6 ms·

I was visiting my parents for the holidays and came across this exact mindset. I usually push them to update for security, but I learned that they stopped doing

by hysan 2y ago

I was visiting my parents for the holidays and came across this exact mindset. I usually push them to update for security, but I learned that they stopped doing that this year. Apparently some update broke/removed/changed an accessibility feature on their phone in a way that I couldn’t figure out how to revert. My mom had updated her phone first so only she was affected. My dad now refuses to update his phone and both of them have completely stopped updating for fear that something else will “break”. I can’t really blame them, but it does worry me and now I’m trying to think of what I can do to secure their devices if they’re not going to update.

coldpie 2y ago
Hmm. Assuming Android, install Firefox with uBlock Origin, and hide the Chrome and App Store launchers someplace deep?
- hysan 2y ago
  It’s not an ad thing. It was an OS level accessibility feature dealing with text sizing and other reading related settings.
  - coldpie 2y ago
    Sorry, I should have quoted your post. I was responding to this portion: > now I’m trying to think of what I can do to secure their devices if they’re not going to update
    - hysan 2y ago
      Gotcha. That might help somewhat but it wouldn’t solve the “never update Android or any other app” problem. I’d also have to get them used to using a new browser. It’s a larger problem that their trust in tech was easily (possibly irreversibly) broken after years of me slowly convincing them and getting them used to letting their devices update. They are even older now and having had a stint working in the senior care tech space, I know that trying to tech the older generation to use tech safely is a very high hurdle. Now that I don’t live near them, I’m not sure that’s a hurdle that can be easily overcome.
ryandrake 2y ago
The software industry has known how to do this for a very long time, but some companies refuse to do it. You maintain a "sustaining" branch just for security and other legitimately urgent fixes, and a main branch for everything else. Users are nudged more strongly to apply the sustaining fixes and the main update branch should be optional. We have immensely powerful version control and branching at developers' disposal, much better than at any past time I can think of. Yet, most companies insist on having a single release that increments, and users must take everything or nothing whenever they update. Phone/OS manufacturers are actually better than most, and both major operating systems do provide security updates in parallel with major (feature) updates, but only for a very short amount of time.
- kevincox 2y ago
  But it isn't this simple, because you wouldn't need a single "maintaining" branch. You would need one for each feature release that the user may stop at. So if you release the feature branch every 3 months after a few years you will have a dozen maintaining branches to backport fixes to, and in which to carefully test that the fix actually works. The problem is linearly worse if you release the feature branch more often.
  - catlikesshrimp 2y ago
    Or give the user the choice when first powering on the device. Select: Base version that will only receive security updates. No changes in features. OR All updates Edit: By "Base version" I mean the first software version for that device.
  - rincebrain 2y ago
    This was, I believe, the problem that Microsoft wanted to resolve with their gradual burndown of WSUS - a lot of shops (including one I used to work at) would selectively roll out updates based on whether they thought they were relevant, resulting in an explosion of configurations that Microsoft had absolutely never tested against, and naturally, a lot of breakage.
    - 2y ago
xethos 2y ago
Frankly, even the scarequotes around break feel misplaced. Your Mom can't use the device like she wants to. An accessibility feature is gone to the point you can't get it back. That feels pretty broken to me.
- hysan 2y ago
  Yeah, you’re probably right. I just wanted to write my anecdotal experience in a way that would avoid the “you’re holding it wrong” crowd because the point is how this leads to broken trust, not whatever broken feature it is.

by hysan 2y ago

coldpie 2y ago

Hmm. Assuming Android, install Firefox with uBlock Origin, and hide the Chrome and App Store launchers someplace deep?

hysan 2y ago
It’s not an ad thing. It was an OS level accessibility feature dealing with text sizing and other reading related settings.
- coldpie 2y ago
  Sorry, I should have quoted your post. I was responding to this portion: > now I’m trying to think of what I can do to secure their devices if they’re not going to update
  - hysan 2y ago
    Gotcha. That might help somewhat but it wouldn’t solve the “never update Android or any other app” problem. I’d also have to get them used to using a new browser. It’s a larger problem that their trust in tech was easily (possibly irreversibly) broken after years of me slowly convincing them and getting them used to letting their devices update. They are even older now and having had a stint working in the senior care tech space, I know that trying to tech the older generation to use tech safely is a very high hurdle. Now that I don’t live near them, I’m not sure that’s a hurdle that can be easily overcome.

ryandrake 2y ago

The software industry has known how to do this for a very long time, but some companies refuse to do it. You maintain a "sustaining" branch just for security and other legitimately urgent fixes, and a main branch for everything else. Users are nudged more strongly to apply the sustaining fixes and the main update branch should be optional. We have immensely powerful version control and branching at developers' disposal, much better than at any past time I can think of. Yet, most companies insist on having a single release that increments, and users must take everything or nothing whenever they update. Phone/OS manufacturers are actually better than most, and both major operating systems do provide security updates in parallel with major (feature) updates, but only for a very short amount of time.

kevincox 2y ago
But it isn't this simple, because you wouldn't need a single "maintaining" branch. You would need one for each feature release that the user may stop at. So if you release the feature branch every 3 months after a few years you will have a dozen maintaining branches to backport fixes to, and in which to carefully test that the fix actually works. The problem is linearly worse if you release the feature branch more often.
- catlikesshrimp 2y ago
  Or give the user the choice when first powering on the device. Select: Base version that will only receive security updates. No changes in features. OR All updates Edit: By "Base version" I mean the first software version for that device.
- rincebrain 2y ago
  This was, I believe, the problem that Microsoft wanted to resolve with their gradual burndown of WSUS - a lot of shops (including one I used to work at) would selectively roll out updates based on whether they thought they were relevant, resulting in an explosion of configurations that Microsoft had absolutely never tested against, and naturally, a lot of breakage.
  - 2y ago

xethos 2y ago

Frankly, even the scarequotes around break feel misplaced. Your Mom can't use the device like she wants to. An accessibility feature is gone to the point you can't get it back. That feels pretty broken to me.

hysan 2y ago
Yeah, you’re probably right. I just wanted to write my anecdotal experience in a way that would avoid the “you’re holding it wrong” crowd because the point is how this leads to broken trust, not whatever broken feature it is.