"[With] commodities like browsers or operating systems, non-technical consumers may well be best served by automatic updates," said Sebastian Holst, chief marketing officer of Pre Emptive Solutions, a company that helps customers monitor and manage their software.
" Browsers lead the charge Browsers are a prime example of the auto-update ethos.
When At the time, Google said, "For major version updates, when feature changes are involved, we'll explore options for providing users with more details about the changes," but so far it's maintained its silence, so to speak.
The last time policymakers substantially reviewed federal communications policy, it was the early 1990s.
At that time, the Internet was only beginning to reveal itself to be the dynamic technology seen today.
Here's Google's rationale for silent, automatic updates today: The primary reason is to ensure that as many users as possible are on the most current version of the software--and therefore as secure as possible--with minimal user effort...
We've found that [waiting for user permission] only is desired in certain administration cases and in enterprise scenarios.
There have been some problems sometimes with those patches, but despite being fairly technical I'm not the kind of person who'll be able to detect them in some sort of testing.
I concluded that I'd probably be better off overall with Windows installing those updates and my checking later to see what was patched. Sure, maybe some , but my guess is the updates are more likely to protect than compromise me and my data.
I've also become a part-time sysadmin for a mother-in-law who lives several time zones away (thank you, Log Me In).