Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why the Update Fever Is Bad

irrlicht3d.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 112 posts

Re: Why the Update Fever Is Bad

#21

Post by muzani »

chii wrote: post #19
sjellis wrote: post #17

Software updates are a kind of project heartbeat. The content of them is less important than the signal, "this project is still alive, and maintainers are fixing issues for people". If a project does not put out updates, then users may (understandably) worry that if they have an issue, it won't get addressed promptly. I actually don't think there is anything wrong with having time-based releases, and putting very lit…

But on the other hand, if the software is stable and no longer needs updating why force small inconsequential changes just to appear to be maintained? Just release when there's something to release.

Software is very rarely perfect though. There are some rare cases like Winamp and Photoshop where there's just not much to add.

I do find projects like Dwarf Fortress very charming in that there's an endless supply of new things to look forward to.

Re: Why the Update Fever Is Bad

#22

Post by sicher »

petre wrote: post #9
alvil wrote: post #5

Do fake update at semi-random time. Visualize it, eg. show them a dialog with progress bar and percentage.

Thus wasting other people's time and productivity? I'm using the Atom editor. It's kind of annoying how it pushes new updates every week. Previously used Subline Text 2 which just worked and did not have an update for years.

Sublime is a great example of users getting update fever. The forum is riddled with long ”is this software dead?” threads that pop up at regular intervals.

Re: Why the Update Fever Is Bad

#23

Post by tjoff »

chii wrote: post #19
sjellis wrote: post #17

Software updates are a kind of project heartbeat. The content of them is less important than the signal, "this project is still alive, and maintainers are fixing issues for people". If a project does not put out updates, then users may (understandably) worry that if they have an issue, it won't get addressed promptly. I actually don't think there is anything wrong with having time-based releases, and putting very lit…

But on the other hand, if the software is stable and no longer needs updating why force small inconsequential changes just to appear to be maintained? Just release when there's something to release.

Because being maintained is very important for users and one of the easiest and most convincing ways to show that is to release updates.

But then we have the other side, releasing update after update without fixing or responding to common issues. That is quite damaging as well.

Re: Why the Update Fever Is Bad

#24

Post by ilaksh »

BTW Irrlicht is great so thank you to the author for making it. CobberCube looks good too. But that is one reason someone might not update a project a lot -- they are making other stuff, for example one along the same lines that could make money. But Irrlicht works great still and still has a forum etc. so I would not complain if there weren't more updates.

Actually I wouldn't really want another update at this point, because I already have a code base built on the existing thing that does what I want and adapting to new/changed stuff would distract from developing features specific to my system.

Re: Why the Update Fever Is Bad

#25

Post by mjevans »

chii wrote: post #19
sjellis wrote: post #17

Software updates are a kind of project heartbeat. The content of them is less important than the signal, "this project is still alive, and maintainers are fixing issues for people". If a project does not put out updates, then users may (understandably) worry that if they have an issue, it won't get addressed promptly. I actually don't think there is anything wrong with having time-based releases, and putting very lit…

But on the other hand, if the software is stable and no longer needs updating why force small inconsequential changes just to appear to be maintained? Just release when there's something to release.

Maybe for 'trivial' software that can be the case. However for anything complex even if there isn't a problem inherent in the software there are still interactions with the environment which could cause a need for some workaround.

Re: Why the Update Fever Is Bad

#26

Post by jodrellblank »

This doesn't say much about why it's bad. Colin Percival wrote a more detailed piece on updates, their problems and considerations here: http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2017-06-14-oil-changes-safet... and suggests separate channels for 'updates' vs. 'security fixes'.

This is something new for Microsoft: Usually they won't break their own old software with updates, they are known for keeping up backwards compatibility at all costs.

It really isn't. Thirteen years ago: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/06/13/how-microsoft-lost...

If you ask the users about it, they don't even know why they want these updates. Is there a feature they are missing?

New things are fun. Maybe there'll be a feature I don't know I'm missing until I see it. I'm hankering for you to amaze me and fix all my problems. Be my Holy Grail of (text editing, browsing, productivity, databasing, developing, life ...).

Re: Why the Update Fever Is Bad

#27

Post by _ph_ »

If a software is under active development, one would at least occasionally expect updates with new features and enhancements. Even if it is just in maintenance mode, there would be bug and security fixes. Not every week, but at least every couple of months. With software like iOS apps, it is a huge warning sign, if apps are not updated after OS updates or especially after new devices introduce new screen sizes. And with iOS, those apps are eventually going to stop working.

Re: Why the Update Fever Is Bad

#29

Post by saywatnow »

rhn_mk1 wrote: post #16
throwaway613834 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What software is non-security critical anymore? LaTeX, MATLAB, CMake...

Terrible examples, considering that these are programming languages that people will use to run code from random sources. "git clone foo && cmake foo" can definitely be a security problem, and not just because the code itself is untrusted.

It's not cmake's job to limit the behaviour of programs written with it.

Re: Why the Update Fever Is Bad

#30

Post by jcelerier »

chii wrote: post #19
sjellis wrote: post #17

Software updates are a kind of project heartbeat. The content of them is less important than the signal, "this project is still alive, and maintainers are fixing issues for people". If a project does not put out updates, then users may (understandably) worry that if they have an issue, it won't get addressed promptly. I actually don't think there is anything wrong with having time-based releases, and putting very lit…

But on the other hand, if the software is stable and no longer needs updating why force small inconsequential changes just to appear to be maintained? Just release when there's something to release.

Some people just want to stay home and watch movies and live a tranquil life while others don't feel good if they aren't permanently moving and discovering the world.
Post reply on HN