3 ms·
> But if I had to choose between security and compatibility for 1 billion software users vs an occasional image orientation bug, This is a disingenuous charact
by vageli 6y ago
> But if I had to choose between security and compatibility for 1 billion software users vs an occasional image orientation bug,
This is a disingenuous characterization of my argument. The image orientation bug was a simple example. Further, why can't there be some kind of compromise where security updates are automatically applied and feature updates are not (of course I understand that the line can get blurry)?
Lastly, in a philosophical sense, I don't want to cede control of my machine to a third party. Automatically updating apps removes the chance for me to consent to changes and puts me at the mercy of a third party. It removes my ability to make an informed choice.
- ordinaryperson 6y agoIt's a simple example but that's the kind of tradeoffs platforms are trying to make. Small bugs in favor of security and compatibility. It could be a thousand image orientation bugs. Same arguments still apply. And yes, you can't cordon off security updates from everything else. They accidentally break other things. But this is a general problem of software development. If you're using a third-party's software, aren't you already consenting to their "control"? How much control do you have over someone else's software?
- wolco 6y agoNo using third party software doesn't mean you are consenting to their control. Why would you believe that? For open source you can read the source and decide to install or change. You can limit permissions by assigning to different user groups. You can disallow firewall access. You can choose to use selinux and have additional restrictions. Automatically updating anything introduces risk.
- lonelappde 6y agoMaintaining forks of old versions is expensive and error prone.
- naniwaduni 6y agoSounds like a good argument against moving so fast that you break things all the time.