Windows 11 (1 Viewer)

[The_Doc_Man]

While I understand your point, KitaYama, the one time where I pushed updates on my users was because our common employer said it was the way it had to be. Otherwise, I've always looked at patches/fixes as similar to contract change orders, which means I get to charge a consultant's fee for fixing things. OR I get to charge an up-front warranty fee ('scuse me... service contract) to keep things updated and running smoothly. For which the contract would include the requirement that - since they ASKED for updates when they bought the warranty, they had to let me PUSH the updates. But it was always their option. Of course I never knowingly let ANY code out if I knew it was seriously flawed. But any code ANYONE lets out is likely to be flawed to some degree if the app has any complexity to it at all. My point is that there are different views about patching and they depend on what the contract says. Different business models? Different operational methods!

 

[KitaYama]

Otherwise, I've always looked at patches/fixes as similar to contract change orders, which means I get to charge a consultant's fee for fixing things. OR I get to charge an up-front warranty fee ('scuse me... service contract) to keep things updated and running smoothly. For which the contract would include the requirement that - since they ASKED for updates when they bought the warranty, they had to let me PUSH the updates.

You took a detour instead of giving a straight answer to a straight question.
So let me ask my question again.

You offer your database. Later you find out that you have left a hole in a form's afterupdate event and some bad data may be entered.
You correct your event.
Do you force your FE to be updated on users PCs or not?

Start with a Yes Or No. Then give me your reasoning please.

To me, it's a common sense.
If Yes, so why blaming MS for forcing their updates.
If No, Are you so irresponsible about your product?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Do you force your FE to be updated on users PCs or not?

Some questions CANNOT be answered yes or no because they presume facts not in evidence.

When my relationship with the customer includes a specific service clause AND that clause requires me to perform maintenance on a schedule, YES, I would initiate the forced download.

When my relationship with the customer includes no such contract, I might still have a web site stating that that patches are available - but if I don't have a contract detailing my access rights, then NO.

I never had to manage Windows patches for the Navy. Tracked them in an after-action database - but never actually managed Win/Office patches. But I frequently performed updates & patches for Digital Equipment Corp. servers (before DEC got bought out), COMPAQ, and HP, as well as ORACLE. The SQL Server patches were done by the Windows folks. The Orion/Solar Winds patches were managed by the IT Security group. (There's a bit of irony there...) In ALL of those cases, the mechanism was "announce patch availability" and then allow folks with the proper service accounts to log in to the download hub to pick up what they needed.

Your final question, "am I so irresponsible about my product?" is of the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" category. What is my contractual business relationship to my customers? What am I contractually obligated to do? I would make it a point to notify the customer in some way, but in the USA, most states have laws that would impose criminal penalties if I unilaterally forced a change to someone else's computer system. Therefore, your question is so narrowly crafted that it excludes certain realities. The world ain't black-and-white. It's got all sorts of shading to it.

 

[KitaYama]

What is my contractual business relationship to my customers?

As a programmer, I tend to have integrity to my own program, Means: being honest, transparent, and ethical in all aspects of its operation. It involves consistently adhering to ethical principles, making fair and acting responsible towards its goals. This includes being transparent about my program's goals and processes as well as being accountable for my mistakes in the code I've made. Business relationship and the extent of the my contract is the last thing I think about.

but in the USA, most states have laws that would impose criminal penalties if I unilaterally forced a change to someone else's computer system. Therefore, your question is so narrowly crafted that it excludes certain realities.

Again, you're going too far and choose a detour to a simple question. I didn't ask if you hack into someone's PC and make changes in their system or not.
I asked: you made a database and your database has a hole. Do you send an update or not.
To me, it's only black and white, without any gray zone.

Since we're going too far off topic, maybe we better stop here. I just wanted to say, Microsoft tries to cover Windows problems and while the OS is not out of its life cycle, sends an update, which I appreciate. For me, it's much better than they find a problem in their product and let it be as is.

thanks.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Again, you're going too far and choose a detour to a simple question.

Not all questions that claim to be simple actually ARE simple.

I made it clear that I would notify folks, but that legally I CANNOT force an update without certain conditions being true. I don't know what other answer you could realistically expect.

If we are talking about MS updates, some of their forced updates make sense. The ones that turn on certain system features by tweaking the registry are, in my opinion, out of bounds if I have explicitly made that registry setting to prevent unauthorized diddling.

 

[Isaac]

Actually, it is easy to understand. They make it as hard as possible to avoid updates so that when you block an update and your machine gets damaged because you denied them the chance to apply a relevant patch, they have a "liability blocker" in place.

That would make more sense if the updates weren't the cause of so many problems themselves and in many cases just entirely unnecessary

 

[Isaac]

As a programmer, I tend to have integrity to my own program, Means: being honest, transparent, and ethical in all aspects of its operation. It involves consistently adhering to ethical principles, making fair and acting responsible towards its goals. This includes being transparent about my program's goals and processes as well as being accountable for my mistakes in the code I've made. Business relationship and the extent of the my contract is the last thing I think about.


Again, you're going too far and choose a detour to a simple question. I didn't ask if you hack into someone's PC and make changes in their system or not.
I asked: you made a database and your database has a hole. Do you send an update or not.
To me, it's only black and white, without any gray zone.

Since we're going too far off topic, maybe we better stop here. I just wanted to say, Microsoft tries to cover Windows problems and while the OS is not out of its life cycle, sends an update, which I appreciate. For me, it's much better than they find a problem in their product and let it be as is.

thanks.

I think you're sort of programmed to staunchly defend the company no matter what the topic is what I've noticed..