11 ms·

As a user of software, I couldn't agree more with the OP that automatic updates: > should always keep the user centric > should be incremental and security or

by cs702 6y ago

As a user of software, I couldn't agree more with the OP that automatic updates: > should always keep the user centric > should be incremental and security or bug fixes only > should never update a user interface without allowing the previous one to be used as the default > should never be used to install telemetry or spyware or to re-enable it if it was previously switched off > should never be used to install other software packages without the users explicit consent and knowledge > should never change the format of data already stored on the system > should never cause a system to become unusable or unstable > must allow a revert to the previous situation > must be disablable, in an easy and consistent manner for instance on mobile devices > should never cause the system to become inaccessible or restarted without user consent > should always be signed by the vendor to ensure that the update mechanism does not become a malware vector > should never cause commercial messages or other fluff to be included > should never cause configuration details to be lost > should always be backwards compatible with previous plug-ins or other third party add ons I agree: Software vendors "should" and "must" do all these things when updating software on my computer without my permission. But often they will NOT, because their economic incentives are frequently stacked AGAINST it. For them, it's often cheaper or more profitable in the short run not to do any of these things.

tomc1985 6y ago
That will never happen as long as shareholders are the only people that companies are legally beholden to That will never happen as long as software continues to be regarded as a "cost center" That will never happen as long as developers insist that their happiness is more immportant than that of their users That will never happen as long as evangelists keep pushing this doctrine that more updates, more features, more whatever, is better
- spaetzleesser 6y ago
  "shareholders are the only people that companies are legally beholden to" I don't think that's actual true. As far as I know the only legal obligation a company has is to conduct lawful business.
  - tomc1985 6y ago
    Shareholders can sue if they do not think their interests are being properly represented/manifested. They can also arbitrarily shuffle senior management as they see fit Neither customers nor employees can do that
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - bdowling 6y ago
      > Shareholders can sue if they do not think their interests are being properly represented/manifested. In general, shareholder recourse is limited to electing a new board that will do what those shareholders want. The exceptions are cases where the actions of the corporation or board are discriminatory to some shareholders, or where there is fraud or self-dealing by insiders (e.g., shareholder derivative suits). > They can also arbitrarily shuffle senior management as they see fit Not directly. Shareholders elect the board, which then chooses the managers (CEO, etc.) who actually run the company. Shareholders usually only elect board members once per year at the annual meeting. So it’s not arbitrary. > Neither customers nor employees can do that This is true. Customers and employees don’t direct the corporation the same ways that the owners (shareholders) do. However, customers can boycott and employees can strike. Those can be effective ways to influence the direction of a corporation. Also, customers can sue for other things (e.g., fraud or malpractice), as can employees (e.g., employment discrimination). And any injured third party can sue the corporation.
      - tomc1985 6y ago
        You are correct, I am getting my wires crossed a bit.
  - FridgeSeal 6y ago
    Whilst it may not be technically true, most companies behave as if it is.
- cringepirate 6y ago
  No you got it the wrong way around. The power is in the hands of the user. > That will never happen as long as shareholders are the only people that companies are legally beholden to The user has a choice not to use products that are made by companies that don't respect them. > That will never happen as long as developers insist that their happiness is more immportant than that of their users The user can simply stop using the software if the developer doesn't respect their time (happiness is a completely subjective property dependant on the individual). So I say this will never happen while people won't actively move for alternatives and put up with crappy products. I made the effort to stop using products from large companies that don't respect my privacy and don't respect freedom of speech of their users. So whenever possible I don't use any products from the large tech companies. If people can't be bothered and choose to be ignorant, they deserve what they get.
  - Sabinus 6y ago
    Governments are supposed to intervene in markets to keep them stable, functional and ethical. Hand-balling all market regulation to ethical individual consumption isn't workable for many industries where companies can monopolize, capture regulation and sway public opinion with advertising campaigns.
    - cringepirate 6y ago
      Unfortunately I should have expected a reply such as this. Everything is seen as a all or nothing proposition. I think it is pretty obvious that if companies are abusing their position to that extent an appropriate governing body should step in. However there are going to be issues that won't fall under such a remit. Also just because the government/regulator is failing to step in, doesn't mean you can't be doing something yourself. I was getting very frustrated with Google and its products. So I decided to stop using them whenever possible. As for moving away from industry giants, this works. Firefox (back in the early 2000s) chipped away at IE's monopoly and broke the stagnation.
