That's fair. From the post my impression was that auto-update is forced, so users don't get a say in whether it can download in the background, if that's not the case then disregard that part of my comment.
I agree with you. Bugs happen, that's just the way it is.
But my issues with this aren't really related to code:
* downloading without user 'consent' (in the loosest sense of the word)
* and mainly: a proposed fix being a way the server can force an update on the user.
This whole issue just stems from the unreasonably high update-frequency imposed by the developer. They aren't addressing that and instead conclude that perhaps they can avoid a high bill by building remote code-execution into their app. As opposed to just adding a toggle and letting users decide whether they want updates to be auto downloaded. I would argue that's more of a UI/UX issue than a coding issue.
An easier fix could be to just add a toggle so users can decide for themselves if they are fine with the app downloading unprompted or not. (This is just based on the post, the app could very well be behaving that way already but since the post doesn't mention it, I'm assuming it does not).
But also: a check every 5 minutes? I understand what you're saying but the only reason those interruptions are frustrating is because of the high volume of daily updates. This could be solved by just keeping this update-frequency reserved for beta users and maintaining a more sane update-frequency for regular users (now what a sane update-frequency is, is a whole other discussion judging by the comments so far :P)
The article did not mention that as far as I can tell.
>The app checks for the update every 5 minutes or when the user activates the app.
>Normally, when the app detected the update - it downloaded it and stopped the 5 minutes interval until the user installed it and restarted it.
To me this reads as them downloading the update unprompted (as they mention their issue with the previous updater was that it would prompt the users every 5 minutes, which would be solved by just not checking every 5 minutes).
Either way, whatever the bug and its effects are, my gripe is that their conclusion is to add a way for them to remotely force-updates. As opposed to just notifying once or any of the other hundred ways to handle auto-updates that don't involve you remotely forcing an update.
Edit: the founder has confirmed in the comments the app does download without user confirmation, so my original point still stands.
Why download updates at all without the user knowing? Is prompting before downloading such an awful user experience in comparison? Or, you know, prompt once per day and add a 'remind me in x days/minutes' option?
The whole take-away of this article feels backwards. Instead of going 'hey maybe we should not just download stuff in the background without prompt', the author doubles down and actually proposes to add a way for the server to signal to the client that an update should be forced.
Thanks for the list! I didn't knew about the 'New' 3DS.
Though, I would still argue a 4K upgrade is a little far fetched. Nintendo hardware has always been less powerful than that of its 'competitors', who only recently started pushing 4K. (whether or not Nintendo actually competes with Sony and Microsoft is a whole other discussion :P).
Yeah, I agree with you. The rumors that have been going around didn't make much sense IMO. (Has Nintendo ever done a hardware upgrade that would have been as drastic? Genuinely asking).
Also yes, the original kickstand made me wonder if anyone at Nintendo had actually tried to use it more than once. It's by far my least favorite part of the Switch.
Those original consoles are becoming more rare, you could have probably sold it for close to what you originally paid for it, exactly because of that older SoC!
WhatsApp actually provides an APK download on their website[0]. I'm not entirely sure whether they keep it as up-to-date as the version on the play store though.
I personally have a "vanity" domain that spells out my last name (the TLD forms the last two letters). So I just have <firstname>@<domain> for personal stuff, and then for example git@<my domain> for github, spotify@<my domain> for spotify etc.
The [email protected] approach seems like a clean way to do it as well.
I would even go as far as to suggest setting up your email with your own domain. This way switching providers is as easy as just changing a few DNS settings.
I've been running that setup for a few years now and it has been flawless. Spam is almost entirely gone, with a catch-all address I can simply sign up to websites with <website name>@mydomain, makes it easy to track down if one of them ends up doing shady things with your mail!
You're absolutely correct about the noise. Those 1U servers sound like a jet taking off pretty much the entire time they run. However, there's plenty of motherboards that are ATX (or E-ATX), so they fit in regular cases with little to no modifications. (Though, I just keep mine in my attic)
I agree the NUC is a great platform, but if you could spend less cash and get more bang for your buck, and perhaps have the added benefit of having a platform with ECC memory (not sure if the NUC supports ECC, I'm assuming it doesn't), then I think the latter is what most people would go for (or well, at least what I would go for :p).
We're also talking about home _servers_, so it doesn't seem that odd to me to use actual server hardware. The homelab[0] subreddit has a bunch of folks running actual server hardware for example.
You could get older server hardware pretty cheap, and just run everything on a single physical machine, no?
For example, I picked up about 96 GB of DDR3 ECC ram for around 75 euros. A quick check on ebay, and the same amount of DDR4 is selling for at least _twice_ as much.
I imagine it's pretty economical to buy this older hardware and just assemble a single beefy server, instead of buying multiple physical machines.
The added benefit is that this older hardware doesn't end up in a landfill, and even though older CPUs generally consume more power than their current gen equivalent, I reckon a single machine would consume about the same, or less, than multiple NUCs (I have no source to back that up though, it's just my assumption).
There seems to be a real problem with those Samsung SSD's on Amazon. There's quite a few reviews where people even received a fake SSD, the only thing that gives it away is the connector[0]! I decided I wouldn't take the risk and bought mine elsewhere.
The thinkpad T470/T480 dual-pipe dGPU heatsink is a drop-in replacement for the iGPU version, so if you buy the version without dGPU, you can pretty easily double your heatpipes quite cheap.
> 2) {- comment -} probably comes from another language (which one?) but I'm always surprised by the cleverness of language designers, even when there is no need for it.
Datacenters are not desktops though, which I assume is what X11 is used most for. But, like I said, my comment was just my impression regarding the matter, based on the blog post I linked. Thanks for your reply! :)
