4 ms·

> Personally I hate UI changes and I want Audacity to change as little as possible in that regard. It is not a tool that I use regularly so I want to be able to

> Personally I hate UI changes and I want Audacity to change as little as possible in that regard. It is not a tool that I use regularly so I want to be able to not use it for a year or two, get back to it and still find the same familiar interface. And here is the beauty of non-web based software, you can guarantee that you always will! Same executable on your computer represents the same program launched, forever. Things don't change under the hood without you saying "yes", so if you want the UI to remain the same forever, you're welcome to. If you later want to upgrade, you can, but you'll never be forced to.

jfrunyon 6y ago
Except that "just don't upgrade" is a very bad idea.
- faeyanpiraat 6y ago
  Why?
  - sayhar 6y ago
    Security patches, for one thing, right?
    - glial 6y ago
      Genuine question: what security vulnerabilities could Audacity have that would make not upgrading a risk?
      - jfrunyon 6y ago
        Many, many, MANY audio players have had exploitable buffer overflows.
cardanome 6y ago
That would only work if I never wanted to change or update my system. In practice, especially on Linux, binaries only work for specific distributions of specific major versions. It can be very difficult to get a binary to work a few years down the line. Of course solutions like Appimage help quite a bit as software comes with most dependencies packaged inside but even then its not perfect. It will slow down the bit rot but not stop it.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  It's pretty simple to build audacity. If you're never upgrading then that's fine.
- schmorptron 6y ago
  In theory, flatpaks will have perfect forwards compatibility, unless some breaking changed occur without them supporting the old format in a legacy way, which seems unlikely.
- arantius 6y ago
  In practice, on Windows, one can still use most things made 25 years ago. In actuality, I still use WinAmp 2.91 marked "Apr 16 2003" in the about screen. See also http://www.oldversion.com/ http://www.oldversion.com/ .

jfrunyon 6y ago

Except that "just don't upgrade" is a very bad idea.

faeyanpiraat 6y ago
Why?
- sayhar 6y ago
  Security patches, for one thing, right?
  - glial 6y ago
    Genuine question: what security vulnerabilities could Audacity have that would make not upgrading a risk?
    - jfrunyon 6y ago
      Many, many, MANY audio players have had exploitable buffer overflows.

cardanome 6y ago

That would only work if I never wanted to change or update my system. In practice, especially on Linux, binaries only work for specific distributions of specific major versions. It can be very difficult to get a binary to work a few years down the line. Of course solutions like Appimage help quite a bit as software comes with most dependencies packaged inside but even then its not perfect. It will slow down the bit rot but not stop it.

sudosysgen 6y ago
It's pretty simple to build audacity. If you're never upgrading then that's fine.
schmorptron 6y ago
In theory, flatpaks will have perfect forwards compatibility, unless some breaking changed occur without them supporting the old format in a legacy way, which seems unlikely.
arantius 6y ago
In practice, on Windows, one can still use most things made 25 years ago. In actuality, I still use WinAmp 2.91 marked "Apr 16 2003" in the about screen. See also http://www.oldversion.com/ http://www.oldversion.com/ .