  - tomc1985 6y ago
    > If people can't be bothered and choose to be ignorant, they deserve what they get. The problem is that those that do care also have to suffer. After a certain point of critical mass, when it comes to tech, oftentimes you can't just take your business elsewhere any more.
zmj 6y ago
> For them, it's often cheaper or more profitable in the short run not to do any of these things. For free-as-in-beer software? You get what you pay for. Supporting a full matrix of (security release) * (feature release) combinations isn't cheap.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  > Supporting a full matrix of (security release) * (feature release) combinations isn't cheap. Having paid for something isn't a magical spell that wards this away. Having sunk costs makes it less likely that the users will migrate away after unpleasant, user-hostile changes, not more. Having a budget also allows for enough PR to bury the complaints.
Lio 6y ago
I’m not sure it’s even to do with economics. Certain people just like to mess about with UI because changes excite them. Slack recently moved the profile settings from the left of the screen to the right. It hasn’t been replaced by anything on the left. Someone just decided to move it, they probably have some pseudo science about “design weight balance” to justify moving it. Really it’s change for change’s sake.
- 3r1kB 6y ago
  This! I came here to post something about Slack and their forced update. Click on a notification by accident and BOOM you have a new version with a new layout, even without shutting the software down. With every update they shuffle stuff around without adding much functionality. I guess the designers need to keep themselves busy or something. I hate forced updates like this
- sumtechguy 6y ago
  It is not just phone apps that do this. Web apps do this too. My bank has pretty much rearranged all of its GUI. Big giant buttons everywhere. Yet the one thing I go on there to do is at least 10-20 clicks to do now.
Joeri 6y ago
If you have to do all that, it costs a lot more to develop updates. I think most developers mean well but just can't afford to do it all. For example: > should be incremental and security or bug fixes only That means maintaining multiple releases of the app, and porting fixes between those versions, while also maintaining data migration logic when fixes affect data formats. I've maintained an enterprise software suite before where we did it like that, and it added a double digit percentage to the cost of development. You also get drawn into a discussion of what exactly constitutes a fix. Some users consider a missing feature a bug, sometimes they're right. > should never update a user interface without allowing the previous one to be used as the default I hope you've maintained a very clean separation between view an controller layers, because otherwise you'll have duplicate business logic and tons of bugs. Again, been there, done that, was not a happy camper. > must allow a revert to the previous situation So, maintaining and testing data migration algorithms in both directions then? > should never change the format of data already stored on the system Multiple independent read and write paths? How many combinations of UI and data logic do you get? A combinatorial explosion can cause this to become effectively untestable. Granted, some developers are bad, and abuse automatic updates. I swore off Oracle Java after a security update installed malware on my system (called Norton Antivirus). But most developers are not like that. They mean well, they're doing the best they can given their limited resources.
- GoblinSlayer 6y ago
  I do that kind of maintenance. Sometimes it's reverse migration code. Because CD doesn't fly. Maybe people don't know it doesn't fly and still push it, or they know it doesn't fly and still push it. And there's no asymmetry between user and developer, developers are users too and experience all this first hand from the user side.
- grishka 6y ago
  That's the point. If updates are expensive, you'd think twice about pushing one out every week for no good reason. As far as file formats go, how often do you need to change these, anyway? I'm fascinated with most of the mainstream file formats (except mp3, mp3 sucks) — they're built with extreme extensibility in mind, and you have to try really hard to make something incompatible with the rest of the world. So, then, what stops you from designing your own file formats to be extensible? You add a new feature, you add a new section to your file. The user downgrades, and the old version skips over that section because it doesn't know about it. It's easy. And besides, I've seen a lot of software that's able to save files that are 100% compatible with older versions of itself if that's what the user asks for. Microsoft Office is one example.
enriquto 6y ago
> when updating software on my computer without my permission. This never happens. No software is ever run on your computer without your permission unless you install it (or willingly buy the computer with that software pre-installed). If you install software that auto-updates, you have it coming.
- wolco 6y ago
  If you make your own chipsets and processor.
bambax 6y ago
To add to the list: automatic updates should install. Many many times Windows updates download, try to install, and fail with an "unknown reason" and a useless error code. I disabled them for just this reason. It's completely pointless.
- pitay 6y ago
