Slashdot Mirror
Apple Releases - Doing Less, Faster, Is Better?
"I can't remember how long Microsoft took to release W2K service pack 1, but I know there is still no service pack 2. Even Linux kernel (stable) releases are not commonly in the 2-3 week range. So is Apple doing the right thing to get SOMETHING out there? Or are they disenfranchising their user base by coming out with too little too fast?"
An embellishment to the above: as long as there are tools to tailor the upgrades of a system to the user's specific desires, who cares how often providers update their own packages? Such an updater would check the upstream package catalog and apply multiple criterion on each updated package which would determine if that update is applied. I would suggest that the two basic criterion one would apply for updates would be severity and duration. Couple this with forced inclusion and exclusion lists and an administrator would be able to configure the system to apply only those packages that they need upgraded at the appropriate time, and quite possibly without the need of administrator intervention (depending, of course, on how much the administrator trusts the upstream).
With such a system in place, who cares how often Apple, Red Hat, Debian, Microsoft or <insert vendor here> updates their software packages? You'll have what you need, as often as you need it.
How difficult would it be to adapt the existing updating systems to serve this purpose? Is someone close to putting this into place, now?
I use MacOS X as my mostly main OS these days. I still shuttle into 9 from time to time, but X is starting to replace it for me. 10.0.0 was not good enough to be my main OS. On my G3/300 (160M RAM), X ran too slowly. By 10.0.3, it's reasonably snappy. It's not great, but it's usable. I'm really happy with their constant updates. They aren't profound, but the OS gets faster with every one, and little things keep getting fixed. I'd rather have it this way than one big update every six months. Updating is easy. I start the update, then I go and do something else on the computer, and a while later, I hit restart. Boom, updated. If you don't want to update, nothing forces you to. If you do want to update, it's simple.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Updates can be configured to happen on whatever schedule the user chooses... daily, weekly, monthly, manually, whenever.
Most of the present day OSX users are power-users, though, so they're either doing it manually when they find out about updates, or they've got it set to check for updates daily.
"Keeping the updates flowing is one thing, but forcing users to update every 2-3 weeks? That might ... "
be a bit too much. I don't know much about OS X, but if the upgrades system can be configured to the users taste, and said configuration done in a user-friendly way, then maybe monthly updates might not be a bad thing
the software updates in OS X (and in 9.x as well) are done automatically by the system, tho the default configuration is to check the software updates servers periodically in the background, then ask the user which updates that are available he wants to download and install
the process is amazingly apple-like: painless and transparent, at most requiring a reboot (with system-level component updates. things like itunes are finished when the download uncompresses)
it's also user configurable to go ahead and get every update as it appears, or none at all - requiring the user to click a button to manually check for updates.
this is the kind of thing that a lot of systems are aiming for, including, among others, Red Hat's update agent, which i think falls farthest from the mark. not to criticize RH, but it's the only other example i have on my desk at the moment with which to compare. i know the W2k update agent works well anecdotally, but its little balloon popups are really annoying...
my point? did i have one?
- Entertaining Bits from the Ancient Kernel Tree
We call Windows bloated at 400MB, but when someone points out that distro X takes 7 CD's, we defend that distro
We're happy to use software that updates several times a month, some update daily. When Apple releases two patches in one month, we say their forcing people to update against their will or something.
*Yes, I know this doesn't apply to every single reader.
--
If the goal is to ship OS X with every machine Apple sells starting this summer, now is the time to get things straight. If that means "updates on Friday" then send them. Do it before it's flung unto the masses.
Personally, I'd rather have a bunch of close together updates then the monolithic updates that non-OS vendors force these days. For example the last releases of Photoshop and Illustrator had a disastrous effect on my business. The artists couldn't deal with the sweeping changes made by Adobe.
Finally, I imagine that it's easier for engineering and QA get their jobs done by shipping micro updates. Especially since there are so many different parts of this OS.
If I can get a painless, nearly-transparent bug or security fix the moment it's ready for prime time just by clicking "update", I'm a happy camper. I'm puzzled by this assertion that every two weeks is too much.
An update scheme such as OS X's should meet the following criteria:
I'm using OS X as my primary OS, and so far, Apple has done an absolutely outstanding job with 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6. Only #3 is week -- the only explanation you see when an update is available is "OS X 10.0.3". You have to install the update then try to divine what's changed. If Apple fixes this problem, they'll have a killer mechanism that Linux distros would do well to study.