nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Curisous: Why does my desktop (PC) Logos get updated to 47.2

Carmen Gauvin-O'Donnell

… when the update involves a fix for Mac OS?

I've always wondered about that.

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Accepted answers

Justin Gatlin

It does seem weird! But in my understanding: They share a lot of code, so it is easier for maintenance to keep them in sync. Otherwise, imagine the confusion on the forum when some users say they are on one version and others wonder why they can't access it. Or a fix to Mac might inadvertently create a Windows bug, so it needs to go out to be found.

All comments

Justin Gatlin

Sean

It's a stupid practice that a bunch of people will come in to defend for no particularly good reason.

450MB x how many Windows users getting automatic updates/want to buy a book & are forced to update = a lot of bandwidth. Surely Logos pays something for that?

I'm no longer on a metered connection, but this really bugged me when I was.

There must be some more efficient way to do it. Just send a patch through for the version number, shouldn't be more than a few KB.

GaoLu

I suspect it isn't stupid, but I have often wondered the same. I write and maintain some software, but the package size is small, so it's easiest and least error-prone to just update everything. Besides, I don't have to fuss about which files were updated and which were not. So that makes sense to me. 450 Mb isn't awful for most of us these days. A few years back it was. Patching a few kb….not a good idea. An entire file might be ok, but so many things can go wrong doing it that way.

But these are just my random opinionated thoughts and don't answer the OP question.

Jimmy George

Another reason may be: users will often log in to a Mac and Windows, necessitating synchronisation.