Mercury/32 v4.53 with automatic update notifications

PiS

posted Aug 31 '07 at 12:15 pm

I think this incentive is good. There should be a difference between trial- or unlicensed installs vs. licensed. The licensing work in progress will most likely allow privatees to license.

A correction on MS is that you can download the patches manually and install them, Only a few require authentication to actually install, and there are ways to slipstream them onto a system as well.

Regarding a mailing list, for all unlicensed, the pm-news list and this community is still and most likely always around for announcements, but the latter is mainly a pull method, whereas a list is a push system. Now, email may not reach all, depending on content, format, sender hickups, receiver policies and other hickups that arise from time to time - therefore - a phone-home system within Mercury/32 that is allowed to contact and inform of new releases, then notifying locally that information exists is a very charming way to go. A such system must though be thoroughly tested due to its importance.

I think this incentive is good. There should be a difference between trial- or unlicensed installs&nbsp;vs. licensed. The licensing work in progress will most likely allow privatees to license. A correction on MS is that you can download the patches manually and install them, Only a few require authentication to actually install, and there are ways to slipstream them onto a system as well. Regarding a mailing list, for all unlicensed, the pm-news list and this community is still and most likely always around for announcements, but the latter is mainly a pull method, whereas a list is a push system. Now, email may not reach all, depending on content, format, sender hickups, receiver policies&nbsp;and other hickups that arise from time to time - therefore - a phone-home system within Mercury/32 that is allowed to contact and inform of new releases, then notifying locally that information exists is a very charming way to go. A such system must though be thoroughly tested due to its importance.

David Harris

posted Aug 30 '07 at 6:48 am

This is just a brief posting to tell you about a work-in-progress, Mercury v4.53.

V4.53 will include a new option that will allow licensed copies of the program to poll regularly for update announcements and security advisories. Once a valid license is installed, a new configuration option will be enabled that allows the program to check at a user-selectable frequency (defaulting, we're thinking at this stage, to twice each day) for notifications of new versions, security announcements and other important information. When new information is retrieved, it will be e-mailed to a user-specifiable address. Naturally, sites who dislike the idea of software that "phones home", even for notifications like this, will be able to disable the facility if they wish.

Any purchased license will include this facility as a matter of course; we will also be putting together a program allowing approved free use sites to get free licenses so they can take advantage of this new feature.

At this stage, we hope to have the new code working in the near future, with the aim of releasing v4.53 sometime in the next three or four weeks. The online license purchasing site will also be online well before the release of v4.53.

The primary driver behind this development is the recent SMTP AUTH fiasco, but we also see it as a good way of adding value to licenses, to encourage people to purchase them.

As always, notifications and downloads will be made on this site when everything's ready to go.

Cheers!

-- David --

This is just a brief posting to tell you about a work-in-progress, Mercury v4.53. V4.53 will include a new option that will allow licensed copies of the program to poll regularly for update announcements and security advisories. Once a valid license is installed, a new configuration option will be enabled that allows the program to check at a user-selectable frequency (defaulting, we're thinking at this stage, to twice each day) for notifications of new versions, security announcements and other important information. When new information is retrieved, it will be e-mailed to a user-specifiable address. Naturally, sites who dislike the idea of software that "phones home", even for notifications like this, will be able to disable the facility if they wish. Any purchased license will include this facility as a matter of course; we will also be putting together a program allowing approved free use sites to get free licenses so they can take advantage of this new feature. At this stage, we hope to have the new code working in the near future, with the aim of releasing v4.53 sometime in the next three or four weeks. The online license purchasing site will also be online well before the release of v4.53. The primary driver behind this development is the recent SMTP AUTH fiasco, but we also see it as a good way of adding value to licenses, to encourage people to purchase them. As always, notifications and downloads will be made on this site when everything's ready to go. Cheers! -- David --

HellasGuy

posted Aug 30 '07 at 1:58 pm

Great idea, David!!

Just some thoughts:

The security/vulnerability alerts should be provided always, no matter of licencing. Even the strictly $$$-oriented M$ goes that direction.

The source for such alerts should be decentralized. I think about a "round-robin" with a list of systems in Mercury and/or the providing server. Else, in case of a day-zero-exploit, a DDoS-attack at the providing alert server would make that service pretty much useless.

I would offer mirror service for such as well, in case it's desired.

Great idea, David!!&nbsp;Just some thoughts:&nbsp;The security/vulnerability alerts should be provided always, no matter of licencing. Even the strictly $$$-oriented M$ goes that direction.&nbsp;The source for such alerts should be decentralized. I think about a "round-robin" with a list of systems in Mercury and/or the providing server. Else, in case of a day-zero-exploit, a DDoS-attack at the providing alert server would make that service pretty much useless.I would offer mirror service for such as well, in case it's desired.&nbsp;&nbsp;

David Harris

posted Aug 30 '07 at 2:39 pm

[quote user="HellasGuy"]

The security/vulnerability alerts should be provided always, no matter of licencing. Even the strictly $$$-oriented M$ goes that direction.

[/quote]

Microsoft only provide these updates for legitimately-licensed copies of Windows - if you're using a pirated copy (the only way you can get a free copy of Windows), then all bets are off.

