Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Updates are particularly difficult to get right. For something that requires a restart, you have two main options: restart the computer for the user, or wait for the user to restart on its own. You run into two problems if you wait for the user: Many never actually restart, and if you let it trigger on Shutdown also, then you'll have the problem of users turning on their computer and having to wait 20 minutes for all 200 updates they haven't been bothering with to install.

As far as automated updates go, they should be requiring the user to acknowledge the "Restart now?" box, and nag the hell out of users until they acknowledge it somehow.



Yea. I would be fine if it popped up and said "Restart Now." as a modal dialog box that had no other option than "Yes".


I like the "Ask me again in 20 minutes" option. Sometimes I'm in the middle of something and would like it to go away for a little while. My preference would be two options: "Restart Now" and "Nag me in 10 minutes".


Why should a system update ever require you to restart your computer, though?


I would rather have the critical system files locked while Windows is loaded. If it was a server, I would understand allowing those files to be changed, but on my workstation I run lots of code that other, not necessarily trustworthy people have written. Keeping the files that Windows relies on most safe from editing (while the computer is on) seems worth having to restart every couple weeks or so for updates.

I would put this forward: If you run on a system where it gets slower the longer it is left on (which is almost universally from programs running on top of the OS), you should have to restart for any update which changes any critical part of the OS (which I would roughly define as any piece of the OS required to get to a desktop/terminal window).




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: