[ember1205]

Originally Posted by Chutzpah

Exactly why I prefer to review updates before loading. My motto, if it’s not broken (or I don’t know it’s broken, or won’t use that feature) leave it alone.

I'm generally of the same mindset of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Still, there's a LOT buried down in that software so odds are that something -IS- broken that should be corrected. The problem is all of the other garbage that likely comes along with it.

[JSH]

I didn't knowingly change anything in the Camaro. However, I connected a new Escort radar detector app to the car's Bluetooth (?)

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by ember1205

I'm generally of the same mindset of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Still, there's a LOT buried down in that software so odds are that something -IS- broken that should be corrected. The problem is all of the other garbage that likely comes along with it.

That's the other edge of this seamless software update sword, unfortunately, and not just in the auto industry.

My car is on the older mylink version, so it doesn't get jack **** anymore, but it would be basic courtesy from GM to group updates into 1) essential fixes that address genuine flaws, 2) optional updates to existing functionality and 3) new features or major functional changes. Or something similar, just take a cue from open source.

Also, part of such courtesy would be to produce extremely detailed release notes so people can make an informed decision whether or not to install something. A short, succinct description for those that don't understand or care for details, and a full version for the rest of us.

The thing is, yes, it would cost some money, but definitely not much, compared to the goodwill it would buy for the brand

[ember1205]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

That's the other edge of this seamless software update sword, unfortunately, and not just in the auto industry.

My car is on the older mylink version, so it doesn't get jack **** anymore, but it would be basic courtesy from GM to group updates into 1) essential fixes that address genuine flaws, 2) optional updates to existing functionality and 3) new features or major functional changes. Or something similar, just take a cue from open source.

Also, part of such courtesy would be to produce extremely detailed release notes so people can make an informed decision whether or not to install something. A short, succinct description for those that don't understand or care for details, and a full version for the rest of us.

The thing is, yes, it would cost some money, but definitely not much, compared to the goodwill it would buy for the brand

Open Source (Free and Open Source Software, FOSS, actually) has a number of things over GM's software developers:

- Modularity: Components are built on top of base-level pieces and are maintained in conjunction with, but separate from, each other. This is what allows an underlying kernel to receive a patch or security update without forcing the software on top of it to have to be updated as well.

- Immense scrutiny: FOSS thrives because anyone can look at what is in the code and laugh at how horrible it is, and then take steps to improve it. Closed-Source code is arguably much less functional, much less secure, and much more bloated than it needs to be.

- Decades of revisions: I've been a user of Linux for well over 25 years. It has come a LONG way in that time due to the point just above. It is immensely slimmer (for what it does) and more stable/secure than it could have ever dreamed of 25 years ago because so many people have continuously improved the code.

The software that GM is writing has one potential advantage over something like a full-fledged Linux build as a base platform and that is the complexity of the underlying hardware. Yes, the various control modules are unique and complex, but each is made of significantly fewer pieces of hardware and circuits than "a computer system" is made of. Additionally, if something like embedded Linux were used as a base platform, the GM developers would need to know how to strip down the kernel and customize it to the point that they wouldn't have to be executing code updates on the base platform every 30 days for security reasons alone.

GM's software, overall, is garbage. Hand-off's between the modules are slow and clunky and seriously unreliable. There is so much lag directly coded into the software that it isn't funny. If they were to throw it all out and re-design it AS A SYSTEM instead of a collection of systems like it is now, it would run so much more smoothly.

[Chutzpah]

Originally Posted by ember1205

I'm generally of the same mindset of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Still, there's a LOT buried down in that software so odds are that something -IS- broken that should be corrected. The problem is all of the other garbage that likely comes along with it.

Oh, I get it, believe me. It’s just that software and me are like oil and water. I specialize in generalized knowledge in most EVERYTHING... something as simple as my router loading an “auto update” put me out of business for a day, while I researched and experimented with the fix. So freakin frustrating..don’t want that with a car I only drive a handful of times on nice days.

[ember1205]

Originally Posted by Chutzpah

Oh, I get it, believe me. It’s just that software and me are like oil and water. I specialize in generalized knowledge in most EVERYTHING... something as simple as my modem loading an “auto update” put me out of business for a day, while I researched and experimented with the fix. So freakin frustrating..don’t want that with a car I only drive a handful of times on nice days.

Yup. That's why I have turned OFF the auto-update on my work iPhone and my iPad, and why it frustrates me to no end when my Windows 10 workstation randomly restarts itself to 'force' updates on me.

I install the Google Android security updates on my personal phone at the beginning of each month but don't do the whole OS upgrade until about a month after it launches just to be sure that it won't brick my phone.

