Re: auto-updater
- From: "Steve Zimmelman" <skz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 14:29:18 -0500
In the world I live in, we absolutely do NOT want users making the decision to
update or not. Updates are mandatory and must install seamlessly without user
intervention. In a commercial app I wouldn't execute the update process this
way. But this is an internal corporate application that must have everyone
using the same version.
-Steve-
"yannis" <none@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:mn.fc1d7d776f5cda18.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
The IT departement is not responsible of accepting or decline an update, the
users are or at least one of them. After accepting the update then the
autoupdater will get a command from the IT to update when possible and most
likely just after the next login.
Do not bug the user to update, if s/he has selected do not bother me with this
update then do not bother him/her again.
And give me the option to shut it down AKA do not check for updates it is not
all users responsibility to keep up with the updates.
Regards
Yannis.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: auto-updater
- From: Ray Porter
- Re: auto-updater
- References:
- auto-updater
- From: Brad White
- Re: auto-updater
- From: Antti Kurenniemi
- Re: auto-updater
- From: Steve Zimmelman
- Re: auto-updater
- From: yannis
- auto-updater
- Prev by Date: Re: Extremely long build times
- Next by Date: Re: Extremely long build times
- Previous by thread: Re: auto-updater
- Next by thread: Re: auto-updater
- Index(es):