5 ms·

Because in practice if you don't push people to update, they just don't update. And then complain about bugs, security issues, bad performance, missing features

by rakoo 5y ago

Because in practice if you don't push people to update, they just don't update. And then complain about bugs, security issues, bad performance, missing features, etc... all available in the updates they have been postponing for years.

catlifeonmars 5y ago
Worse, they use that out of date software to run web servers, databases, etc. The next thing you know, millions of peoples PII is leaked. I also wonder if there is a liability component to this that makes force updating a common pattern.
- smegger001 5y ago
  that is a problem but servers are one place where there should absolutely not ever have automated updates that cannot be overridden and turn off as you are apt to break things if it isn't tested first.
  - catlifeonmars 5y ago
    Agreed. ideally you want both. Automated security updates and integration testing.
marrs 5y ago
Or alternatively they do update and their critical application stops working.
KeepFlying 5y ago
I 100% feel this pain. And for security updates and major fixes, I see the need for frequent updates. Though setting aside practicality for a bit I wish we would design software to be more backwards compatible so old versions of things could continue to work for longer. I shouldn't have to buy a new phone every three years, for example. Also for a tool like Audacity, I rarely need to update it. It doesn't depend on a service, so I don't need to worry about an API falling out of support and he security risks are much lower. I wish we could design more of our software to work this way. Obviously for internet connected things like browsers this isn't possible as the security impacts are significantly higher, but why should I need to update Word every month if I don't plan to use the online components, for example.
smichel17 5y ago
Just spitballing here: what if we selectively notified users of updates when they'll be affected? So, when I'm using my spreadsheet program, and I go to sort the rows, a little note pops up informing me that there's a bug in sorting non-ascii characters that was fixed recently and would I like to update my word processor now or continue anyway? I'm imagining some automated tooling where changelogs are tied to specific git commits, and when you go down a code path that has a changelog entry tied to it in this way, it pops up the dialog. The program downloads the changelogs in the background (if the user chooses), but doesn't pop up a notification unless it's relevant to the user.
- stiglitz 5y ago
  Too complicated.
- rakoo 5y ago
  I don't think it would entice more people into upgrading. People don't necessary want to stay on old versions, they just don't want to be interrupted. To make it more probable that a user updates, you need to make the interruption as little as possible: download stuff in the background, make it patches rather than full blown installer, ... to follow in your direction, if I have a popup that says "you just sorted rows alphabetically but there's a bug, do you want me to fix it ?" and the install takes 5 seconds then it's good. If it takes 30 minutes then screw your update I think what we need is another way of architecturing software. I'm thinking of Erlang's actors and hot reloading: the whole language and its environment were built to allow upgrading parts of the app without turning the whole thing off, thanks to actors that compartmentalize state and minimize the places where it can change. That's extremely useful for servers, but why can't I have the same for desktop apps ? For your example again, maybe have some "actor" that can give me a sort, and when updates come the old instance is killed and the new instance takes its place. No need to turn down the app, to lose my current work, to waste dozens of minutes. Unfortunately desktop apps are pretty much dead for the masses, and webapps solve both the problem of not updating (next time you come it'll be updated) and atomic updates (a client side app can load some javascript when needed). If we want desktop apps to come back (I do) we need to find a way to do the same
smegger001 5y ago
so put a check box in the setting to let the power users take care of themselves because they ostensibly know what they are doing

by rakoo 5y ago

catlifeonmars 5y ago

Worse, they use that out of date software to run web servers, databases, etc. The next thing you know, millions of peoples PII is leaked. I also wonder if there is a liability component to this that makes force updating a common pattern.

smegger001 5y ago
that is a problem but servers are one place where there should absolutely not ever have automated updates that cannot be overridden and turn off as you are apt to break things if it isn't tested first.
- catlifeonmars 5y ago
  Agreed. ideally you want both. Automated security updates and integration testing.

marrs 5y ago

Or alternatively they do update and their critical application stops working.

KeepFlying 5y ago

I 100% feel this pain. And for security updates and major fixes, I see the need for frequent updates. Though setting aside practicality for a bit I wish we would design software to be more backwards compatible so old versions of things could continue to work for longer. I shouldn't have to buy a new phone every three years, for example. Also for a tool like Audacity, I rarely need to update it. It doesn't depend on a service, so I don't need to worry about an API falling out of support and he security risks are much lower. I wish we could design more of our software to work this way. Obviously for internet connected things like browsers this isn't possible as the security impacts are significantly higher, but why should I need to update Word every month if I don't plan to use the online components, for example.

smichel17 5y ago

Just spitballing here: what if we selectively notified users of updates when they'll be affected? So, when I'm using my spreadsheet program, and I go to sort the rows, a little note pops up informing me that there's a bug in sorting non-ascii characters that was fixed recently and would I like to update my word processor now or continue anyway? I'm imagining some automated tooling where changelogs are tied to specific git commits, and when you go down a code path that has a changelog entry tied to it in this way, it pops up the dialog. The program downloads the changelogs in the background (if the user chooses), but doesn't pop up a notification unless it's relevant to the user.

stiglitz 5y ago
Too complicated.
rakoo 5y ago
I don't think it would entice more people into upgrading. People don't necessary want to stay on old versions, they just don't want to be interrupted. To make it more probable that a user updates, you need to make the interruption as little as possible: download stuff in the background, make it patches rather than full blown installer, ... to follow in your direction, if I have a popup that says "you just sorted rows alphabetically but there's a bug, do you want me to fix it ?" and the install takes 5 seconds then it's good. If it takes 30 minutes then screw your update I think what we need is another way of architecturing software. I'm thinking of Erlang's actors and hot reloading: the whole language and its environment were built to allow upgrading parts of the app without turning the whole thing off, thanks to actors that compartmentalize state and minimize the places where it can change. That's extremely useful for servers, but why can't I have the same for desktop apps ? For your example again, maybe have some "actor" that can give me a sort, and when updates come the old instance is killed and the new instance takes its place. No need to turn down the app, to lose my current work, to waste dozens of minutes. Unfortunately desktop apps are pretty much dead for the masses, and webapps solve both the problem of not updating (next time you come it'll be updated) and atomic updates (a client side app can load some javascript when needed). If we want desktop apps to come back (I do) we need to find a way to do the same

smegger001 5y ago

so put a check box in the setting to let the power users take care of themselves because they ostensibly know what they are doing