Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ethbr0 1543 days ago
It's the nature of creating a currated experience: saying "No" to a lot of things.

Chrome/Google did the same thing.

Snap clearly has a philosophy. And a lot of people clearly disagree with that philosophy.

Thankfully, instead of "advertised from google.com", Snap has less ability to push itself on users, and users have more ability to choose it... or not.
1 comments
indymike 1542 days ago
>Snap clearly has a philosophy. And a lot of people clearly disagree with that philosophy.

Seems like that philosophy is the user is not to be trusted. The problem here is that users in reality, not just philosophically, CANNOT trust snap because it will force updates (or dns trickery to stop it) that may cause a system to stop working.

link
ethbr0 1542 days ago
Snap's philosophy appears to be: Given the option to not patch, users will not patch. And this is even worse in IoT land.

Which I can't say is wrong.

Who probably shouldn't use Snap are users with mature patch application skills, who are willing the invest the time to review and patch regularly.

That class of users is far smaller than {all users}.

link
indymike 1542 days ago
> Snap's philosophy appears to be: Given the option to not patch, users will not patch. And this is even worse in IoT land.

This is true. But there are so many situations where unpatched is better than bricked or bugged. The community's ask was reasonable.

link
ethbr0 1542 days ago
Absolutely, the community's ask was reasonable.

But I think the goals might also be mutually exclusive.

Snap's philosophy, from what I read in the thread, boils down to: if an update bricks devices when it's pushed, the proper time to catch that update is before it's pushed, or as it's pushed, not after.

Which I do see the wisdom in. The majority of users are less well informed and equiped to test and patch than developers.

link