Why the Update Fever Is Bad
irrlicht3d.org
Why the Update Fever Is Bad
1–10 of 112 posts
Re: Why the Update Fever Is Bad
#2It's not like we always have the choice not to upgrade, either because of security (IoT anyone?), because one of the giant's shoulder a software has been built on has gone wild or has its own security fix to deploy (https://github.com/blog/2470-introducing-security-alerts-on-...), or just because updates are automatically installed and it's too late when you realize it's broken :-/
Edit: Android devices does not suffer from this fever, btw. How good. Really. https://danluu.com/android-updates/
Re: Why the Update Fever Is Bad
#3I guess if your software is stable and 'finished' enough not to be updated often then it would be good if you have an established communication channel (like a website or a GitHub page) that will periodically come out with, well, 'news updates', since it is true that most users are conditioned to expect some kind of update/activity surrounding their software.
Besides any moderately complex software will probably have enough bugs to require updates now & then for years, even if no new features or added. Not only bugs but often the underlying platform changes/breaks, needing workarounds or rebuilds.
Re: Why the Update Fever Is Bad
#4Glad to see this being written.
"Trained" is the word I have thought of many times as well. It is perplexing to see people wanting updates.
It is possible to write finished programs that are bug-free[FN1]. But when eternal rounds of patching becomes a religion, what sort of standard are developers promoting? Every program is expected to have security holes that will need to be patched? What about not releasing software unless it is safe to begin with? Why does a liability need to be created? Solve the problems before the software is released. Not after. Can't solve them? Then do not release.
Automatic updates are also a security hazard in the same way as "antivirus", which also trained users to want updates. It is a backdoor that users are advised to leave open.
FN1. Inevitably there will be the HN commenter who repeats some meme that says all software has bugs. True perhaps if we forget about Ada and the world outside of MS Windows, but are all the bugs major ones? Consider the stuff you find at http://cr.yp.to. Or many of the small UNIX utilities. I could name more selected examples. There is such a thing as finished software. With no major bugs. That does not need constant updates.
Re: Why the Update Fever Is Bad
#5Do fake update at semi-random time. Visualize it, eg. show them a dialog with progress bar and percentage.
Re: Why the Update Fever Is Bad
#6People expect their software to improve over time, and thus receive updates, and this is perfectly reasonable. Most software is never "done". If it is a small module written in a highly mature language and operating in a stable, slow moving ecosystem, then fine. In those cases, simply document that updates will be few and far between and that this is expected for the above reasons.
More likely, development simply slows down because the maintainer got lazy, moved on to other interests, or doesn't have time for other reasons. Users don't like this and they are right to worry that the maintainer may be unresponsive or that the software will not be quickly patched in the event of a security vulnerability being discovered because the software is not actively maintained.
Your software is not complete. It is merely functional. In fact, it may not even be functional, as the rest of the world moves on without you and your code rots away.
Re: Why the Update Fever Is Bad
#7Show 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 months and it stopped working.
Re: Why the Update Fever Is Bad
#8> So for non-security critical software, it is sometimes better not to update that often. This update fever is bad both for developers and users.
What software is non-security critical anymore?
Re: Why the Update Fever Is Bad
#9Do 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.
Re: Why the Update Fever Is Bad
#10Glad to see this being written. "Trained" is the word I have thought of many times as well. It is perplexing to see people wanting updates. It is possible to write finished programs that are bug-free[FN1]. But when eternal rounds of patching becomes a religion, what sort of standard are developers promoting? Every program is expected to have security holes that will need to be patched? What about not releasing softwa…
> There is such a thing as finished software. With no major bugs. That does not need constant updates.
The general attitude (both on HN and elsewhere) is that if any security update exists for a product you use then you are a complete moron not to update it immediately. There is virtually no acknowledgment of any nuance on the topic in my experience.