Talk:2224: Software Updates

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 00:07, 10 November 2019 by (talk)
Jump to: navigation, search

Not related to this comic in particular, but the advertisements on this site have become a little (well, actually well past that) too obtrusive for use on a computer that won't let you install an ad blocker (like, uh, a managed Chromebook). Oh, imagine trying to use a computer that won't let you install something as necessary in 2019 as an ad blocker in 2019. 01:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Yup. I've added the ongoing discussion to the bottom of this talk page. --NeatNit (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Really? For me it's only a tiny rectangular ad in the bottom left when I disable my blocker. 01:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I saw bunches of ads artificially injected in here between these comments last week, this week I see literally none, so I think whoever added them - so horribly intrusively that it sparked an ongoing discussion that transcended the separate comics - saw the complaints and turned them back off. NiceGuy1 (talk)

I bet that this is in reference to the removal of close other tabs from Chrome. 03:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I doubt it. The feature is easily duplicated by simply tearing out the tab you want to keep and then closing the other window. I doubt that would be a dealbreaker. Plus, well, Chrome doesn't play nice with trying to stay on the older version. Trlkly (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, there are far too many other examples of unwelcome changes to far too many pieces of software to think this is referring to this in particular.-- 10:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
However, there are quite lot of very unwelcomed changes specifically in major browsers ... Mozilla's decision to stop supporting original format of their extensions comes into mind ... -- Hkmaly (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not so clear to me that SaaS requires the software to run in the Cloud. Adobe's Creative Cloud is argued to be Software as a Service, but the programs actually run on the local system. Trlkly (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The definition in the Wikipedia article on SaaS includes that requirement. I would describe Adobe Creative Cloud more like the way its Wikipedia article does, as providing a combination of software applications delivered on a subscription model, mobile apps, and cloud services, with only the latter being the SaaS part. Bugstomper (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Photoshop is installed on my machine, and I can run it when I'm not connected to the Internet. Definitely not SaaS. SaaS doesn't have to be from the cloud, but it must be something served when you use it. — Kazvorpal (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the explanation is probably misinterpreting the intent of the title text. Given the point of the main comic, rather than saying some have very fast ping times, I think it's saying they may have very slow ping time, on the order of months or years, between times when they decide to download an updated version. The explanation written here definitely feels off, as lots of software running doesn't involve even a local office server, but runs entirely on the computer in front of the user, and again it doesn't relate to the main comic.-- 06:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I was going to say the same. Cloud software will include some frontend code to display data to the user; often some javascript in a webpage. I think the title text is treating 'regular' software as if the developers and their computers creating updates are the part which runs "in the cloud". In some cases, this might mean actually sending off for disks for an update (a 'ping time' in weeks), and the timeout before disconnection causes an error could be years or longer. 09:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
The part about a "server in the same office" should just be removed. Software on your own computer is also running in the cloud - there's no fundamental difference between software running locally or remotely except for the connectivity issues (latency and packet loss etc.) in transferring the data. Your own computer is a "cloud server" with extremely fast (a few milliseconds) ping, whereas accessing a server on another continent may cause latency of a few hundred milliseconds (or more, if packet loss is bad enough) and this is what the "ping times vary a lot" line is referring to. I don't think it's referring to software updates. -- Pureawes0me (talk) 09:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Again, that interpretation would be a lot more credible if the primary topic of the main comic wasn't about updating software with very long intervals in between. Making the point you are saying doesn't match at all, and isn't nearly as clever or entertaining of an observation. The very absurdity of claiming waiting weeks or months for a software update is a "ping time" (which is normally something measured in milliseconds) seems to match the typical kind of humor of this comic. Reminds me of that comic a bit ago with the fruit vending machine that required you to wait for a tree to grow.-- 10:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
It could refer to both. Therefore they vary a lot.

Oh, hey, that looks like my Android version (because Google apparently thinks no one would want to record their own calls). 09:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Would just like to mention that the definition of 'software as a service' is actually that you pay for a subscription, that is a regular reoccurring fee. That's not usually the case. 17:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

