4 ms·

And my other question, is why are constant updates a concern? It’s not like you have to get a stack of floppies and upgrade your software or even do anything ma

And my other question, is why are constant updates a concern? It’s not like you have to get a stack of floppies and upgrade your software or even do anything manually. Everything auto updates. At least with iOS, iOS 18 supports devices introduced since 2018 and iOS 16 just got a security update late last year and that supports phones back to 2017.

eviks 2y ago
The obvious answer is because update can break your workflow or waste your time in other ways
- sadeshmukh 2y ago
  How?
  - econ 2y ago
    You should be able to write something and have it work for the next 1000 years. There is no reason why it can't. I imagine a simple architecture where each application has its own crappy CPU some memory and some storage with frozen specs. Imagine 1960 and your toaster gains control over your washing machine. Why are they even in the same box?
    - scarface_74 2y ago
      And your needs and technogy doesn’t change in 1000 years? Does it really make sense in 2025 to use Quicken (?) with a dialup modem that calls into my bank once a day to update my balances like I did in 1996? Imagine 1960 and your toaster gains control over your washing machine. Why are they even in the same box? Imagine in 2002 your MP3 Player, your portable TV, your camera, your flashlight, your GPS receiver, your computer you use to browse the web, and your phone being the same device…
      - caspper69 2y ago
        > Does it really make sense to use Quicken (?) with a dialup modem that called into my bank once a day to update my balances like I did in 1996 Well, the modern hot garbage Intuit forces people to use takes 5-15 seconds to save a transaction, 3-5 seconds to mark a transaction as cleared by the bank, it sometimes completely errors out with no useful message and no recourse other than "try again", has random UI glitches such as matched transactions not being removed from the list of transactions to match once matched (wtf?), and is an abject failure at actually matching those transactions without hitting "Find matches", because for whatever reason the software can't seem to figure out that the $2182.77 transaction from the bank matches the only $2182.77 transaction in the ledger. That one really gets my goat, because seriously, WTF guys? Not to mention the random failure of the interface to show correct totals at random inopportune moments. Oh, and it costs 5x as much on an annual basis. I sure would take that 1996 version with some updated aesthetics and a switch to web-based transaction downloading versus the godawful steaming pile of shit we have now- every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Hands down. This idea that we've made progress is absolutely laughable. Every single interaction is now slower to start, has built-in latency at every step of the process, and is fragile as hell to boot because the interface is running on the framework-du-jour in javascript. Baby Jesus weeps for the workflows forced upon people nowadays. I mean seriously, have none of you 20-somethings never used a true native (non-Electron) application before?
        scarface_74 2y ago
        The modern way to check your balance is just go to a website, use an app on your phone or just have it show up on your watch.
        caspper69 2y ago
        None of which handle bookkeeping, which is what Quicken was used for. I think it should have been obvious from my list of complaints that I was doing something a little more involved than "checking my bank balance".
        2y ago
    - ravetcofx 2y ago
      you should check out uxntal https://wiki.xxiivv.com/site/uxntal.html https://wiki.xxiivv.com/site/uxntal.html https://100r.co/site/computing_and_sustainability.html https://100r.co/site/computing_and_sustainability.html
    - chikere232 2y ago
      wow, that's an amazingly impossible standard no software lives up to. Or much technology at all. If you use anything that is 1000 years old, it's probably been maintained or cared for a lot during those 1000 years
      - robinsonb5 2y ago
        Well yeah, 1000 years is obvious hyperbole. But I've been annoyed and frustrated enough by churn over the last two and a half decades that I always ask myself "will this still work in 5 years?" when considering new software - and especially its build process. It's alarming how often the answer isn't a confident "yes".
        chikere232 2y ago
        That's fair. Too many languages and frameworks are all too happy to break things for pointless cleanups or renames. Python for example makes breaking changes in minor releases and seems to think it's fine, even though it's especially bad for a language where you might only find that out runtime
        sgarland 2y ago
        Python doesn’t follow SemVer. It’s more like “3.{major}.{patch}.” Also, they have deprecation warnings for many, many releases before finally killing something off.
        chikere232 2y ago
        yeah, it follows their documentation, it's just a bad idea. A lot of the things they break are pretty minor cleanups and it seems they could easily not have broken things. Many other languages, even compiled languages where the explosions happen at compilation, are much more careful about these things. For a dynamic language like python it's an especially bad idea.
  - eviks 2y ago
    By removing a feature you use, by breaking said feature, by changing UI, requiring relearning, by introducing a new bug, etc - the possibilities are infinite, just use your imagination and rely on your experience using software!
mihaaly 2y ago
Because the f up existing feature we rely on! That's why! They use it to push garbage on you!

