[SpaceManiac]

I'd argue that it's the practice and not the principle of auto-updates which is unsound. Automatic security patches make a lot of sense in the current security climate, but once that infrastructure exists it is irresistible to use it for random feature creep and marketing.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

> I'd argue that it's the practice and not the principle of auto-updates which is unsound.

I disagree. I've yet to encounter a system where automatic updates didn't sometimes break things. It's a nice theory, but in practice things break when you change things they depend on even when you're trying not to, and a lot of developers don't try that hard. Not to mention, sometimes you're dealing with design flaws that cause API changes, or programs relying on behavior that wasn't officially part of the stable interface. Auto-updating causes more problems than it solves.

[hinkley]

I don’t think it would be that hard to build an update system where not everyone gets updates at once, and you wait for consensus among early adopters before forcing it on the remaining users.