[Msquared]

My experience is that when an update is available, the radio won't power off when I open the car door to get out anymore. Once I install the update it returns to normal operation. I just assumed it was a way to alert us to the availability of an OTA update.

[UnknownJinX]

Welp, I would have to check my car in a few weeks to see what's going on.

Originally Posted by ember1205

Open Source (Free and Open Source Software, FOSS, actually) has a number of things over GM's software developers:

- Modularity: Components are built on top of base-level pieces and are maintained in conjunction with, but separate from, each other. This is what allows an underlying kernel to receive a patch or security update without forcing the software on top of it to have to be updated as well.

- Immense scrutiny: FOSS thrives because anyone can look at what is in the code and laugh at how horrible it is, and then take steps to improve it. Closed-Source code is arguably much less functional, much less secure, and much more bloated than it needs to be.

- Decades of revisions: I've been a user of Linux for well over 25 years. It has come a LONG way in that time due to the point just above. It is immensely slimmer (for what it does) and more stable/secure than it could have ever dreamed of 25 years ago because so many people have continuously improved the code.

The software that GM is writing has one potential advantage over something like a full-fledged Linux build as a base platform and that is the complexity of the underlying hardware. Yes, the various control modules are unique and complex, but each is made of significantly fewer pieces of hardware and circuits than "a computer system" is made of. Additionally, if something like embedded Linux were used as a base platform, the GM developers would need to know how to strip down the kernel and customize it to the point that they wouldn't have to be executing code updates on the base platform every 30 days for security reasons alone.

GM's software, overall, is garbage. Hand-off's between the modules are slow and clunky and seriously unreliable. There is so much lag directly coded into the software that it isn't funny. If they were to throw it all out and re-design it AS A SYSTEM instead of a collection of systems like it is now, it would run so much more smoothly.

Eh, you are assuming most car owners really give a crap about the infotainment system. Just look at the number of people using iPhones. Walled gardens and all but people don't care.

IMO it's an industry-wide issue. And you think GM's system is bad? I actually like Infotainment 3 for the most part, especially in comparison to the Mazda infotainment I am using now. Toyota's system is also pretty crappy from what I have heard. I have a friend who has a Mercedes. Same thing, slow infotainment. Ford's Sync 3 is dubbed as Think 3 by some as it has to think for 3 seconds when you tap on anything. The list goes on, but GM is definitely not the only one guilty for it.

And it's mentioned in another thread, but open source does add to the hacking risk a bit. You can't assume everyone who can look at the code is kind-hearted. Open source means they can find holes more easily.

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

Eh, you are assuming most car owners really give a crap about the infotainment system. Just look at the number of people using iPhones. Walled gardens and all but people don't care.

IMO it's an industry-wide issue. And you think GM's system is bad? I actually like Infotainment 3 for the most part, especially in comparison to the Mazda infotainment I am using now. Toyota's system is also pretty crappy from what I have heard. I have a friend who has a Mercedes. Same thing, slow infotainment. Ford's Sync 3 is dubbed as Think 3 by some as it has to think for 3 seconds when you tap on anything. The list goes on, but GM is definitely not the only one guilty for it.

I think users do care about smoothness (fluid animations, instant screen changes), predictability (touch detection should work 100% of the time and interpret touches correctly, feature activations should succeed 100% of the time) and accessibility (where can I do this or that, quick?).

They also care for the 'cool factor'; for example, just take a look at the 2021 Escalade's all-encompassing, augmented reality, night vision enabled gauge cluster (a la Mercedes). You can bet it will be a massive hit simply because of that.

Relative slowness is pervasive indeed, and for no good reason I can think of other than cheap hardware and/or rushed software, maybe less capable programmers, but who knows. This was such an easy fix for Tesla, and look how their fans idolize the giant notebook in the middle.

[MackSteelPrivateEye]

Does this effect all 6th Gens or just the the 6th Gen Ver. 2.?

[Snakebt6]

Mine failed to update lol

Im not too worried about it but didnt see where I could look and see what the update was?

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Msquared

My experience is that when an update is available, the radio won't power off when I open the car door to get out anymore. Once I install the update it returns to normal operation. I just assumed it was a way to alert us to the availability of an OTA update.

Where does the software update message show up?

[Msquared]

Originally Posted by JSH

Where does the software update message show up?

I got a prompt yesterday asking if I wanted to perform the update. It wasn't a good time, so I didn't. But you can go into "settings" and scroll down to updates - I think it may be the very last item on that menu.

[KingVictor501]

The update was an OnStar update and not an infotainment update. The new OnStar version is v4.24 and it was to fix LTE connectivity issues and other minor bug fixes.