6 ms·

> Did you live at a time where Internet was not a thing? You must be relatively young. Software existed before the widespread adoption of the Internet. > I r

> Did you live at a time where Internet was not a thing? You must be relatively young. Software existed before the widespread adoption of the Internet. > I remember very clearly buying software on physical media and never, ever "receiving" a single patch. You had to take action to receive them. They weren’t automatic updates like they are today. > I don't even know how that would have looked... "buy this floppy disk, it's a patch for a bug in the other floppy disk you bought recently"? That’s exactly what it looked like. That’s still the process today for some systems —- avionics updates for Boeing 747s are provided on 3.5” floppies.

palata 11mo ago
> You must be relatively young. Did you read my comment at all? :-) > You had to take action to receive them. They weren’t automatic updates like they are today. Are you saying I was doing it wrong? > updates for Boeing 747s Oh I get it. Maybe we just weren't playing with the same toys :D
- godelski 11mo ago
  > Did you read my comment at all? :-) Did you read *MY* comment at all?! Everything @mechanicalpulse said was accurate. To answer @grishka's question (because it seems you also don't know) > What did that look like? Well I literally answered that in my comment! >>> Back when software came on physical media we still had patches. We had patches that came through the internet AND WE HAD PATCHES THAT CAME THROUGH PHYSICAL MEDIA. THE ***LATTER*** MAKING IT ***HARDER TO PATCH.*** I broke it up and emphasized the key parts. If you are going to accuse someone of not reading your comment you damn well better be reading the comments you're responding to. > Oh I get it. Maybe we just weren't playing with the same toys Considering it was "harder to patch", yes, it does also mean "things often went unpatched." Mind you, this doesn't mean patches didn't exist nor does it mean, as you suggest, patches don't matter. But again, I already addressed that in my original comment, so I'm not going to repeat myself again...
  - palata 11mo ago
    I didn't say it was impossible to put a patch on a physical media. I was saying that in my experience as a user, I never, EVER received a patch or got any mean to request one. My point being that the expectation was that what I was buying was "finished". When there was a bug, FOR ME, it was there forever. With modern software, I encounter so many bugs everyday that I don't even realise anymore. Look at someone using something that depends on software for a while (not very long), see how they work around bugs (by restarting the app, or retrying the button, or going through a different path). When they do one of those things (like retry), if you ask them "wait, what did you just do?", chances are that they won't even know that they had to retry because of a failure. Why? Because modern software fails constantly. Code is never perfect, that's for sure. But back when it was hard to update, the code had to be a lot more stable than today.
    - godelski 11mo ago
      > I didn't say it was impossible to put a patch on a physical media. You never said those exact words but you heavily implied it. You cannot tell me that it was an unreasonable interpretation. > Did you live at a time where Internet was not a thing? You came out swinging. You can't throw out punches and expect to not have one thrown back. > My point being that My point was > When there was a bug, it was there forever. I stated this quite clearly >>>> Software isn't "ever finished" because we are not omniscient writers who can foresee all problems, fix all bugs, and write software that is unhackable. > With modern software, I encounter so many bugs everyday that I I encounter so many bugs it drives me crazy. Look, we don't disagree on this fact. I'm not encouraging the shipping of low quality or untested software. But patches coming through online was a good thing. We were finally able to fix those bugs effectively, not leaving tons of users stranded and vulnerable. This feature is not going to go away because it provides such high utility. But shipping low quality software is a completely different issue. The ability to patch easily is not the cause of shipping low quality work. It is the abuse of this high utility feature. It is based on the greed and lack of pride in the product. There are so many little things that add up and create this larger problem. But pretending that software was ever finished is ignoring these problems. It oversimplifies the reasons we got to this point. We won't actually solve the problem *that we are both concerned about* if we oversimplify. We need to understand why things happened if we're going to stop it.
grishka 11mo ago
> You had to take action to receive them. What did that look like? Remember, back then, developers and users often had no after-sale communications at all. It was a technical impossibility more than anything. There was paper mail. There were telephone networks. That's about it. I suppose you could occasionally call the developers of every software product you're using to ask if there is an update. I doubt anyone ever did that.
- BrenBarn 11mo ago
  > Remember, back then, developers and users often had no after-sale communications at all. They often had no pre-sale communications either, indeed no communication of any kind. It was just like buying a spatula or a pair of shoes. You went to a retail outlet and bought the software; the developer wasn't involved in the transaction at all. It was just the consumer and the retailer. Sometimes there was a postcard you could send to "register" your purchase with the developer, and they'd send you mail about new versions or the like, but many people never registered.
  - godelski 11mo ago
    > but many people never registered. Which leads to things not getting patched, more bugs, and more computers getting hacked. A great system... I'll also add that if it was a big enough bug that it'd end up on the news and that's how people got informed. Otherwise, like you suggest, good luck. But it was possible. It is baffling to me that we are having this conversation on Hacker News of all places. Aren't we a community of programmers? How in the world does any programmer think for a hot second that code is bug free? Last I checked formally verifying your code was 1) very rare and 2) still impractical if not impossible for anything of sufficient complexity. Unless we're formally verifying our code, I absolutely guarantee it has bugs. I know we have big egos, but egos so big that we think we're omniscient?
    - grishka 11mo ago
      > How in the world does any programmer think for a hot second that code is bug free? If you stop bloating the scope of your product by endlessly adding features no one ever asked for, you'll eventually run out of bugs. Also, while it does not make you "omniscient", working with a known stack instead of following fashion does help a great deal with preventing bugs.

