So is it possible to know *before* when a reboot will be required ? Very
likely yes, right ? It only happens when hardware drivers and kernel get
updated ?
The packages list is updated when the computer is turned on, anyway, but
let's assume Mr. User didn't do his updates Monday, then Tuesday he
Alex Launi wrote:
Whether or not it asks you, the idea is still flawed. Shutting off your
computer is an, ok- I'm finished activity. It's really not safe to
walk away during an update. David and Ivanka are working Friday evening,
18h roles around and it's more than time to leave. They go to
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:55 PM, mac_v drkv...@yahoo.com wrote:
Why do they have to wait! there is no need , it is just
install+shutdown! User just selected install and shutdown!
We Just Make sure we send proper updates. Also... we can set rules that
if the shutdown stalls for x mins , cause
Alex Launi wrote:
Leaving the computer while it's still working is /very/ likely to cause
a sense of discomfort, and chances are people will stick around and wait
for it to finish.
As you say, chances are i.e user *can wait* but is not forced to,
but for a login update user *has to wait* .
Il 07/07/2009 12:55, mac_v ha scritto:
Why do they have to wait! there is no need , it is just
install+shutdown! User just selected install and shutdown!
I just don't trust the system enough to guarantee it will shut down, and
don't trust an old laptop I use at office enough to be sure that
Siegfried Gevatter wrote:
2009/7/7 mac_v :
As you say, chances are i.e user *can wait* but is not forced to,
but for a login update user *has to wait* .
Login update is a forced behavior. while the shutdown is the users
option to stick around!
Why is it forced? If I understood the
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:18 PM, mac_v drkv...@yahoo.com wrote:
Well... the user has to update at some point, right.
Even if he chooses to ignore it for now, he has to do it again at some
time. We are forcing him to wait,. He will have to sit idle , waiting
for the system to update.
While
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:12:24 +0530 mac_v drkv...@yahoo.com wrote:
So is there a way to mark the packages which require reboot , and Not
start them during the boot , but to update them and this would just
*delay the boot by a few seconds during which the present icon is shown*
The current
Em Sáb, 2009-07-04 às 10:15 +0200, Steve Dodier escreveu:
I don't think (b) is a good idea for the following reasons :
* When the user shuts the PC down, he doesn't expect to give it
attention anymore. An update can fail or be interrupted for some
reasons (package missing on a server,
2009/7/4 Steve Dodier sidnio...@gmail.com:
* What about laptops ? Sometimes you shutdown your laptop because you're
about to move. Do you want, in this case, to have to wait for the upgrade to
perform ?
I know a few people who initiate the shutdown process, and as they are
in a hurry will
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:03 AM, Mark Shuttleworth m...@ubuntu.com wrote:
Updates-on-login are interesting, but I think fatally flawed because of the
common requirement to reboot after updates.
This is actually the case where update on login works best. Any other time
rebooting is totally
On sab, 2009-07-04 at 15:31 -0300, Paulo J. S. Silva wrote:
That is a good point. However, the likelihood of a failure in a
security
update that doesn't allow for a clean shutdown is very low (it never
happened to me and I use Linux since 1994).
I know that perhaps it is overkill to talk
Alex Launi wrote:
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:03 AM, Mark Shuttleworth m...@ubuntu.com
mailto:m...@ubuntu.com wrote:
Updates-on-login are interesting, but I think fatally flawed
because of the common requirement to reboot after updates.
This is actually the case where update on login
On 07/06/2009 08:21 PM, David Siegel wrote:
Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
Alex Launi wrote:
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:03 AM, Mark Shuttleworth m...@ubuntu.com
mailto:m...@ubuntu.com wrote:
Updates-on-login are interesting, but I think fatally flawed
because of the common requirement to
On Sat, 2009-07-04 at 10:15 +0200, Steve Dodier wrote:
I don't think (b) is a good idea for the following reasons :
* When the user shuts the PC down, he doesn't expect to give it
attention anymore. An update can fail or be interrupted for some
reasons (package missing on a server, internet
On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:46:19 -0400 Joshua Blount jos...@canonical.com
wrote:
On 07/06/2009 08:21 PM, David Siegel wrote:
Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
Alex Launi wrote:
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:03 AM, Mark Shuttleworth m...@ubuntu.com
mailto:m...@ubuntu.com wrote:
Updates-on-login are
I'm just catching up on this thread, and want to help draw it to a
conclusion.
Updates-on-login are interesting, but I think fatally flawed because of
the common requirement to reboot after updates.
