[chikere232]

> Also, why do I have to install new software in every couple of months to access my bank account, secure chat, flight booking system, etc., etc., without any noticable difference in operation and functionality. A lot of things unreasonably becoming incompatible with 'old' (we are talking about months for f's sake!!) versions. That's a nuisance and erosion of trust.

Are you talking about security updates?

[scarface_74]

And my other question, is why are constant updates a concern? It’s not like you have to get a stack of floppies and upgrade your software or even do anything manually. Everything auto updates.

At least with iOS, iOS 18 supports devices introduced since 2018 and iOS 16 just got a security update late last year and that supports phones back to 2017.

[eviks]

The obvious answer is because update can break your workflow or waste your time in other ways

[sadeshmukh]

How?

[eviks]

By removing a feature you use, by breaking said feature, by changing UI, requiring relearning, by introducing a new bug, etc - the possibilities are infinite, just use your imagination and rely on your experience using software!

[econ]

You should be able to write something and have it work for the next 1000 years. There is no reason why it can't.

I imagine a simple architecture where each application has its own crappy CPU some memory and some storage with frozen specs. Imagine 1960 and your toaster gains control over your washing machine. Why are they even in the same box?

[scarface_74]

And your needs and technogy doesn’t change in 1000 years?

Does it really make sense in 2025 to use Quicken (?) with a dialup modem that calls into my bank once a day to update my balances like I did in 1996?

Imagine 1960 and your toaster gains control over your washing machine. Why are they even in the same box?

Imagine in 2002 your MP3 Player, your portable TV, your camera, your flashlight, your GPS receiver, your computer you use to browse the web, and your phone being the same device…

[caspper69]

> Does it really make sense to use Quicken (?) with a dialup modem that called into my bank once a day to update my balances like I did in 1996

Well, the modern hot garbage Intuit forces people to use takes 5-15 seconds to save a transaction, 3-5 seconds to mark a transaction as cleared by the bank, it sometimes completely errors out with no useful message and no recourse other than "try again", has random UI glitches such as matched transactions not being removed from the list of transactions to match once matched (wtf?), and is an abject failure at actually matching those transactions without hitting "Find matches", because for whatever reason the software can't seem to figure out that the $2182.77 transaction from the bank matches the only $2182.77 transaction in the ledger. That one really gets my goat, because seriously, WTF guys?

Not to mention the random failure of the interface to show correct totals at random inopportune moments.

Oh, and it costs 5x as much on an annual basis.

I sure would take that 1996 version with some updated aesthetics and a switch to web-based transaction downloading versus the godawful steaming pile of shit we have now- every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Hands down.

This idea that we've made progress is absolutely laughable. Every single interaction is now slower to start, has built-in latency at every step of the process, and is fragile as hell to boot because the interface is running on the framework-du-jour in javascript.

Baby Jesus weeps for the workflows forced upon people nowadays.

I mean seriously, have none of you 20-somethings never used a true native (non-Electron) application before?

[econ]

The application should not manage the network. It should send out a request and expect it to resolve.

If I write down instructions for a human someone can execute them 1000 years from now.

We build lots of things that just work. Software is not special, if all the bits are still there you can run it.

If your application is made of many chunks of code and data stored in as many different places the bits won't be there surprisingly soon.

Ii can be like a book on a shelve if we want.

[ravetcofx]

you should check out uxntal https://wiki.xxiivv.com/site/uxntal.html

https://100r.co/site/computing_and_sustainability.html

[chikere232]

wow, that's an amazingly impossible standard no software lives up to.

Or much technology at all. If you use anything that is 1000 years old, it's probably been maintained or cared for a lot during those 1000 years

[robinsonb5]

Well yeah, 1000 years is obvious hyperbole. But I've been annoyed and frustrated enough by churn over the last two and a half decades that I always ask myself "will this still work in 5 years?" when considering new software - and especially its build process.

It's alarming how often the answer isn't a confident "yes".

[mihaaly]

Because the f up existing feature we rely on! That's why! They use it to push garbage on you!

[derangedHorse]

> without any noticable difference in operation and functionality

Presumably a security update would mean a difference in operation somewhere. They were probably referring to the updates that just exist to add ads, promos, design changes, etc.

[superjan]

Well, why was the initial release insecure in the first place?

[chikere232]

Because security is hard and there are people constantly working on finding new issues.

It's a bit like asking why the army needs tanks when horses worked well the previous war

[mihaaly]

I am talking about getting outdated and inoperable frequently, several software.

I wouldn't blame it on security, as many of them do.

...or if it is true, this mass security issues emerging from their design, then the situation is even worse than just being lazy ignorant bastards.... or perhaps the mass security problems are related to this incompetence as well?... oi!