Alex Launi wrote: > > We know we have updates before we get to gdm, during the previous > session we checked and found updates, we took note of this state but > wait to take any action until next gdm.
First of all you painted a story saying: devs had update ready in the night and the user got the update in the morning! That is misleading ! BUT assuming that the update state was checked before: 1: Why wait? What is the advantage in deferring the update? 2: Why defer a security update to the next boot? 3: What about users who do not shutdown the systems? no updates for them? 4: What if the [non-security]update to a program is deferred to the next boot and the program crashes, causing work loss? If the propsal for the above is that the system waits [x hrs/days] before reminding the user of the update. 5: what is the use of having updates scheduled for boot? 6: what is the acceptable time limit to defer an update?[the update may be critical to the program the user needs, which has been crashing, would the user want this update immediately?] > > You DO get on with your work, you just start the update process first, > and then move on. > What you need to remember is that work may involve net browsing, so speeds are hampered during the work. The user might mot have planned on using the net , but needs to browse for research , so his only option is to cancel the on going update? also if the user is allowed to work and it prompts for reboot, isnt that a break in work flow? he may choose to do it later , but the main purpose of the proposal does not achieve its goal . cheers, mac_v _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
