Too many version updates!

[orgdoctor]

I've been getting version update notices every 3 or 4 weeks, which is grossly excessive and a sign that your organization does not have its act together. Apparently, Google and other search engines detect when a site is not using current version of Joomla and derogates its position in the search results. This means that I have to go through the tedious process of upgrading my website every time you announce one of these updates. Please stop these excessively frequent updates and limit them to twice a year. They are creating such a burden on me that I regret having chosen Joomla as my CMS. If this continues, I may have to migrate my website to another CMS.

[sozzled]

I've been getting version update notices every 3 or 4 weeks, which is grossly excessive ...

Hmmm ... let's see ...

Since Joomla 1.0 first arrived on the scene in 2006 (12 years ago), there have been four major releases (J! 1.0, J! 1.5, J! 2.5 and J! 3.x); over the 12 years, these account for about 130 updates; divide 130 by 12 and you get a nearly 11 updates per year (or an average of one update every 4½ weeks). Even with this frequency of producing new, well-tested, software, there are still people using J! 1.0 (would you believe!). Evidently there are a lot of people who ignore the notices to update their website software.

Every day I receive notices on my iPhone and my iPad to update software. Every other day I receive notifications to update the software on any one of the 10 PCs and other networked gadgets that I have in the house. At least once every week I check my websites and I find that there are Joomla extension updates available.

Even if we eliminate all the old, outdated and unsupported versions of Joomla that exist in the world today, the current supported series is J! 3.x (sixty-two updates over six years or about one every four weeks).

... a sign that your organization does not have its act together.

Assuming that you have qualifications in running a world-wide, multidiciplinary organisation, we'll take that as a comment. It's not my organisation; Joomla is open source and belongs to everyone ... free of charge. The assertion that there are "too many version updates" begs the question: how many is too many? And what if there aren't enough?

Apparently, Google and other search engines detect when a site is not using current version of Joomla and derogates its position in the search results.

Nonsense: where did you read that rubbish? Google (and other search engines) have no more knowledge about whether your site (or anyone's site) is using the "current version" of Joomla any more than you may have knowing how many cups and what kind of coffee I drank this morning. And where, for the sake of completeness, did you read that one particular version of Joomla or another will have any effect on SERPs? Show me the authoritative reference to that and I'll buy you a crate of beer.

This means that I have to go through the tedious process of upgrading my website every time you announce one of these updates.

Y'know, I read this morning that someone had updated 35 websites to J! 3.9.0 (without problems)? Evidently there are people who revel in tedium! I don't know about you, but it takes me about 10 minutes to update one website (including the backing-up beforehand). I can even multi-task! I can backup two websites at the same time, read the morning news and still have time to drink coffee and pen a few thoughts on the forum. Methinks you doth protest too much.

Please stop these excessively frequent updates and limit them to twice a year. They are creating such a burden on me that I regret having chosen Joomla as my CMS. If this continues, I may have to migrate my website to another CMS.

Oh, please don't do that! I think that 25 million other Joomla users would be terribly upset if you abandoned Joomla ...

Every now and then we get comments like these on the forum. It's a free world; people are welcome to express their opinions even if those opinions are in the minority. Arithmetically correct: on average, one J! software update every four weeks or thereabouts. Microsoft produces about thirty or forty every day. So what? I'm not saying that the OP doesn't have a legitimate axe to grind but we've got to keep things in perspective. I believe it would be unfair to mandate one update every six months (when some people visit their websites several times a day and have to wait for months for something to be fixed or for the arrival of a new feature) any more than updating once a month is too much of an exertion when they only visit their websites once every six months (or six years, for that matter). However, as a community, we also need to call out bullying tactics where we observe them and the baseless claims made in this topic amount to little more that.

[orgdoctor]

In reply to sozzled, I wouldn't want deprive you of any of your crates of beer -- by your handle it sounds like you need all you can get. I think you may underestimate the reach of Google. I have noticed a distinct drop off in clicks on the search results for my site as the length of time that I neglect to install a Joomla update increases. Also, I am not a web developer and despite being a highly skilled programmer, software developer, and professional statistician, I do not have the skill and confidence of someone like you to get back into website maintenance mode and get the backup - update process done quickly. An update every 4.5 weeks, by your own calculation? That would seem to buttress my case for the frequency of such updates being excessive. At a minimum, Joomla should accompany such updates with information on their criticality and a description of what bugs they fix and/or features they add.

Finally, your characterization of my post as a "bullying tactic" is nothing more than a bullying tactic itself, an apparent attempt to suppress any criticism. It won't work with me, buddy, either in writing or in person. You need to get your emotions or your weak ego under control.

[sozzled]

In reply to sozzled, I wouldn't want deprive you of any of your crates of beer -- by your handle it sounds like you need all you can get.

