Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
ambassador at fourthworld.com
Sat Jun 9 15:38:31 EDT 2007
Chipp Walters wrote:
> On 6/9/07, Richard Gaskin <ambassador at fourthworld.com> wrote:
>> If there is a problem with the specifics you mentioned (firewalls,
>> proxies, timeouts, etc.), those are not related to this proposed minor
>> feature, but are part of the existing "Check for Updates" feature. If
>> you've experienced problems running that you might consider submitting a
>> BZ report outlining those so they can be addressed.
> You of course are correct. But, the problem with automatic check for
> updates, is that it CAN create problems when the user least expects it. When
> explicitly chosing a menuitem "Check for Updates", a user understands the
> context of what is about to happen (or not happen).
> Launching Rev and have it hang for a series of moments, or provide a message
> after a 30 second timeout, IMO, only creates more opportunity for user
> dissatisfaction, more support tickets, etc..
How often is this a problem for the many other programs that already
have this feature? OS X, most/all of Adobe's, hundreds of smaller
products, Microsoft Windows....
> My advice was to only to KISS. In fact, KISS is/was the mantra behind MC,
Absolutely, but the question here is whether asking users to go to a web
site to check for updates, download it if there is one, and install it
(which the MC IDE requires now) is simpler than at least letting the
user know an update is available and providing an option to download it
> I suppose I would accept a feature like the one you propose if a suitable
> interface could be created and the feature turned off by default.
I agree it should be optional, as most programs that support it do. I'm
on the fence about whether the default should have it off. I'm inclined
to agree that would be the better option, but I'd have to hear the
arguments from the many vendors who've chosen otherwise to feel
confident about it.
Since the feature doesn't exist at all, I see no harm in a first-pass
implementation that added it with the default being off.
> The suitable interface, IMO, would not be a silent try/failure/succeed, but
> rather a window popping up and telling the user what is about to happen,
> then going off and looking for updates and reporting back.
I believe that's how most vendors handle it.
> Come to think of it, why not just put in IN RevOnline?
Isn't RevOnline turned on by default?
Fourth World Media Corporation
Ambassador at FourthWorld.com http://www.FourthWorld.com
More information about the Use-livecode