4 ms·

Why do you want updates if not for that. The reason one updates the distribution is to get new features or fixes. It would be a friggin disaster if only this p

Why do you want updates if not for that. The reason one updates the distribution is to get new features or fixes. It would be a friggin disaster if only this program got the fixes, but not that program, so now they can't agree on the clipboard format, for example.

Silhouette 6y ago
A lot of users don't want updates. They just want their software to work and do whatever they're using it for. As a practical matter, software that is network-accessible or deals with data from outside sources may well need a security patch from time to time. Those updates are good for almost everyone, but by their nature, they should also be transparent to users. It's a different story when you're talking about changing functionality that is visible to the user. Almost everyone hates it when UI elements like menus or toolbars or dialog layouts or shortcut keys get changed from what they're used to, particularly if there is no apparent reason for the change.
- AshamedCaptain 6y ago
  > As a practical matter, software that is network-accessible or deals with data from outside sources may well need a security patch from time to time. This is as good argument as any for allowing the dependencies to be updated without updating the main software.
- konjin 6y ago
  > A lot of users don't want updates. They just want their software to work and do whatever they're using it for. >As a practical matter, software that is network-accessible or deals with data from outside sources may well need a security patch from time to time. Those updates are good for almost everyone, but by their nature, they should also be transparent to users. That's a problem of the system you're using. I use Debian stable for my servers because you can only allow security patches: https://wiki.debian.org/UnattendedUpgrades https://wiki.debian.org/UnattendedUpgrades
  - Silhouette 6y ago
    My business servers typically run Debian Stable for exactly this reason. Most platforms, sadly, are not as reliable in this respect as Debian's. In particular, big consumer platforms like Windows, iOS and Android have all been horrendous when it comes to conflating essential updates for things like security patches or catastrophic data loss bugs with arbitrary updates that change behaviour and move UIs around.
- atoav 6y ago
  > A lot of users don't want updates. They just want their software to work and do whatever they're using it for. True. But these updates often are what keeps the software working, as software doesn't usually live in complete isolation from the rest of the system. Not having to rely on the system dependecies helps in decoupling and being able to update in a more controlled fashion. If you have to fear with every update that something is taken away from you, then maybe you are just getting your software from the wrong people?
  - bregma 6y ago
    I'm not sure I follow. You have to update to keep the software working when you update? Why not just not update by not updating and just keep using the software that works?
    - forty 6y ago
      The point they are making is that the software generally don't run in isolation. It might be true in some rare cases, but often computer are connected to network and need to read files that weren't created on the same computer. You can probably use a computer with software from 20 years ago, but don't expect the web to work well, and to be able to open files made with recent software for example.
      - LocalH 6y ago
        >You can probably use a computer with software from 20 years ago, but don't expect the web to work well, and to be able to open files made with recent software for example. There's no real reason why this can't be the case, or at least graceful degradation. The sole reason is because it's all ultimately a battle for control of your computer. Thanks, capitalism
    - atoav 6y ago
      Because ultimately you have no idea what you are doing, unless you spend your whole day tracking what is going on with the (often hundred) pieces that make up the software you are using. There might be an error in the software you are using that malware or hackers can use to run abitrary code on your machine. Unless you keep your software up to date or manually make sure the updates are not for security purposes, those who not update increase their exposed surface. Then imagine you don't update your software, but (because of security reasons) you update your operating system. Suddenly your (back then working) software finds itself in a changed environment. If you are lucky it works, but just as well it can stop working (or create new security holes because the software relied on something in the OS that changed). I know people who e.g. run 10 year old Audio programs or stuff. But they do so on a computer with a 10 year old OS that is not allowed to connect to the internet. This is a good strategy.
mannykannot 6y ago
> Why do you want updates if not for that? For security patches - that is by far the most important issue, followed by (in order) non-security bug fixes and finally non-breaking enhancements. What is definitely not wanted are regressions, which, in my book, includes cryptic changes to the way one does a task, even if it is still possible. And the first of these is, of course, a strong argument against bundling, while the last of these is the thing that most motivates bundling. It is unfortunate that this is being presented in an us-versus-them way, when cooperation for the common good is needed.

