-2

What I would like to see is Kdenlive updates being within the program as all other software does and that updates regularly in minutes and advises when necessary.
Do not like the fact that you have to download new versions and reinstall to update very messy and time consuming.
I am talking Windows versions here

I strongly advise against this. This is NOT a rant, although it might sounds as if. Actually this simply describes current reality:

What you are trying to do here is promote a behavior you are simply used to.
Instead I recommend you invest a bit of thought into this. To understand_why_ that actually is a pretty bad idea. And what better approach exists.
In fact this question has to be addressed on a higher level, it is the classical question of what process and authority ​to trust when it comes to software management.

The actual issue is not how a single software component behaves, but how Software is deployed to systems in general. Two opposing approaches exist:
1. a centralized process of package promotions that result in monitored, reviewed and adapted packages to be deployed in a cryptographically secured process so that manipulations on any component of the process can be eliminated.
2. a decentralized setup where everyone can and has to implement an own idea of how and why a package should get deployed, typically in a vulnerable process that is characterized by intransparency and the inablity for users to understand, control and secure it.
Linux systems traditionally implement approach 1, the MS Windows ecosystem relies on approach 2. Microsoft has not been able to come up with something comparable despite the fact that for the last 15 years they copied most of what they advertise as "new" from others. There still is no real software management system in 2021 under MS Windows. The "Software center" in Windows 10 is just a cheap wrapper around the old process and typically not helpful at all.

Approach 1 is proven, in use for literally decades now and can be considered a matured, reliable technology.
There are three main issues with approach 2:
- Robustness, precision, flexibility and security completely depends on unknown and therefore necessarily untrustworthy third party providers. Which basically means that it varies in quality from good over questionable to ridiculous without you having any option to rate that. How can you expect a good service where there simply is no motivation, no interest for a robust solution? Why should anyone care?
- Searching for a suitable software solution for a given problem, identifying a trustworthy download resource and actually installing it is a wild gamble. You have to rely on information you read on third party web sites you have absolutely no way to verify. You need to rely that what you are promised and what you want to install actually is what you are currently downloading. It is like buying a cat in a poke, nothing else. Same feeling, same actual situation. There is a reason why package installations as donw under MS Windows are the main culprit when it comes to malware attacks and system penetration.
- The process of installing and upgrading software packages is unnecessary complex and error prone from a technical point of view. Because someone who actually does not know your system and your setup has to predict every technical detail on your system in order to implement the upgrade procedures. And again because of millions of variants for that getting used and misused. This is a principal question, not one of making things "a bit more up-to-date".

So the obvious alternative approach of what you suggest is:
the implementation of an actual software management system for MS Windows based systems that can rival those proven and in use for literally decades on Linux systems. Your request for automatic updates can then be achieved in a trivial manner inside that central component instead of that cacophony of solutions used in the MS Windows ecosystem today.

Yes well and good but I am not a computer nerd so sorry was way over my head!
How can software providers like Gimp, Affinity, Norton security update within the program successfully without bugs?

sparky wrote:Yes well and good but I am not a computer nerd so sorry was way over my head!
How can software providers like Gimp, Affinity, Norton security update within the program successfully without bugs?

Commercial software has a full time, paid staff that do this sort of thing to attract more business ($$). Gimp is a very large, and very long-running project, with arguably a large volunteer developer base with experience across different operating systems.

Kdenlive is a younger project, in comparison to Gimp, with a much smaller Linux-focused volunteer developer base, with Windows build (likely) being somewhat secondary in effort and available Windows-experienced developer manpower.

tl;dr: no one has had the desire to go out and do it, most likely.

sparky wrote:How can software providers like Gimp, Affinity, Norton security update within the program successfully without bugs?

This certainly is possible and actually not that difficult to implement. The issue is something else:
That principle of a software updating itself is insecure in principle, per design. A software should _never_ be able to alter itself. That opens all hatches for all sorts of attacks. Just imagine a third party plugin being able to alter the base software it has been loaded into. Sure, that is not what _should_ happen. And everyone tries to prevent that. But software does contain bugs, programmers to make mistakes. Which is why that principle is insecure per se.

It is the common pattern in MS Windows. And quite frankly I'd say it does not really matter that much there. Since the user has to hand over full administrative control over his personal system in a completely intransparent procedure to unknown people or companies anyway every time he/she installs software those systems are insecure by design. That is fundamentally different in other operating systems. There are good reasons for other approaches. And those approaches have proven to be working and are easy to use. Which is why I suggest _not_ to promote such insecure principles.

Just my 2 cents ...

I am talking Windows versions here
[url="https://vidm.fun/vidmate/"]vidmate[/url] [url="https://authorityapk.com/mobdro/"]mobdro[/url]

singhkamlesh wrote:I am talking Windows versions here

Yes, we got that, but it is not a reason to make our basically secure software insecure to fit a platform.