Tell HN: Cisco WebEx on OS X uses the same pre-installer tricks as Zoom

Post by lonelappde » Thu, Apr 09, 2020, 4:27 PM UTC

whatsmyusername wrote: post #126

diebeforei485 wrote: post #38

No wonder their uninstallation instructions[1] are hilariously complicated. They somewhat-helpfully point to an actual separate uninstaller package to download, but it doesn't even remove all the things mentioned on this page. 1. https://help.webex.com/en-us/WBX38280/How-Do-I-Uninstall-Web...

What's real great is they didn't notorize the app. So on Mac you have to individually allow about 30 java bits in a row.

Post by lonelappde » Thu, Apr 09, 2020, 4:32 PM UTC

nathancahill wrote: post #84

jcelerier wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, it's a total pain. users send you a crash log, you see that they're on an old version, ask them to update. They say they do, you get the next crash log, and it's still the old version. And then you get a screenshot and you see 12 different versions of your .app, in the desktop, in ~/Applications, in /Applications...

Even worse when they don't copy it off the DMG. Just leave the DMG mounted.. forever.

Post by lonelappde » Thu, Apr 09, 2020, 4:36 PM UTC

lloeki wrote: post #73

egypturnash wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“This installer will run a script to determine if the package can be installed .” Not “This installer will run a script that installs this package without asking further questions, then terminate abruptly without going through the rest of the install process and giving you a chance to decide exactly where it should go”.

I always read the subtext as "This installer will run a script whose stated goal is to determine if the package can be installed, but y'know, it's a script, and its existence is warranted for doing supposedly helpful yet nonstandard checks that the pkg API-or-something doesn't provide, thus can't be sandboxed, and therefore can do anything else it wants to. Would you like to assume trust and proceed anyway, or would…

Post by Saaster » Thu, Apr 09, 2020, 4:42 PM UTC

KORraN wrote: post #150

Saaster wrote: post #148

I work in a tech company. The number of people you see who have their desktop filled with permanently mounted DMGs, launching their apps by opening said DMG and launching their trusty old Chrome version 53 by double-clicking the icon would blow your mind. Users don't use your software as you would like them to. Zoom now requires ~4 clicks to update when a new version is released as you click through the installer ste…

Not sure about what clicking disk icon you are talking about, but today's update showed up as regular pkg installer ("Next", "Next", "Accept", "Finish").

Post by duxup » Thu, Apr 09, 2020, 4:49 PM UTC

lonelappde wrote: post #153

duxup wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll admit as a web dev I sometimes take some of the "omg JavaScript" a little personally. Some of the usual pile on articles (granted their complaints aren't technically 'wrong') sometimes imply the browser is a bad place for a lot of things that are happening there privacy wise and etc. I always wonder ... "Uh, do you want platform specific desktop apps? You're not much better protected there man... and app availab…

There's no fundamental technical reason why apps can't run as their own users (like apache and postgres have done for 20 years) and and use something like oauth to control sharing data with other apps. Just laziness.