Jump to content
NiranV Dean

Discussion: Feedback on release cycles, what do you think?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

The problem with the sign on your little desk is that it's meaningless. It essentially says, "If something is good, it's good." Forced autoupdates aren't necessarily done right; in fact you yourself have listed times when they aren't.

That's the point. Besides, i showed one big example yes, are you saying now that they are bad because one single slip happened that didn't even involve breaking the Viewer but rather bewaring it from breaking?

5 hours ago, Ethan Paslong said:

you'r not on the firestorm team

you'r not a firestorm user

you'r not helping anything in firestorm

I have helped more than a few times already both indirectly as Viewer support and directly, particularly the snapshot floater comes to mind. 

5 hours ago, Ethan Paslong said:

It's not of your business how others run their team. And absolutely not the job of a competing viewer, as far it is, to burn down others.

I don't care about their team, i care about their release cycles which influences other parts of SL and thus indirectly me. Having the most used, most popular Viewer doesn't come without cost and they have been doing a decent job at keeping their influence as low as humanly possible, just not with their release cycles.

5 hours ago, Ethan Paslong said:

If you want to talk about your issues with FS, contact them, don't make this a public distpute because you don't agree how they work.

Oh i'm sorry, i should have probably told them what they already know. It's not like this could be one of the reasons i started a discussion that is indirectly aimed at Firestorm to pull in the users and their opinions in an attempt to show them that users might want faster updates too. I mean in the end it affects you too. It seems like i hit some forbidden no-no zone caring a bit for stuff outside of my little humble bubble that i call my own problems, ohwhoopsie, there is still the problem that these things tend to slip into my tiny little bubble and become my problem when they start affecting stuff around me, i suppose i should just shrink the bubble so microscopically small that it is impossible for others to change or modify my experience in any way. Ah too bad SL is a shared experience i guess i have to live with some people spitting into my soup ohwait no i could possibly tell them not to, they will surely listen and stop spitting into my soup if i just ask them nicely enough, it worked so many times in the past (not a goddamn single time).

 

But anyway, i'd like to continue talking about auto-updates and forcing them instead, it appears like i have started to rant again and i fear if i don't stop now i'll find myself still ranting till christmas about content creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, NiranV Dean said:

That's the point. Besides, i showed one big example yes, are you saying now that they are bad because one single slip happened that didn't even involve breaking the Viewer but rather bewaring it from breaking?

 

I should point out that I am in no way opposed to change and updates; in fact I normally use a release candidate viewer specifically to test and get new features first. The problem I have is the automatic and forced update.

One of the features I tested in the past was the original Linden Lab materials-compatible viewer. One of the issues I raised with it was that it rendered alpha-blended and non-alpha/alpha masked textures differently in most lighting conditions and this made most Second Life hair look horrible because it became noticeably two-tone. The Lab chose to officially release the viewer in that state so I chose not to use it as my daily viewer until that issue was fixed some time later, as for me the benefits of materials didn't outweigh that particular flaw at the time.

That was something I chose to do. I didn't demand that the viewer be pulled (although I did point out that it was a bad idea to release it in that state), because I had the option of using an older viewer in the meantime.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only time we, the users want a speedy update is when new features like Animesh, EEP or BoM are released, ... most of the time I don't care.

However I delight in examining a person's mindset with kitchen psychology.

Your blog says:

"Black Dragon is MY Viewer, i decide which feature i want to add and which to remove, i share this Viewer to show the world that user base size is not important, i do rate quality by effort, thought and love put into the project, not some rough estimated numbers. I consider feature requests only if i you can name proper valid reasons i can agree on. It is my (unpaid) time i'm putting into this project, i'm not here to cater to every Joe's desires."

I respect that idea, but I find it quite a bit offensive to tell us to mind our own business one the one side while not adhering to that philosophy when it comes to other folks work.

This leads me to a conclusion and it is no nice one: There is another reason one could wish FS would do faster releases... and that is when a thrid party TPV wants to adapt code snippets developped by the FS team on their own projects - I really hope that isn't the true agenda behind pushing your competitors.

 

Edited by Fionalein
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, NiranV Dean said:

Okay back to "Why are forced auto-updates bad". Bring it on, i still have a few "bad developers" answers left or bring me a real reason, one that is an undeniably, unfixable reason why its bad.

So far, the sum total of your arguments for forced auto-updates consists of...

