justin = {
main feed
,
music
= {
decanted youth
,
yes, exactly, yes!
,
not vampires
,
full archive
}
,
code
= {
cockos
,
reaper
,
wdl
,
ninjam
,
jsfx
,
more
}
,
askjf
,
pubkey
};
Ask Justin Frankel
No reasonable question unanswered since 2009!
Suggested topics: programming, music, sleep, coffee, etc.
Note: please do not ask questions about REAPER features, bugs or scheduling, use the
forums
instead.
Name:
Ask:
Human (enter yes):
[
back to index
] | [
unreplied
] | [
replied
] | [
recent comments
] | [
all
]
Question:
Sorry, if I am a noob in tech. What's the advantage of the major upgrades in any software? For example, why there is a need for REAPER 5 or 6 or 7. Why MS Office 2007, 2013 etc. Why not just make one software and give constant updates to it, just like what Microsoft did with it Windows 10? There will be no more Windows, just constant updates to W10. And also same with MS Office 365 (their MS Store version). Also apps in smartphones, they don't have any major upgrades, just constant updates.
Asked by Abhi (182.68.63.x) on February 10 2020, 7:20am
Reply on February 11 2020, 10:03pm:
I personally don't like the continuous update model for a number of reasons (off the top of my head):
it assumes that the developer won't break things (if they do, good luck getting/finding/etc the working version when you need it)
when the developer wants to make major changes, there's no way for the user to know this is coming. If you update from v5 to v6 of something, you choose to do that upgrade at a time when you're ready to adapt to changes. If it just comes down the pipe, you're fucked.
Major versions allow for the "pay for major versions" update model. Otherwise it's "pay lifetime" (unsustainable without constant growth), or subscription based (and personally I prefer software to be owned licenses!).
Comment:
Your Name:
-- Site Owner's Name:
(for human-verification) Comment:
[
back to index
] | [
unreplied
] | [
replied
] | [
recent comments
] | [
all
]
Copyright 2024 Justin Frankel
.
|
RSS