Hmmm

This article has been up a whole day and only 29 comments about the lack of control over the silent updates - and some of those are actually supportive.

If this was MS, this comments section would be well over 100, people complaining (and rightly so) about a company installing stuff on their computer without their permission and generally bitching about how evil MS are and how you can't trust them.

What makes google any different? They want to mine your data to make a larger profit from their advertisers. They want to prostitute your browsing habits to make money, but because it's google and not MS everything's ok?

I think this just proves the point that far too many people recently have jumped on the 'lets bitch about MS' bandwagon and the rabid anti-ms comments you get most of the time are nothing to do with the posters principles - they are just foaming at the mouth because it's that big bad boogeyman - Microsoft.

re Chronos

Hark at the legend in his own lunch hour.

Your comments remind me why I detest large swathes of the IT community. Grow up and face the fact that google et al don't give a fuck (I have no compunction with the f) what you think. They are producing a browser for the majority of the internet community and I'm afraid their isn't snotty geeks who know how to install an operating system. [1]

I agree that allowing anyone to update your computer without permission is a bad idea. But, until something bad happens to the majority of internet users, who trust their most intimate information to Facebook and haven't got a clue what updating their browser means, let alone entails, auto updating of this nature is probably the best approach. Remember we are talking about a user base potentially as young as 7 and as doddery as 70.

I apologise that I didn't use long words in my post.

[1] No one gives a fuck which one it is....jumped up Muppet