  The issue of updates not installing may have saved you from worse issues. Here is a description of updates from June which caused me significant trouble: https://www.windowslatest.com/2020/04/06/windows-10-update-kb4541335-is-wrecking-pcs/ https://www.windowslatest.com/2020/04/06/windows-10-update-k... https://www.windowslatest.com/2020/03/17/windows-10-kb4551762-new-issues/ https://www.windowslatest.com/2020/03/17/windows-10-kb455176... (other patch) From the first article: "Another user also told us that the KB4541335 update crashes the system and later causes 100% disk/CPU usage." That is pretty much what happened to me, especially the hard drive grinding. Also discovering that I couldn't use F8 to boot to safe mode any more. I discovered I had to wait a very long time to get to the login screen all the time with the HDD grinding and then shift click something to get the menus to be able to do a system restore without loading a user profile. Note to anyone using Windows, always have a Windows PE environment ready to boot to, even if you are a home user, it may save a lot of trouble.
EvanAnderson 6y ago
> Should not use features like "e-fuses" to make irreversible modifications to my hardware I am very reticent to update some embedded devices because not only to I risk losing functionality, losing my preferred UI, etc, but the update may also make irreversible changes to my hardware. Even if I am able to wrest control away from the manufacturer (e.g. "jailbreak" the device) I may not be able to revert to a prior version because the hardware identifies itself as being physically unable to run the old software.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  > Even if I am able to wrest control away from the manufacturer (e.g. "jailbreak" the device) I may not be able to revert to a prior version because the hardware identifies itself as being physically unable to run the old software. coughs in Nintendo Switch
  - shifto 6y ago
    It seems the Switch has 64 burnable fuses. What will they do after the 64th update?
    - Joeri 6y ago
      Make a new console. The Wii doesn't get updates anymore.
      - NeuNeurosis 6y ago
        But does the Wii need updates? I mean we still play every once in a while and have never updated it.
    - mschuster91 6y ago
      Right now they're at 36 releases, gonna get interesting for sure
    - stilley2 6y ago
      For anyone else who had never heard this and wants some background: https://hackernoon.com/how-the-nintendo-switch-prevents-downgrades-by-irreparably-blowing-its-own-fuses-884bd3b7a8ba https://hackernoon.com/how-the-nintendo-switch-prevents-down...
taneq 6y ago
So to sum that up, Johnny Won't Upgrade because like as not, the writers of the updates are The Enemy.
- jacobwilliamroy 6y ago
  That is the modern tech business model. Rope in naive people with excellent services offered at a loss or at cost, wait for them to develop dependence, use nazi cult-think psychology to inculcate irrational loyalty to the platform, then take everything away in a major software update and sell it back to the poor fools for big profits.
  - zxcmx 6y ago
    It's possible for developers to think they are shipping must-have features _and_ for users to see that as "messing up all my menus" and "disrupting my workflow". Inevitably some users will complain about changes in every new update while others complain about a lack of eagerly awaited new features and bug fixes. You cannot make everyone happy :/ I'm sympathetic to the idea that workflow/ui changes should be explicit updates (or on beta opt-ins) with security/crash fixes being automatic. This model makes the most sense for professional tools that people make a living from (e.g. CAD). To be sustainable, software with multiple supported major versions will cost more.
    - grugagag 6y ago
      Don't force updates on people. For the ones who want to update asap they should be able to do so. I prefer to make sure a major update is not going to fuck my system then I will update as well, it's happened to me before multiple times and I am forever hesitant about this. It's also happened to me to get featured removed when updating so if something is working allright I will hesitate updating for a while.
      - zxcmx 6y ago
        Context matters. So 3d sculpting software or CAD do not deeply need automatic updates, although it can greatly reduce support requests (e.g. something in the OS changed, software is now crashing, need to install update). The state of play in 2020 however is that operating systems and browsers 100% need automatic updates for security issues. The reason we have them is because of all the bad things that happened when we didn't. There should then be a very small switch hidden somewhere deep in the system where people like you who know what they are doing can turn them off. For the people who are using the software to say, run the electrical grid and a) care more about stability than security and b) pay people to write scathing reports about all the patches they're not installing. IMHO there is a sticky middle ground with respect to office suites and email clients where the software is widespread enough that bugs are wormable. Updates as a whole are inter-twingled with the developer's support and release model, how they a/b test and general maturity in terms of managing change. I feel like we're often complaining about different aspects of this when we talk about "updates".
jseliger 6y ago
I'm a somewhat sophisticated user and have come to loathe upgrading: I never know what's going to break. Apple keeps nagging me to update to Catalina, and that I know is going to break the last freestanding version of Lightroom. What else will it break? I don't know for sure yet. I update machines less quickly than I used to: Migration Assistant is finicky and has cost me at least a day, if not more, of various kinds of work in the past.
fouc 6y ago
Automatic updates are rather immoral for platforms like operating systems and browsers. And probably should be outlawed.
- ziml77 6y ago
  I'd only agree with that if part of that is also a law that forces ISPs to cut off anyone who's been taken over and is part of a botnet.

