12 ms·

> I pay for the thing it allows me to do Why can't software ever be "finished" or "sufficient" to meet your needs? I don't see the point of having software is

> I pay for the thing it allows me to do Why can't software ever be "finished" or "sufficient" to meet your needs? I don't see the point of having software is updated day after day, month after month, if I am not interested in the new features they bring.

julianlam 4y ago
Security vulnerabilities are regularly found in many softwares (both online and offline), so that's one reason to upgrade.
- NoMAD76 4y ago
  Security vulnerabilities should be fixed by patches/security fixes w/o forcing users to go up the ladder to "za niu anz shaini version" + "our new and enhanced x$/mo"
  - pixl97 4y ago
    Should be = not happening in a world where not doing it means more money. With that said it can get problematic fixing old third party packages that are no longer supported.
  - EugeneOZ 4y ago
    Then the money for doing this should be provided to developers by the universe.
- Enginerrrd 4y ago
  Sure, but in some products that's really a non-issue. Like, take photoshop for an example. If you're a photographer that only ever edits your own photos, the odds of a needing a security update for photoshop are really minimal. If you regularly edit photos from clients, maybe it's worth considering.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    I'd say definitely: https://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/exploit_w32_jpg_vulnerability.shtml https://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/exploit_w32_jpg_vulnerabili...
    - Enginerrrd 4y ago
      Eh, it still depends. Is it riskier than keeping an updated copy? Sure. Is the expected return period of a hack given your circumstances above a threshold that is acceptable to you? Maybe, maybe not.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  > so that's one reason to upgrade. That seems like "hey, we develop our software the worst way so that it's always full of bugs, but if you want less bugs, buy our subscription". Complete conflict of interest vs making quality and well-tested software in the first place.
  - calvinmorrison 4y ago
    Well except most useful software (not all) interacts with other systems. I loved my old mail client until it stopped working with the latest encryption schemes. A nicer way around this is like what plan9 has, where programs don't worry about handling secure connections etc, so you don't need to patch every program. some people still use a 90's version of wordperfect, and that's fine, but if you have software that depends on other software - example Qt3 was dropped everywhere, even though there's plenty of useful Qt3 software around, it needs to be upgraded. So even if your system wasn't buggy, it may be incompatible or the dependencies no longer are updated (like with Qt3, which had networking and other helper functions), you wouldn't want to keep using it.
- Kinrany 4y ago
  Proprietary software should come with a warranty that covers security vulnerabilities for N years.
  - nradov 4y ago
    Nothing is stopping you from requesting such a warranty from your vendors, and refusing to buy from those who fail to offer such a warranty.
    - Kinrany 4y ago
      Coordination problems do.
  - EugeneOZ 4y ago
    Imagine a developer who has to spend 50-90 hours per month just to provide the promised security patches for each of the 5 products they have created and sold at least once.
    - Kinrany 4y ago
      No one is in a better position than that developer to make this maintenance burden lighter, so they're the one who should be incentivised to do that. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32286651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32286651
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
eganist 4y ago
This used to be the case. Photoshop, for instance. I don't need it to have new features; there are certain things I need it to do for me, and that's it. I don't need constant new features. But I do expect security updates. Same model we have with cars (that BMW is trying hard to upend): it has the features I need, and if there's a systemic defect that poses a safety risk across those models sold, they're expected to fix it. I agree that subscriptions have become toxic in their prevalence.
- skeeter2020 4y ago
  >> I don't need constant new features. But I do expect security updates. Isn't updates to software in response to emerging security issues a "feature"?
  - bryant 4y ago
    Nope lol it's most closely relatable to a product recall/repair.
    - EugeneOZ 4y ago
      Usually, repair shops are not free.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  Cars are nothing like software, they clearly deteriorate with time to the point parts eventually need replacing. You could argue there's a better case for a subscription model for buying cars than for software.
Mister_Snuggles 4y ago
Operating systems are starting to make that impossible. I used to use an old version of Quicken for Mac (this was back in the MacOS 10.2 days). It was "finished" in that it did absolutely everything I needed and there were no bugs that affected me. As time marched on, Apple switched from PowerPC to Intel which was fine because they had technology (Rosetta) which allowed me to run PowerPC applications. Then they dropped Rosetta, so now I had to choose whether to upgrade MacOS or continue to use Quicken. I now use software called Banktivity to replace Quicken. Much like Quicken, Banktivity is "finished" as far as my requirements go. The version I have is Intel-only and Apple is switching to Arm processors. How long will Rosetta 2 last before it's pulled and I'm forced to choose between upgrading my OS and using this software? I think there are similar things in the mobile world too. I think Google requires apps to use a minimum API version to maintain a listing in Google Play. I believe Apple does something similar with the App Store too. So short of regularly recompiling, testing, and publishing your app, everything in the stores has a finite lifetime.
- worthless-trash 4y ago
  No, shitty operating systems make that impossible.
  - jbluepolarbear 4y ago
    What’s an operating system that makes it possible?
    - goosedragons 4y ago
      I'm willing to bet that Windows 10 or 11 would have zero trouble running some random version of Quicken from 2002. Most PC games from that era are still easily runnable without too much hassle and those have way more complexity and weird crap to deal with. Linux might be doable too if it doesn't have a bunch of shared libraries or if you at least know what versions it needs.
      - jbluepolarbear 4y ago
indymike 4y ago
> Why can't software ever be "finished" or "sufficient" to meet your needs? For a very long time the driver was operating system and hardware features.

julianlam 4y ago

Security vulnerabilities are regularly found in many softwares (both online and offline), so that's one reason to upgrade.

