XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-10   
   From: robin_listas@es.invalid   
      
   On 2024-03-31 20:17, Newyana2 wrote:   
   > "J.O. Aho"  wrote   
   >   
   > | > The   
   > | > whole approach is a ridiculous mess. How could quality control   
   > | > possibly be carried out on so many constant changes?   
   > |   
   > | Quite simple, most open source projects can get free static code   
   > | inspection (this can be automated say when a pull request is made), a   
   > | review is always needed before code are merged (how good it is depends   
   > | on the maintainers, all from sloppy microsoft standard to BSD high   
   > | standard) . This is the same way as most closed source projects also are   
   > | done.   
   > |   
   >   
   >    I don't see it as a closed vs open issue. Microsoft   
   > now do the same dripfeed updating. Essentially, the   
   > SOHo customer base are now an unpaid beta testing   
   > army.   
   >   
   >    I've had to make efforts to block these unknown updates   
   > in both Win10 and Suse. (And yes, it is in the 100s. I had   
   > my firewall down briefly after a week or two when Suse couldn't   
   > call home. It told me I had 360 updates waiting. What are   
   > they? Who knows. Most of the ames are not informative, even   
   > if I wanted to look through 360 updates. It's nuts. I didn't   
   > agree to be a beta testing volunteer for programmers who   
   > can't stop fiddling. I'm guessing they may spend more time   
   > rebuilding the install package than actually writing the software.)   
   >   
   >    The way it used to work is that software was thoroughly   
   > tested before release. Then another version might come out   
   > in maybe a year. At that point people might try it out, or they   
   > might wait for reviews. And one could easily find a list of   
   > actual changes in the new version. Most of my Windows software   
   > hasn't been updated in ages and still works fine. But Microsoft and   
   > Linux are now both guilty of seat-of-the-pants updating. If it   
   > isn't stopped, Windows will show a message at boot every few   
   > days: "Please wait. Installing updates."   
      
   You should read "The cathedral and the bazaar".   
      
   >   
   >    Apple is a different thing. They serve a consumer-only audience,   
   > updating periodically with stable releases and quickly dropping   
   > support for older products. Their aim is to sell a lot of very   
   > dependable devices to a tech-illiterate customer base, which is   
   > a different business model.   
   >   
   >   If someone screws up and needs to issue a fix, that's fine.   
   > But it shouldn't happen very often. An OS on a computer that's   
   > actually in use shouldn't be getting dripfeed updates. It should   
   > be getting updates rarely and then with good reason. MS know that.   
   > That's why they let corporate customers update periodically and   
   > test out the changes before rolling them out.   
   >   
   >   
      
   --   
   Cheers, Carlos.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)