Where is it that you live that is so resource constrained, in both bandwidth and electricity? And why are you trying to run a business there?
Also it's fair to say that whatever you've saved in electricity has now been decidedly outweighed by the two hours of developer-time you spent updating it.
> Where is it that you live that is so resource constrained, in both bandwidth and electricity?
My home, in the UK.
We actually have a pretty good deal on bandwidth compared to most people here, but wasting several gigs just to download patches every few days is absurd.
The electricity isn't really the issue (though bills for that have risen far above inflation in recent months) but the heat generated by running that machine and all its accompanying peripherals full time is relevant at this time of year.
Besides, why kill the planet pointlessly? A staggering amount of precious resources are wasted because people leave equipment in power-draining stand-by modes all the time these days.
> Also it's fair to say that whatever you've saved in electricity has now been decidedly outweighed by the two hours of developer-time you spent updating it.
Presumably I would have had to spend at least the same amount of time spread out over those two weeks if I'd applied each patch as it became available, probably more because much of the software uses rolled up patch releases so I probably avoided a few intermediate steps.
I think my general point, that the amount and size of downloaded patches in modern software has become absurd, stands.
I don't think it is fair to lump "frequent updates," "large updates," and "background updates" into a single category:
Frequent updates, if properly managed, are generally a plus: security vulnerabilities get patched before they are widely exploited and minor bugs can be fixed without waiting for a major release. Other than the minor annoyance of downloading and installing frequent updates, I don't see a negative.
Unnecessarily large updates are always negative. If different patching practices would compress a 300 MB update to 15 MB, then there is absolutely no reason to prefer the larger patch. Apple is notorious for this: every software "update" requires downloading an entirely new piece of software (note: this is likely changing in Lion).
Background downloading and patching is a matter of preference. It's something I love in a web browser because of the security updates, but would be much less welcome in professional tools. Since it's a matter of opinion, I don't have much to say here.
> Other than the minor annoyance of downloading and installing frequent updates, I don't see a negative.
The negative is that every time you change the functionality of your software, you risk usability and integration problems. See the way Firefox 5 is repeatedly being slaughtered on Slashdot -- normally a forum that strongly advocates for successful OSS projects -- this week.
Not the person you were replying to, but I live in a remote mountain community in the North Cascades. I'm merely the IT Coordinator, but we run a business quite well, and we do it because giving people a retreat in these remote mountains is our business. Simply upgrading Firebug often takes a couple minutes.
Where is it that you live that is so resource constrained, in both bandwidth and electricity? And why are you trying to run a business there?
Also it's fair to say that whatever you've saved in electricity has now been decidedly outweighed by the two hours of developer-time you spent updating it.