Safe bet. I will personally guarantee 100% repayment of all the money that you have spent on obtaining the official Joomla updates if (and only if) you can point to an authoritative report about Google (or anyone) taking any action in relation to websites specifically w.r.t. whether a website is using the "current version" of Joomla or not. I will, however, concede that Google (and other search engines) take negative/punitive action in relation to websites that have been compromised, hacked, or unmaintained for several years.

I think you may underestimate the reach of Google.

And I think you overestimate the power of baseless assertion. There may be a very good reason for a drop-off in the "clicks on the search results" for a website. Attempting to link some cause between SERPs and "version of Joomla" is a bit like attempting to link "fake news" with policy agenda of the President of the USA (Hang on a moment, maybe there's a causal relationship between the two?)

I'm not suggesting that what you've written is "fake news" but I would say that there's absolutely not one jot of evidence from any search engine to suggest that any of them has any interest in whatever was used (e.g. CMS) to build the website. Show me somewhere where there's a search engine that has a "we may not like your Joomla website because ..." page, and you've made your point.

As for claims that it's inordinately tedious, unnecessarily burdensome or disproportionaly time-consuming to maintain a website, that's not our problem, is it? I maintain several websites (some very small ones, some medium-sized ones and a couple of large ones). Preparing any one of these websites for updating takes me very little time—relatively speaking—because I spend a lot of my time actually visiting my websites, visiting this forum, reading the latest announcements about Joomla (and extensions), involving myself in discussions and drinking lots of coffee.

All Joomla updates are accompanied with release notes. I read them. I can't say if any single feature added with new versions is more or less critical than any other one but I can say that by not updating one's website we're faced with the tedious task of attempting to explain to people who use this forum, "well, why didn't you keep your websites maintained?"

Finally, in relation to your comments about the emotive tone in this discussion: you came in here with a loaded shotgun. What kind of target were you hoping to hit? It's an internet discussion forum: you get back what you dish out.

[effrit]

Aside the tone i agree with TS, becouse if we want compete to WordPress in terms of user base we must make updates less often, except of security and bug fix.
I did write about this before - now Joomla is more for developers, but less skilled users don't want this update's stress. Actually, active extension's and template developers not interested also.
So in terms of marketing will be good do decrease update frequency to 3-4 in year.
We need accumulate new features for major release.

[SharkyKZ]

tedious process of upgrading my website

creating such a burden

You mean clicking the "Install the Update" button?

[brian]

Re wordpress releases

https://wordpress.org/news/category/releases/

[effrit]

Re wordpress releases

This is not equivalent. WP patches contain less changes, so this is normal if u can just update from 4.0 to 5.0
For Joomla situations is different because of many core changes. So even 3.0 to 3.x is roulette.
You can say what each patch is improve Joomla and make it better but consumers don't want this update troubles so often, they paid for site and expect it will work.
I understand what Joomla developed more quickly but we can accumulate changes to major rare release instead of make core updates each month.

[orgdoctor]

Re: Sozzle's comment, "... a bit like attempting to link "fake news" with policy agenda of the President of the USA (Hang on a moment, maybe there's a causal relationship between the two?)"

I can see now that I'm engaged with a childish ideologue who now is resorting to scoring political points. I thought Joomla fans were better than this. I will now disengage.

[name7]

A joomla update is a risk event.

One per month is too many. Way too many. Way too often.

I came to the forum today to voice my disapproval with the frequency of joomla updates. I found this thread, so I am adding my 2 bits here.

A newly discovered security problem requires an immediate patch. The frequency of these occurrences is mitigated over time by evolution of code and also by the quality of design of new features.

The only basis for legitimately complaining about updates that address security problems, is if the code is so poorly written that security problems are frequent and unending. Joomla doesn't have that problem.

All remaining updates occur because new features are developed or old features are changed.
My preference would be to bundle new or modified features into a single annual update, with an organizational plan to implement one feature update each year. The only other updates that would occur during any year would be security updates, and these would occur only as security breaches were discovered. Much better plan.

Sozzled mocks OP. Okay, whatever. If mocking is the standard here, then I mock all of you.

Your paradigm for an open-source CMS that you want people to love and developers to develop extensions for, is one update per month. Ha! That doesn't make me love joomla. It doesn't make extension developers love joomla. It doesn't make anyone love joomla!

Maybe sozzled doesn't mind the tedium and risk associated with updates. Maybe he has a lot of free time on his hands. Maybe he doesn't have clients who call him to complain about updates or problems that happened after updates. And who cares what he thinks about anything.

I do mind updates. I'm tired of them. Can we have less updates please?

[sozzled]

I'm not defending my earlier contribution to this discussion and, while I accept that I may have employed sarcasm in support of my position, I still stand by my earlier comments.