"Hi I'm Nirans the Great, I am the most leetest dev in history, and not arrogant at all, and because of this, despite EVERY single dev team that's adopted weekly forced auto-updates followed by daily hotfix patches being a pile of crap, *I* can make it work because I am so much more leet than everyone, especially the FS people..."

...

Sorry I don't find that argument convincing in the slightest.

You claim that Forced auto-updates are good if done right, and that EVERY incidence of them being completely crap is down to '"bad developers" misses one vital fact...

People who use forced auto-updates when there is no absolute need for them, ARE bad developers...

10 hours ago, NiranV Dean said:

Every now and then i see people take my quote on the blog and read it as "i don't give a flying ***** about what you have to say" when it is the solar opposite

If you don't like the way the statement on your blog is interpreted by English speakers, change it.


 

10 hours ago, NiranV Dean said:

No, i took your 12 month example and named you off the top of my head what would be missing, i didn't even include Bake-on-Mesh but thanks.

Bento was more than 12 months ago, closer to 18 really... Seems you have problems keeping track of the passage of time.

As for Catz not including BakeFail-on-Mesh yet, since it hasn't been released yet, strictly speaking it shouldn't be in ANY tpv yet, and you can hardly blame a tpv for not including an unreleased beta feature that didn't go public beta untill after the last update on the tpv.

On 22 November 2018 at 7:02 AM, NiranV Dean said:

It would be interesting to hear what you think on release cycles.

How should they be done? Manual updates? Auto updates?

How fast should a Viewer be updated? Every day? Every week? A month?

What do you think are the pro's and con's of each?

You didn't start this thread to listen to other peoples thoughts, did you?

11 hours ago, NiranV Dean said:

Alright look, i have to confess i didn't want to say it directly but Firestorm's slow release cycles are the very reason i've come up with this discussion and i'm basically here to hear the complains and then shatter them with the impenetrable wall of "It's the developers incompetence"

You actually started this thread to scream your opinion at us all, and tell us how stupid we are for daring to disagree that you are the greatest tpv dev in history, and far more talented than the FS people, who you seem to hate.

You moan and whine that their "slow" cycle is holding SL back and causing their viewer to be a "pile of crap", but odly, Catznip, which has an even slower cycle, isn't a pile of crap at all.

According to your argument, Catznip's slow slow cycle should make it an unusable piece of buggy crap...

Seems your opinion isnt as "unchallengable" as you like to think.

Now, I'm not a fan of FS, i consider it bloaty , over featured, and over updated, and I've had encounters with one of their dev members who I would gladly describe as not only incompetent but even more arrogant than you...

But...

If you want to host an Anti-FS Rant thread, be honest, and don't start with a pretense of wanting to hear opinions on a non FS related topic.



 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fionalein said:

The only time we, the users want a speedy update is when new features like Animesh, EEP or BoM are released

This is a big part of the answer I've been trying to come up with.

My original and immediate answer when the thread was posted was "more than once a year so I know it's not dead or is worth trying." For example, I wanted to try Alchemy, but its last update was in 2017..

The exception to this is updates to major features, like RLV or LL's stuff. When those come out, the viewer I'm using should be on it within the week.

As for Firestorm specifically.. I guess I'm too complacent because I'm no longer the "10 hours a day" SL power-user I used to be. I'm also so used to the whole Emerald/Phoenix/Firestorm experience that I don't really expect anything different than what we've got. Until recently I haven't paid any attention to what LL has been up to, but I recall a time on Firestorm when Bento wasn't available for a while and it was pretty annoying and gave me a bad impression of Bento.

Forced updates? Sure, bring it. Firestorm has their "three version rule" for mandatory updates but I haven't ran into that in a few years, but that's because I read the full change logs (which is rare) and always find something I like. I personally know a few friends who think "it works so whatever, I'll update if it becomes a problem" or "what's new?" or "why should I?"

I'm very easy to convince for auto updates anyway, being very technically minded (so I understand the reasons and benefits) and a gamer (thus having had to deal with games mandating updates before you can play).

Edited by Wulfie Reanimator
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

Forced updates? Sure, bring it. Firestorm has their "three version rule" for mandatory updates but I haven't ran into that in a few years, but that's because I read the full change logs (which is rare) and always find something I like. I personally know a few friends who think "it works so whatever, I'll update if it becomes a problem" or "what's new?" or "why should I?"

