4 ms·
Forcing users to upgrade frequently has one outcome, and one outcome only: they will stop upgrading, period. If you give users only two choices, they will choos
by CrLf 12y ago
Forcing users to upgrade frequently has one outcome, and one outcome only: they will stop upgrading, period. If you give users only two choices, they will choose one, but the one that requires less effort.
There is more to life than keeping up with the constant upgrade treadmill. It's already bad as it is. Some Linux distributions are on a 3-year support cycle, which is too short. If you have many servers, especially many servers running a lot of different things, upgrading every 3-years means having people doing nothing more than upgrades.
Once you fix your applications to support the changes in the next OS release, that release is almost out of support...
- wmf 12y agothey will stop upgrading, period Has that been observed with Chrome, ChromeOS, iOS, etc.?
- CrLf 12y agoThat's an apples to oranges comparison. To upgrade Chrome a consumer depends only on himself. To upgrade a server OS, the "user" (the sysadmin) depends on a number of other people with different priorities. And that's _if_ the people he depends on are still with the company... I've been faced inumerous times with impossible upgrades (nobody cares about upgrading besides you, so nobody cares to fix whatever is preventing the upgrade). And when the upgrade is possible, many times it takes years. That same user that upgrades Chrome on his laptop, is still stuck with IE7 at work because his company relies on it to pay his salary.