4 ms·
I don't think it is fair to lump "frequent updates," "large updates," and "background updates" into a single category: Frequent updates, if properly managed, a
by m3koval 15y ago
I don't think it is fair to lump "frequent updates," "large updates," and "background updates" into a single category:
Frequent updates, if properly managed, are generally a plus: security vulnerabilities get patched before they are widely exploited and minor bugs can be fixed without waiting for a major release. Other than the minor annoyance of downloading and installing frequent updates, I don't see a negative.
Unnecessarily large updates are always negative. If different patching practices would compress a 300 MB update to 15 MB, then there is absolutely no reason to prefer the larger patch. Apple is notorious for this: every software "update" requires downloading an entirely new piece of software (note: this is likely changing in Lion).
Background downloading and patching is a matter of preference. It's something I love in a web browser because of the security updates, but would be much less welcome in professional tools. Since it's a matter of opinion, I don't have much to say here.
- Silhouette 15y ago> Other than the minor annoyance of downloading and installing frequent updates, I don't see a negative. The negative is that every time you change the functionality of your software, you risk usability and integration problems. See the way Firefox 5 is repeatedly being slaughtered on Slashdot -- normally a forum that strongly advocates for successful OSS projects -- this week.