3 ms·
The issue here is the mixing of new features and security updates. As a sysadmin, I would happily (and do!) roll out periodic security updates without significa
by omh 15y ago
The issue here is the mixing of new features and security updates. As a sysadmin, I would happily (and do!) roll out periodic security updates without significant testing, for the reasons that you outline.
But when the software is deliberately adding/removing features, I have a number of reasons why I would be wary. You might remove a feature I was using, change the way that your features behave, or change the interface and cause confusion for users.
I've seen cases of all of these, and if I wasn't actively managing the upgrade then we'd have had real-world problems that cost us time and (potentially) money.
- ZeroGravitas 15y agoIt's not that they don't know this, it's that they don't care. Corporations used to have so much power over tech adoption that this used to be the software developers problem and it cost them time and money. Now with growing consumerization (what version of Google Search did your IT dept. approve? Which iPhone browser version?) the balance of power has shifted and it's now the corporations' problem. Now that the pain point has been shifted it will soon become apparent to corporations that the current system is untenable, just as Chrome and Firefox discovered it was. The browsers couldn't change things except to pass the buck whereas the corporations can actually fix it, or be outcompeted by those that do (just as Firefox and IE were outcompeted by Chrome choosing this path). The third option for big corps. is to bluster and try and frighten Firefox into acting more like IE than Chrome by claiming it will hurt adoption if they don't do what they want. You only have to look at the Chrome, IE and Firefox usage graphs over the last few years to see which way Firefox should be jumping.