If you have to be compatible with other users and the file formats (or whatever) change, it could end up being a "regular recurring" fee for all practical purposes, paid at whatever interval your friends or colleagues allow before they expect you to have upgraded. Angel (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
That would be an 'irregular' reoccurring fee, as opposed to a 'regular' one. A 'regular' one is one that's periodic and the period is the same each time. 18:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I am confused about the location of the label Newest version. Wouldn't the newest version be located at the highest line in the diagram? Unless the lines above "Newest version" are future versions? Rtanenbaum (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The arrow is pointing to the upper edge of the shaded region. The upper edge of that region represents the "newest version" at any moment in time, while the lower edge of the shaded region represents the oldest supported version. Angel (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, now it makes sense. It would be a little clearer if the arrow for Newest version was pointing to the upper horizontal line and the arrow for Oldest version was pointing to the lower horizontal line of the shaded area, instead of pointing to the vertical lines. To my interpretation, vertical lines mark points in time and horizontal lines mark versions. What do you think? Rtanenbaum (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I think it is only because you saw it the wrong way to begin with. The arrow points to the two darker gray lines, surrounding the light gray area. The lines represents the newest version number existing and the oldest version number supported. It does not matter which part of the line that the arrows point to, as it is the entire line that is representing what the labels say. It is not where the arrow point to the lines that is important. As the label is for the entire line. This is unlike the two points marked with dots on the black line, which is a particular point in time. --Kynde (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of unsupported... Now that Apple is dumping all support for 32-bit apps, it's worse than just using an unsupported app: those of us with "legacy" 32-bit apps will have to run an unsupported Operating System that no doubt will not work with all sorts of upcoming apps. I don't even want to think about the number of apps that I will have to pay to upgrade to 64bit. Cellocgw (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

There is one app, that I think we can all agree is a blessing that it has gone away, Flash Player! Good riddance! Rtanenbaum (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

No, we do not all agree. :) Also I won't consider it gone until sites stop using it, and I haven't seen that yet. NiceGuy1 (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Funny, this comic so well encapsulates where I just got with iTunes. Except that "break" was intentional, LOL! Idiots split off Books and a few other things into separate apps, because of course people would rather have 10 programs clogging up their computers than just 1. Since I actually use the Books feature, to sync to my iPad, that's a deal breaker, no more updates for me. And "app" doesn't sound like something available for a Windows computer, just mobile devices and strangely Macs because Apple is a collection of weirdo idiots who've lost touch with the real world. LOL! NiceGuy1 (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not telling you whether this comment is being written on my Dell Latitude laptop (still running XP) or my Tab 3 (still running Android 4.4.2), but this comic relates to me in so many ways... 00:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This topic is contained in a separate Talk page and was transcluded into the talk pages of new comics. This is to maintain a single discussion on the ads which affect all of explain xkcd. Click the "[edit]" button above to add comments about ads. --NeatNit (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

explainxkcd ads.jpg
When looking at the article page, I'm seeing several Google ads splashed across the full width of the article space, breaking it up randomly and making it more difficult to read (it sometimes interrupts the Transcript, for example, and also randomly crops up in the already-hard-to-read Discussion box). It looks awful. Is anyone else seeing them? I understand that ads are needed to pay for Explain XKCD's server costs, but they're really detrimental to the article. Hawthorn (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm seeing them, too, and I agree. ExplainXKCD is one of the few pages on my AdBlock white list. Please don't make me reconsider my decision. Elektrizikekswerk (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for creating the new section. Yes, not only am I seeing them invade the text, but invade the text three times with the same advert. Perhaps we need a new tag to make room for advertising 13:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I've added a tall screenshot of this to the right. Just from the thumbnail it's easy to see how disruptive it is to the page. --NeatNit (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, yours have images? Mine don't - they're just big white blocks with some text in them (which I think is even more disruptive since they are harder to distinguish from body text). But still, yeah, absolutely not a fan of this at all. It makes the site feel incredibly tacky. Hawthorn (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes I also see them with pictures and it is horrible. :-( Will try to see if making a Admin requests will help... --Kynde (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not seeing them in the explanation - Maybe they fixed that? - but like FOUR times in the comments, which seems excessive. It seems less obtrusive than as described here - and shown, thanks NeatNit - but it still seems disgusting. They should keep them unobtrusive, like they've always been on the side. NiceGuy1 (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I find it interesting that this Ad topic block is appearing on multiple comics (I saw it on 2221, where I added my other comments, then 2222, now this is 2220, and I see the same comments, including mine). I also find it interesting that after I left each comment on 2221 - between the comic's comment section and this one, like 8 edits or so, I kept finding things to say or corrections to my comments - I refreshed the page to see my edit show up, and after a couple I stopped seeing ads. Either there's a daily quota or it remembered that I closed each ad? Maybe a combination? NiceGuy1 (talk) 05:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
The topic showing up in multiple comic discussing is my doing - because this topic affects all of explainxkcd, I want to make sure it's always visible in the latest comic. I used wiki transclusion to do this. The discussion is actually held in Talk:2220: Imagine Going Back in Time/Ads and is inserted (transcluded) in all the other talk pages. --NeatNit (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Oh, then may I say Way to go! I completely concur, this is an ongoing topic. (Though the ads seem gone now, at least for me) NiceGuy1 (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Since the ads seem gone now, it seems like this section can stop being added to every new comic (though in my opinion it should remain on the relevant comics that were published during this dark time, I think 2220 until like 2225 or so...) NiceGuy1 (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm only seeing 1 ad, always (regardless of which comic's explanation I'm seeing) after the second paragraph, always with pictures. The existence of the ad doesn't annoy me as much as the fact that it'll sometimes load after I've already read past that point, pushing the text I am reading down. -- 16:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Click the X and report the ads for reason "Ad covers content". Maybe they'll even do something about it! 16:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
The thing is, that looks more like a complaint against the particular ad. Even picking "covers content" I get a response "Okay, we'll try not to show this ad any more". My objection isn't to the particular ad, it's to the EXISTENCE and PLACEMENT of the ad. I don't care what's IN the ad, it shouldn't be there at all! I accept the evil necessity of ads, just don't shove them down my throat, encouraging more people to use the ad blockers the obnoxious sites always whine about. NiceGuy1 (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
NiceGuy1 is correct. The complaint button is against a single advert, not against the advert block placement. It's not unlike filling a complaint against a business renting a billboard because you have a problem with where the billboard is placed. The business renting the space has no control over where the billboard is. 04:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing these ads right now, have they been removed entirely? --NeatNit (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see them anymore either. Only the one on the left below the navigation bar remains, which has always been there and doesn't bother me. Bischoff (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok, never mind. After I posted this and went back to the page the ads are back as well. Bischoff (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
All I see are the letters "Ads". Seems my Firefox blocks it. -- 13:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I do not see any additional adds, but some additional linebreaks in between the pages, which fit the places described by those, seeing adds. Using Chrome on a company computer... So I do not know what exactly the settings are, but generally it does not block adds. (I even see the lunarpages add on the left) --Lupo (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Last Wednesday (6 to 7 days ago), according to the time stamps on my previous comments above, I was seeing 4 or 5 ads in a rather short comment section (which went away after a few refreshes after a few comments). Now I see none. Maybe whoever turned them on saw the negative reaction and turned them back off? Or maybe they only needed a quick cash injection and turned it off after they got what they needed, LOL! NiceGuy1 (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

