4 ms·

Yes it does. Bugs need to be fixed, improvements need to be made. That’s the lifeblood of most user-facing software. Without it you end up with a huge user base

by orf 5y ago

Yes it does. Bugs need to be fixed, improvements need to be made. That’s the lifeblood of most user-facing software. Without it you end up with a huge user base running legacy versions, reporting the same bugs and asking for the same features.

kennywinker 5y ago
That’s a minor inconvenience at the bug-screening level. I’ve used audacity for over a decade, updating it once every year or two - either when i got a new computer, or when it occurred to me there’s probably a new version out there.
- orf 5y ago
  Cool. Works for you, doesn’t work in aggregate.
  - kennywinker 5y ago
    That’s your opinion, not a fact. I’m happy for auto update to exist, but it should always be at the discretion of the user if they want to take part in it.
    - orf 5y ago
      Look around you. The market has spoken. It doesn’t work in aggregate, which is why even Ubuntu checks for updates periodically by default. I don’t see anyone forking that in outrage.
      - tomjakubowski 5y ago
        Should no one express disappointment in a market outcome? "The market has spoken," yes, and we would go nowhere without heckling it from time to time.
      - kennywinker 5y ago
        > The market has spoken It's like this because it is an overwhelming benefit to someone who is selling something. Not because it is necessarily overwhelmingly what people want. Some other market outcomes I'm unhappy with: ad tracking, excessive plastic packaging, cheap goods - expensive repairs, all sodas are at least twice as sweet as they need to be. When there are options, I choose otherwise. If an option I've come to rely on changes to be something I don't prefer - i'll raise a stink.
      - isaacremuant 5y ago
        Ubuntu has gained trust over many years and provided a way to update. Audacity doesn't need to phone home for that.
      - syshum 5y ago
        On installation Ubuntu asks you to OPT-IN to auto updating. You choose if you want Ubuntu to auto-update or not. Very different
      - badsectoracula 5y ago
        > The market has spoken This is funny because usually whenever i see that mentioned to excuse negative behavior it isn't really about the market speaking but about the market staying silent :-P
      - pessimizer 5y ago
        When the market speaks, people who insist opt-out and telemetry auto-update is necessary then insist that the market just doesn't know what's good for it. This is Audacity forking. It could fail, but I don't know that anyone has the kind of allegiance to Audacity as a project (that is recently under new ownership) to not follow the fork. The new ownership didn't buy the users, and if somebody else will take better care of the project why not go with them? The project lead said he had no say about the telemetry and couldn't turn it down. For me, that makes is a business decision and not a technical one. This is to monetize, not to help me.
        orf 5y ago
        It will fail because the number of users outraged about this is far lower than the threshold needed to create a sustainable community. Check back in a few months and see. It’s crash reporting and update checking. Stop getting so outraged over such minor things.
      - stan_rogers 5y ago
        The market hasn't been given a choice about speaking, really.
        acdha 5y ago
        The market has been given plenty of choices. What we’ve seen repeatedly is that the number of people who will actually do anything _more_ than speak loudly is extremely small. More people think open source means “I can be VP of product without showing up to work” than “I can roll up my sleeves and help make the hard thing I want happen”.
BugWatch 5y ago
WHENEVER I had (or left) the auto-updates on, I came to regret it, from Windows updates to Android apps. Form it usually takes is (and all of them personally encountered): - system instability - just plain data deletion and/or loss - features not working at all, or quarter-baked - previous free feature moved to premium or behind the paywall - incompatibility with previous files - just plain resetting my previous settings and customizations to defaults - arriving with the wrong language (based on keyboard layout or location vs my OS-chosen one) - somebody was frelling bored, so decided to move the position or change a keystroke of the function in the menus - just "because" or "it boosts engagement" or some similar crappy excuse - plain spyware/malware delivered as an "update" (with app betwixt updates being sold to spammers/scammers) - app/program sold in the mean time, with the new one preferring to siphon all the telemetry possible (all options conveniently on by default) - messing up my file or action associations ...and probably 12 other things that don't cross my mind at the moment. I will bloody update my hardware and my installed (or portable-d) software whenever the frell I please. I cannot stand the mommy-gloves and mommy-stance I am subjected to I do not have will nor time to battle with that. My largest "attack surface" in any/all meanings of the word comes from auto-updatijg. So, off with your hea-- auto-updates. I've been blocking/filtering all auto-updates and all Internet access to all apps/programs/OSes where ever possible. Whenever possible, I use portable versions that don't require installation, and I have a huge software library; letting things run amok is not an option. I've been doing it for a decade now (in different, but ever enlarging scope), and I've never been happier. Nothing breaks. Things work. AS THEY SHOULD. And nobody forcefeeds me the crap 95% of the "common folk" are subjected to. Yes, this is a rant. And the topic is a sore one. I'm just so, so, so bloody sick of it.
- roca 5y ago
  So you keep track of critical CVEs for the entire stack of all software you use, and make quick and informed decisions about which components really do need to be updated immediately?
  - BugWatch 5y ago
    Almost all of software in my library/catalog is offline-only, as in - online component is not required, nor wanted: I'd specifically choose local/offline variant vs a fancy online-required one; open-source over freeware over commercial, etc. (I have only addressed the auto-updates, not all other points of my "system", not its exceptions, and certainly not its finer points.) I thought it self-evident in my post that I expect the software in question to notify me of a new version, provide the cumulative change log, and offer me an update (plus even an auto-update, but only as an option). Software that did that (let's call it "polite" software), got its net access (for limited aforementioned uses). And if it was a piece of software I particularly found useful and non-clashing with my stances, I sometimes even enabled the telemetry (because it might help improve it). What I cannot stand is being forcefed those. They break everything when I least expect it, and when I most need the things to function and function fast (e.g. auto-update on program start VS offered update on close). Most (90? 95%?) of my catalog is specific (and offline) use only, so eventual issues usually do not affect me. Often used software I update on a more regular schedule, but still - almost exclusively manually (by downloading the new portable version). OS is updated once I'm done with a project or whatever I was doing in that duration - meaning when I can temporally afford to be frelled in the posterior by Microsoft's updates, and spend an hour fixing stuff... such as figuring why the bloody gamepads are now suddenly preventing my monitors from going to stand-by, thus messing up my presence & tracking software, thus messing up my home automation recipes. (If you are impacted, it's the 2019-timestamped XBox driver; revert to something ancient [find it somewhere], and "lock it" down by listing device identifiers via group policy.) To sum up, in simplified terms - any frell-up resulting from an auto-update impacts me 100% (and costs me time, nerves, will to live) VS extremely low percentage of being affected by the critical security vulnerability du jour (and especially taking into account security and precautions I practice). Constantly-used and online-required software has its own, different set of "rules" (security, precautions, guidelines, etc.). Don't mistake my ire at a certain type of an unfortunately too common (mis)use of a feature (in my specific circumstances and use cases and scenarios) as an irrational blanket refusal of absolutely everything under that category. (Note: typing on a phone, so due to editing troubles my chain of thought might be all over the place.)
pessimizer 5y ago
> Bugs need to be fixed, improvements need to be made. Those are my needs, not the software's. The software has no needs. And if I don't mind the bugs and aren't interested in "improvements," I'm not actually concerned with the software's feelings. When I say this, I'm assuming I'm not talking about networking software, but if you had your way, every piece of software on my computer would be networking, and reporting my usage (however it opaquely defines that) to strangers. I don't want to have a lifelong relationship with the person who wrote the sudoku program I installed from my distro's repo. I really don't want to get owned five years from now because that person needed to "improve" it when I didn't ask.

