3 ms·

I presume GP would call a weekly release "rapid", too. Given the tone of the message, I expect "non rapid" to mean with a much longer time frame, and, most imp

I presume GP would call a weekly release "rapid", too. Given the tone of the message, I expect "non rapid" to mean with a much longer time frame, and, most importantly, the release must be controllable by the user.

jen20 4y ago
> most importantly, the release must be controllable by the user. This is pining for a world which no longer exists, because security patches must be applied to anything that matters immediately.
- lazide 4y ago
  There are things called ‘branches’ you know.
- diffeomorphism 4y ago
  That is completely orthogonal and the whole selling point of things like Windows LTSC or Red Hat: Stable foundations with regular security updates but no surprises.
- Silhouette 4y ago
  It is possible to separate security updates and other critical bug fixes from functional/UI changes. At least it is if you're any good at software development at all. The world would be a better place for users if more software developers still did that. Of course you do need a strategy for maintaining multiple versions of something in that case instead of just forcing the latest version of everything you do on users whether they want it or not. With the lock-in effects of the always-connected web applications of today we all know which option makes more money. I take some comfort in knowing that eventually most of the developers that force unwanted changes on their users will probably see their market share erode and lose their dominant positions. It's just unfortunate that we have so many quasi-monopolies in both essential and niche software products that it's going to take a long time for that to happen.
- pdntspa 4y ago
  Why should something like a drawing app, or a music app, or anything else that doesn't need to be online, need this kind of patch schedule? This world does in fact still exist, this is how most OSS works!
JohnFen 4y ago
Yes, weekly is certainly rapid.

jen20 4y ago

> most importantly, the release must be controllable by the user. This is pining for a world which no longer exists, because security patches must be applied to anything that matters immediately.

lazide 4y ago
There are things called ‘branches’ you know.
diffeomorphism 4y ago
That is completely orthogonal and the whole selling point of things like Windows LTSC or Red Hat: Stable foundations with regular security updates but no surprises.
Silhouette 4y ago
It is possible to separate security updates and other critical bug fixes from functional/UI changes. At least it is if you're any good at software development at all. The world would be a better place for users if more software developers still did that. Of course you do need a strategy for maintaining multiple versions of something in that case instead of just forcing the latest version of everything you do on users whether they want it or not. With the lock-in effects of the always-connected web applications of today we all know which option makes more money. I take some comfort in knowing that eventually most of the developers that force unwanted changes on their users will probably see their market share erode and lose their dominant positions. It's just unfortunate that we have so many quasi-monopolies in both essential and niche software products that it's going to take a long time for that to happen.
pdntspa 4y ago
Why should something like a drawing app, or a music app, or anything else that doesn't need to be online, need this kind of patch schedule? This world does in fact still exist, this is how most OSS works!

JohnFen 4y ago

Yes, weekly is certainly rapid.