NoMAD76 4y ago
Security vulnerabilities should be fixed by patches/security fixes w/o forcing users to go up the ladder to "za niu anz shaini version" + "our new and enhanced x$/mo"
- pixl97 4y ago
  Should be = not happening in a world where not doing it means more money. With that said it can get problematic fixing old third party packages that are no longer supported.
- EugeneOZ 4y ago
  Then the money for doing this should be provided to developers by the universe.
Enginerrrd 4y ago
Sure, but in some products that's really a non-issue. Like, take photoshop for an example. If you're a photographer that only ever edits your own photos, the odds of a needing a security update for photoshop are really minimal. If you regularly edit photos from clients, maybe it's worth considering.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  I'd say definitely: https://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/exploit_w32_jpg_vulnerability.shtml https://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/exploit_w32_jpg_vulnerabili...
  - Enginerrrd 4y ago
    Eh, it still depends. Is it riskier than keeping an updated copy? Sure. Is the expected return period of a hack given your circumstances above a threshold that is acceptable to you? Maybe, maybe not.
ekianjo 4y ago
> so that's one reason to upgrade. That seems like "hey, we develop our software the worst way so that it's always full of bugs, but if you want less bugs, buy our subscription". Complete conflict of interest vs making quality and well-tested software in the first place.
- calvinmorrison 4y ago
  Well except most useful software (not all) interacts with other systems. I loved my old mail client until it stopped working with the latest encryption schemes. A nicer way around this is like what plan9 has, where programs don't worry about handling secure connections etc, so you don't need to patch every program. some people still use a 90's version of wordperfect, and that's fine, but if you have software that depends on other software - example Qt3 was dropped everywhere, even though there's plenty of useful Qt3 software around, it needs to be upgraded. So even if your system wasn't buggy, it may be incompatible or the dependencies no longer are updated (like with Qt3, which had networking and other helper functions), you wouldn't want to keep using it.
Kinrany 4y ago
Proprietary software should come with a warranty that covers security vulnerabilities for N years.
- nradov 4y ago
  Nothing is stopping you from requesting such a warranty from your vendors, and refusing to buy from those who fail to offer such a warranty.
  - Kinrany 4y ago
    Coordination problems do.
- EugeneOZ 4y ago
  Imagine a developer who has to spend 50-90 hours per month just to provide the promised security patches for each of the 5 products they have created and sold at least once.
  - Kinrany 4y ago
    No one is in a better position than that developer to make this maintenance burden lighter, so they're the one who should be incentivised to do that. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32286651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32286651
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

eganist 4y ago

This used to be the case. Photoshop, for instance. I don't need it to have new features; there are certain things I need it to do for me, and that's it. I don't need constant new features. But I do expect security updates. Same model we have with cars (that BMW is trying hard to upend): it has the features I need, and if there's a systemic defect that poses a safety risk across those models sold, they're expected to fix it. I agree that subscriptions have become toxic in their prevalence.

skeeter2020 4y ago
>> I don't need constant new features. But I do expect security updates. Isn't updates to software in response to emerging security issues a "feature"?
- bryant 4y ago
  Nope lol it's most closely relatable to a product recall/repair.
  - EugeneOZ 4y ago
    Usually, repair shops are not free.
wizofaus 4y ago
Cars are nothing like software, they clearly deteriorate with time to the point parts eventually need replacing. You could argue there's a better case for a subscription model for buying cars than for software.

Mister_Snuggles 4y ago

Operating systems are starting to make that impossible. I used to use an old version of Quicken for Mac (this was back in the MacOS 10.2 days). It was "finished" in that it did absolutely everything I needed and there were no bugs that affected me. As time marched on, Apple switched from PowerPC to Intel which was fine because they had technology (Rosetta) which allowed me to run PowerPC applications. Then they dropped Rosetta, so now I had to choose whether to upgrade MacOS or continue to use Quicken. I now use software called Banktivity to replace Quicken. Much like Quicken, Banktivity is "finished" as far as my requirements go. The version I have is Intel-only and Apple is switching to Arm processors. How long will Rosetta 2 last before it's pulled and I'm forced to choose between upgrading my OS and using this software? I think there are similar things in the mobile world too. I think Google requires apps to use a minimum API version to maintain a listing in Google Play. I believe Apple does something similar with the App Store too. So short of regularly recompiling, testing, and publishing your app, everything in the stores has a finite lifetime.

worthless-trash 4y ago
No, shitty operating systems make that impossible.
- jbluepolarbear 4y ago
  What’s an operating system that makes it possible?
  - goosedragons 4y ago
    I'm willing to bet that Windows 10 or 11 would have zero trouble running some random version of Quicken from 2002. Most PC games from that era are still easily runnable without too much hassle and those have way more complexity and weird crap to deal with. Linux might be doable too if it doesn't have a bunch of shared libraries or if you at least know what versions it needs.
    - jbluepolarbear 4y ago

indymike 4y ago

> Why can't software ever be "finished" or "sufficient" to meet your needs? For a very long time the driver was operating system and hardware features.