My view of this is that it is a service, not a right - I think I'm already pretty generous in making the software freely available, and I don't think it's unreasonable to look for a way of providing some real value to those people who are willing to support me by purchasing licenses. I've already indicated that I'll offer the service to free-use sites on an apply/approve basis, and I think that is also quite generous.

Don't get me wrong here - my first instinct is, as it has always been, to provide this for free to all users... But the fact is that I simply can't afford to do so. If some alternative funding model were available that would allow me to live a reasonable existence and support the programs without the need to charge anything, I would do that in an instant... But no such model exists.

Cheers!

-- David --

[quote user="HellasGuy"]The security/vulnerability alerts should be provided always, no matter of licencing. Even the strictly $$$-oriented M$ goes that direction.[/quote] Microsoft only provide these updates for legitimately-licensed copies of Windows - if you're using a pirated copy (the only way you can get a free copy of Windows), then all bets are off. My view of this is that it is a service, not a right - I think I'm already pretty generous in making the software freely available, and I don't think it's unreasonable to look for a way of providing some real value to those people who are willing to support me by purchasing licenses. I've already indicated that I'll offer the service to free-use sites on an apply/approve basis, and I think that is also quite generous. Don't get me wrong here - my first instinct is, as it has always been, to provide this for free to all users... But the fact is that I simply can't afford to do so. If some alternative funding model were available that would allow me to live a reasonable existence and support the programs without the need to charge anything, I would do that in an instant... But no such model exists. Cheers! -- David --

HellasGuy

posted Aug 30 '07 at 3:07 pm

David,

I fully agree with your view. But as far as I know, M$ actually bases their policy on WGA, where not verified installs (the potentially pirated ones up to Win2K) are only provided with the most critical security patches. Everything else requres WGA verification.

But again, I just expressed my thoughts. The decision of course is up to you alone.

Nevertheless, I reaffirm the other point and my offer to help out with possibly useful resources.

David,&nbsp;I fully agree with your view. But as far as I know, M$ actually bases their policy on WGA, where not verified installs (the potentially pirated ones up to Win2K) are only provided with the most critical security patches. Everything else requres WGA verification.&nbsp;But again, I just expressed my thoughts. The decision of course is up to you alone.Nevertheless, I reaffirm the other point and my offer to help out with possibly useful resources.&nbsp;&nbsp;

ral

posted Aug 30 '07 at 4:06 pm

new "feature"??

you get an e-mail, if "new versions, security announcements and other important information"

a mailinglist would be easier...
and "faster"

you would get the news a minute later (not 12hours later)

new "feature"?? &nbsp;you get an e-mail, if "new versions, security announcements and other important information" a mailinglist would be easier... and "faster" you would get the news a minute later (not 12hours later) &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;

David Harris

posted Aug 30 '07 at 6:03 pm

[quote user="ral"]

new "feature"??

you get an e-mail, if "new versions, security announcements and other important information"

a mailinglist would be easier...
and "faster"

[/quote]

No offense, but the fact that you can make this comment suggests that you've never tried it on a large scale. Probably the single biggest problem I have had trying to offer support services in the last ten years has been the fact that people don't update their e-mail addresses when they change. As a result, every time I've ever tried to send out a notification or announcement to my licensed users via mailing lists, fully 30% of the messages have come back undeliverable. The end result was that I was simply never able to issue notifications in the way I would have liked. Furthermore, even if the world were perfect and everyone kept their addresses up-to-date religiously, that still requires either automated infrastructure or personal involvement, both of which have problems.

Doing things the way I am proposing means that people don't have to provide me with any recipient details, and the actual distribution of the announcements can be managed at a local level. As well as providing extra flexibility for the clients, this means that there is no regular maintenance of any kind for me, which in turn means I will feel much freer and more able to do announcements and notifications than I have been able to in the past.

So yes, this IS a feature - and from where I'm standing, it sounds like quite an important one.

Cheers!

-- David --

[quote user="ral"]new "feature"?? &nbsp;you get an e-mail, if "new versions, security announcements and other important information" a mailinglist would be easier... and "faster"[/quote] No offense, but the fact that you can make this comment suggests that you've never tried it on a large scale. Probably the single biggest problem I have had trying to offer support services in the last ten years has been the fact that people don't update their e-mail addresses when they change. As a result, every time I've ever tried to send out a notification or announcement to my licensed users via mailing lists, fully 30% of the messages have come back undeliverable. The end result was that I was simply never able to issue notifications in the way I would have liked. Furthermore, even if the world were perfect and everyone kept their addresses up-to-date religiously, that still requires either automated infrastructure or personal involvement, both of which have problems. Doing things the way I am proposing means that people don't have to provide me with any recipient details, and the actual distribution of the announcements can be managed at a local level. As well as providing extra flexibility for the clients, this means that there is no regular maintenance of any kind for me, which in turn means I will feel much freer and more able to do announcements and notifications than I have been able to in the past. So yes, this IS a feature - and from where I'm standing, it sounds like quite an important one. Cheers! -- David --

Related Topics

Pending draft

Confirm move posts

Insufficient permissions

Select a different topic

Edit history