by cs702 6y ago

tomc1985 6y ago

That will never happen as long as shareholders are the only people that companies are legally beholden to That will never happen as long as software continues to be regarded as a "cost center" That will never happen as long as developers insist that their happiness is more immportant than that of their users That will never happen as long as evangelists keep pushing this doctrine that more updates, more features, more whatever, is better

spaetzleesser 6y ago
"shareholders are the only people that companies are legally beholden to" I don't think that's actual true. As far as I know the only legal obligation a company has is to conduct lawful business.
- tomc1985 6y ago
  Shareholders can sue if they do not think their interests are being properly represented/manifested. They can also arbitrarily shuffle senior management as they see fit Neither customers nor employees can do that
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - bdowling 6y ago
    > Shareholders can sue if they do not think their interests are being properly represented/manifested. In general, shareholder recourse is limited to electing a new board that will do what those shareholders want. The exceptions are cases where the actions of the corporation or board are discriminatory to some shareholders, or where there is fraud or self-dealing by insiders (e.g., shareholder derivative suits). > They can also arbitrarily shuffle senior management as they see fit Not directly. Shareholders elect the board, which then chooses the managers (CEO, etc.) who actually run the company. Shareholders usually only elect board members once per year at the annual meeting. So it’s not arbitrary. > Neither customers nor employees can do that This is true. Customers and employees don’t direct the corporation the same ways that the owners (shareholders) do. However, customers can boycott and employees can strike. Those can be effective ways to influence the direction of a corporation. Also, customers can sue for other things (e.g., fraud or malpractice), as can employees (e.g., employment discrimination). And any injured third party can sue the corporation.
    - tomc1985 6y ago
      You are correct, I am getting my wires crossed a bit.
- FridgeSeal 6y ago
  Whilst it may not be technically true, most companies behave as if it is.
cringepirate 6y ago
No you got it the wrong way around. The power is in the hands of the user. > That will never happen as long as shareholders are the only people that companies are legally beholden to The user has a choice not to use products that are made by companies that don't respect them. > That will never happen as long as developers insist that their happiness is more immportant than that of their users The user can simply stop using the software if the developer doesn't respect their time (happiness is a completely subjective property dependant on the individual). So I say this will never happen while people won't actively move for alternatives and put up with crappy products. I made the effort to stop using products from large companies that don't respect my privacy and don't respect freedom of speech of their users. So whenever possible I don't use any products from the large tech companies. If people can't be bothered and choose to be ignorant, they deserve what they get.
- Sabinus 6y ago
  Governments are supposed to intervene in markets to keep them stable, functional and ethical. Hand-balling all market regulation to ethical individual consumption isn't workable for many industries where companies can monopolize, capture regulation and sway public opinion with advertising campaigns.
  - cringepirate 6y ago
    Unfortunately I should have expected a reply such as this. Everything is seen as a all or nothing proposition. I think it is pretty obvious that if companies are abusing their position to that extent an appropriate governing body should step in. However there are going to be issues that won't fall under such a remit. Also just because the government/regulator is failing to step in, doesn't mean you can't be doing something yourself. I was getting very frustrated with Google and its products. So I decided to stop using them whenever possible. As for moving away from industry giants, this works. Firefox (back in the early 2000s) chipped away at IE's monopoly and broke the stagnation.
- tomc1985 6y ago
  > If people can't be bothered and choose to be ignorant, they deserve what they get. The problem is that those that do care also have to suffer. After a certain point of critical mass, when it comes to tech, oftentimes you can't just take your business elsewhere any more.

zmj 6y ago

> For them, it's often cheaper or more profitable in the short run not to do any of these things. For free-as-in-beer software? You get what you pay for. Supporting a full matrix of (security release) * (feature release) combinations isn't cheap.

pessimizer 6y ago
> Supporting a full matrix of (security release) * (feature release) combinations isn't cheap. Having paid for something isn't a magical spell that wards this away. Having sunk costs makes it less likely that the users will migrate away after unpleasant, user-hostile changes, not more. Having a budget also allows for enough PR to bury the complaints.

