5 ms·

This article takes multiple frustrations and goes completely the wrong direction. As an OWNER of the system I should have complete control over what updates I

by Sleaker 11y ago

This article takes multiple frustrations and goes completely the wrong direction. As an OWNER of the system I should have complete control over what updates I do and don't receive and never should software disable my access to the network under any circumstances unless I purposely setup such access controls. Maybe they're highly recommended, but there's very specific reasons why you don't go auto-updating all of the devices when you know you have something working. On top of that the author even suggests that paying for updates is okay, even though it's the companies responsibility to update the product if security/stability issues affect the devices performance. If they don't then they can be required to recall devices, or suffer lawsuits.

lukifer 11y ago
I think it's worthwhile to unpack exactly what "owner" means; I don't think it's purely binary. In our current society, I can own land, but still be restricted by HOAs and zoning laws. I can buy a piece of software, but really it still belongs to the creator, who has granted me a license laden with restrictions. And these days, of course, we might own the hardware of our devices, but they're fancy bricks without the software that we certainly do not own. Heck, even the change in your pocket is only owned by you in the sense that there are implicit and explicit contracts with other humans not to take it, and what the repercussions are if they do. It may be worthwhile to renegotiate these norms and definitions of ownership. In the meantime, I think it behooves all of us to be not be naive, and understand the terms of every "ownership" contract that we sign.
- EvanAnderson 11y ago
  Real Property really does have scarcity-- nobody is making any more Earths right now. Comparing that to to manufactured goods (which have scarcity only in that a finite number of copies are manufactured) or software (which has no scarcity) isn't a very good comparison to my mind. I disagree with the idea that we need to renegotiate the norms and definitions of ownership. I think we need to require sellers to be clear on whether you're buying or renting. Rentals are great for a lot of things, but I want to know when I'm renting something. It's very frustrating that I must to heavily scrutinize every business transaction because, seemingly, many things that are sold as purchases are actually rentals. If I'm told I'm purchasing something I would expect it to perform in reasonably the same manner until it physically wears out. I don't want to be required to be tied to any third-party services, updates, "cloud", etc. If I am then it's not a purchase-- it's a rental and needs to be called that.
  - lukifer 11y ago
    Totally agreed that the issue is one of customer transparency. "Click Agree to this incomprehensible EULA" is completely unacceptable.
dspillett 11y ago
These things need to take into account at least two very distinct user types: the power users like you or I who want and sometimes need the control over updates fir various reasons and understand the full potential security/stability/other implications, and the man-on-the-street who knows no better and wouldn't update anything if it wasn't automatically done or somehow more irritating not to than to.
- wang_li 11y ago
  As long as vendors aren't separating security/bug fixes from features and attempts to push services then even the man on the street should have absolute control.
- Sleaker 11y ago
  this is precisely why I mentioned that it should be an opt-in thing. There's nothing stopping a vendor from pushing 'you should enable this feature'
- derefr 11y ago
  You can usually get all the control you like through Enterprise Configuration Management (e.g. deployment profiles, Group Policy, etc.) Bigcorps have real, business-level needs for doing their own update rollouts, and they're willing to pay to get that feature—and many others—included. Really, the way to be a "power-user" in the modern era is to set yourself up on your device as an "Enterprise" of one. Otherwise you're basically part of the default "Enterprise" controlled by the manufacturer.
tdkl 11y ago
I'd be happy to pay for updates, if this would make the companies issuing them more liable for their quality. The whole "agile" and free thing has gone too far. I hate it when I post an opinion about a bad update, then someone comes around and replies "hey, it's a free update" or "it will be fixed in the next release". Yeah great, but until that I have to live with the poor update and that's something I'd rather pay money for to avoid. Even Apple disappointed with their iOS 9 stuttering release.
- Jemmeh 11y ago
  Ehhh. Updates are frequently to fix things that were missed-- mistakes. No amount of money can completely eradicate mistakes. Even NASA which spends a lot of money and time on code still has mistakes that they have to go back and fix.
- spacemanmatt 11y ago
  Just to pick a nit about liability -- I don't think you'll ever find a vendor risking general liability for anything. That's just asking to lose a lawsuit, IMO.
smacktoward 11y ago
> As an OWNER of the system I should have complete control over what updates I do and don't receive I understand (and share) this sentiment, but you have to understand that it's a sentiment that's held by a very very very small number of people. Most people see micromanaging updates as an unwelcome burden and simply don't want to deal with it. So if the only options you present them are "micromanage updates" and "install no updates," they will just choose "install no updates" and roll merrily along with their increasingly insecure systems. They just don't care, and no amount of nagging from well-meaning nerds like you and I ever going to make them care. For a lot of them, not even getting hacked will make them care. So the only way to protect these people from the consequences of their apathy is to just install the updates for them. This annoys people like us who actually care about this stuff, but since there are so many who don't it's the only responsible approach.
- Retra 11y ago
  Those aren't the only choices though. The objection is that you shouldn't force people to use auto-updates, because it impedes their ability to use their software. Let's say I'm writing software for something important with a deadline, and my OS decides to update itself and break some of the libraries I was using. That would be completely unacceptable. It's almost no worse than walking up to my computer and smashing it to pieces. You have to be able to control updates because that's the only way to ensure your system is stable. It may not be secure, but stability is often more important than security, especially during critical periods. Most people want their computers to work today the same way it worked yesterday. If updates didn't break things, nobody would have any reason not to get them. But updates are destructive.

