Total Commander

Hi.
What about automatical update notification? With possibility to update automatically, or after user chooses? It will be really handy.

Just sign up to the mailing list and you get an update notification.

sqa_wizard wrote:Just sign up to the mailing list and you get an update notification.

Thank you for tip, but it is not suitable for everyone and I have to read what I do not want to. Simply, it is not user friendly ;o)

I don't know about your experience with mailing list, but TC mailing list is special. Just not spamming you with unneeded info, but announcing new versions only !

For the whole year 2009 I've got 3 mails:
- Total Commander 7.50 beta test started (19.04.2009)
- Total Commander 7.50 released (11.09.2009)
- Total Commander 7.50a released (25.09.2009)

For 2010 I've got 1 mail only:
- Total Commander 7.55 beta test started (26.03.2010)

... no more, no less ... essential at its best !

sqa_wizard wrote:I don't know about your experience with mailing list, but TC mailing list is special. Just not spamming you with unneeded info, but announcing new versions only !

For the whole year 2009 I've got 3 mails:
- Total Commander 7.50 beta test started (19.04.2009)
- Total Commander 7.50 released (11.09.2009)
- Total Commander 7.50a released (25.09.2009)

For 2010 I've got 1 mail only:
- Total Commander 7.55 beta test started (26.03.2010)

... no more, no less ... essential at its best !

OK, good for expirienced users, but common user will not go to TC pages and look for it. Common user suppose he will be informed naturally via application. It is normal in nearby every application, so why not in TC?

I subscribed to mentioned newsletter right now, but I hope you will include automatical update in TC - optional, if possible. Imagine, how much pirate users will wonder how TC knows it is pirated ;o)

Currently it's not planned, for several reasons:
1. Many people (myself included) do not like programs which "phone home"
2. Traffic: It's a huge difference to send 30'000 mails once, than getting several 100'000 update checks every day.

ghisler(Author) wrote:Currently it's not planned, for several reasons:
1. Many people (myself included) do not like programs which "phone home"
2. Traffic: It's a huge difference to send 30'000 mails once, than getting several 100'000 update checks every day.

Ad 1) I do not like those programs too, but if it asks me (and allow to set it for future), I do not see any problem.

Ad 2) What about checking once per week/month?

ghisler(Author) wrote:Currently it's not planned, for several reasons:
1. Many people (myself included) do not like programs which "phone home"
2. Traffic: It's a huge difference to send 30'000 mails once, than getting several 100'000 update checks every day.

It seems I am alone with this suggestion, so you can forget it. But I will continue to wonder why... ;o) It is easier for us, it is more user friendly.

I kind of liked the idea with DNS (http://ghisler.ch/board/viewtopic.php?p=163502#163502). Except I would probably choose TXT records instead of A, so it would not feel as hack. After all, A records are for IPv4 addresses and version info is not an address. :) TXT records on the other hand are for free text.

As for objections:
1) It can't be really considered "phoning home", because TC would not contact "home" directly. The requests would be coming from dns caches, so no user tracking would be possible. Well, it would be, if each client requested some unique subdomain, but we don't want to do that, right? :)

2) Even if the checking was automatic, TTL for DNS records can be set to any value. Set it to week and caches will hold it for that long without asking ghisler.com nameservers again. Added bonus is that it would be timeouting gradually for different users, so they wouldn't overload download servers all in one day.

Interesting idea - but are TXT records cached by DNS too? How about firewalls? They may not let TXT requests through.

I tried quick test with what I have access to and BIND, MS DNS, djbdns and Unbound do all cache TXT records. In theory every caching dns resolver should cache any records, even the unknown types. There might be exceptions, e.g. Dnsmasq does not cache TXTs, but since it's forwarding resolver, it talks only to some parent resolver anyway and not directly to the domain nameservers.
Normal firewall doesn't have any reason to mess with valid dns packets and there's nothing wrong with TXT records. Someone probably could set up some paranoid dns filtering, but I don't think it's the usual thing.