They indeed seem to have vanished. Elektrizikekswerk (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to stop adding this conversation to new comics for the time being, because it seems like the ads have gone. It's weird though; no admin has commented on this. If you still see ads, let me know! --NeatNit (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I removed this from the talk page for all but the first comic after it was first posted (as on that page there where also discussion on adds) --Kynde (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Seems like there are no admins active at the moment... --Kynde (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I still have areas on parts of some pages (e.g. in the discussion part of 1109 from time to time, which are according to the inspect tool, frames for google adds. They either cover part of the text, so I cannot click/mark it (what I often do to find the line I am reading in easier, or just to have my hand busy), or they create big interuptions of the text. --Lupo (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

December return of the ads

xkcd ads dec12.png
The horizontal ads are back. Noticed some on 2227 and decided to report back to this thread that the issue has not fully ended. ChessCake (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I got them too. Also in the past weeks I got containers/placeholders in some places, which, according to the inspecting tool, where also for adds. Since today or yesterday they are fillign with adds again. --Lupo (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm seeing them too.
They're back.
Ahiijny (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
The top-level div for one of those ad elements has class google-auto-placed ap_container. Possibly related: Ahiijny (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Yup, they're back... I've transcluded this page in the latest comic's discussion page, and I've added a new screenshot here (more disruptive than the one Ahiijny showed). I've also made a comment on User talk:Davidy22, hopefully he'll receive an email about that. This stinks. --NeatNit (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes they are back with a vengeance. Sadly it seems neither Davidy or Dgbrt are active anymore or replies to any messages written on their pages. They are the two last admins that have been active here. But Davidy has not been for more than two years (2017) and it has been some times since Dgbrt was active (march 2019)... PS I'm not an admin, just very active ;-) --Kynde (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

As of today, I am seeing fullwidth ads, but only in the talk page space. Aside from the usual sidebar ads, the rest of the explanation page doesn't have any. --Aaron of Mpls (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

After being fixed again, it now appears that users are seeing the erroneously placed ads again. Not a very nice April Fool's joke... ProphetZarquon (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I've just started to get some huge ads that basically take up my entire screen. Have we gotten any updates at all? Opalmagpie (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I've got full-width ads in the discussion box, but nowhere else, which is interesting, and also FLIPPING ANNOYING! Darn it, those ads are taking up the discussion box and I hate it. (Note: Just really noticed the ads) Sarah the Pie(yes, the food) (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I have spotted video advertisements on the website. I fear this issue is only getting worse with time now. If this isn't just me, we should probably start to insert this back into new comics' Talk pages. ChessCake (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Notified Jeff, he checked the ad settings for the wiki, and the broken ads should finally be fixed! I went and checked a few pages, and I don't see the ads appearing in random positions anymore. Hopefully this concludes the issue. Herobrine (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)