[Qt-interest] Windows 7 and VirtualStore woes

[Scott Aron Bloom]

No.. I mean, I put on a server the latest version and the url of where to download it.

My apps, on a regular basis, download the version, compare against it, download & install it if its newer..

My "push" is make the download available and rev the version.. Which only happens after I pushed the new version and update app to the internal QA server area.  Then test to make sure the updater works ok.. etc  Once that has QA sign off, I can push it to the server.

Another example.. Try and run your Xbox or PS3 in "live" mode without having the latest OS patches and updates..  

Automatic updates are a part of application development.  I have a class that I have been using for about 3 years now, that downloads the latest app, launches it, and shuts down the current app.. Its worked like a charm for a long time now.

It can be configured to handle "allow cancel", "always run" etc.. Then when the apps get around to check.. they go.

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 5:20 PM
To: Qt-interest
Subject: Re: [Qt-interest] Windows 7 and VirtualStore woes

Well, it looks like a misunderstanding of each other's words. Under  
automatic updates I mean completely unattended (e.g. launched by cron)  
ones.

So, if under "I want to push out an update to my 2000 servers" you mean  
something like "I'm going to launch a script that'll update my 2000  
servers", that's a manual update in my terminology because you start the  
update process intentionally by yourself, it doesn't happen unexpectedly.

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:04:09 +0400, Scott Aron Bloom  
<Scott.Bloom at sabgroup.com> wrote:
> 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