by Sleaker 11y ago

lukifer 11y ago

I think it's worthwhile to unpack exactly what "owner" means; I don't think it's purely binary. In our current society, I can own land, but still be restricted by HOAs and zoning laws. I can buy a piece of software, but really it still belongs to the creator, who has granted me a license laden with restrictions. And these days, of course, we might own the hardware of our devices, but they're fancy bricks without the software that we certainly do not own. Heck, even the change in your pocket is only owned by you in the sense that there are implicit and explicit contracts with other humans not to take it, and what the repercussions are if they do. It may be worthwhile to renegotiate these norms and definitions of ownership. In the meantime, I think it behooves all of us to be not be naive, and understand the terms of every "ownership" contract that we sign.

EvanAnderson 11y ago
Real Property really does have scarcity-- nobody is making any more Earths right now. Comparing that to to manufactured goods (which have scarcity only in that a finite number of copies are manufactured) or software (which has no scarcity) isn't a very good comparison to my mind. I disagree with the idea that we need to renegotiate the norms and definitions of ownership. I think we need to require sellers to be clear on whether you're buying or renting. Rentals are great for a lot of things, but I want to know when I'm renting something. It's very frustrating that I must to heavily scrutinize every business transaction because, seemingly, many things that are sold as purchases are actually rentals. If I'm told I'm purchasing something I would expect it to perform in reasonably the same manner until it physically wears out. I don't want to be required to be tied to any third-party services, updates, "cloud", etc. If I am then it's not a purchase-- it's a rental and needs to be called that.
- lukifer 11y ago
  Totally agreed that the issue is one of customer transparency. "Click Agree to this incomprehensible EULA" is completely unacceptable.

dspillett 11y ago

These things need to take into account at least two very distinct user types: the power users like you or I who want and sometimes need the control over updates fir various reasons and understand the full potential security/stability/other implications, and the man-on-the-street who knows no better and wouldn't update anything if it wasn't automatically done or somehow more irritating not to than to.

wang_li 11y ago
As long as vendors aren't separating security/bug fixes from features and attempts to push services then even the man on the street should have absolute control.
Sleaker 11y ago
this is precisely why I mentioned that it should be an opt-in thing. There's nothing stopping a vendor from pushing 'you should enable this feature'
derefr 11y ago
You can usually get all the control you like through Enterprise Configuration Management (e.g. deployment profiles, Group Policy, etc.) Bigcorps have real, business-level needs for doing their own update rollouts, and they're willing to pay to get that feature—and many others—included. Really, the way to be a "power-user" in the modern era is to set yourself up on your device as an "Enterprise" of one. Otherwise you're basically part of the default "Enterprise" controlled by the manufacturer.

tdkl 11y ago

I'd be happy to pay for updates, if this would make the companies issuing them more liable for their quality. The whole "agile" and free thing has gone too far. I hate it when I post an opinion about a bad update, then someone comes around and replies "hey, it's a free update" or "it will be fixed in the next release". Yeah great, but until that I have to live with the poor update and that's something I'd rather pay money for to avoid. Even Apple disappointed with their iOS 9 stuttering release.

Jemmeh 11y ago
Ehhh. Updates are frequently to fix things that were missed-- mistakes. No amount of money can completely eradicate mistakes. Even NASA which spends a lot of money and time on code still has mistakes that they have to go back and fix.
spacemanmatt 11y ago
Just to pick a nit about liability -- I don't think you'll ever find a vendor risking general liability for anything. That's just asking to lose a lawsuit, IMO.

smacktoward 11y ago

> As an OWNER of the system I should have complete control over what updates I do and don't receive I understand (and share) this sentiment, but you have to understand that it's a sentiment that's held by a very very very small number of people. Most people see micromanaging updates as an unwelcome burden and simply don't want to deal with it. So if the only options you present them are "micromanage updates" and "install no updates," they will just choose "install no updates" and roll merrily along with their increasingly insecure systems. They just don't care, and no amount of nagging from well-meaning nerds like you and I ever going to make them care. For a lot of them, not even getting hacked will make them care. So the only way to protect these people from the consequences of their apathy is to just install the updates for them. This annoys people like us who actually care about this stuff, but since there are so many who don't it's the only responsible approach.

Retra 11y ago
Those aren't the only choices though. The objection is that you shouldn't force people to use auto-updates, because it impedes their ability to use their software. Let's say I'm writing software for something important with a deadline, and my OS decides to update itself and break some of the libraries I was using. That would be completely unacceptable. It's almost no worse than walking up to my computer and smashing it to pieces. You have to be able to control updates because that's the only way to ensure your system is stable. It may not be secure, but stability is often more important than security, especially during critical periods. Most people want their computers to work today the same way it worked yesterday. If updates didn't break things, nobody would have any reason not to get them. But updates are destructive.