by orf 5y ago

kennywinker 5y ago

That’s a minor inconvenience at the bug-screening level. I’ve used audacity for over a decade, updating it once every year or two - either when i got a new computer, or when it occurred to me there’s probably a new version out there.

orf 5y ago
Cool. Works for you, doesn’t work in aggregate.
- kennywinker 5y ago
  That’s your opinion, not a fact. I’m happy for auto update to exist, but it should always be at the discretion of the user if they want to take part in it.
  - orf 5y ago
    Look around you. The market has spoken. It doesn’t work in aggregate, which is why even Ubuntu checks for updates periodically by default. I don’t see anyone forking that in outrage.
    - tomjakubowski 5y ago
      Should no one express disappointment in a market outcome? "The market has spoken," yes, and we would go nowhere without heckling it from time to time.
    - kennywinker 5y ago
      > The market has spoken It's like this because it is an overwhelming benefit to someone who is selling something. Not because it is necessarily overwhelmingly what people want. Some other market outcomes I'm unhappy with: ad tracking, excessive plastic packaging, cheap goods - expensive repairs, all sodas are at least twice as sweet as they need to be. When there are options, I choose otherwise. If an option I've come to rely on changes to be something I don't prefer - i'll raise a stink.
    - isaacremuant 5y ago
      Ubuntu has gained trust over many years and provided a way to update. Audacity doesn't need to phone home for that.
    - syshum 5y ago
      On installation Ubuntu asks you to OPT-IN to auto updating. You choose if you want Ubuntu to auto-update or not. Very different
    - badsectoracula 5y ago
      > The market has spoken This is funny because usually whenever i see that mentioned to excuse negative behavior it isn't really about the market speaking but about the market staying silent :-P
    - pessimizer 5y ago
      When the market speaks, people who insist opt-out and telemetry auto-update is necessary then insist that the market just doesn't know what's good for it. This is Audacity forking. It could fail, but I don't know that anyone has the kind of allegiance to Audacity as a project (that is recently under new ownership) to not follow the fork. The new ownership didn't buy the users, and if somebody else will take better care of the project why not go with them? The project lead said he had no say about the telemetry and couldn't turn it down. For me, that makes is a business decision and not a technical one. This is to monetize, not to help me.
      - orf 5y ago
        It will fail because the number of users outraged about this is far lower than the threshold needed to create a sustainable community. Check back in a few months and see. It’s crash reporting and update checking. Stop getting so outraged over such minor things.
    - stan_rogers 5y ago
      The market hasn't been given a choice about speaking, really.
      - acdha 5y ago
        The market has been given plenty of choices. What we’ve seen repeatedly is that the number of people who will actually do anything _more_ than speak loudly is extremely small. More people think open source means “I can be VP of product without showing up to work” than “I can roll up my sleeves and help make the hard thing I want happen”.

