4 ms·

A vast majority of users are non-technical. Manually checking for updates for software can seem like a trivial thing to someone who knows how to use a computer,

A vast majority of users are non-technical. Manually checking for updates for software can seem like a trivial thing to someone who knows how to use a computer, but many folks don't know how to do these things, and would miss out on fixes and features if they aren't made aware of updates. Also, it's an optional feature. You can just turn it off if it's not a benefit to you.

jonathankoren 5y ago
If these updates are compelling, people will know. Outside of security updates, there’s not often a reason update unless there’s a née feature you require. I swear it seems like there’s a whole generation that doesn’t understand that how to build software that isn’t always phoning home and requires a subscription fee.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  Every major browser phones home for version updates. Do you have a problem with them, too?
  - robbedpeter 5y ago
    Yes. People should have control of and be responsible for their hardware and software. If people want to cede the responsibility and control, there's no problem with having that option, but it's a bad default.
  - selfhoster11 5y ago
    The browser almost exclusively executes untrusted input and mediates access to user data. Not keeping such a thing updated is irresponsible. An audio editor has an incomparably smaller network attack surface - perhaps even none, if it's sandboxed and makes no use of the network at all.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      DAWs and audio editors have a very large (non-network) attack surface, in the form of plugins, which run in-process, with zero "protection" between them and the host [0]. A plugin can do anything the host app can or could do, including full access to user files, network access and more. [0] some plugin host apps do "sandbox" the plugins by running them in a separate process, but this is absolutely nothing like the sandboxing done by browsers. The separate processes run with all the priviledges of the host app process.
      - jonathankoren 5y ago
        That’s an issue with running untrusted code. If you’re intentionally downloading and running untrusted code, there’s not a security protocol in the world to help you. Seriously. Don’t do that.
        PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        The definition of "trusted code" in this domain is essentially non-existent. "Oh, it's from Spitfire Audio, no problem" is about as sophisticated as it gets.
        jonathankoren 5y ago
        This is a user problem. Not App Store problem. Maybe you should t be downloading weird ads plugins from some rando forum that links to megadownload or whatnot.
      - selfhoster11 5y ago
        > run in-process, with zero "protection" between them and the host Perhaps that's the current state of things, but like you mentioned with web browsers, it's a thing that can be done if you're willing to sink enough effort into it. Browsers had to go through this process at some point too. There's nothing that prevents plugins from running in a sandbox where the only I/O is waveform in, waveform out.

jonathankoren 5y ago

If these updates are compelling, people will know. Outside of security updates, there’s not often a reason update unless there’s a née feature you require. I swear it seems like there’s a whole generation that doesn’t understand that how to build software that isn’t always phoning home and requires a subscription fee.

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
Every major browser phones home for version updates. Do you have a problem with them, too?
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  Yes. People should have control of and be responsible for their hardware and software. If people want to cede the responsibility and control, there's no problem with having that option, but it's a bad default.
- selfhoster11 5y ago
  The browser almost exclusively executes untrusted input and mediates access to user data. Not keeping such a thing updated is irresponsible. An audio editor has an incomparably smaller network attack surface - perhaps even none, if it's sandboxed and makes no use of the network at all.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    DAWs and audio editors have a very large (non-network) attack surface, in the form of plugins, which run in-process, with zero "protection" between them and the host [0]. A plugin can do anything the host app can or could do, including full access to user files, network access and more. [0] some plugin host apps do "sandbox" the plugins by running them in a separate process, but this is absolutely nothing like the sandboxing done by browsers. The separate processes run with all the priviledges of the host app process.
    - jonathankoren 5y ago
      That’s an issue with running untrusted code. If you’re intentionally downloading and running untrusted code, there’s not a security protocol in the world to help you. Seriously. Don’t do that.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        The definition of "trusted code" in this domain is essentially non-existent. "Oh, it's from Spitfire Audio, no problem" is about as sophisticated as it gets.
        jonathankoren 5y ago
        This is a user problem. Not App Store problem. Maybe you should t be downloading weird ads plugins from some rando forum that links to megadownload or whatnot.
    - selfhoster11 5y ago
      > run in-process, with zero "protection" between them and the host Perhaps that's the current state of things, but like you mentioned with web browsers, it's a thing that can be done if you're willing to sink enough effort into it. Browsers had to go through this process at some point too. There's nothing that prevents plugins from running in a sandbox where the only I/O is waveform in, waveform out.