Posted Oct 31, 2011 7:35 UTC (Mon) by khim
In reply to: The embedded long-term support initiative
Parent article: The embedded long-term support initiative
I wasn't trying to argue against proper update mechanisms, with reversion and non-insane bandwidth requirements and maybe even *gasp* a changelog you can see as the download happens.
It's not even funny. When geeks start talking about "proper update mechanism" they invariably raise insane requirements which are totally pointless and useless.
Most people encounter "almost perfect" update mechanism (with almost 100% updated devices!) every day and don't even know that. Where are these devices? How come noone talks about them? Well... why should they? They "just work"(tm) - and that's enough. And people cheerfully keep then up-to-date without any complains!
Heresy? Fantasy? Nope. I'm talking about your cable TV set-top box. These are quite complex devices novadays (with built-in browser, the ability to write and replay TV programs, etc, etc). They are regularly updated (when TV company decides to sell you new capabilities) - and people rarely complain.
Note: no reversion mechanism, no "sane bandwidth requirements" and no changelogs. Just two things are required:
1. It must be invisible (i.e.: update is pushed not when it urgently needed but slow and steady - this way bandwidth requirements are hidden).
2. "It must work"(tm): if update goew haywire then it's not something user should fix somehow, this occasion should be treated the same way power brick explosion is treated (and it should happen rarely - like power brick explosions).
ChromeOS updates are decent imitations but sadly they are not as robust for now...
to post comments)