[ad_1]
It's time to zap these bugs –
Buggy updates indicate deeper problems.
Peter Bright
– Oct 20, 2018 at 14:15 UTC
Expand / Windows 10 at a product launch event in Tokyo in July 2015.Kiyoshi Ota / Bloomberg via Getty ImagesIt is fair to say that the Windows 10 October 2018 update was not the most successful of Microsoft. Reports of data loss quickly appeared, forcing Microsoft to suspend distribution of the update. It has since been corrected and is currently undergoing further testing pending a new publication.
This is not the first update of Windows features that has experienced problems – we have already found significant hardware incompatibilities in previous updates – but it is certainly the worst. Although most of us know the theory of backups, the reality is that a large amount of data, especially on personal computers, does not have a real backup and so deleting that data is disastrous.
Windows as a service
Microsoft's ambition with Windows 10 was to radically change its Windows 10 development. The company wanted to better meet the needs of customers and the market, and to offer new and improved features to its customers faster. It is at the heart of this idea that Windows 10 is the "latest" version of Windows. All new development work will consist of a Windows 10 update, provided through feature updates several times a year. This new development model called "Windows as a service". After a start of trial and error, Microsoft has opted for a rate of two feature updates per year. one in April, one in October.
This effort was not without success. Microsoft has used this new model to provide useful new features without requiring users to wait three years before being able to perform a new upgrade. For example, there is a clever feature that allows you to transparently execute Edge on a virtual machine to better protect malicious Web sites. The Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL), which allows Windows systems to run Linux software natively, has proven to be a boon for developers and administrators alike. The benefits for pure consumers can be a little harder to discern – although the VR features compatible with SteamVR, improving game performance and a dark theme, are just as many interesting additions. Although overall improvements are less important, Windows 10 is certainly better than the one released three years ago.
Larger / It is hard to imagine that WSL could have become a useful tool at a time when Windows was only updated every three years. This is a good thing, and I would even say that some parts could not have been realized (or at least could not be done as well) without Windows as a service. The development of WSL, for example, was guided by user feedback, with WSL users notifying Microsoft of the incompatibilities they found and helping the company prioritize the development of new WSL features. I do not believe that WSL could have benefited from the momentum it had without the steady progress of updates every six months: nobody would want to wait three years to get a minor fix so that the package that is close to their heart works correctly. Regular updates reward users who report bugs because they can see them resolved quickly.
The problem with Windows as a service is quality. Previous issues related to feature and security updates had already shaken the trust in the Microsoft Update Policy for Windows 10. Although data is sorely lacking, there is at least a widespread impression that quality of monthly security updates has dropped sharply with Windows 10. and that the installation of biannual updates of features as soon as they are available is a craze. These complaints have also existed for a long time. Unreliable updates have been a concern since the release of Windows 10.
The last problem has made matters clear, commentators claiming that two feature updates a year, that's too much, Redmond should move to one, and that Microsoft must stop developing new features and just fix the bugs. Some fear that the company is dangerously close to a serious loss of confidence with regard to updates. This trust may have already been broken for some Windows users.
These are not the first calls to Microsoft's slowness with its feature updates. Some feared that the number of inconveniences for both the IT audience and mainstream users would be managed, but with the obvious issues of the latest update, calls are taking on a new urgency.
It's not often, it's like that
But asserting that Microsoft should only produce one update a year instead of two, or criticize the very idea of Windows as a service, misses the point. The problem here is not the frequency of publication. This is the development process of Microsoft.
Why is this the process and not the calendar? With regard to the publication schedule, we can look at what other software does to get an idea of what is possible.
Two updates per year are more common than macOS, iOS and Android. In a sense, Microsoft is trying to exceed expectations. But this is not unprecedented: Ubuntu receives two versions per year and Google Chrome, like its Chrome browser, receives updates every six weeks. Beyond the operating system space, the Microsoft Office Insider program offers a monthly channel that provides Office users with new features every month. It manages to do this without generating too many complaints, while providing a continuous stream of new features and fixes. Likewise, the Visual Studio team produces frequent updates for its development environment and online services. It is clear that some Microsoft teams have adapted well to a world in which their applications are regularly updated.
Go beyond the world of on-premise software and online and cloud services, and at Microsoft and beyond, we see increasing adoption of streaming. Each update performed on a system is automatically deployed to production servers once it has passed the automated tests.
It is true that none of these projects is so complicated under Windows. Ubuntu may contain a more diverse range of packages, but it takes advantage of the fact that many of these packages are developed as independent units. Of course, Windows contains many individual components and Microsoft has worked hard to unravel them. But it remains that its wingspan is unusually large and unusually integrated. Windows is also, at least in places, extremely old.
These factors certainly make the development of Windows difficult, but so difficult that two versions per year are impractical? It's not clear at all. It just requires the right development process.
Page: 1 2 3 Next →
The original article can be found by clicking here
Source link
