SUMo : Keep your software up to date

Sumo seems to be feeling well today. Man, I'm hoping it stays that way....

 

SuMo working fine - thanks for your help, Kyle. I appreciate your efforts.

 

I still wish applications like Newsleecher could be supporte d by SUMo and Secunia PSI somehow because the newsleecher program author sure doesn't care.

 

Kyle please fix cfos it is only at cFosSpeed 9.04 build 2051 for the final build. The update FosSpeed 9.05 build 2060 is a beta. I do not have list beta updates checked.

 

Seems to still have some server problems, but is a great program. Hang in there with it - Kyle will figure out what's going on soon, I'm sure.

 

Hi,

Back from a 1 week holiday... and OVH seems to be struggling to get my server up and running for more than 24h ...

 

Is server OK from your point of view now ?

 

Running fine as of now on my Windows 8 and XP. Thanks.

 

OK ! It seems to be working fine on "even" days

 

Hi Kyle,
I hope you had a nice holiday.

Regarding the SUMo server,
some moments SUMo works perfectly,
other moments the server is still very slow.
I haven't noticed about even or uneven days.

 

Hi Kyle,

I'd like to mention an issue regarding beta reporting.
SUMo seems to 'forget' certain program builds to be reported as beta.

For instance, last Wednesday 1 May 2013, 15:02:50 +0200, and last Thursday 2 May 2013 17:55:51 +0200, I reported Eraser build 6.2.0.2833 as to be a beta (a Nightly Build even), by e-mail.
After that Thursday's report the message was picked up, SUMo no longer presented Eraser 6.2.0.2833 as a regular update.
But now today, the same Eraser build 6.2.0.2833 is presented as a the current (non beta) version again, which is incorrect.
I reported by e-mail, again.

I noticed the same phenomenon several times over the last month, or months, with several other Eraser builds.
Earlier this week, the same applied to Eraser build 6.2.0.2829.
SUMo seems to 'forget' certain program builds to be reported as beta.

I don't mind reporting updates as being betas, but it is getting rather frustrating that the same betas keep on re-appearing as regular updates, while they have been reported as betas several times already.

What is the cause of the fact that the same Eraser builds keep on re-appearing as regular updates, over and over again, while they have been reported as betas several times already?
Can you explain what is causing this phenomenon?
And is there a way to correct it?


Thank you very much
and best regards

 

If you know it's a beta and you don't want a beta update -- simply ignore it, lol.

 

Yeah, 'lol'.
Of course, we could ignore every beta version that SUMo reports as current and never mind to report betas as beta.
In the end, however, the result would be that those who choose to set SUMo not to "Allow Beta versions" will probably end up with SUMo scan results mostly populated with betas, despite of setting SUMo not to allow beta versions.
I don't think that's the intention of the SUMo option to choose not to "Allow Beta versions".
Therefore, I think it's quite essential to report betas as betas, and I think it's also essential that the SUMo database 'remembers' those program versions reported and registered as beta, thus preventing them from re-appearing as regular updates as long as those versions are still beta.

 

I simply send Kyle an email report on each Beta - as allowed by the program - that way he can deal with them as he has time and I have them off my list. No big problem - helps us both.

 

Of course, I do the same, as I mentioned in my yesterday post.
That's not the issue here.
The issue is that certain betas (specificly Eraser) that have already been reported and dealt with as betas, and as a result of that no longer appeared in SUMo 'Check' results (if SUMo is set not to allow beta versions), those betas re-appear in SUMo 'Check' results the next day or a couple of days later. SUMo seems to 'forget' certain program builds have already been registered as beta.
That is the issue that I mentioned.

 

Is there anyway to skip "Sumo unable to load the following files:" every time I scan for new programs installed ?

 

Yeah, I used to think that way but at some point I couldn't support the continuous trouble of reporting betas flagged as regular updates. It was generating too much work and a tool like SUMo is supposed to minimize work...

IMO, the automatic part of the maintenance of SUMo is related to what it takes from exe file properties related to version. That info is then added to the online database automatically when any user scans and checks with SUMo, and also refreshed automatically in the same fashion when newer file versions are found... that's my personal belief, Kyle_Katarn may correct me here.

Considering that beta versions usually don't have anything to differentiate in the exe file properties besides (sometimes) a different version number, I also believe that Kyle_Katarn has to manually differentiate beta versions from stable versions.

 

Yes, I see your point.
For now, I don't mind to report some betas, occasionally, so that those betas can be tagged as such, but there are limits.
I am reaching such a limit when betas that have been reported and have been correctly tagged as betas (and consequently no longer showed up in SUMo when it's set not to "Allow Beta versions") somehow lose their beta tag and re-appear in the SUMo 'Check' results (and are also shown as 'current' at the KC Softwares site).
I am still very curious about how correctly tagged betas can lose the beta tag for some reason and get re-tagged as current.
I still hope Kyle_Katarn will reply to this issue, or that KC Softwares support (also Kyle?) will reply to my e-mails.

Yes, I think that is correct.
July 22nd, 2012, Kyle said,

So that is quite clear.
What is still peculiar, however, that is how correctly tagged betas can lose the beta tag for some reason and get re-tagged as current.

 

SUMo - 3.6 (Released 2013-05-09)
================================

http://www.kcsoftwares.com

 

0001965: [Bug] IOBitUnistaller Portable not supported

New ver. is OK.
TH.

 

#SUMo 3.6.0.200 superseeds 3.6.0.199 with improved redundant backup server

 

and now... #SUMo 3.6.0.201 superseeds 3.6.0.200 with improved redundant backup server

 

Failure to notify Bandizip 64 bit ver 3.04.
XP (32 bit) is OK.

 

Whatever you do, Sumatra and Mpc_Hc don't seem to get the message lol.
Two more that SUMo shows beta are AllmyNotes Organizer and unrar.exe

 

These are fixed. Do you confirm ?