This is closer to what I'd be okay with.  Force update if the viewer being used is older than a certain number of updates --- though that number should be larger than 3 if updates are coming out more frequently than monthly.  And always allow a downgrade to any viewer within that range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

This is closer to what I'd be okay with.  Force update if the viewer being used is older than a certain number of updates --- though that number should be larger than 3 if updates are coming out more frequently than monthly.  And always allow a downgrade to any viewer within that range.

Three major versions. You don't get blocked by Firestorm if you're 3 updates behind. Note how Firestorm versions have 3 subparts -- major, minor, and build(?).

I'd be okay with anything from "major updates are mandatory" to "every update is mandatory." But, the updating process should be smoother than downloading and running the installer by hand. i would not be doing that as my primary viewer.

Edited by Wulfie Reanimator
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Klytyna said:

So far, the sum total of your arguments for forced auto-updates consists of...

"Hi I'm Nirans the Great, I am the most leetest dev in history, and not arrogant at all, and because of this, despite EVERY single dev team that's adopted weekly forced auto-updates followed by daily hotfix patches being a pile of crap, *I* can make it work because I am so much more leet than everyone, especially the FS people..."

...

Sorry I don't find that argument convincing in the slightest.

You claim that Forced auto-updates are good if done right, and that EVERY incidence of them being completely crap is down to '"bad developers" misses one vital fact...

People who use forced auto-updates when there is no absolute need for them, ARE bad developers...

If you don't like the way the statement on your blog is interpreted by English speakers, change it.


 

Bento was more than 12 months ago, closer to 18 really... Seems you have problems keeping track of the passage of time.

As for Catz not including BakeFail-on-Mesh yet, since it hasn't been released yet, strictly speaking it shouldn't be in ANY tpv yet, and you can hardly blame a tpv for not including an unreleased beta feature that didn't go public beta untill after the last update on the tpv.

You didn't start this thread to listen to other peoples thoughts, did you?

You actually started this thread to scream your opinion at us all, and tell us how stupid we are for daring to disagree that you are the greatest tpv dev in history, and far more talented than the FS people, who you seem to hate.

You moan and whine that their "slow" cycle is holding SL back and causing their viewer to be a "pile of crap", but odly, Catznip, which has an even slower cycle, isn't a pile of crap at all.

According to your argument, Catznip's slow slow cycle should make it an unusable piece of buggy crap...

Seems your opinion isnt as "unchallengable" as you like to think.

Now, I'm not a fan of FS, i consider it bloaty , over featured, and over updated, and I've had encounters with one of their dev members who I would gladly describe as not only incompetent but even more arrogant than you...

But...

If you want to host an Anti-FS Rant thread, be honest, and don't start with a pretense of wanting to hear opinions on a non FS related topic.

Are we still doing this?

Of course i come here because i think i that you cannot change my mind. That's the challenge isn't it? I wouldn't start a discussion if i weren't 99% sure i can win this and yet you have to bring me a real reason its bad, all you do is attacking my arguments because there is nothing better you can do, you probably know just as much that there is no real argument against it. Human mistakes are not an argument but an exception for which you can have a fallback plan (which you should anyway), its called damage control. Damage control is what i did when i removed RLV long ago, the thing that seems to rile you up so much. I'm not blizzard or any of the companies you must hold so high opinion of that you call them professionals just because professional is in their job name. They made mistakes and they made much bigger mistakes some of these companies might have learned from it, most probably didn't. Blizzard for instance seems not to, they are literally riding their asses into hell (huehue what a joke because Diablo.) rather than doing what any other company would probably do to stop people from rioting = damage control, rethink their strategy and maybe give people what they want, apologize and realize that they made a mistake and want to fix it.

Your Catznip example is once again bad. Catznip is the very essence of being designed to be bug free and in perfect working condition at all times. Kitty puts a lot of effort into making sure whatever she does works, she basically can't afford to make big mistakes and she hasn't so far. Besides protocol changes, server side needed support and a few exceptions such as new major features, there is nothing that makes a perfectly fine working viewer suddenly become a broken buggy mess, which also means Firestorm was to begin with which would be all the more reason (and is also one of my reasons) they should try a faster release cycle as it clearly seems like that a long release cycle and long testing times do not noticeably improve the quality of their updates.

This might also blow your mind but using the LL Viewer as base without any changes and only updating it every half a year produces a perfectly fine working Viewer too, so its rather a matter of keeping it that way than making it be like that in the first place but whatever.

