Opera Wants More From Microsoft

[darkmanx21]

Yes because having a central update checker is a bad thing :rolleyes:

Do you use Opera?

[Lechio]

It's still on their servers and has to be checked when WU does it's pass.

I'll give you a practical example, now don't just go and accuse me of bringing Free Software into this (that's subject for another topic):

host:~$ date
Fri Aug 14 15:46:09 WEST 2009

host:~$ sudo apt-get update
Hit http://archive.canonical.com jaunty Release.gpg
(...)
Fetched 141kB in 1s (80.7kB/s)
Reading package lists... Done

host:~$ date
Fri Aug 14 15:46:15 WEST 2009

One second to check for updates (and I do have a bunch of servers on the apt system). Yes, that's ONE second.

[JonathanMarston]

Although I'm as sick of Opera's whining as everyone else, I actually think a centralized update system would be a good thing.

Microsoft would probably just have to add some additional functionality to the Windows Installer components and make it available to 3rd party developers. I wouldn't mind a built-in, consistent way to find, purchase, and install software either. Much like the iPhone app store, the upcoming Windows Mobile store, Xbox Live, Impulse, Steam, or the many Linux variants.

The main issue I see with this is security and support. As long as all updates are required to be digitally signed by the publisher, there shouldn't be any issues, right? And if they used a model like Steam where MS got a cut of the sales from app downloads they could easily pay for the extra support and bandwidth.

[Pc_Madness]

I defended opera at first, it is a decent browser, but they are taking this too far:/ and this is totally unnecessary, pretty much every major browser besides opera has built in auto update. They are trying to get microsoft to cover up and inadequacy in their own browser :/

Indeed, the CEO needs to stfu before he destroys what little reputation Opera has left. Whats wrong with how updating is done atm?

[M_Lyons10]

Why should an update to a specific application cause Windows not to boot? It's an application, not a system component (pushing it a bit there, aren't you?).

And no, Microsoft does not need to provide the updates themselves, nor "pay for the bandwidth" of updates for other applications that they do not make, nor provide support for those applications. They only need to provide the tools, a centralized software install/update tool. If the user only wants to install and keep Windows software updated that's fine. Don't see how this would affect other people who want to run only MS software on their systems.

This would only bring advantages to the user, don't see the reason of why some people seem disturbed and affected by this idea.

Because it's stupid and will create unnecessary support cases for Microsoft. The average person on here is more computer savvy than the average user. If the average user goes onto Windows Update and there is an update for Opera, and they apply it and it causes problems, they are going to think "Well, Microsoft gave it to me, they must be part of Microsoft now. I guess I need to contact Microsoft." This WILL happen, and it will happen lots. It's confusion that is unnecessary, particularly given that every other application handles updates, but Opera can't for some reason. Also, an application could certainly affect Windows. It could overwrite a .dll that Windows uses, or whatever. I used an application for work a few years ago that did this and caused me no shortage of headaches.

There's no reason why Opera can't tell you there's an update when you start their browser like everyone else does...

[Dc'1]

Everyone should get W7, and choose to install IE just to annoy Opera :p

This is just getting annoying now, why should MS have to use Windows Update to install updates for anything that isn't part of Windows or MS. That's like the Apple Software Updater updating Firefox, it's just stupid.

But then again I would like a much easier way to update everything, but there is programs like UpdateStar (for example) that do that...

[DDStriker]

It's not practical to have a ton of application updaters. As a user don't you see an advantage of having a centralized software install/update center?

Are you that lazy? :p get over the linux thing i'd rather my programs not update without my permission and the only time i'd ever run the windows update is when i want to ..gee y'know update windows

[Martog]

Why should an update to a specific application cause Windows not to boot? It's an application, not a system component (pushing it a bit there, aren't you?).

Gasp, because some applications actually use drivers that could cause the system to not boot. Lets see here, Security suites...burning software...virtual drive software...virtualization software...oh my, lets see if maybe one of them pushes a bad driver update down and see what happens when the end user can no longer boot into windows or use windows fully (ie networking got borked by the driver). The blame will still come down upon Microsoft unfortunately

But hey, I know MS has the majority market share, but I'd love to see Apple pushing down updates for Microsoft Office for Mac ... :shiftyninja: I mean after all, Apple updates their iWork suite via the Apple Sofware update. :)

If Linux has a centralized updater, MS is forced to do it, I think Apple should be targetted next even if they do not have the market share Windows does, as Apple is basically only giving concience of updating only their products then... :shiftyninja:

[BajiRav]

I'll give you a practical example, now don't just go and accuse me of bringing Free Software into this (that's subject for another topic):

host:~$ date
 Fri Aug 14 15:46:09 WEST 2009

 host:~$ sudo apt-get update
 Hit http://archive.canonical.com jaunty Release.gpg
 (...)
 Fetched 141kB in 1s (80.7kB/s)
 Reading package lists... Done

 host:~$ date
 Fri Aug 14 15:46:15 WEST 2009

One second to check for updates (and I do have a bunch of servers on the apt system). Yes, that's ONE second.

