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

61–70 of 112 posts

Re: Why the Update Fever Is Bad

#61

Post by frik »

taneq wrote: post #41
frik wrote: post #7

Show them somehow it is still supported, update the minor version or something. In general: If I come across a 3 year old binary, and no news article about dev activity it looks "dead and unsupported". Also on GitHub, if there is no commit for 1+ year, it looks "dead and unsupported", piling up of Github issues is also a bad sign. Using "dead" binary asks for troubles down roads, when you want to use it in a few mont…

Binaries (without external runtime dependencies) generally don't just "stop working" like that unless you change something significant about your system.

Ideally yes, but the world changed. There are a constant stream of updates for your OS, graphic card driver, etc which constantly break things left and right. If it affects a big software, even an outdated version) the user outcry will make sure it get fixed. But you better make sure not to rely on an unsupported 3 year old rather niche software if you plan to upgrade anytime soon.

Re: Why the Update Fever Is Bad

#62

Post by ken »

gizmo wrote: post #40
MrQuincle wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no software without bugs. People seem to know that. Developers sometimes do not.

There are projects that are close to bugfree, though. You can use a 3 year old version of sqlite without any difficulty. I don't know what version of "ls" or "mkdir" my machine runs, but I never worry about these simple utilities being out of date or behaving differently in release/staging. These utilities are essentially done, and 30 years from now they'll still work fine. There is no software without bugs in the sa…

SQLite is not typical software. It has over 90 million lines of test code, and is run in production every day by pretty much every computer in the world.

mkdir(1) is also not typical. Excluding the copyright header comment, it's so short that it fits entirely on one screen. If I ran into a bug, I could probably find it and fix it (or write my own version) in about 3 minutes.

It is indeed possible to "create software that is so close to perfect that hardware failures outnumber software failures 100:1", but it's so time-consuming that almost nobody ever does it.

Version 1.0.1 of a free mind-mapping app may be good and useful software, but I can virtually guarantee it has bugs. I doubt even the author would claim it's only at 1.0.1 because "there is no point in pursuing perfection any further".

Re: Why the Update Fever Is Bad

#63

Post by egypturnash »

muzani wrote: post #21
chii wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Photoshop has a new release every year or so, usually with new features.

Re: Why the Update Fever Is Bad

#64

Post by oconnor663 »

> Is there a feature they are missing? A specific bug they want to have fixed? They don't know. They only want updates, because they are used to it.

That doesn't sound like the most charitable reading. A lot of customers expect updates to mean performance improvements or security fixes, neither of which they'd be able to ask for with any kind of specifics.

Re: Why the Update Fever Is Bad

#65

Post by bluedino »

>>> Is there a feature they are missing? A specific bug they want to have fixed? They don't know. They only want updates, because they are used to it.

A long, long time ago DJGPP 2.0 was released, and almost immediately people were asking when version 3.0 was coming out.

It was a DOS port of the GNU C compiler, so really you can't make a new version of it until the next GCC comes out. Plus, the question was, "What would the update have?"

It's not like commercial software where you need to add features every quarter so your competition doesn't leave you in the dust.

Re: Why the Update Fever Is Bad

#66

Post by cesarb »

ken wrote: post #62
gizmo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are projects that are close to bugfree, though. You can use a 3 year old version of sqlite without any difficulty. I don't know what version of "ls" or "mkdir" my machine runs, but I never worry about these simple utilities being out of date or behaving differently in release/staging. These utilities are essentially done, and 30 years from now they'll still work fine. There is no software without bugs in the sa…

SQLite is not typical software. It has over 90 million lines of test code, and is run in production every day by pretty much every computer in the world. mkdir(1) is also not typical. Excluding the copyright header comment, it's so short that it fits entirely on one screen. If I ran into a bug, I could probably find it and fix it (or write my own version) in about 3 minutes. It is indeed possible to "create software…

> mkdir(1) [...] it's so short that it fits entirely on one screen.

296 lines in the main .c file, without counting the headers and helper functions: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/tree/src/mkd...

Re: Why the Update Fever Is Bad

#67

Post by gizmo »

ken wrote: post #62
gizmo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are projects that are close to bugfree, though. You can use a 3 year old version of sqlite without any difficulty. I don't know what version of "ls" or "mkdir" my machine runs, but I never worry about these simple utilities being out of date or behaving differently in release/staging. These utilities are essentially done, and 30 years from now they'll still work fine. There is no software without bugs in the sa…

SQLite is not typical software. It has over 90 million lines of test code, and is run in production every day by pretty much every computer in the world. mkdir(1) is also not typical. Excluding the copyright header comment, it's so short that it fits entirely on one screen. If I ran into a bug, I could probably find it and fix it (or write my own version) in about 3 minutes. It is indeed possible to "create software…

I agree that sqlite's quality is unusually high. That's why I used it as an example of what kind of quality is achievable.

However, I think you're approaching this from the wrong way. The most important thing about sqlite isn't the amount of manhours put into it, but the millions upon millions of manhours that have been saved because the product works so unbelievably well.

sqlite is the exception, and this is because the people involved in it really care about quality. Our software engineering culture has a lot to learn from the success of sqlite.

Re: Why the Update Fever Is Bad

#68

Post by obmelvin »

mizaru wrote: post #38
sjmulder wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For anyone thinking about doing this, here are some free release note templates: "Bug fixes and stability improvements" "Thank you for using ! For your benefit, we update continuously. Every updates for potentially includes new features, bug fixes and other improvements. Don't hesitate to reach out to noreply@ app.com if you have any questions or suggestions." "Bedankt dat je gebruikt! Bij het invullen van de release…

A lot of popular iOS apps are doing this, which I personally find extremely annoying.

I would reckon that the average user doesn't care for a list of specific bug fixes.

Re: Why the Update Fever Is Bad

#69

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

tjoff wrote: post #23
chii wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

It's so true that you never ever see people using decade old versions of software, right?

Users care that their shit works, that's it.

Re: Why the Update Fever Is Bad

#70

Post by carbocation »

cesarb wrote: post #66
ken wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SQLite is not typical software. It has over 90 million lines of test code, and is run in production every day by pretty much every computer in the world. mkdir(1) is also not typical. Excluding the copyright header comment, it's so short that it fits entirely on one screen. If I ran into a bug, I could probably find it and fix it (or write my own version) in about 3 minutes. It is indeed possible to "create software…

> mkdir(1) [...] it's so short that it fits entirely on one screen. 296 lines in the main .c file, without counting the headers and helper functions: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/tree/src/mkd...

And, entertainingly, it contains a FIXME! https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/tree/src/mkd...
Post reply on HN