The rest of your nonsensical "Niran thinks he's a god" talk bull***** i'll just ignore for now, i know you're just trying to trigger me at this point. Neither do i think so nor is that how i am. I'm just extremely disappointed that some random guy can come out of nowhere (and it could by anyone, that's the point, since i'm not a special person) and make a perfectly fine Viewer, and apparently can do lots of other good things too which some "more professional" (at least that's what i'd think of anyone but me, no idea how professional the others really are) seemingly don't which makes me curious... and disappointed. Firestorm has stated multiple times that they can't try experimental stuff due to their larger userbase, i think that it doesn't matter. MMO's put out many patches a week for god knows how many people and they don't seem to mind, they are happy that their issues get fixed.

10 hours ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

Three major versions. You don't get blocked by Firestorm if you're 3 updates behind. Note how Firestorm versions have 3 subparts -- major, minor, and build(?).

I'd be okay with anything from "major updates are mandatory" to "every update is mandatory." But, the updating process should be smoother than downloading and running the installer by hand. i would not be doing that as my primary viewer.

Having three major versions is actually a big benefit and goes as good fallback plan in case something goes haywire... and it always does... it always does.

LL's autoupdater didn't exactly make it easy to do such a thing, especially not "major versions", you'd have to be a bit... tricky with it.

One way would be not updating the version numbers until you want a new mandatory version, but that would leave you with the issue that you'd lock out all previous versions, the other one would be having 3 versions (4 actually while LL is processing the transition) public for download and changing the mandatory to be the third last update.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I'm bouncing between Blender, GIMP and the beta grid repeatedly, trying to hold a mash of information in my head, the last thing I want is forced updates to the viewer.

It's not bandwidth, it's the time and interruption for me. I prefer a viewer with a slower update schedule and one I can decide when to accept.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, NiranV Dean said:

Of course i come here because i think i that you cannot change my mind. That's the challenge isn't it?

That isn't the implication of the words "what do people think about..." or "I want to hear peoples opinions on..." etc...

Perhaps next time you start a thread with the attitude you state, you should be more honest and open with the words...

"I'm arrogant and hold an unpopular & unsupportable opinion, come at me bro!"

7 hours ago, NiranV Dean said:

you have to bring me a real reason its bad,

Forced Auto-Updates FORCES bpeople to eityher use BAD builds while they wait for a fix, OR swap to a rival app, or simply give up. It removes the ability to ROLL back to a previous working build.

There's your bad reason, one you have yet to refute with your "leet devs release perfect software and when they do fubar they hotfix within hours..." crapolla.

7 hours ago, NiranV Dean said:

Your Catznip example is once again bad

Bad for your "forced updates are the key to good software" crapolla...

7 hours ago, NiranV Dean said:

Catznip is the very essence of being designed to be bug free and in perfect working condition at all times.

There's the thing, according to YOU, forced updates with weekly "broken piece of untested crap" builds released on a friday, so the devs can read a weekebds worth of complaints on monday and start work on the 4 daily hotfix patches for the following week, prior ro next fridays "buggy crap of the week" release, is THE best way to make "quality software" but that is exactly how Catznip doesn't do it. They prove your claims untrue.

7 hours ago, NiranV Dean said:

Human mistakes are not an argument but an exception for which you can have a fallback plan (which you should anyway)

In professional Corporate IT operations, we call the fall back plan "rolling back to a build that works", something you CANNOT do if the damn software automatically unrolls to the defective new build with forced updates. That's why forced updates are a pile of crap.

They piss on the fallback plan.

7 hours ago, NiranV Dean said:

when i removed RLV long ago, the thing that seems to rile you up so much

Actually son, the thing that you did that riled me was deciding to piss on 10% of the worlds computer users by deciding that cursor keys were forbidden, and that only left handers could possibly object to FORCED wasd keys...

A decision you reluctantly recanted on after a tidal wave of abuse from your user base!

7 hours ago, NiranV Dean said:

I'm not blizzard or any of the companies you must hold so high opinion of that you call them professionals just because professional is in their job name

Actually, son I don't hold games companies in high esteenm, as they usually take sloppy short cuts... And when I say "professional IT, I'm talking about people in corporate IT departments who have to cope with stroppy head-up-own-arse coder prima donnas who get all pouty when Ops tells them that their untested crap will NOT begoing live on the main system until AFTER its been carefully evaluated.

To put it bluntly, I used to get paid money to tell people like you that their code sucked and to go away and fix it BEFORE its released to users.

7 hours ago, NiranV Dean said:

there is nothing that makes a perfectly fine working viewer suddenly become a broken buggy mess, which also means Firestorm was to begin with which would be all the more reason (and is also one of my reasons) they should try a faster release cycle as it clearly seems like that a long release cycle and long testing times do not noticeably improve the quality of their updates.