eviks 2y ago

The obvious answer is because update can break your workflow or waste your time in other ways

sadeshmukh 2y ago
How?
- econ 2y ago
  You should be able to write something and have it work for the next 1000 years. There is no reason why it can't. I imagine a simple architecture where each application has its own crappy CPU some memory and some storage with frozen specs. Imagine 1960 and your toaster gains control over your washing machine. Why are they even in the same box?
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    And your needs and technogy doesn’t change in 1000 years? Does it really make sense in 2025 to use Quicken (?) with a dialup modem that calls into my bank once a day to update my balances like I did in 1996? Imagine 1960 and your toaster gains control over your washing machine. Why are they even in the same box? Imagine in 2002 your MP3 Player, your portable TV, your camera, your flashlight, your GPS receiver, your computer you use to browse the web, and your phone being the same device…
    - caspper69 2y ago
      > Does it really make sense to use Quicken (?) with a dialup modem that called into my bank once a day to update my balances like I did in 1996 Well, the modern hot garbage Intuit forces people to use takes 5-15 seconds to save a transaction, 3-5 seconds to mark a transaction as cleared by the bank, it sometimes completely errors out with no useful message and no recourse other than "try again", has random UI glitches such as matched transactions not being removed from the list of transactions to match once matched (wtf?), and is an abject failure at actually matching those transactions without hitting "Find matches", because for whatever reason the software can't seem to figure out that the $2182.77 transaction from the bank matches the only $2182.77 transaction in the ledger. That one really gets my goat, because seriously, WTF guys? Not to mention the random failure of the interface to show correct totals at random inopportune moments. Oh, and it costs 5x as much on an annual basis. I sure would take that 1996 version with some updated aesthetics and a switch to web-based transaction downloading versus the godawful steaming pile of shit we have now- every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Hands down. This idea that we've made progress is absolutely laughable. Every single interaction is now slower to start, has built-in latency at every step of the process, and is fragile as hell to boot because the interface is running on the framework-du-jour in javascript. Baby Jesus weeps for the workflows forced upon people nowadays. I mean seriously, have none of you 20-somethings never used a true native (non-Electron) application before?
      - scarface_74 2y ago
        The modern way to check your balance is just go to a website, use an app on your phone or just have it show up on your watch.
        caspper69 2y ago
        None of which handle bookkeeping, which is what Quicken was used for. I think it should have been obvious from my list of complaints that I was doing something a little more involved than "checking my bank balance".
        2y ago
  - ravetcofx 2y ago
    you should check out uxntal https://wiki.xxiivv.com/site/uxntal.html https://wiki.xxiivv.com/site/uxntal.html https://100r.co/site/computing_and_sustainability.html https://100r.co/site/computing_and_sustainability.html
  - chikere232 2y ago
    wow, that's an amazingly impossible standard no software lives up to. Or much technology at all. If you use anything that is 1000 years old, it's probably been maintained or cared for a lot during those 1000 years
    - robinsonb5 2y ago
      Well yeah, 1000 years is obvious hyperbole. But I've been annoyed and frustrated enough by churn over the last two and a half decades that I always ask myself "will this still work in 5 years?" when considering new software - and especially its build process. It's alarming how often the answer isn't a confident "yes".
      - chikere232 2y ago
        That's fair. Too many languages and frameworks are all too happy to break things for pointless cleanups or renames. Python for example makes breaking changes in minor releases and seems to think it's fine, even though it's especially bad for a language where you might only find that out runtime
        sgarland 2y ago
        Python doesn’t follow SemVer. It’s more like “3.{major}.{patch}.” Also, they have deprecation warnings for many, many releases before finally killing something off.
        chikere232 2y ago
        yeah, it follows their documentation, it's just a bad idea. A lot of the things they break are pretty minor cleanups and it seems they could easily not have broken things. Many other languages, even compiled languages where the explosions happen at compilation, are much more careful about these things. For a dynamic language like python it's an especially bad idea.
- eviks 2y ago
  By removing a feature you use, by breaking said feature, by changing UI, requiring relearning, by introducing a new bug, etc - the possibilities are infinite, just use your imagination and rely on your experience using software!

mihaaly 2y ago

Because the f up existing feature we rely on! That's why! They use it to push garbage on you!