Hacker News Reader

Comment by EpicEng | Hacker News Reader

So... the article makes a direct comparison between updating a centralized server and updating millions of computers individually. And oh yeah; the latter is an OS patch.

I'm not defending any specific instance here, but in general, I think it is reasonable to expect a Windows patch to take longer to develop and deploy than an update to Google Apps.

View on HN

Yes. Let's consider how well Google do with Android. Even Android on Nexus devices, where they (in principle) should have much more control. Their update speed, and how long versions get updates for, is still far behind Microsft.

How much of this is due to the UX of updating mobile operating systems vs software?

OTA updates on Android phones means downloading (often 250mb) files -> asking the user to reboot to recovery -> installer takes a few minutes -> boots back into the phone.

Most people keep their phone on 24-7. So this is not as simple as updating software apps in the background w/o reboot.

A lot of the Windows security updates require restarts. It's not a dissimilar problem. And OS patches have to happen on shared systems, Exchange servers, Sharepoint servers, domain controllers, etc. Uptime is more important on those than a cell phone by any objective measure.

edit - Also, Microsoft has complicated relationships with many large vendors and probably tests on a LOT of permutations for each patch vs whatever Google does for Android. I am surprised to find myself sympathizing with Microsoft.... that being said, this is digressing. MSFT should have a universal fast track for 0days and decouple it from the standard upgrade process. 90 days should be enough, and have no real problem with Google's actions.

Indeed, but this must be considered if someone is going to critique Google's speed at updating Android vs desktop operating systems. The updates need to be stable and important if the user is going to be walked through this disruptive process.

Additionally, Windows OS has a long history, is much more stable, and Microsoft controls the majority of the codebase unlike Google.

Android's codebase is built on top of quite a rickety legacy foundation of old patchworked linux kernels that have to be in sync with drivers from proprietary manufacturers like Qualcomm - although is has improved a lot in recent years.

Yet, I do agree Google/Android vendors should be pushing updates at a much higher frequency.

Not disagreeing with what you said, just want to point out that Microsoft needs to deal with even more driver from proprietary manufacturers :-)

Google has a critical dependence on a few very slow moving manufacturers before they can do each update. And their vendors aren't nearly as capable or incentived as Intel or Nvidia to release updates quickly - since their arrangement is a fixed-hardware deal with particular phones. Not for supporting x operating system on a variety of hardware, with competitors at their throats.

I cannot think of a company that works with Android and not with Windows. Again, agree that Android has to support a lot of hardware, but Windows needs to support even more.

OTA updates work exactly the same way on iOS devices, but a far higher percentage of iOS devices are running the latest version of their OS, than are Android devices.

We're talking about patch-based updates that happen on a frequent, not full OS updates. OS updates on Nexus devices always happen immediately just like iPhones, which is what we're talking about...

Non-Nexus devices distributed with OS modified by 3rd-party vendors and/or cheap/low-powered Androids are the big reason why Android phones stats show a lack of updates. It is not because of Google - which does push out OS updates in a timely way.

Yet Google still releases patch/delta very infrequently which is what we're comparing vs Windows.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com