Lio 6y ago

I’m not sure it’s even to do with economics. Certain people just like to mess about with UI because changes excite them. Slack recently moved the profile settings from the left of the screen to the right. It hasn’t been replaced by anything on the left. Someone just decided to move it, they probably have some pseudo science about “design weight balance” to justify moving it. Really it’s change for change’s sake.

3r1kB 6y ago
This! I came here to post something about Slack and their forced update. Click on a notification by accident and BOOM you have a new version with a new layout, even without shutting the software down. With every update they shuffle stuff around without adding much functionality. I guess the designers need to keep themselves busy or something. I hate forced updates like this
sumtechguy 6y ago
It is not just phone apps that do this. Web apps do this too. My bank has pretty much rearranged all of its GUI. Big giant buttons everywhere. Yet the one thing I go on there to do is at least 10-20 clicks to do now.

Joeri 6y ago

If you have to do all that, it costs a lot more to develop updates. I think most developers mean well but just can't afford to do it all. For example: > should be incremental and security or bug fixes only That means maintaining multiple releases of the app, and porting fixes between those versions, while also maintaining data migration logic when fixes affect data formats. I've maintained an enterprise software suite before where we did it like that, and it added a double digit percentage to the cost of development. You also get drawn into a discussion of what exactly constitutes a fix. Some users consider a missing feature a bug, sometimes they're right. > should never update a user interface without allowing the previous one to be used as the default I hope you've maintained a very clean separation between view an controller layers, because otherwise you'll have duplicate business logic and tons of bugs. Again, been there, done that, was not a happy camper. > must allow a revert to the previous situation So, maintaining and testing data migration algorithms in both directions then? > should never change the format of data already stored on the system Multiple independent read and write paths? How many combinations of UI and data logic do you get? A combinatorial explosion can cause this to become effectively untestable. Granted, some developers are bad, and abuse automatic updates. I swore off Oracle Java after a security update installed malware on my system (called Norton Antivirus). But most developers are not like that. They mean well, they're doing the best they can given their limited resources.

GoblinSlayer 6y ago
I do that kind of maintenance. Sometimes it's reverse migration code. Because CD doesn't fly. Maybe people don't know it doesn't fly and still push it, or they know it doesn't fly and still push it. And there's no asymmetry between user and developer, developers are users too and experience all this first hand from the user side.
grishka 6y ago
That's the point. If updates are expensive, you'd think twice about pushing one out every week for no good reason. As far as file formats go, how often do you need to change these, anyway? I'm fascinated with most of the mainstream file formats (except mp3, mp3 sucks) — they're built with extreme extensibility in mind, and you have to try really hard to make something incompatible with the rest of the world. So, then, what stops you from designing your own file formats to be extensible? You add a new feature, you add a new section to your file. The user downgrades, and the old version skips over that section because it doesn't know about it. It's easy. And besides, I've seen a lot of software that's able to save files that are 100% compatible with older versions of itself if that's what the user asks for. Microsoft Office is one example.

enriquto 6y ago

> when updating software on my computer without my permission. This never happens. No software is ever run on your computer without your permission unless you install it (or willingly buy the computer with that software pre-installed). If you install software that auto-updates, you have it coming.

wolco 6y ago
If you make your own chipsets and processor.

bambax 6y ago

To add to the list: automatic updates should install. Many many times Windows updates download, try to install, and fail with an "unknown reason" and a useless error code. I disabled them for just this reason. It's completely pointless.

pitay 6y ago
The issue of updates not installing may have saved you from worse issues. Here is a description of updates from June which caused me significant trouble: https://www.windowslatest.com/2020/04/06/windows-10-update-kb4541335-is-wrecking-pcs/ https://www.windowslatest.com/2020/04/06/windows-10-update-k... https://www.windowslatest.com/2020/03/17/windows-10-kb4551762-new-issues/ https://www.windowslatest.com/2020/03/17/windows-10-kb455176... (other patch) From the first article: "Another user also told us that the KB4541335 update crashes the system and later causes 100% disk/CPU usage." That is pretty much what happened to me, especially the hard drive grinding. Also discovering that I couldn't use F8 to boot to safe mode any more. I discovered I had to wait a very long time to get to the login screen all the time with the HDD grinding and then shift click something to get the menus to be able to do a system restore without loading a user profile. Note to anyone using Windows, always have a Windows PE environment ready to boot to, even if you are a home user, it may save a lot of trouble.