And you think that a shorter release cycle will, when evidence suggesats quite the reverse?

Lets be really clear here...

You stated that forced auto-updates are a 'good thing' when 'done properly'.

You stated that LL weren't doing them properly.

You stated that you would like the LL Launcher not only to force auto-updates of the SL inferiority Viewer, but also of ALL tpv's.

You stated that FS should switch to the "crap of the week on friday, plus 4 daily hotfix patches on mon-thu" method, with forced auto-updates.

...

What that suggests to me is that you want LL to FORCE FS to FORCE their users to use a buggy broken build with NO ability to roll back to a build that works, so as to piss off as many FS users as possible and encourage then to "switch to a different brand thats updated every week, and is hella kewl with all the latest geekware features..." such as...

Your brand...

..

Maybe you should devote your energy to dealing with your own viewer, instead of trying to fubar everybody elses by forcing them to dance to your schedule..
 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, NiranV Dean said:

MMO's put out many patches a week for god knows how many people and they don't seem to mind, they are happy that their issues get fixed.

Team up with @animats, he likes to compare MMOs to SL too. What puzzles me is that as a TPV developer you fall for the same fallacy. The main difference between MMOs and SLregarding release cycles is: there is no forced access software in SL. Come on you devellop a viewer yourself - that little but important difference must have been noticed by you, right?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2018 at 2:02 AM, NiranV Dean said:

Personally i'm all for full forced "latest only" updates somewhere around every week. If necessary as fast as possible. Why though?

I don't want to be forced to update, i'm fine with my version, i know best which version i want. (The "never change a running system" type)

First off, no you don't. I can assure you that you definitely don't know whats best for you. The developers that have been spending all their time to make the Viewer as good as possible know much better what's good for you because chances are big they have also spend a great deal making it good for you in the process, besides these developers just want the best for you and the best is clearly a new version that is as good as the old but it contains even more bugfixes for issues, maybe even those you complained so much about. I have had so many people tell me they use version X for reason Y. There is never a reason to silently use version X. If you use version X because version Y is not working as good for you maybe you should have used it earlier and told the developers about it, they might want to investigate and fix it if its not on purpose. Which creates the subtype of people who don't like where the Viewer is going, maybe decreased performance, maybe loss of a feature, maybe something entirely different but going forward you have no choice except to accept your defeat in this matter. If the developers decide to change something once and for all, there will be nothing you can do about it, maybe said change was directly forced by LL. Hiding behind your older version is not going to help, this older version is not going to get bugfixes, security fixes, new features and is also unsupported and might get you a very stupid support answer, its your own fault after all. Sometimes issues simply cannot prevented and you'd do better for your own sake (and that of everyone else) by using the latest version and report the issues to the developers, they can't fix what they are not aware of after all. I was already personally "insulted" as doing a Microsoft, yea i get it, i'm not a fan of their Windows 10 forced updates either but force-updating your basic OS with giant updates that require your OS to restart, often break lots of applications and at the end of the day make the OS even worse than it was before (yea... Windows 10 is like that) is something entirely different to a single application wanting to stay up to date, what's the worst thing that could happen? Yea your Viewer breaks down whoopdiedoo, report the issue and get another one for the time being.

 

8 hours ago, NiranV Dean said:

Having three major versions is actually a big benefit and goes as good fallback plan in case something goes haywire... and it always does... it always does.

LL's autoupdater didn't exactly make it easy to do such a thing, especially not "major versions", you'd have to be a bit... tricky with it.

One way would be not updating the version numbers until you want a new mandatory version, but that would leave you with the issue that you'd lock out all previous versions, the other one would be having 3 versions (4 actually while LL is processing the transition) public for download and changing the mandatory to be the third last update.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhhh...

"Personally i'm all for full forced "latest only" updates"

"I have had so many people tell me they use version X for reason Y. There is never a reason to silently use version X"

First comes the arrogant "knows very little about good practice in software development" statement...

"Having three major versions is actually a big benefit and goes as good fallback plan in case something goes haywire... and it always does... it always does."

Then comes the desperate backpedal to a "fallback position" because...

Breaking the "roll back to a version that works" fallback position that's an industry standard in serious computing, is the BEST justification there is for permanently banning any coder who advocates needless FORCED auto-updates because they are "hella-kewl", from EVER writing code ever again...
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ansariel Hiller said:

Is this still going on? How much do we have to donate on Patron to stop you?

