- From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 22:03:05 -0400
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- CC: Marc Fawzi <marc.fawzi@gmail.com>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
I agree with Larry. There are a very large number of reasons why auto-update involves tradeoffs as opposed to being in all cases a win. How many of us have had an auto-update disable a system or introduce a disruptive incompatibility just before a key presentation or during the high pressure push for a product deliverable? Noah On 7/28/2014 8:21 PM, Larry Masinter wrote: >> We're not to a fully auto-updating world yet, but are closer than ever before and the trend lines are good. > > I think the issue (about dynamically loading engines) isn't the number of players (one, three, or fifty) but the variety. > > Reality check please: > Is that actually the real world, are the trend lines really that way? Or is it only if you are only looking at the auto-updating subset? > And if it's true the whole world is really trending toward auto-update everything, is it unreservedly "good"? > > Software updates tend to target (and is tested against) recent hardware and platforms. > Software updates are disruptive. Updates fix old bugs but can introduce new ones. > Software updates can be impractical in small-memory embedded systems or those with special configurations and requirements. > > A fully auto-updating world, or one in which engines are dynamically loaded, is good for fully auto-updating / dynamically loading browser vendors (whether one or many), but not so good for end users of other applications. > > Larry > -- > http://larry.masinter.net > >
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2014 02:03:29 UTC