EvanAnderson 6y ago

> Should not use features like "e-fuses" to make irreversible modifications to my hardware I am very reticent to update some embedded devices because not only to I risk losing functionality, losing my preferred UI, etc, but the update may also make irreversible changes to my hardware. Even if I am able to wrest control away from the manufacturer (e.g. "jailbreak" the device) I may not be able to revert to a prior version because the hardware identifies itself as being physically unable to run the old software.

mschuster91 6y ago
> Even if I am able to wrest control away from the manufacturer (e.g. "jailbreak" the device) I may not be able to revert to a prior version because the hardware identifies itself as being physically unable to run the old software. coughs in Nintendo Switch
- shifto 6y ago
  It seems the Switch has 64 burnable fuses. What will they do after the 64th update?
  - Joeri 6y ago
    Make a new console. The Wii doesn't get updates anymore.
    - NeuNeurosis 6y ago
      But does the Wii need updates? I mean we still play every once in a while and have never updated it.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    Right now they're at 36 releases, gonna get interesting for sure
  - stilley2 6y ago
    For anyone else who had never heard this and wants some background: https://hackernoon.com/how-the-nintendo-switch-prevents-downgrades-by-irreparably-blowing-its-own-fuses-884bd3b7a8ba https://hackernoon.com/how-the-nintendo-switch-prevents-down...

taneq 6y ago

So to sum that up, Johnny Won't Upgrade because like as not, the writers of the updates are The Enemy.

jacobwilliamroy 6y ago
That is the modern tech business model. Rope in naive people with excellent services offered at a loss or at cost, wait for them to develop dependence, use nazi cult-think psychology to inculcate irrational loyalty to the platform, then take everything away in a major software update and sell it back to the poor fools for big profits.
- zxcmx 6y ago
  It's possible for developers to think they are shipping must-have features _and_ for users to see that as "messing up all my menus" and "disrupting my workflow". Inevitably some users will complain about changes in every new update while others complain about a lack of eagerly awaited new features and bug fixes. You cannot make everyone happy :/ I'm sympathetic to the idea that workflow/ui changes should be explicit updates (or on beta opt-ins) with security/crash fixes being automatic. This model makes the most sense for professional tools that people make a living from (e.g. CAD). To be sustainable, software with multiple supported major versions will cost more.
  - grugagag 6y ago
    Don't force updates on people. For the ones who want to update asap they should be able to do so. I prefer to make sure a major update is not going to fuck my system then I will update as well, it's happened to me before multiple times and I am forever hesitant about this. It's also happened to me to get featured removed when updating so if something is working allright I will hesitate updating for a while.
    - zxcmx 6y ago
      Context matters. So 3d sculpting software or CAD do not deeply need automatic updates, although it can greatly reduce support requests (e.g. something in the OS changed, software is now crashing, need to install update). The state of play in 2020 however is that operating systems and browsers 100% need automatic updates for security issues. The reason we have them is because of all the bad things that happened when we didn't. There should then be a very small switch hidden somewhere deep in the system where people like you who know what they are doing can turn them off. For the people who are using the software to say, run the electrical grid and a) care more about stability than security and b) pay people to write scathing reports about all the patches they're not installing. IMHO there is a sticky middle ground with respect to office suites and email clients where the software is widespread enough that bugs are wormable. Updates as a whole are inter-twingled with the developer's support and release model, how they a/b test and general maturity in terms of managing change. I feel like we're often complaining about different aspects of this when we talk about "updates".

jseliger 6y ago

I'm a somewhat sophisticated user and have come to loathe upgrading: I never know what's going to break. Apple keeps nagging me to update to Catalina, and that I know is going to break the last freestanding version of Lightroom. What else will it break? I don't know for sure yet. I update machines less quickly than I used to: Migration Assistant is finicky and has cost me at least a day, if not more, of various kinds of work in the past.

fouc 6y ago

Automatic updates are rather immoral for platforms like operating systems and browsers. And probably should be outlawed.

ziml77 6y ago
I'd only agree with that if part of that is also a law that forces ISPs to cut off anyone who's been taken over and is part of a botnet.