I know it's supposed to be a joke but... are you seriously trying to put a price tag on something that is virtually unpayable?

But hey, i got a question for you, how much do you have to pay me to stop you from threatening your users to delay the update every time someone asks? If you just answered "nothing, i won't", then you answered your own question how much you have to pay me to stop.

10 hours ago, Klytyna said:

And you think that a shorter release cycle will, when evidence suggesats quite the reverse?

The only evidence is that a long release cycle didn't help Firestorm so far.

10 hours ago, Klytyna said:

Maybe you should devote your energy to dealing with your own viewer, instead of trying to fubar everybody elses by forcing them to dance to your schedule..

Oh? Am i not putting enough energy into my own Viewer? Part of that energy goes to dealing with whatever ***** other Viewers are causing me trouble with. *ahem* LookAt Names for instance. How do you feel when another Viewer strokes users stalker fetishes and supports them with features to make it easier because "it doesn't matter anyway" and because they offer the counter option basically directly beneath it. I want to see you deal with your pissed and sometimes even scared users because some asshats have an incredibly easy time spitting on your own users and don't come with "you could offer hiding the lookat", yea what is this some sort of War where one Viewer launches a nuke and other has to build an anti missile silo?

@Theresa Tennyson

Read the marked comment again, specifically the second sentence. 

9 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

There is never a reason to silently use version X.

Thanks.

3 hours ago, Klytyna said:

Ahhhh...

"Personally i'm all for full forced "latest only" updates"

"I have had so many people tell me they use version X for reason Y. There is never a reason to silently use version X"

First comes the arrogant "knows very little about good practice in software development" statement...

"Having three major versions is actually a big benefit and goes as good fallback plan in case something goes haywire... and it always does... it always does."

Then comes the desperate backpedal to a "fallback position" because...

Breaking the "roll back to a version that works" fallback position that's an industry standard in serious computing, is the BEST justification there is for permanently banning any coder who advocates needless FORCED auto-updates because they are "hella-kewl", from EVER writing code ever again...
 

This is not a backpedal but a statement aimed at Firestorm's situation. Firestorm is in a position where they have 3 allowed versions at any time which begs the question again why they don't try a faster release cycle, they can revert back up to three versions if they have to without ever moving a finger. I'm still for full forced updates with zero old-version tolerance, unless exceptions are needed of course. Firestorm on the other hand already has a 3 version system in place, why not use it to test it out?

Also, what's the point of your last sentence? Regardless of whether i truly backpedal or not, your last sentence makes no sense, i already stated before that an exception to the rule is applied when an anomaly happens in a normal situation, or in other words, whenever a broken release comes you can solve it by offering an alternative. 

By now you're just taking my words and putting them into whatever meaning you see fit to make a point.

But then again that's probably my fault because i didn't explain every single little detail that could possible ever come up, if i did this wouldn't be a discussion but rather a slaughtering, right now there is still the possibility that someone (not you obviously) comes up with a real reason that i cannot solve. Until this happens i will not stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, NiranV Dean said:

Part of that energy goes to dealing with whatever ***** other Viewers are causing me trouble with. *ahem* LookAt Names for instance. How do you feel when another Viewer strokes users stalker fetishes and supports them with features to make it easier because "it doesn't matter anyway" and because they offer the counter option basically directly beneath it. I want to see you deal with your pissed and sometimes even scared users because some asshats have an incredibly easy time spitting on your own users and don't come with "you could offer hiding the lookat", yea what is this some sort of War where one Viewer launches a nuke and other has to build an anti missile silo?

Not this again...

phDoghZZX95L2.gif

  • Like 2
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2018 at 2:02 AM, NiranV Dean said:

It would be interesting to hear what you think on release cycles.

How should they be done? Manual updates? Auto updates?

How fast should a Viewer be updated? Every day? Every week? A month?

What do you think are the pro's and con's of each?

 

Personally i'm all for full forced "latest only" updates somewhere around every week. If necessary as fast as possible. Why though?

First off, let's get into some of the issues specific to SL. SL is a MMO, it is an online world with millions of people, around 40-60k online at any given time, most of the time. It needs constant maintenance and is in constant development and with a real currency backing it up it is also a target for security issues that need patching ASAP. I think a 1 to 2 week update cycle would be fine for the general maintenance and bugfixing here. Critical issues such as the Viewer completely refusing to work suddenly or even security issues should have a much faster frequency and if necessary should be patched the day they have been discovered, if necessary on the very day the previous update was made public.

