Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Adobe wants Ninite to stop rolling out crapware-free Flash

theregister.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 134 posts

Re: Adobe wants Ninite to stop rolling out crapware-free Flash

#61

Post by astrodust »

tjoff wrote: post #58
JohnTHaller wrote: post #10

This article is a bit... lacking. First off, the Flash updater on Windows works quite well on modern Windows systems. Second off, Ninite isn't just some good Samaritan, they're a for-profit company. Third, and related to the second, Ninite's updater costs $10 a year while Adobe Flash's built-in updater is free. They also have a Ninite Pro version that supports remote updates and installs and costs $240 to $2,220 per…

"First off, the Flash updater on Windows works quite well on modern Windows systems." No, just no. Btw. anyone knows how to manually force flash to check for updates? And an easy way to check flash versions across all different browsers?

"Works quite well" apparently means "pops up all the time about yet another national security threatening flaw that needs to be patched urgently" and "crashes frequently for no apparent reason when trying to perform said updates."

I guess that's marketing for you.

Re: Adobe wants Ninite to stop rolling out crapware-free Flash

#62

Post by greghinch »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #10

This article is a bit... lacking. First off, the Flash updater on Windows works quite well on modern Windows systems. Second off, Ninite isn't just some good Samaritan, they're a for-profit company. Third, and related to the second, Ninite's updater costs $10 a year while Adobe Flash's built-in updater is free. They also have a Ninite Pro version that supports remote updates and installs and costs $240 to $2,220 per…

> Ninite isn't just some good Samaritan, they're a for-profit company.

It saddens me that we've gotten to a point where operating a service company for profit can't also be seen as doing good. Everyone has to pay the bills (and maybe even be rewarded for their efforts?), even the do-gooders.

Re: Adobe wants Ninite to stop rolling out crapware-free Flash

#64

Post by swies »

GhotiFish wrote: post #35
JohnTHaller wrote: post #10

This article is a bit... lacking. First off, the Flash updater on Windows works quite well on modern Windows systems. Second off, Ninite isn't just some good Samaritan, they're a for-profit company. Third, and related to the second, Ninite's updater costs $10 a year while Adobe Flash's built-in updater is free. They also have a Ninite Pro version that supports remote updates and installs and costs $240 to $2,220 per…

You're right. With them being for profit, they have lost their credibility. Frankly, just look at their website: https://ninite.com/updater/ Aren't there other free updaters? Sure, but they don't work like Ninite Updater. With Ninite Updater it's one step to download and install all your updates in the background at once. Yup, This story is not black and white. I'm actually on adobe's side.

Sorry for the confusion. That copy is about things like Filehippo Updater, not built-in updaters. The aggregation and automation arguments still apply, but it's not intended as a jab at them.

I'm still confused at how making money destroys our credibility. It's a good thing for the people you trust with software updates to be profitable. Pro users paying us for extra features like remote mode lets us offer Ninite free for everyone else.

We don't even run ads on the free site because Pro users pay the bills and we love that we can save people from wasting time clicking Next Next Next.

Re: Adobe wants Ninite to stop rolling out crapware-free Flash

#65

Post by workbench »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #10

This article is a bit... lacking. First off, the Flash updater on Windows works quite well on modern Windows systems. Second off, Ninite isn't just some good Samaritan, they're a for-profit company. Third, and related to the second, Ninite's updater costs $10 a year while Adobe Flash's built-in updater is free. They also have a Ninite Pro version that supports remote updates and installs and costs $240 to $2,220 per…

This post sums up one of the reasons I'm so glad I no longer use windows.

Re: Adobe wants Ninite to stop rolling out crapware-free Flash

#66

Post by koshak »

I've recently got all JRE and flash players vanished from my enterprise.

What I love about linux is that almost always you have an interface to manage software (apt/fabric/etc...) out-of-the-box.

Ninite Pro. Ok, not bad. But personally I don't like the "subscription" model.

Making software bundles, rolling them out and updating them can be made by IT dep. itself. It's not such a great and difficult job.

And again, how about clenaup with Ninite? When I decide to use its bundle will it manage older versions of %SOFTWARENAME% for me?

Re: Adobe wants Ninite to stop rolling out crapware-free Flash

#67

Post by drivers99 »

protospork wrote: post #25
JohnTHaller wrote: post #10

This article is a bit... lacking. First off, the Flash updater on Windows works quite well on modern Windows systems. Second off, Ninite isn't just some good Samaritan, they're a for-profit company. Third, and related to the second, Ninite's updater costs $10 a year while Adobe Flash's built-in updater is free. They also have a Ninite Pro version that supports remote updates and installs and costs $240 to $2,220 per…

> First off, the Flash updater on Windows works quite well on modern Windows systems. Speak for yourself; I only ever see it on system startup. I only reboot once every few months (and it doesn't respond to waking up from standby), but there's a new Adobe security panic every two weeks or so, so that's not really acceptable. Plus it opens as a pop-under window for some reason, so I'm generally unaware of it until I'v…

Also, you have to remember to uncheck McAfee every time. Even I have missed that option on one occasion.

Re: Adobe wants Ninite to stop rolling out crapware-free Flash

#68

Post by darkarmani »

GhotiFish wrote: post #35
JohnTHaller wrote: post #10

This article is a bit... lacking. First off, the Flash updater on Windows works quite well on modern Windows systems. Second off, Ninite isn't just some good Samaritan, they're a for-profit company. Third, and related to the second, Ninite's updater costs $10 a year while Adobe Flash's built-in updater is free. They also have a Ninite Pro version that supports remote updates and installs and costs $240 to $2,220 per…

You're right. With them being for profit, they have lost their credibility. Frankly, just look at their website: https://ninite.com/updater/ Aren't there other free updaters? Sure, but they don't work like Ninite Updater. With Ninite Updater it's one step to download and install all your updates in the background at once. Yup, This story is not black and white. I'm actually on adobe's side.

> With them being for profit, they have lost their credibility.

Isn't Adobe a for profit company as well?

Re: Adobe wants Ninite to stop rolling out crapware-free Flash

#69

Post by burpee »

I see a fairly simple solution. The issue Adobe has is essentially that Ninite is taking away the choice of users to install this software when installing Adobe Flash. Ninite is therefore taking away the revenue that Adobe would get from these installs, if you were to assume that some users actually want them.

Ninite could easily circumvent this by giving people a choice to include the adware. 99.999% of users obviously won't make that choice, but Ninite puts that responsibility back with its users.

Re: Adobe wants Ninite to stop rolling out crapware-free Flash

#70

Post by eclipticplane »

I used Ninite at my old job; loved it!

However, if Adobe were to force Ninite to drop Flash -- we would have quickly dropped Flash from our corporate network, and probably have been for the better even with a few users complaining that their favorite time-wasting website/game no longer works.

Post reply on HN