Silhouette 6y ago

A lot of users don't want updates. They just want their software to work and do whatever they're using it for. As a practical matter, software that is network-accessible or deals with data from outside sources may well need a security patch from time to time. Those updates are good for almost everyone, but by their nature, they should also be transparent to users. It's a different story when you're talking about changing functionality that is visible to the user. Almost everyone hates it when UI elements like menus or toolbars or dialog layouts or shortcut keys get changed from what they're used to, particularly if there is no apparent reason for the change.

AshamedCaptain 6y ago
> As a practical matter, software that is network-accessible or deals with data from outside sources may well need a security patch from time to time. This is as good argument as any for allowing the dependencies to be updated without updating the main software.
konjin 6y ago
> A lot of users don't want updates. They just want their software to work and do whatever they're using it for. >As a practical matter, software that is network-accessible or deals with data from outside sources may well need a security patch from time to time. Those updates are good for almost everyone, but by their nature, they should also be transparent to users. That's a problem of the system you're using. I use Debian stable for my servers because you can only allow security patches: https://wiki.debian.org/UnattendedUpgrades https://wiki.debian.org/UnattendedUpgrades
- Silhouette 6y ago
  My business servers typically run Debian Stable for exactly this reason. Most platforms, sadly, are not as reliable in this respect as Debian's. In particular, big consumer platforms like Windows, iOS and Android have all been horrendous when it comes to conflating essential updates for things like security patches or catastrophic data loss bugs with arbitrary updates that change behaviour and move UIs around.
atoav 6y ago
> A lot of users don't want updates. They just want their software to work and do whatever they're using it for. True. But these updates often are what keeps the software working, as software doesn't usually live in complete isolation from the rest of the system. Not having to rely on the system dependecies helps in decoupling and being able to update in a more controlled fashion. If you have to fear with every update that something is taken away from you, then maybe you are just getting your software from the wrong people?
- bregma 6y ago
  I'm not sure I follow. You have to update to keep the software working when you update? Why not just not update by not updating and just keep using the software that works?
  - forty 6y ago
    The point they are making is that the software generally don't run in isolation. It might be true in some rare cases, but often computer are connected to network and need to read files that weren't created on the same computer. You can probably use a computer with software from 20 years ago, but don't expect the web to work well, and to be able to open files made with recent software for example.
    - LocalH 6y ago
      >You can probably use a computer with software from 20 years ago, but don't expect the web to work well, and to be able to open files made with recent software for example. There's no real reason why this can't be the case, or at least graceful degradation. The sole reason is because it's all ultimately a battle for control of your computer. Thanks, capitalism
  - atoav 6y ago
    Because ultimately you have no idea what you are doing, unless you spend your whole day tracking what is going on with the (often hundred) pieces that make up the software you are using. There might be an error in the software you are using that malware or hackers can use to run abitrary code on your machine. Unless you keep your software up to date or manually make sure the updates are not for security purposes, those who not update increase their exposed surface. Then imagine you don't update your software, but (because of security reasons) you update your operating system. Suddenly your (back then working) software finds itself in a changed environment. If you are lucky it works, but just as well it can stop working (or create new security holes because the software relied on something in the OS that changed). I know people who e.g. run 10 year old Audio programs or stuff. But they do so on a computer with a 10 year old OS that is not allowed to connect to the internet. This is a good strategy.

mannykannot 6y ago

> Why do you want updates if not for that? For security patches - that is by far the most important issue, followed by (in order) non-security bug fixes and finally non-breaking enhancements. What is definitely not wanted are regressions, which, in my book, includes cryptic changes to the way one does a task, even if it is still possible. And the first of these is, of course, a strong argument against bundling, while the last of these is the thing that most motivates bundling. It is unfortunate that this is being presented in an us-versus-them way, when cooperation for the common good is needed.