3 ms·
I definitely feel the increasing apprehension and postpone updates for as long as possible all the time. But the change to "mandatory updates" came after numer
by adrianb 6y ago
I definitely feel the increasing apprehension and postpone updates for as long as possible all the time.
But the change to "mandatory updates" came after numerous incidents of "millions of users running unpatched software fell victim to the latest exploit". This kind of bad publicity started the trend of software makers forcing updates on users.
Separating security patches from feature updates is better but doesn't 100% guarantee there are no data-losing bugs.
- lazulicurio 6y ago> Separating security patches from feature updates is better but doesn't 100% guarantee there are no data-losing bugs. It's a nice thought to separate "security" and "feature" updates, but I'm not sure if its realistically achievable. ---- Looking at the bigger picture, I think the issue is that once developers/managers got into the habit of forcing updates on users, it became an excuse for skimping on QA/QC. "If there's any bugs, we can just fix them in the next release". But there's a huge difference between internally finding a bug, analyzing its potential impact, then deciding it isn't a blocker and expecting your users to find bugs for you.
- api 6y agoThat would be really, really hard and would require a tremendous amount of additional organization in the dev process. Either that or fixes would need to be back ported to every running supported version. That's insane.
- lazulicurio 6y agoI don't quite follow. Was that supposed to be a reply to the parent instead of me?