Molle Bestefich wrote:
>>>> I was talking about the installer asking the user if "Is it ok to
>>> check for updates from time to time?". Probably just as a checkbox
>>> that's checked per default. That's what I see others doing.
>> And where would that stop? *You* want to decide *that* option in the
>> setup. Then the next guy wants another option in the setup too. In the
>> end, we'd have the whole settings dialog in the setup too.
>
> No, because there is absolutely nothing controversial about any of
> those other options.
Checking for updates is controversial? See, here's the point where we
completely disagree. I consider that feature important, and absolutely
not controversial. We don't send *any* data home. So how's that
controversial?
In that case, you could also consider our status cache to be
controversial because it runs in the background.
> The only option that *has* to be an installer option is "phone home".
> The reason is that once the program is installed, the feature will
> activate itself without your consent. This means that the option
*All* features are activated without your consent. The right-click menu
in the explorer, the icon overlays, the column handlers, the cache, ...
And most of those you can't even disable.
> you've put in the options dialog is in fact not an option at all -
> TSVN might well have phoned home before the time that you happen to
> reach the option dialog and find the check box.
If you don't open the settings dialog within seven days after first
using TSVN, then yes. But I think in that case, it's your own fault.
> No other TSVN option has those characteristics, so nobody can
> realistically complain about those not being in the installer. Nor
> can I ever imagine that anyone would.
What do you mean with 'characteristics'? Checking for updates? Yes,
that's a feature of its own. No other feature in TSVN checks for newer
versions of TSVN.
>> You give up no information about yourself.
>
> That statement is never completely true - let's not discuss that.
Please don't take this the wrong way. But your completely paranoid.
The same 'information' you 'give away' by TSVN checking for newer
versions you already gave away when you downloaded TSVN from the website.
Or do you have someone send you the TSVN installer on a disk by mail?
Oh, and if you're that afraid of giving away information, are you aware
that you can't surf the web at all without doing that? Every website you
visit is logged. Every search you do on a search site (google, msn,
yahoo, ...) is logged too.
>> You have installed it. So I assume you trust it.
>
> Like you installed Windows, Internet Explorer and Outlook, and you
> really trust those, right?
No. Because I don't have the sourcecode of those. But if I had, I would
trust it.
>>> (If I tell you no, don't install the crash report feature. Gray out
>>> the checkbox. Another problem solved.)
>> No. I would never disable the crash report feature!
>
> Fair enough.
> Then don't complain about getting crash reports from older versions :-).
That's not the same issue.
> Getting a bit extreme, you could, if these old reports were really the
> problem, just apply an email filter that throws out reports based on
> older TSVNs.
I already have. But still, it's annoying to see that some people still
use such old versions. After all, they don't have to pay for an upgrade.
> But I think that's not really the issue.
> I think that the real issue is that you're hellbent on having the
> authority over which version of TSVN is installed on my PC.
I don't have that authority. But I'm allowed to tell users that there is
a newer version available, which has more features and less bugs.
It's not that TSVN would download and install the new version
automatically. It only checks for the new version, then shows a dialog
telling the user that there is a new version and where (s)he can
download it. That's it. Nothing more.
> You want me to have the newest version all the time so you get the
> newest crash reports. And you'd rather that all users live blissfully
> without knowing that TSVN updates automatically, rather than loosing
> up-to-date crash reports from those users that decide to opt-out from
> automatic updating. I think *that*'s the issue.
Again, you're assuming that TSVN is evil. You really should see someone
about that problem :)
Seriously: TSVN does *not* update itself automatically! It only *checks*
if there's a new version available and then *tells* the user about that.
The user still can choose not to use the new version.
> And therefore you tell me that it's not really rude, when in fact you
> probably haven't even considered whether it's the morally right thing
> the software is doing - you're just saying it's not rude because you
> happen to like the way it works now and the advantages you suspect it
> has to you (imaginary or not).
Ok, we're getting way out of line here. Checking for updates is morally
challenged? Can I get back to you on that one? I have to meet my priest
to ask for advice first.
> (Apologies if I've stepped over the line, but I think the above is
> true. Please correct me if I'm wrong.)
Just a little bit.
I'd like to correct you, but I can't. I just don't know how I can
explain to you that a simple check for a new version is not evil. Sorry,
I really don't get it.
>> you have to deal with yourself being overly paranoid.
>
> Accusing me of having a psychological disorder characterized by
> delusions of persecution will get us nowhere. Oh, and I find it
> rather rude! :-).
I figured that :)
>> If you upgrade Firefox correctly, the custom search engines will be kept.
>
> Only with minor updates.
> Major updates break them.
Major updates will also disable all extensions and do a lot more. That's
not because the Mozilla devs want to force you to use their search but
that's simply to avoid having to write a big bunch of code just to
convert older files to the new format they use in the new version.
They're not evil as you might think. It's just easier.
> And even minor updates break the Firefox extensions that I use.
And of course you think that's the fault of Firefox. Please read up the
docs. You will discover that this is actually a feature to prevent
extensions to crash the browser: each extension has a version string
assigned, which tell Firefox exactly with which version they're tested
and compatible with. The ones which don't match the new version of
Firefox aren't loaded.
Yes, very evil indeed.
(I hope you get my sarcasm here)
Stefan
--
___
oo // \\ "De Chelonian Mobile"
(_,\/ \_/ \ TortoiseSVN
\ \_/_\_/> The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
/_/ \_\ http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
Received on Wed Apr 12 20:51:39 2006