BugWatch 5y ago

WHENEVER I had (or left) the auto-updates on, I came to regret it, from Windows updates to Android apps. Form it usually takes is (and all of them personally encountered): - system instability - just plain data deletion and/or loss - features not working at all, or quarter-baked - previous free feature moved to premium or behind the paywall - incompatibility with previous files - just plain resetting my previous settings and customizations to defaults - arriving with the wrong language (based on keyboard layout or location vs my OS-chosen one) - somebody was frelling bored, so decided to move the position or change a keystroke of the function in the menus - just "because" or "it boosts engagement" or some similar crappy excuse - plain spyware/malware delivered as an "update" (with app betwixt updates being sold to spammers/scammers) - app/program sold in the mean time, with the new one preferring to siphon all the telemetry possible (all options conveniently on by default) - messing up my file or action associations ...and probably 12 other things that don't cross my mind at the moment. I will bloody update my hardware and my installed (or portable-d) software whenever the frell I please. I cannot stand the mommy-gloves and mommy-stance I am subjected to I do not have will nor time to battle with that. My largest "attack surface" in any/all meanings of the word comes from auto-updatijg. So, off with your hea-- auto-updates. I've been blocking/filtering all auto-updates and all Internet access to all apps/programs/OSes where ever possible. Whenever possible, I use portable versions that don't require installation, and I have a huge software library; letting things run amok is not an option. I've been doing it for a decade now (in different, but ever enlarging scope), and I've never been happier. Nothing breaks. Things work. AS THEY SHOULD. And nobody forcefeeds me the crap 95% of the "common folk" are subjected to. Yes, this is a rant. And the topic is a sore one. I'm just so, so, so bloody sick of it.

roca 5y ago
So you keep track of critical CVEs for the entire stack of all software you use, and make quick and informed decisions about which components really do need to be updated immediately?
- BugWatch 5y ago
  Almost all of software in my library/catalog is offline-only, as in - online component is not required, nor wanted: I'd specifically choose local/offline variant vs a fancy online-required one; open-source over freeware over commercial, etc. (I have only addressed the auto-updates, not all other points of my "system", not its exceptions, and certainly not its finer points.) I thought it self-evident in my post that I expect the software in question to notify me of a new version, provide the cumulative change log, and offer me an update (plus even an auto-update, but only as an option). Software that did that (let's call it "polite" software), got its net access (for limited aforementioned uses). And if it was a piece of software I particularly found useful and non-clashing with my stances, I sometimes even enabled the telemetry (because it might help improve it). What I cannot stand is being forcefed those. They break everything when I least expect it, and when I most need the things to function and function fast (e.g. auto-update on program start VS offered update on close). Most (90? 95%?) of my catalog is specific (and offline) use only, so eventual issues usually do not affect me. Often used software I update on a more regular schedule, but still - almost exclusively manually (by downloading the new portable version). OS is updated once I'm done with a project or whatever I was doing in that duration - meaning when I can temporally afford to be frelled in the posterior by Microsoft's updates, and spend an hour fixing stuff... such as figuring why the bloody gamepads are now suddenly preventing my monitors from going to stand-by, thus messing up my presence & tracking software, thus messing up my home automation recipes. (If you are impacted, it's the 2019-timestamped XBox driver; revert to something ancient [find it somewhere], and "lock it" down by listing device identifiers via group policy.) To sum up, in simplified terms - any frell-up resulting from an auto-update impacts me 100% (and costs me time, nerves, will to live) VS extremely low percentage of being affected by the critical security vulnerability du jour (and especially taking into account security and precautions I practice). Constantly-used and online-required software has its own, different set of "rules" (security, precautions, guidelines, etc.). Don't mistake my ire at a certain type of an unfortunately too common (mis)use of a feature (in my specific circumstances and use cases and scenarios) as an irrational blanket refusal of absolutely everything under that category. (Note: typing on a phone, so due to editing troubles my chain of thought might be all over the place.)

pessimizer 5y ago

> Bugs need to be fixed, improvements need to be made. Those are my needs, not the software's. The software has no needs. And if I don't mind the bugs and aren't interested in "improvements," I'm not actually concerned with the software's feelings. When I say this, I'm assuming I'm not talking about networking software, but if you had your way, every piece of software on my computer would be networking, and reporting my usage (however it opaquely defines that) to strangers. I don't want to have a lifelong relationship with the person who wrote the sudoku program I installed from my distro's repo. I really don't want to get owned five years from now because that person needed to "improve" it when I didn't ask.