3 ms·

We need a culture that distinguishes between truly necessary updates like security ones and general updates that change functionality and interfaces. One type i

We need a culture that distinguishes between truly necessary updates like security ones and general updates that change functionality and interfaces. One type is essential and we want to encourage everyone to install those promptly. The other should always be optional and the changes being made should always be transparent. Bundling the two is a common but user-hostile behaviour. This separation should be the price of admission for software developers who want to use online updates, and by now there is probably a need for real laws to regulate the industry since firstly it is very clear that it will not regulate itself effectively and secondly it is no longer just random applications but essentials like operating systems, web browsers and even the software controlling your car that are being treated in this cavalier way.

rjmunro 6y ago
This would be nice, but a developer could still publish a malicious update as an important security fix. Also it gets very hard for developers to keep track of past versions and apply new fixes to them, when they also have to apply fixes to the new versions.
- Silhouette 6y ago
  Also it gets very hard for developers to keep track of past versions and apply new fixes to them, when they also have to apply fixes to the new versions. Then maybe they release too often? I have been developing software professionally for a long time, much of it code that needed to be high quality. I have never worked on such a team that couldn't keep track of its own software, often over a period of years or even decades, and backport fixes when necessary. Yes, it's less convenient for the developers than just having a single version that users are forced to update constantly if they want fixes. But it is achievable if you drop the pretence that every minor change in functionality or appearance must be pushed into production instantly through some CD system, which is of course a luxury that only those running hosted software have anyway.

rjmunro 6y ago

This would be nice, but a developer could still publish a malicious update as an important security fix. Also it gets very hard for developers to keep track of past versions and apply new fixes to them, when they also have to apply fixes to the new versions.

Silhouette 6y ago
Also it gets very hard for developers to keep track of past versions and apply new fixes to them, when they also have to apply fixes to the new versions. Then maybe they release too often? I have been developing software professionally for a long time, much of it code that needed to be high quality. I have never worked on such a team that couldn't keep track of its own software, often over a period of years or even decades, and backport fixes when necessary. Yes, it's less convenient for the developers than just having a single version that users are forced to update constantly if they want fixes. But it is achievable if you drop the pretence that every minor change in functionality or appearance must be pushed into production instantly through some CD system, which is of course a luxury that only those running hosted software have anyway.