[SpaceManiac]

I'd argue that it's the practice and not the principle of auto-updates which is unsound. Automatic security patches make a lot of sense in the current security climate, but once that infrastructure exists it is irresistible to use it for random feature creep and marketing.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

> I'd argue that it's the practice and not the principle of auto-updates which is unsound.

I disagree. I've yet to encounter a system where automatic updates didn't sometimes break things. It's a nice theory, but in practice things break when you change things they depend on even when you're trying not to, and a lot of developers don't try that hard. Not to mention, sometimes you're dealing with design flaws that cause API changes, or programs relying on behavior that wasn't officially part of the stable interface. Auto-updating causes more problems than it solves.

[hinkley]

I don’t think it would be that hard to build an update system where not everyone gets updates at once, and you wait for consensus among early adopters before forcing it on the remaining users.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

No amount of early adopters will ever have full coverage of what people actually have, in part because the people who need reliability are not likely to be early adopters in the first place.

[mbrock]

You still need a company or foundation stable and competent enough to maintain it and not ruin it for 50 years...

[hinkley]

I wish home appliances all used the same form factor for controller boards for these smart appliances. Like a socket for a raspberry pi (instead of a hat).

Had to replace my dishwasher because the controls shorted out.

A motor or the display could just as easily burn out, but this article is about software problems, which you could fix with a workalike board.