On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Xen wrote:
.
And I don't like that model. It gives incentives for bad software products because a disaster recovery mechanism is in place. You can easily see how much more Shoddy Windows has become since for example Windows XP/Windows 2000.
I don't see at all how 19 is more shoddy than XP, and seeing as all of these versions have the same ridiculous update mechanism it doesn't seem related to the quality or reliability of the OS.
So people are like, oh we can't really make the SYSTEM function well, we will just ensure that any big error can easily be recovered from by going back in time.
Versus starting over with a clean installation? That is the original rollback.
So that's just what I am saying, that snapshotting is in essence not a satisfactory thing and just a roundabout way to make a system function that is otherwise horribly broken. Instead of fixing the system, you ensure that it can't hurt you anymore - so bad.
Hmm, broken state or reinstall. You get away with this when the testing is monumental, like what Apple does, who have no reversion options for updates. OS X, you update to a sub version, that's it, you can't undo it. But they also do a metric ton of testing. It's so complicated now that they even have expanded their pool to public beta testers. For iOS, there isn't even a revert possible. You can only reset which obliterates apps, settings and user data, but not the most recent update you applied. Nah, I'll take a snapshot and wait a week thanks. Another way forward is Fedora's atomic/rpm-ostree project. And CoreOS has a similar strategy. These are specifically versioned trees which have specific binaries in them. Anyone who deploys a particular tree version has the identical system binaries as anyone else with that tree version; compared to the very non-determinstic situation we have with package managed systems.
You mess up? Go back in time, it is easier than actually trying to solve a problem.
Sorry, lame and unconvincing argument against snapshots and rollbacks. Your method basically depends on the user getting a broken system somehow communicating their misery to developers who then do a better job. Users getting mad causes software quality to improve? It's not how things work. -- Chris Murphy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org