Updating website software is basic maintenance necessitated by the fact that change is inevitable. The frequency of such change, however, is debatable but the need for basic maintenance is not.

I know that analogies are often misinterpreted but I would like to give a non web-related example of a case of recent "maintenance" that I was involved with.

We get a lot of sun where I live. If the sun didn't shine as often then I wouldn't have to paint the timber exteriors around the house. I wish I didn't have to paint as often as I do (it takes a few days to re-do the paintwork that has cracked, faded over time, and exposes the natural timber to deterioration). Last week I re-painted the timber handrails around the house; it wasn't something I wanted to do but the alternative—the constant reminder that the paintwork needed re-doing—was just as unappealing. Maintaining the exterior timber is not only something that we—she-who-must-be-obeyed and I—personally benefit from, it also means that the resale value of the home is preserved or increased. I call this "living in harmony" both in terms dealing with the effects of solar radiation and in terms of appeasing SWMBO!

I could complain about the fact that the sun appears every day. If we didn't have as many sun "updates" I wouldn't have to paint; my maintenance activities would be reduced (or, at the very least, the frequency of doing those maintenance activities would be reduced).

By the same token, software updates are also released (on average, about every four or five weeks) and, applying those updates is just "basic maintenance". People can choose to ignore those updates; I don't have a problem if people decide to neglect their maintenance activies in the same way as I don't have a problem if people choose to allow their homes to fall apart, to look like eye-sores on the neighbourhood, or lower the value of their homes when it comes time to sell them ... as long as their homes don't affect the value of my home.

I don't like tedious tasks: painting is boring; I absolutely loathe it. However, it's something that I can do (while I'm still physically able to do it myself) and it's more cost-effective if I do it myself. I don't do the job as well as a professional painter of course.

Perhaps if the sun didn't come up as often as it does I wouldn't have to do so much maintenance. Perhaps if Joomla didn't release new versions (with fixes for older versions and the addition of new features) I wouldn't have to do so much website maintenance, either? I'm not mocking anyone; I'm just saying that maintenance—how often one does it and what benefits it provides—is a part of life.

[4plays]

maybe joomla should have LTS version so only slightly features or security update

[name7]

Good idea. I would vote in favor of an LTS version.

It's a good idea for coders to keep software features up-to-date and progressing.

It is also a good idea to recognize that half of software users only need 5 features to build and maintain a successful and secure and stable website.

Analogous example: Windows.
More than half of Windows users only want 5 functions from their desktop. The web is full of tutes on how to disable unwanted Windows features because millions of users don't want or need those features. This is a characteristic of Microsoft that always surprised me: their inability to recognize the vast market for an operating system that offers browsing, email, doc, spreadsheet, image/video management, and nothing else. Call it Windows Lite. Stable, secure, functional, low-maintenance.

Joomla Lite anyone?

[Unisoftdev]

I would say that there is a correlation between the frequency of updates and the quick responses of the security team. In all content management systems and even the languages they are using (e.g. PHP), you can find some vulnerabilities (those aren't discovered in a pack but one by one) raising security concerns. If the updates are coming often it means that there is someone who is fixing it. What you are saying is that the Joomla security team should stop their work to fake the Google security team. Is it a correct interpretation?

Despite this, there's another counter-productive effect, it doesn't help you. Well, one can see it in that way like you but Google bots know more than just what is the newest version of a CMS, they know about the newest discovered vulnerabilities (coming at the same time as the updates). Any thoughts? What do you think Google does with CMSes those don't fix it? Too many version updates? Is there something as "too many updates" for Google?

[Coderdev]

Is there a way to make the updates automatically apply?

[jennix]

I want to join in here too.

SERIOUSLY GUYS WHAT THE [censored]????

Why do i get an email everytime somebody touches any my 50+ joomla sites? ESPECIALLY for an update (3.9.8) which only affects a [censored] help file on a language my sites (NONE OF THEM) even [censored] use?

The release schedule at joomla is out of control. You guys seriously need to get a handle on how to create a [censored] sane release schedule.

'Cause whatever you're doing now is NOT AT ALL SANE.

[SharkyKZ]

I want to join in here too.

SERIOUSLY GUYS WHAT THE [censored]?

Why do i get an email everytime somebody touches any my 50+ joomla sites? ESPECIALLY for an update (3.9. which only affects a [censored] help file on a language my sites (NONE OF THEM) even [censored] use?

The release schedule at joomla is out of control. You guys seriously need to get a handle on how to create a [censored] sane release schedule.

'Cause whatever you're doing now is NOT AT ALL SANE.

Because you have Joomla! Update Notification plugin enabled.

[jennix]

I know how to disable it. I don’t want to. I want you guys to create an *important security” update channel and an “everything under the sun” channel so i don’t get inundated every time somebody discovers typo in a language file.

What’s so hard to understand about that?

