why?

  • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I would like to move into a paradigm of no software updates for things software updates are not appropriate for.

    • Knusper@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well, either roll such updates out centrally, which Windows is capable of, I don’t know why they don’t use it here.

      Or make it an entirely optional download, where the user can decide when to download.

      Or just make the update process less shit. Don’t block usage until the update is applied. And ideally just swap out the files in the background, although unfortunately that really isn’t easily doable on Windows.

        • Knusper@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, I was listing ways this could be solved without throwing out the baby with the bath water. For one, to point out that they really did actively choose the worst option.
          But also, because as a professional software developer, I’m sympathetic to needing to roll out updates, even if they’re not security-relevant, since you can’t perfect your code before shipping.

          Having said that, I do think, the professional/commercial software development model is terrible for such basic utility applications. Use an open-source application instead, where the hobbyist dev does have the time and passion to perfect the code before shipping it.

    • floofloof@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      And updates at non-intrusive times for the rest. I’ve been late for so many meetings when Zoom insists on doing some painfully slow update. (I know I could open it 5 minutes earlier but it’s still a bad user experience.)