What We're Working on for DameWare - Updated September 10th, 2019

Maybe some recent concrete examples would help.  HF3 for DWMRC was just released few days ago.

It would be helpful for HotFixes to offer their own installer.  Among other things, the Windows Programs and Features installed application version would be updated for version and software inventory management as well as tracking the install date.  The main point to a "hotfix" is that it allows an urgent patch to be quickly deployed without having to wait on a full unit/regression/etc testing cycle to be completed for the next update and for those types of rapid fixes, manual file replacement is reasonable.

As there are currently only a couple of updates, (which are usually only Hotfixes) every year or two, it does not seem unreasonable to have an installer.  Also, with so few fixes and the large time delay (several months at least) between them, they do not really seem very "hot" at least to me.

When HotFixes or fixes of any type are released, it is also helpful if the release notes actually describe in some sort of detail, what was actually fixed.  HF3 just released last week incorporates all patches since the original release of 12.1 according those notes.  However the entire set of detailed information for what has been fixed specifically by HF3 (which includes HF1 and HF2) is this single sentence:

     "This hotfix addresses various security issues and crashes in Dameware Mini Remote Control version 12.1.0."

later on after the replaced files listing it says:

     "Hotfix 3 also includes all fixes from Hotfix 1 and Hotfix 2 for Dameware Mini Remote Control version 12.1.0."

In what way is this actually useful to the customer in giving them an understanding about what the changes are designed to address or fix for HF3?  Standard practice for all-inclusive updates like this would generally include the description of the fixes from HF1 and HF2 as well as HF3.  They would be listed as to which HF fixed them and some sort of method to identify or describe the circumstances surrounding the fix.  I understand if the security exploits should not be too specifically detailed, but at least some coverage would be helpful.  Listing the files being replaced is useful, but since they must be manually copied for the HF installation, this seems a minimum requirement.

HF2 release note content was slightly better stating:

"This hotfix addresses the following issues:

  * Security fixes

  * MRC crashes while connecting to PC with portrait mode

  * Send refresh makes display stop updating (with enabled mirror driver)

Hotfix 2 also includes all fixes from Hotfix 1."

However HotFix1 is no longer available for download that I can see.  Nor are the release notes for HF1 available for reference on the download site.  We might not need HF1 any more, but if that is true then the release notes should be rolled forward into the HF2 and HF3 release notes instead of only by reference.

I hope these examples help to better illustrate the concerns that could be addressed and issues that could be improved.  Opening another support ticket to get answers to these sorts of basic questions seems wasteful of everyone's time and resources.  Tech support also does not often seem to have these sorts of answers anyway as I understand because they see the same release notes we do.

Thank you for listening.

Maybe some recent concrete examples would help.  HF3 for DWMRC was just released few days ago.

It would be helpful for HotFixes to offer their own installer.  Among other things, the Windows Programs and Features installed application version would be updated for version and software inventory management as well as tracking the install date.  The main point to a "hotfix" is that it allows an urgent patch to be quickly deployed without having to wait on a full unit/regression/etc testing cycle to be completed for the next update and for those types of rapid fixes, manual file replacement is reasonable.

As there are currently only a couple of updates, (which are usually only Hotfixes) every year or two, it does not seem unreasonable to have an installer.  Also, with so few fixes and the large time delay (several months at least) between them, they do not really seem very "hot" at least to me.

When HotFixes or fixes of any type are released, it is also helpful if the release notes actually describe in some sort of detail, what was actually fixed.  HF3 just released last week incorporates all patches since the original release of 12.1 according those notes.  However the entire set of detailed information for what has been fixed specifically by HF3 (which includes HF1 and HF2) is this single sentence:

     "This hotfix addresses various security issues and crashes in Dameware Mini Remote Control version 12.1.0."

later on after the replaced files listing it says:

     "Hotfix 3 also includes all fixes from Hotfix 1 and Hotfix 2 for Dameware Mini Remote Control version 12.1.0."

In what way is this actually useful to the customer in giving them an understanding about what the changes are designed to address or fix for HF3?  Standard practice for all-inclusive updates like this would generally include the description of the fixes from HF1 and HF2 as well as HF3.  They would be listed as to which HF fixed them and some sort of method to identify or describe the circumstances surrounding the fix.  I understand if the security exploits should not be too specifically detailed, but at least some coverage would be helpful.  Listing the files being replaced is useful, but since they must be manually copied for the HF installation, this seems a minimum requirement.

HF2 release note content was slightly better stating:

"This hotfix addresses the following issues:

  * Security fixes

  * MRC crashes while connecting to PC with portrait mode

  * Send refresh makes display stop updating (with enabled mirror driver)

Hotfix 2 also includes all fixes from Hotfix 1."

However HotFix1 is no longer available for download that I can see.  Nor are the release notes for HF1 available for reference on the download site.  We might not need HF1 any more, but if that is true then the release notes should be rolled forward into the HF2 and HF3 release notes instead of only by reference.

I hope these examples help to better illustrate the concerns that could be addressed and issues that could be improved.  Opening another support ticket to get answers to these sorts of basic questions seems wasteful of everyone's time and resources.  Tech support also does not often seem to have these sorts of answers anyway as I understand because they see the same release notes we do.

Thank you for listening.