[sozzled]

You can't please everyone.

Yes, there are security updates.

There are "bugfix" updates.

There are enhancements (and, sometimes, features are removed, too).

So, while (it seems) some people are only focused on "security" (and whatever that may entail), there are others who just want the damn thing to work or want it to work "better". Regardless of whether people are troubled by frequency of software updates, or the workload involved in sifting the wheat from the chaff—security vs. bugfixes vs. something else—there's no escape from the need to perform routine maintenance. It's in that area—undertaking website maintenance, regardless of what may prompt these activities—that this discussion seems to overlook.

Whether or not the slew of updates is "too many" (or about right or not enough) is a matter of perception and opinion. In short, you can't please everyone.

[mandville]

example of other BIG projects updating just to annoy people, have you complained to these developers?
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/me ... changelog/
https://www.drupal.org/project/drupal/releases

[jennix]

I understand, but I like joomla, I support it, I buy lots of things for my clients from other devs, I’ve used it since it was Mambo, and I’m invested in it. I Really do appreciate the fact that the core is free, but this has been getting worse for the last year or so. Doesn’t seem like I’m the only one who thinks so.

I’d just like for there to be some kind of priotitization in updates, and some way of any least choosing which one to notify us about.

I get that this is harder, as in what’s important to some. Isn’t to others, but isn’t that kinda what the make it work better part mentioned above is about?

There’s a difference between a an exploit/vulnerability that makes a site a target and one that doesn’t. That much should be easy to sort out. When you run lots of sites on lots of servers for lots of people who don’t pay you to actually keep them up, it would be really great to only get notifications from them when there’s a core security update. If I can differentiate the upgrades for the clients I can provide core updates gratis. As is I have to determine that myself; that makes all of these updates hard to keep up with.

My hack for now is a list of who gets what updates from me, disabling the notifications from all clients, and then running a checklist whenever I see the update release in a dev install. It’s cludgey and inefficient.

Thanks for all you do, but just please consider this (again? I thought there was a feature request for this like 3 years ago, as part of the updates dev, but I can’t find it now.)

[sozzled]

I’d just like for there to be some kind of prioritization in updates, and some way of any least choosing which one to notify us about.

Everyone has different "priorities". You've probably heard the saying

One man's meat is another man's poison.

So, while it may be a priority issue for some people (to be able to separate security updates from other kinds of updates), it may not be a priority issue for other people whose primary concern is to obtain the latest fixes, enhancements/changes, etc.

That's really all that I can say on the subject.

[Shanee]

Maybe this topic would be better on the Security or Ideas board instead?

Personally, I like the idea of a LTS version that only got security updates. This would make it very unlikely an update would break anything, to the extent that the update process could be safe, hands-off and perhaps even automated. At the moment, if you have a lot of websites, it's a time consuming process to keep them all updated and working.

[john-doe]

This would make it very unlikely an update would break anything, to the extent that the update process could be safe, hands-off and perhaps even automated.

NO WAY!

The safest way is keeping the process Manual. If Joomla updates automatically that would be a problem for some sites because webmasters some times needs to keep a specific version or one component gets broken once it gets updated, and not every one has a backup and the update screws the site. Unfortunately not all administrators keep pace of updates.

[Newman123]

Best thread on this forum I have ever seen, I agree with the opening poster one thousand percent, in fact, I don't think I have ever agreed with anything more, it is hoorendous.. I see there's another one today.. Is there anywhere I can see a chagelog, to see whether it is worth taking??

[Newman123]

It's the favicon changing after every update that really grinds my gears, is that really necessary folks??

[mandville]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_1 ... on_history

example of other BIG projects updating just to annoy people, have you complained to these developers?
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/me ... changelog/
https://www.drupal.org/project/drupal/releases

[sozzled]

Is there anywhere I can see a changelog ...

See https://github.com/joomla/joomla-cms/mi ... 7?closed=1

[sozzled]

It's the favicon changing after every update that really grinds my gears ...

... which is a very tiny part of the thousands of lines of code changes that occur with each release. However, there are plugins available on the Joomla Extensions Directory that take care of these concerns, if you're interested, and then your gears won't grind.

[Newman123]

It's the favicon changing after every update that really grinds my gears ...

... which is a very tiny part of the thousands of lines of code changes that occur with each release. However, there are plugins available on the Joomla Extensions Directory that take care of these concerns, if you're interested, and then your gears won't grind.

Only a so called "Champion Of Joomla" could advocate a solution which involves yet more work.. Take the line of code out, and save us all a job, I have said it before, updates are so regular, to change site favicons, you want people visiting them to know, they are Joomla sites, why should I have to change my selected favicon, back every time, to get get rid of yours exactly?? It is a very underhanded sneaky thing to do in my view.. Take the line out, and do your customers a favour..