3 ms·

It's interesting to hear how different people like to operate. In general for me personally I like to ensure all software updates are installed daily (not just

It's interesting to hear how different people like to operate. In general for me personally I like to ensure all software updates are installed daily (not just my editor/IDE). When I login in the mornings the first thing that runs is a simple script that checks for and applies all updates for my OS, Apps, homebrew packages, shell packages, several applications extensions / plugins etc... likewise my servers install updates daily. Obviously there are pros and cons of (in)frequently updating software. For me - with this approach of small, frequent updates I've found that updating software becomes boring - which is a good thing. I honestly can't remember the last time anything broke (that I noticed). I've taken this approach for around 12 years.

jabroni_salad 3y ago
I don't mind having stuff update, I just don't like anything that steals focus / the cursor. When I am in windowsland I often find myself saying something along the lines of 'let me know when its my turn to use the computer'. Sure, run your update. just shut the fuck up about it.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
bityard 3y ago
I used to do this, until I ran into the problem of an update breaking some critical piece of my workflow the morning right before I had some important work to complete. It's not a good look when you have to ask your co-workers to wait for you because you have to stop and fix your computer first. (Although these days software is so unreliable that maybe no one bats an eye anymore? Who knows.) Since then, I've learned that it's not a matter of IF an upgrade will break your system, it's a matter of WHEN. There will always be that one bug that slips under the radar and breaks something, and it's usually right when you can afford it the least. These days, I do approximately weekly upgrades of all my systems/gear, but I make sure to schedule it when I know I will have the time to fix whatever issues come up. (In an enterprise setting, the expanded version of this is called Change Management.)
ar_lan 3y ago
I prefer stability over optimal, especially in my development environment. I use macOS with nix-darwin, so updating my applications is never very concerning - I can always just rollback if an update is bad. But macOS updates, while generally they don't break anything, have broken enough that it's the scariest part of my year. The year they shut down any folders in the `/` directory was my (and many coworkers) downfall. It took me a solid 3-4 hours to recoup everything in a working order, and there were failing straggler scripts that were discovered months later. As such I generally avoid updates as often as possible. Also, to be fair, I have a history in IT and while personal computer updates are generally good, infrastructure updates are time-consuming, error-prone, and generally scary, so I do have a default aversion.
User23 3y ago
Next morning's standup: "And then I got nothing done for the rest of the day while I fixed my development environment that was messed up by an update."
JohnFen 3y ago
> For me - with this approach of small, frequent updates I've found that updating software becomes boring - which is a good thing. That's all well and good until an update happens that changes workflow or changes the look/feel too much. Those sorts of changes cause disruption that I want to schedule. Or until an update is made that changes the software in a way that makes it actively worse for your use case. Those are the sorts of updates I want to avoid. That's why I don't allow software to automatically update. Most of the time I won't notice the update, but when I do, it's a big deal that would have been better if I could have done it on a more convenient day.

jabroni_salad 3y ago

I don't mind having stuff update, I just don't like anything that steals focus / the cursor. When I am in windowsland I often find myself saying something along the lines of 'let me know when its my turn to use the computer'. Sure, run your update. just shut the fuck up about it.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

bityard 3y ago

I used to do this, until I ran into the problem of an update breaking some critical piece of my workflow the morning right before I had some important work to complete. It's not a good look when you have to ask your co-workers to wait for you because you have to stop and fix your computer first. (Although these days software is so unreliable that maybe no one bats an eye anymore? Who knows.) Since then, I've learned that it's not a matter of IF an upgrade will break your system, it's a matter of WHEN. There will always be that one bug that slips under the radar and breaks something, and it's usually right when you can afford it the least. These days, I do approximately weekly upgrades of all my systems/gear, but I make sure to schedule it when I know I will have the time to fix whatever issues come up. (In an enterprise setting, the expanded version of this is called Change Management.)

ar_lan 3y ago

I prefer stability over optimal, especially in my development environment. I use macOS with nix-darwin, so updating my applications is never very concerning - I can always just rollback if an update is bad. But macOS updates, while generally they don't break anything, have broken enough that it's the scariest part of my year. The year they shut down any folders in the `/` directory was my (and many coworkers) downfall. It took me a solid 3-4 hours to recoup everything in a working order, and there were failing straggler scripts that were discovered months later. As such I generally avoid updates as often as possible. Also, to be fair, I have a history in IT and while personal computer updates are generally good, infrastructure updates are time-consuming, error-prone, and generally scary, so I do have a default aversion.

User23 3y ago

Next morning's standup: "And then I got nothing done for the rest of the day while I fixed my development environment that was messed up by an update."

JohnFen 3y ago

> For me - with this approach of small, frequent updates I've found that updating software becomes boring - which is a good thing. That's all well and good until an update happens that changes workflow or changes the look/feel too much. Those sorts of changes cause disruption that I want to schedule. Or until an update is made that changes the software in a way that makes it actively worse for your use case. Those are the sorts of updates I want to avoid. That's why I don't allow software to automatically update. Most of the time I won't notice the update, but when I do, it's a big deal that would have been better if I could have done it on a more convenient day.