[Qt-interest] Windows 7 and VirtualStore woes

[Scott Aron Bloom]

What about the case of I want to push out an update to my 2000 servers?  Are you saying that I shouldn’t be able to do it automatically?

Yeah.. I may break things.. And if it breaks it where I have to manually update the 2000 servers.. Heck 10 servers.. Its gonna be a MAJOR MAJOR main in the butt..  But that’s why I QA.. isn’t it?

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: qt-interest-bounces at trolltech.com [mailto:qt-interest-bounces at trolltech.com] On Behalf Of Constantin Makshin
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 4:50 PM
To: Qt-interest
Subject: Re: [Qt-interest] Windows 7 and VirtualStore woes

True, but in that case automatic updates are even worse, IMHO. What if a  
service begins to work incorrectly after an update?

If you updated it manually, you know when the error occured and, if  
necessary, send a bug report.

But if it updates automatically, you're likely to miss the moment of the  
update that caused the error. So you or somebody else work as usually and  
suddenly "oops, things got broken".

It's a particular case of "user doesn't want computer do what [s]he didn't  
ask for" case. When starting the update process, you understand that  
something may get wrong and prepare for it (make backups, etc.). But with  
automatic updates it'll be a lot harder to find the cause of the problem.

That's my opinion, feel free to correct me. :)

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 03:04:34 +0400, Scott Aron Bloom  
<Scott.Bloom at sabgroup.com> wrote:
> However,
>
> There are MANY MANY applications that HAVE NO user interaction, and are  
> run on servers.  Services for example..
>
> Scott
> -----Original Message-----
> From: qt-interest-bounces at trolltech.com  
> [mailto:qt-interest-bounces at trolltech.com] On Behalf Of Constantin  
> Makshin
> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 3:59 PM
> To: Qt-interest
> Subject: Re: [Qt-interest] Windows 7 and VirtualStore woes
>
> Nice article, thanks. But even taking it and its comments into account, I
> still don't recommend automatic updates, especially ones that cannot be
> cancelled. Nothing too bad will happen if the user ignores the update
> notification, but if the program suddenly changes its behavior (in any
> way) after an update, that'll confuse the user.
>
> The user doesn't want computer do what [s]he didn't ask for. E.g. when  
> the
> user launches a web browser, [s]he expects that the browser'll only
> "browse the web" and not anything else.
>
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 01:19:59 +0400, Thiago Macieira
> <thiago.macieira at trolltech.com> wrote:
>> Em Quinta-feira 10. Setembro 2009, às 23.55.43, você escreveu:
>>> This may sound somewhat rude, but the standard way to solve
>>> self-updating
>>> problem is to not do it. It's better to implement notifications about
>>> new
>>> versions of your program. Something like "There's a newer version of
>>> Foo.
>>> Do you want to download it? <Yes/No>" and when the user clicks "Yes"
>>> button, open web page where [s]he can download new version of your
>>> program.
>>
>> That may sound like a sensible idea, but there's an obstacle to it: the
>> user.
>>
>> Please read 'The default answer to every dialog box is "Cancel"', a blog
>> by
>> Microsoft's Raymond Chen:
>>
>> http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2003/09/01/54734.aspx

-- 
Constantin Makshin
_______________________________________________
Qt-interest mailing list
Qt-interest at trolltech.com
http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-interest