Updates are an irritation and interruption at any time, we must accept
that. I've seen people
Love the package icon, David. :)
To jump into the fray, I'm not sure what the advantage is of forcing the
user to wait during the upgrade rather than processing the upgrade after
they've logged in. Alex's original suggestion of having the user choose to
login and THEN update seems to make more
You might want to read this
http://lifehacker.com/5295449/disable-ubuntus-annoying-update-manager-popup
Alex Launi wrote:
I figured I should start a new thread for this, so that you can all
continue your icon vs. pop-under debate, which is still relevant for
the auto-login case, although it
I think it would be interesting if the user must wait at GDM for updates
to finish (assuming they were downloaded previously), and is only
allowed to log in when updates have finished. This process only takes a
minute or two, and the user can choose to not initiate the updates or
cancel them
On 06/17/2009 10:40 AM, Paulo J. S. Silva wrote:
Wouldn't it be much more reasonable to do this at shutdown (or logout
for users that don't shutdown). When I login, I want to my stuff. When
I logout I am saying: I'm done for know.
Interesting that you suggest shutdown.
When I shutdown, I
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Paulo J. S. Silva pjssi...@ime.usp.brwrote:
Are you kidding?
Wouldn't it be much more reasonable to do this at shutdown (or logout for
users that don't shutdown). When I login, I want to my stuff. When I logout
I am saying: I'm done for know.
When I'm
I'll second this. In my use-case, my mother *really* hates doing updates
(only does them after a while, and hates the orange icon - I suppose that'll
improve with an upgrade to jaunty). Forcing her to wait for updates after
she turns on the computer for something would really be backwards.
Il giorno mer, 17/06/2009 alle 09.26 -0500, David Siegel ha scritto:
I auto-login, so I would not use this feature, but let's not
think of gurus like us
The argument that's for gurus or power users keeps popping up :)
This can not be applied here: auto-login is enabled by checking an
innocent
Vadim Peretokin wrote:
I'll second this. In my use-case, my mother /really/ hates doing
updates (only does them after a while, and hates the orange icon - I
suppose that'll improve with an upgrade to jaunty). Forcing her to
wait for updates after she turns on the computer for something would
Vincenzo Ciancia wrote:
Il giorno mer, 17/06/2009 alle 09.26 -0500, David Siegel ha scritto:
I auto-login, so I would not use this feature, but let's not think of
gurus like us
The argument that's for gurus or power users keeps popping up :)
This can not be applied here: auto-login is
People who auto-login or never restart can be handled differently.
Personally, I auto-login, so I would not use this feature, but let's not
think of gurus like us, who participate on Linux mailing lists, and let's
think instead about the average user, who might be made uncomfortable by
Thinking more carefully, updates, and specially security updates, are
really very, very important. So why not do it all? I mean:
1) Allow updates at login, as it is suggested here
2) Leave a permanent notification symbol on the panel while the
session is on (this would take care of notifying
My roll on the Canonical Design and User Experience team is to make Ubuntu the
most enjoyable to use operating system in the world, so I hope you can forgive
me for making [it offers a] more pleasant experience the main thrust of my
argument.
I am not decidedly in favor of updates at GDM over
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:38 PM, David Siegeldavid.sie...@canonical.com wrote:
Most of us would be perfectly comfortable initiating an update on shutdown,
and walking away from our machine, but I'm not sure if less sophisticated
users are similarly comfortable behaving this way.
Most users
I think this is the ideal, but every time I start to bring up implicit updates,
I get smacked :)
David
Wouter Stomp wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:38 PM, David Siegeldavid.sie...@canonical.com wrote:
Most of us would be perfectly comfortable initiating an update on shutdown,
and walking
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:02 AM, David
Siegeldavid.sie...@canonical.com wrote:
I think this is the ideal, but every time I start to bring up implicit
updates, I get smacked :)
Understandable.
I should also say that browser upgrades are different from whole OS
upgrade (not to mention we have
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:22 AM, taconetac...@gmx.net wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:02 AM, David
Siegeldavid.sie...@canonical.com wrote:
I think this is the ideal, but every time I start to bring up implicit
updates, I get smacked :)
Had the same experience :-)
Understandable.
I
I figured I should start a new thread for this, so that you can all continue
your icon vs. pop-under debate, which is still relevant for the auto-login
case, although it becomes much less important. I've copied and pasted the
relevant posts from the previous thread into this one. Have at it.
We should definitely consider as many update scenarios as possible in order
to find the one that users will prefer. We are very quick to start
implementing updates and shut down without considering something radically
different because many of us have experiences updates at shutdown when using
35 matches
Mail list logo