palata 11mo ago

> You must be relatively young. Did you read my comment at all? :-) > You had to take action to receive them. They weren’t automatic updates like they are today. Are you saying I was doing it wrong? > updates for Boeing 747s Oh I get it. Maybe we just weren't playing with the same toys :D

godelski 11mo ago
> Did you read my comment at all? :-) Did you read *MY* comment at all?! Everything @mechanicalpulse said was accurate. To answer @grishka's question (because it seems you also don't know) > What did that look like? Well I literally answered that in my comment! >>> Back when software came on physical media we still had patches. We had patches that came through the internet AND WE HAD PATCHES THAT CAME THROUGH PHYSICAL MEDIA. THE ***LATTER*** MAKING IT ***HARDER TO PATCH.*** I broke it up and emphasized the key parts. If you are going to accuse someone of not reading your comment you damn well better be reading the comments you're responding to. > Oh I get it. Maybe we just weren't playing with the same toys Considering it was "harder to patch", yes, it does also mean "things often went unpatched." Mind you, this doesn't mean patches didn't exist nor does it mean, as you suggest, patches don't matter. But again, I already addressed that in my original comment, so I'm not going to repeat myself again...
- palata 11mo ago
  I didn't say it was impossible to put a patch on a physical media. I was saying that in my experience as a user, I never, EVER received a patch or got any mean to request one. My point being that the expectation was that what I was buying was "finished". When there was a bug, FOR ME, it was there forever. With modern software, I encounter so many bugs everyday that I don't even realise anymore. Look at someone using something that depends on software for a while (not very long), see how they work around bugs (by restarting the app, or retrying the button, or going through a different path). When they do one of those things (like retry), if you ask them "wait, what did you just do?", chances are that they won't even know that they had to retry because of a failure. Why? Because modern software fails constantly. Code is never perfect, that's for sure. But back when it was hard to update, the code had to be a lot more stable than today.
  - godelski 11mo ago
    > I didn't say it was impossible to put a patch on a physical media. You never said those exact words but you heavily implied it. You cannot tell me that it was an unreasonable interpretation. > Did you live at a time where Internet was not a thing? You came out swinging. You can't throw out punches and expect to not have one thrown back. > My point being that My point was > When there was a bug, it was there forever. I stated this quite clearly >>>> Software isn't "ever finished" because we are not omniscient writers who can foresee all problems, fix all bugs, and write software that is unhackable. > With modern software, I encounter so many bugs everyday that I I encounter so many bugs it drives me crazy. Look, we don't disagree on this fact. I'm not encouraging the shipping of low quality or untested software. But patches coming through online was a good thing. We were finally able to fix those bugs effectively, not leaving tons of users stranded and vulnerable. This feature is not going to go away because it provides such high utility. But shipping low quality software is a completely different issue. The ability to patch easily is not the cause of shipping low quality work. It is the abuse of this high utility feature. It is based on the greed and lack of pride in the product. There are so many little things that add up and create this larger problem. But pretending that software was ever finished is ignoring these problems. It oversimplifies the reasons we got to this point. We won't actually solve the problem *that we are both concerned about* if we oversimplify. We need to understand why things happened if we're going to stop it.

grishka 11mo ago

> You had to take action to receive them. What did that look like? Remember, back then, developers and users often had no after-sale communications at all. It was a technical impossibility more than anything. There was paper mail. There were telephone networks. That's about it. I suppose you could occasionally call the developers of every software product you're using to ask if there is an update. I doubt anyone ever did that.

BrenBarn 11mo ago
> Remember, back then, developers and users often had no after-sale communications at all. They often had no pre-sale communications either, indeed no communication of any kind. It was just like buying a spatula or a pair of shoes. You went to a retail outlet and bought the software; the developer wasn't involved in the transaction at all. It was just the consumer and the retailer. Sometimes there was a postcard you could send to "register" your purchase with the developer, and they'd send you mail about new versions or the like, but many people never registered.
- godelski 11mo ago
  > but many people never registered. Which leads to things not getting patched, more bugs, and more computers getting hacked. A great system... I'll also add that if it was a big enough bug that it'd end up on the news and that's how people got informed. Otherwise, like you suggest, good luck. But it was possible. It is baffling to me that we are having this conversation on Hacker News of all places. Aren't we a community of programmers? How in the world does any programmer think for a hot second that code is bug free? Last I checked formally verifying your code was 1) very rare and 2) still impractical if not impossible for anything of sufficient complexity. Unless we're formally verifying our code, I absolutely guarantee it has bugs. I know we have big egos, but egos so big that we think we're omniscient?
  - grishka 11mo ago
    > How in the world does any programmer think for a hot second that code is bug free? If you stop bloating the scope of your product by endlessly adding features no one ever asked for, you'll eventually run out of bugs. Also, while it does not make you "omniscient", working with a known stack instead of following fashion does help a great deal with preventing bugs.