This ensures that we get constant updates, bugfixes and probably new features in a timely manner and are never experiencing frustrating bugs and or showstoppers for too long. Second Life isn't exactly a big application either, with just merely 100-200MB it is exceptionally small and a perfect candidate for quick updates unlike some bigger applications which remedy this issue by offering actual patches rather than the entire application unless needed.

I've heard many complains in the past about forced updates and fast release cycles though. Let me address them:

 

I don't want to be forced to update, i'm fine with my version, i know best which version i want. (The "never change a running system" type)

First off, no you don't. I can assure you that you definitely don't know whats best for you. The developers that have been spending all their time to make the Viewer as good as possible know much better what's good for you because chances are big they have also spend a great deal making it good for you in the process, besides these developers just want the best for you and the best is clearly a new version that is as good as the old but it contains even more bugfixes for issues, maybe even those you complained so much about. I have had so many people tell me they use version X for reason Y. There is never a reason to silently use version X. If you use version X because version Y is not working as good for you maybe you should have used it earlier and told the developers about it, they might want to investigate and fix it if its not on purpose. Which creates the subtype of people who don't like where the Viewer is going, maybe decreased performance, maybe loss of a feature, maybe something entirely different but going forward you have no choice except to accept your defeat in this matter. If the developers decide to change something once and for all, there will be nothing you can do about it, maybe said change was directly forced by LL. Hiding behind your older version is not going to help, this older version is not going to get bugfixes, security fixes, new features and is also unsupported and might get you a very stupid support answer, its your own fault after all. Sometimes issues simply cannot prevented and you'd do better for your own sake (and that of everyone else) by using the latest version and report the issues to the developers, they can't fix what they are not aware of after all. I was already personally "insulted" as doing a Microsoft, yea i get it, i'm not a fan of their Windows 10 forced updates either but force-updating your basic OS with giant updates that require your OS to restart, often break lots of applications and at the end of the day make the OS even worse than it was before (yea... Windows 10 is like that) is something entirely different to a single application wanting to stay up to date, what's the worst thing that could happen? Yea your Viewer breaks down whoopdiedoo, report the issue and get another one for the time being.

 

I don't want to be annoyed with constant downloads of the Viewer.

Look, i respect your opinion on this but... wait no i don't. Your reason is completely flawed, you are constantly downloading stuff, in and out of SL, you are downloading gigabytes worth of content every day. Doing a quick update before starting is not going to hurt you.

 

I have limited internet bandwidth.

Ugh. This is a difficult one but it all essentially boils down to, "tough luck". To be honest if you are on a tight bandwidth budget you REALLY shouldn't be using SL in the first place. It is the epitome of wasted download bandwidth only followed by Ark: Survival Evolved and its 50gb "small" updates. Sure you can throttle your bandwidth down but in the end this is not going to help, have you ever thought what limiting down your bandwidth does? Nothing, it slows down the download, which at the end of the day has to be done, slow or fast and it will impact your Viewer's performance. As long as the Viewer remains in "download" mode it has severely lowered performance, don't do this to your Viewer, it likes you and you put it through this painfully slow download for no good reason.

 

Faster updates mean lower quality and less testing translating to more bugs.

This is only half true. Regardless of how much rigorous testing you put an update through, the public will always find more issues than any testing team could ever hope to find. Testing your updates is one thing but... but having it go live is something entirely different. I've seen so many games test updates for weeks, months nonstop just to have the update break down spectacularly the moment you start it, crashing, rendering bugs, lags, clipping, missing textures, absolutely everything, the entire palette of bugs, i'm sure the devs spontaneously combusted when they saw this happen after so much testing. I mean i'm sure developers make sure that they at least test the basic functionality of changes they add and that's good but beyond some basic and maybe some extra big of testing, that's pretty much it, you the users will always find bugs, always and the sooner you do the better for us... and for you. In the end, the amount of bugs is very dependent on each developer, some make more mistakes, some make less. I've blown my builds up so often in a spectacular but unforeseen way, it's hilarious and if you find a small issue, a button not working or something behaving weird, congratulations you can't imagine how many bugs didn't make it into this version.

 

Everything else:

Whatever the reason may be, whether you don't want to wait a minute or two before starting or you hate increasing version numbers, don't like changelogs or don't care for the development of the very tool you keep using to access what seems to be a big part of your life, no matter what you say at the end of the day it is important that the Viewer stays up to date and ASAP, the faster everyone jumps to the latest version, the faster bugs can be found, things can be tested and development can continue.

