Forum Moderators: open
Seems with the new toolbar going from beta to final they decided to push it onto all desktops.
Don't do this Google! Huge no-no! Can't you see all the flak Microsoft is taking for their automatic system update proposal? Don't touch my system without a warning and the ability to opt-out!
I was so surprised a company like Google would do an action like that. Very un-Google like.
I liked the old toolbar and I don't need any features in the new one. The old toolbar had a more compact layout since the search web button was integrated.
Now I have to rip out the v2 and reinstall the old one while blocking the auto-update.
I think it's far too strong and nasty of word to use towards this Google toolbar issue.
I would reserve that word for programs that do nasty things for the purposes of greed. Google isn't making a dime off their toolbar (though its the only way to fetch their pagerank). This is more of a over-eagar mistake on Google's part.
I hope everyone realizes I never used that word and I didn't create that front page entry!
Can't the mods (Brett?) find a slightly less offensive word? :(
It's hard to find a common definition for "scumware" but I would only use it for programs that "hijack" or modify other programs to route information or revenue to themselves (like modifying links on your web pages to go to their own services, etc)
Really?
I knew I'd be getting an update any day now, so I put a read-only attribute on these files, to see if I could stop the update.
No deal. Google jumped my "no downloads" security setting, my "no ActiveX" security setting, and updated me and changed the registry so that the old files were superfluous and my little icons useless.
I know it changed the registry because I disconnected my cable modem and imported my backup version of the registry, and got the old toolbar back. But I knew that the cycle would start again as soon as I plugged in the cable modem. So I uninstalled the old toolbar. Then I made a new backup of the pre-update registry. I'm done and finished with the Google toolbar, unless there are some secret files I should know about. As I uninstalled it, I was informed by Google's blurb that I'm one of the first people to ever uninstall the toolbar, and they are so surprised that they'd like to know why, via their feedback form. Fortunately my cable modem was unplugged, because they almost got an earful!
I think Google Watch is correct when they say, "Worse yet, Google's toolbar updates to new versions quietly, and without asking. This means that if you have the toolbar installed, Google essentially has complete access to your hard disk every time you phone home. Most software vendors, and even Microsoft, ask if you'd like an updated version. But not Google."
Is there anything Google theoretically cannot do on your hard disk at the moment in time that they have a connection to you via the back door in their toolbar? I don't know enough about Windows to say for certain. I'll bet they could run FDISK if they wanted to.
No more toolbar for me. It scares me that GoogleGuy is interested in mind control. Computer control isn't enough, apparently.
Get a firewall if you don't have one. Then setup a simple rule,
for the domain "toolbar.google.com" block the word "/version". That stops it cold.
1. Google gets a bit "over-enthusiastic" in the geek department and releases something that sounds like a good thing at the time
2. The webmaster community pillories Google for its lack of restraint/understanding of current market conditions
3. [we're not quite here yet] Google takes a step back, and apologises, and everybody goes back to the "Google is great" starting line
:-D
No more toolbar for me. It scares me that GoogleGuy is interested in mind control. Computer control isn't enough, apparently.
The mind control talk was just GoogleGuy having a little fun at the expense of the whacko who runs Google-Watch.
Personally, I found it funny. (Almost as funny as the Borg/Google parody posted by another poster.)
Auto-updates suck, but I can definately see why Google would go that route(Not that I totally agree with them). This is certainly worth discussing, but it's not a big enough thing to get all riled up about.
Just uninstall the toolbar as a few people have already claimed to have done.
Norton AV lets the users select whether they want the program to apply updates automatically or if they want to be notified when updates are available. The software allows its users to choose this option on installation. It also lets the users change their selection at any time later.
I hope that Google would take an example from companies like Symantec instead of follow the example of scumware. G, don't just cover your ass behind TOS and FAQs, stay good.
Personally I think Google is more incompetent than un-trustworthy.....so for now I will live with their auto updates on my non-critical machines;)
Some members have even used this fact to get new pages discovered by Gbot sooner than they would otherwise be. There's absolutely nothing new in this. If the auto-update feature marks the difference between spyware and scumware, then i'd say that this was perhaps a little too little to justify such a rude term.
Sofar there's no evidence whatsoever that Google has modified anything but the Tbar software itself and the corresponding registry settings. To the best of my knowledge, it even sticks to one browser, so that you can have your full privacy when using other browsers, but i don't really know if i'm right here although i suppose/hope so.
I do agree that the AU feature should be mentioned clearly during the install process. I'd also like to see facts/statements about what happens with privacy when using browsers the Tbar is not on. And also about what happens in the Tbar browser when the Tbar is not displayed - is it still actively transferring data in the background? And, does it interfere with any other (applications running) internet protocols than (those used by) the Tbar browser when this is active?
Some information seems to be missing. I don't think the software damages my system or violates my privacy more than i can control (and more than i am aware of) but i'd really like to know this and especially know exactly when and where my system is "safe". Things are really so much easier to handle when you know about them. Even if some of the answers to the questions above would be going against what i supposed, i would then know about it in stead of worrying about it and that's a great difference. It's basically the difference between a concerned advanced user and a satisfied one.
I think it's a communications issue. Documentation is needed. If things (software) are not documented in some level of detail some users (including myself) tend to become suspicious. One minor flaw will quickly develop into other concerns. And perhaps for no reason whatsoever.
/claus
There might be some G-internal "culture clashes" here (for lack of better words), albeit ones that can be solved. One post mentioned the difference between server-side and client-side, that's the thing.
There's these different kinds of software; internet software, say an internet application like Google, does not need to meet the same documentation requirements than client-based software. There's wide room for secrecy in internet applications, as they do run on external servers and thus are more likely to harm those than client machines. Plus, the platform and usage patterns are both predictable.
Client-based software, otoh, is unpredictable and far more individual than server-based. More things can go wrong, so more documentation is needed - or more support and more warranties. Microsoft follows the latter path, closing the source code but providing tons of support, while most open source projects do the opposite; very little support if any, but tons of documentation.
I guess this is the choice Google is facing; going from internet applications to client-side software does require some changes in the way things are done. I don't think Google will want to follow the support-intensive path, so there's a bit of catching up to do on the documentation really.
[edited by: claus at 10:25 am (utc) on Aug. 24, 2003]
In the new version it tells you how to disable this but says it will say X is disabled which for me it dos not.
I may well be selfish but I only want my comp used for uses I decide upon.
