, forced updates, the user has no starting point for figuring out why things broke on his system - and the more software that pushes auto-updates, the greater the likelihood both that something will be broken by an update and that it will be unclear what its cause is. -
A Former User last edited by admin
See also here -
https://forums.opera.com/topic/4100/enforced-automatic-updates/1 -
myopera23 last edited by
This is the way Opera will work from now on, with small and silent updates.
I'd say that updating an entire version of O is not a small event.
-
Deleted User last edited by
This is the way Opera will work from now on, with small and silent updates.
I'd say that updating an entire version of O is not a small event.
Indeed
-
Deleted User last edited by
Always fighting. Always bickering about this point or that one. Everyone seems to have his opinion and readily defends it against all comers. Ah... pride is such a hard thing to relinquish. I'm right... you're wrong... so there!
Okay, I'll express my opinion as well (might as well). I agree with lem that notification of an upgrade should be provided BUT I'm not going to make this a deal-breaker as some have declared.
-
lem729 last edited by
I not that worried about the permission thing, other than, if you've changed features, let people know. It shows the browser is being worked on. And maybe I'll find the new features helpful. Indeed, if I"m aware of them I might use them.
By the way, on the "heart" features at the right of the address bar, I discovered if you go into Opera://flags, you can change that feature and go back to what was before by disabling it. I'm just mentioning that in case any users are unhappy with the change. For me, it's okay.On about Opera, under browser identification, you get the following: "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/36.0.1985.125 Safari/537.36 OPR/23.0.1522.60." Now that probably was what was there before, but it does have me puzzling, now that I'm focusing on it. Does anyone know why that's there? I mean if you're not using the User-Agent Switcher extension, I thought the browser automatically identifies as Opera.
-
-