 

In the end, fast update cycles are the way to go, they make sure development never halts and they occasionally give you some new toys way sooner so you can start breaking them earlier and we can start improving them faster.

What do I think? That’s easy, I think you need to chill.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, NiranV Dean said:

Also, what's the point of your last sentence? Regardless of whether i truly backpedal or not, your last sentence makes no sense, i already stated before that an exception to the rule is applied when an anomaly happens in a normal situation, or in other words, whenever a broken release comes you can solve it by offering an alternative.

16 hours ago, Klytyna said:

Breaking the "roll back to a version that works" fallback position that's an industry standard in serious computing, is the BEST justification there is for permanently banning any coder who advocates needless FORCED auto-updates because they are "hella-kewl", from EVER writing code ever again...


 

It's fairly clear...

But since you have a proven track record of failure to comprehend criticisms of bad devs, I'll clarify for you..

1. Being a "good coder" does NOT automatically make you a "good Dev", often it can mean exactly the opposite, especially on 1 person micro-dev teams, where it tends to lead to "What! You DARE say theres a bug in MY code, I R LEET!" syndrome.

2. The INDUSTRY STANDARD for dealing with faulty releases for software, across the board for the last 35-40 years has been "roll back to a build that works while the devs correct the mistake in the latest version". This for example is common practice when you download the latest drivers for a gfx card and discover they fubared something, hell the OS often provides a "rollback" button for that purpose.

3. Forcing auto-updates every time the software is run, automatically unrolls your rollback, and thus TERMINALLY breaks the ability to "use an older version that works" while waiting for the dev team to fix the broken "new version".

...

THAT is why devs who want to force unnecessary auto updates on people REGARDLESS of "fallback positions" on the assumption that anyone not happy with this weeks buggy crap can "stop using SL or switch to a rival viewer" , despite being good coders, can be bloody awful devs who shouldn't be allowed ANYWHERE near the decision making process on the dev team..

12 hours ago, NiranV Dean said:

How do you feel when another Viewer strokes users stalker fetishes and supports them with features to make it easier because "it doesn't matter anyway"

How do I deal with that? I don't because it doesn't bloody matter, I don't see their "lookat targets" ever, I don't in Catznip and I didn't in Black Dragon, unless you have done another of your "Nirans the Great knows best" feature updates and FORCED everyone to see others lookat targets.

12 hours ago, NiranV Dean said:

I want to see you deal with your pissed and sometimes even scared users because some asshats have an incredibly easy time spitting on your own users and don't come with "you could offer hiding the lookat",

Did you remove the ability to NOT see other peoples lookat targets? Tsk Tsk Tsk...

So the reason you have scared paranoid users is... You made a Bad-Dev Decision...

Don't blame other viewers for YOUR failures.

 

Edited by Klytyna
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, NiranV Dean said:

I'm still for full forced updates with zero old-version tolerance, unless exceptions are needed of course.

Admittedly I lost interest in this thread early-on, so maybe this quote isn't to be taken literally, but it seems a sure path to dwindling adoption for any viewer following this doctrine. The problem is that "real" bugs are almost always specific to configuration details: e.g., interaction with some hardware or driver version present on maybe 3% of the installed base, or some obscure workflow that never came close to becoming a test case. With a small beta sample there's negligible chance of catching such bugs before going into production, but there's no way it justifies a forced version rollback, so that 3% will abandon that viewer forever. Next release, maybe another 3%. 

Maybe those 3%s are the "exceptions" and that's fine, but then I'm not sure "zero old-version tolerance" is a position as much as a posture.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2018 at 6:44 PM, NiranV Dean said:

Part of that energy goes to dealing with whatever ***** other Viewers are causing me trouble with. *ahem* LookAt Names for instance. How do you feel when another Viewer strokes users stalker fetishes and supports them with features to make it easier because "it doesn't matter anyway" and because they offer the counter option basically directly beneath it. I want to see you deal with your pissed and sometimes even scared users because some asshats have an incredibly easy time spitting on your own users and don't come with "you could offer hiding the lookat", yea what is this some sort of War where one Viewer launches a nuke and other has to build an anti missile silo?

I'm not sure why lookat would be causing you trouble (is it only available in one viewer?), but it is one of the few things I agree with you about. I'd love to see it ripped out of Firestorm and shredded to bits. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...