So let's assume Microsoft "bundles" this centralized update service/app with Windows(which is another Microsoft product SCCM), how long before someone like HP OpenView sues them for "abusing their monopoly"?

And to take your own line, why is a software update service an essential part of the OS?

[jonhapimp]

This is getting ridiculous

[Eric Veteran]

I'll give you a practical example, now don't just go and accuse me of bringing Free Software into this (that's subject for another topic):

host:~$ date
Fri Aug 14 15:46:09 WEST 2009

host:~$ sudo apt-get update
Hit http://archive.canonical.com jaunty Release.gpg
(...)
Fetched 141kB in 1s (80.7kB/s)
Reading package lists... Done

host:~$ date
Fri Aug 14 15:46:15 WEST 2009

One second to check for updates (and I do have a bunch of servers on the apt system). Yes, that's ONE second.

That's not how Windows Update works. It doesn't just poll Uris to see which one has been updated. Again, what's wrong with Opera checking for its own updates when it starts like Firefox and most other applications? It is a web browser, so a ONE second HTTP GET to its own server won't hurt anything and it won't make Opera look worse than they already do. Is Opera going to pay for the certification to have their software put on WU every time they update it? That's how non-MS items like drivers end up there. If they can afford $10K+ whenever they update, then they might have something to stand on.

[Eice]

I'll give you a practical example, now don't just go and accuse me of bringing Free Software into this (that's subject for another topic):

One second to check for updates (and I do have a bunch of servers on the apt system). Yes, that's ONE second.

And that's because no new package lists were found. Why not post a log where the packages have actually been updated?

[Mike]

Microsoft would want it to be on there servers and pass security checks. Linking to a external web site to download could lead to a host of security problems, viruses, DNS re-direction and so on.

DNS re-direction can effect the WU service anyway so that point is mute. Same goes for general security problems, MS can easily require having the updates digitally signed and do a check via the WU client.

I defended opera at first, it is a decent browser, but they are taking this too far:/ and this is totally unnecessary, pretty much every major browser besides opera has built in auto update. They are trying to get microsoft to cover up and inadequacy in their own browser :/

Opera does have auto update built in ><

Do you use Opera?

Yes but that's irrelevant to this discussion, I guess from your incorrect assumptions, you don't use or never have?

[ahhell]

Someone needs to send Opera a nice steaming cup of shut the **** up.

I'm sick of hearing these guys whine constantly.

[Lechio]

So let's assume Microsoft "bundles" this centralized update service/app with Windows(which is another Microsoft product SCCM), how long before someone like HP OpenView sues them for "abusing their monopoly"?

And to take your own line, why is a software update service an essential part of the OS?

What monopoly? It's a software updating/installing system, it would only open the Windows platform to others, how is that monopoly?

To me it's one of the most important parts of an OS. If you run a productive system you will understand why it is essential to have your software patched and updated to the latest version. What about home users? Don't you see how this is of extreme importance to that share of the market too?

[Timmah339]

shut up, opera. you suck.

[Dapen]

Yes! There needs to be better support for other browsers within Windows. Building websites for a living, I can't stress this enough, it's so important to give an easy option for alternate browsers to PC users.

I don't understand why any of you would complain about this, it benefits you the user in every way, stop being such blatant MS fans or Opera haters.

[Eric Veteran]

DNS re-direction can effect the WU service anyway so that point is mute. Same goes for general security problems, MS can easily require having the updates digitally signed and do a check via the WU client.

Opera does have auto update built in ><

Yes but that's irrelevant to this discussion, I guess from your incorrect assumptions, you don't use or never have?

That's not what WU is or how it works, though. Is Opera expecting Microsoft to write an entirely new update system just to satisfy them? It seems like the perfect opportunity for them to create this and sign other parties on to it, not insist on something that doesn't exist.

[Lechio]

That's not how Windows Update works. It doesn't just poll Uris to see which one has been updated. Again, what's wrong with Opera checking for its own updates when it starts like Firefox and most other applications? It is a web browser, so a ONE second HTTP GET to its own server won't hurt anything and it won't make Opera look worse than they already do. Is Opera going to pay for the certification to have their software put on WU every time they update it? That's how non-MS items like drivers end up there. If they can afford $10K+ whenever they update, then they might have something to stand on.

Nor does an updating system like apt, it doesn't just poll URLS either. It's not something "complicated" as you make it look like.

Again, it's not Microsoft's responsibility to certify anything that they do not make. They only need to provide the tool.

[Pupik]

What monopoly? It's a software updating/installing system, it would only open the Windows platform to others, how is that monopoly?

To me it's one of the most important parts of an OS. If you run a productive system you will understand why it is essential to have your software patched and updated to the latest version. What about home users? Don't you see how this is of extreme importance to that share of the market too?

No, I don't see how it is important to the browser/user market share. People that run Opera are aware of it's update option, and so does the Firefox, Chrome and any other browser users.

Having Microsoft providing the updates instead of the developers of the application, isn't going to increase the browser market share.

For that, Microsoft did more than enough with the ballot screen... which Opera whined about too, because IE's icon was too recognizable in their opinion.

[Eric Veteran]

Nor does an updating system like apt, it doesn't just poll URLS either. It's not something "complicated" as you make it look like.

Again, it's not Microsoft's responsibility to certify anything that they do not make. They only need to provide the tool.

Uncertified product does not go on WU. Again, Opera wants it to do something it doesn't do. Trying to force Microsoft to add something to their OS that doesn't exist is pointless, especially when they can already check for updates themselves. Heck, they can even use the built-in options like BITS to manage it.

Why are they not complaining that Opera isn't on Apple Software Update? (Monopoly is irrelevant.)

[null_]

Opera have gone way too far. I mean, seriously, they expect Microsoft to start hosting Opera's software updates on their servers and pushing out updates? That would also make them responsible for support for Opera's crap.

[Dead_Monkey]

That's absolutely ****ing ridiculous. This IS NOT Linux, there is no software package manager designed to do this. Perhaps Opera wants to give Microsoft the money to help fund this?

I agree with the sentiment here. If Opera wants to use Microsoft's update system, then they should have to pay for it.

Firefox is perfectly capable of checking to see if it needs to be updated when it is run, why doesn't Opera do that?

Ok, seeing that it is about using Opera as the browser to access the Windows Update website, even that is kind of stupid. Vista, XPSP2, Windows 7 all have update built into the OS, you don't even need the website.

[BajiRav]

What monopoly? It's a software updating/installing system, it would only open the Windows platform to others, how is that monopoly?

To me it's one of the most important parts of an OS. If you run a productive system you will understand why it is essential to have your software patched and updated to the latest version. What about home users? Don't you see how this is of extreme importance to that share of the market too?

Bundling SCCM in Windows kills the market for products like HP OpenView. Microsoft has a monopoly when anything comes to Windows. I am not saying this - it's Opera, EU etc. etc.

OS update is built in and works. Microsoft update is not built in. You have to install it to get updates for other Microsoft products.

FTR: I am all for a aptitude like thing for Windows - but just showing you that Opera or someone else will find something to whine about - no matter for Microsoft does. ;)

Another scenario: If Microsoft bundles SCCM and it shows that Microsoft has IE or WMP on the list with "the familiar blue e or WMP logo", wouldn't Opera bitch about it? Oh wait, they already did. So what is the solution? Microsoft provide an update service that can't update it's own software?

Here is how it looks,

[DDStriker]

Yes! There needs to be better support for other browsers within Windows. Building websites for a living, I can't stress this enough, it's so important to give an easy option for alternate browsers to PC users.

I don't understand why any of you would complain about this, it benefits you the user in every way,

You're argument is invalid

why do you care what the user gets to choose? if IE6 was available and they picked it then it will be of a disadvantage to you

this crap that opera is trying to push will not effect you in the slightest way unless you're hoping users will select a browser other then IE for which you don't want to support

also i'm not sure what users you are referring to but majority of the people here have the mental capacity to download another browser if we choose

stop being such blatant MS fans or Opera haters.

Just goes to show you don't care much for IE and would allow opera to impose such ludicrous rules their software fails and this won't help them