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.
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.
I just want owning a piece of software to be like owning a physical object again. It has its own look, it’s own behaviors and quirks, and you choose it for those and come to rely on it for what it is and what it does. That this can all be pulled out from under you at any time without your say-so runs counter to user agency.
Also, as a developer I’m just lazy and want to be able to publish projects and then not have to keep updating them for 20 years.
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.
This seems counter to the goal of not having updates
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.
I just want owning a piece of software to be like owning a physical object again. It has its own look, it’s own behaviors and quirks, and you choose it for those and come to rely on it for what it is and what it does. That this can all be pulled out from under you at any time without your say-so runs counter to user agency.
Also, as a developer I’m just lazy and want to be able to publish projects and then not have to keep updating them for 20 years.