
It's time to update the software update process - walterbell
http://www.networkworld.com/article/3000809/software/its-time-to-update-the-software-update-process.html
======
Sleaker
This article takes multiple frustrations and goes completely the wrong
direction. As an OWNER of the system I should have complete control over what
updates I do and don't receive and never should software disable my access to
the network under any circumstances unless I purposely setup such access
controls. Maybe they're highly recommended, but there's very specific reasons
why you don't go auto-updating all of the devices when you know you have
something working. On top of that the author even suggests that paying for
updates is okay, even though it's the companies responsibility to update the
product if security/stability issues affect the devices performance. If they
don't then they can be required to recall devices, or suffer lawsuits.

~~~
dspillett
These things need to take into account at least two very distinct user types:
the power users like you or I who want and sometimes _need_ the control over
updates fir various reasons and understand the full potential
security/stability/other implications, and the man-on-the-street who knows no
better and wouldn't update anything if it wasn't automatically done or somehow
more irritating not to than to.

~~~
derefr
You can usually get all the control you like through Enterprise Configuration
Management (e.g. deployment profiles, Group Policy, etc.) Bigcorps have real,
business-level needs for doing their own update rollouts, and they're willing
to pay to get that feature—and many others—included.

Really, the way to be a "power-user" in the modern era is to set yourself up
on your device as an "Enterprise" of one. Otherwise you're basically part of
the default "Enterprise" controlled by the manufacturer.

------
outsidetheparty
So in order to fix the annoyance of push updates introducing unwanted or
unusable functionality, his proposal is that push updates should also disable
the device until accepted by the user?

Not quite clear on how that's an improvement

~~~
tetrep
Not just that, but also:

> Hey—charge me for the damn upgrades if they can come bereft of some insane
> advertising model that somehow underwrites your cost.

I find the thought of my device being held for ransom to be incredibly
disturbing. Although, even if updates were free, bricking my device until I
accept them is, itself, unacceptable.

------
CaioAlonso
If it is my computer, I'd like the right to not update it and keep using it
just the way it currently is.

I don't think the proposed solution is reasonable because it violates a lot of
assumptions about the things I own and use.

~~~
lukifer
I feel the same way. However, it is interesting that effectively zero Chrome
users complain about auto-updates, presumably because they are stable,
seamless, and very conservative with user-facing changes.

What I would prefer to see is seamless updates by default, with limitless
ability to roll back and freeze updates. Unfortunately, the business case for
this is negligible, outside of specific enterprise requirements, and
especially complex to implement when considering external factors like APIs
and file formats.

~~~
artifaxx
You make a good point that when they are seamless it doesn't bother users.
When I do come across things that break with chrome's frequent updates it
annoys me greatly. One other thing to point out is that we aren't locked into
using Chrome so there is less pain from automatic updates. If my smartphone
forced me to update automatically for instance this would be a much bigger
issue as they lock me into using their software.

------
ryandrake
In my view the crappiest part of software updating is that it is all-or-
nothing. You have to take the bad if you want the good. Maybe I'd like to
update my software so that I can get all the latest security patches and bug
fixes, but I'd rather not have yet another UI re-design or a load of new
features I will not use. Currently, for most software, if I want the fixes, I
have to also swallow the features. Either upgrade to version 2.6 or stay on
2.5, you have no other alternatives. It would be great to be able to cherry-
pick only the bits I want. Probably not an easy problem to solve, but it's a
pain point for a lot of people.

------
joesmo
You know who does this? Sony. PS3/4\. Author should have done some research
before proposing such a ridiculously stupid idea. If I was legally allowed to,
I would hurt them physically for for imposing this shit on me when I just want
to play videogames.

EDIT: Not to mention it obviously doesn't improve security. This is Sony we're
talking about here.

~~~
spacemanmatt
Of all the walled gardens, Sony's is the most infantilizing.

------
organian
This problem is almost non-existent on any system that uses a decent package
manager.

