Jan Claeys wrote:
Op maandag 06-04-2009 om 00:43 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Mackenzie
Morgan:
On Sunday 05 April 2009 11:55:10 pm Jan Claeys wrote:
Actually, a running firefox shows you a warning and a restart button (or
at least it did?) if it's older than the on-disk version.
Erich Jansen wrote:
Jan Claeys wrote:
Op maandag 06-04-2009 om 00:43 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Mackenzie
Morgan:
On Sunday 05 April 2009 11:55:10 pm Jan Claeys wrote:
Actually, a running firefox shows you a warning and a restart button (or
at least it did?) if
On Monday 06 April 2009 3:22:10 am Erich Jansen wrote:
Jan Claeys wrote:
Op maandag 06-04-2009 om 00:43 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Mackenzie
Morgan:
On Sunday 05 April 2009 11:55:10 pm Jan Claeys wrote:
Actually, a running firefox shows you a warning and a restart button
Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
On Monday 06 April 2009 3:22:10 am Erich Jansen wrote:
Jan Claeys wrote:
Op maandag 06-04-2009 om 00:43 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Mackenzie
Morgan:
On Sunday 05 April 2009 11:55:10 pm Jan Claeys wrote:
Actually, a running
Il giorno dom, 05/04/2009 alle 22.45 +0200, Remco ha scritto:
Are there any problems with enabling automatic updates by default?
Most users don't care about updates to the point that they never
install them.
I think that one of the aspects is the following: as an update may
*always* create a
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 07:27 +0200, Jan Claeys wrote:
Maybe delaying upgrades until shutdown *is* the right
solution?
There are a couple of other issues with that.
1. The upgrades may need some feedback from the user, but the user has
just declared that they would like to leave the
Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Erich Jansen wrote on 06/04/09 08:29:
...
Also, isn't this an option that could be added to Ubiquity? Like when
you are filling in your user information we could have a checkbox that
enables automatic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Erich Jansen wrote on 06/04/09 10:59:
...
Also, isn't this an option that could be added to Ubiquity? Like
when you are filling in your user information we could have a
checkbox that enables automatic installation of all security
updates? Have it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Erich Jansen wrote on 06/04/09 08:29:
...
Also, isn't this an option that could be added to Ubiquity? Like when
you are filling in your user information we could have a checkbox that
enables automatic installation of all security updates? Have it
Now that the Updates Available window opens by itself, it may help for
it to contain a checkbox for installing future updates by default.
+1.
I would say keep the current update workflow but add a line about click
here to automatically update in the future.
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Olsson wrote on 02/04/09 10:42:
Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
We have not made any decisions about whether this program would be
based on PackageKit, Add/Remove Applications, Synaptic, or something
else, or written from scratch. We should
Felipe Figueiredo wrote:
Remco escreveu:
Are there any problems with enabling automatic updates by default?
Most users don't care about updates to the point that they never
install them. And even if they would open the update manager, they
Which is precisely why security should be
On Monday 06 April 2009 3:49:48 am Erich Jansen wrote:
Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
On Monday 06 April 2009 3:22:10 am Erich Jansen wrote:
Jan Claeys wrote:
Op maandag 06-04-2009 om 00:43 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Mackenzie
Morgan:
On Sunday 05 April 2009
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:25:07 +0100
Matthew Paul Thomas m...@canonical.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Erich Jansen wrote on 06/04/09 10:59:
...
Also, isn't this an option that could be added to Ubiquity? Like
when you are filling in your user information we
On Monday 06 April 2009 10:35:17 am Charlie Kravetz wrote:
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:25:07 +0100
Matthew Paul Thomas m...@canonical.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Erich Jansen wrote on 06/04/09 10:59:
...
Also, isn't this an option that could be added to
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 11:03:20 -0400
Mackenzie Morgan maco...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday 06 April 2009 10:35:17 am Charlie Kravetz wrote:
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:25:07 +0100
Matthew Paul Thomas m...@canonical.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Erich Jansen
Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
Erich Jansen wrote on 06/04/09 10:59:
...
My problem with the way things are currently done is that it's not
obvious to someone like my parents, who run Ubuntu, that this feature
exists. After switching my parents to Ubuntu the only real complaint I
heard from
James Westby wrote:
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 07:27 +0200, Jan Claeys wrote:
Maybe delaying upgrades until shutdown *is* the right
solution?
There are a couple of other issues with that.
1. The upgrades may need some feedback from the user, but the user has
just declared that they
Op maandag 06-04-2009 om 10:03 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef James
Westby:
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 07:27 +0200, Jan Claeys wrote:
Maybe delaying upgrades until shutdown *is* the right
solution?
There are a couple of other issues with that.
1. The upgrades may need some feedback from
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 1:23 AM, Matt Wheeler m...@funkyhat.org wrote:
2009/4/4 Nils Kassube kass...@gmx.net:
If you don't trust update-manager you would have to check everything
after an update. I don't think anybody will do that even after
providing the password. Most users don't even know
2009/4/5 John McCabe-Dansted gma...@gmail.com:
Adding something like
%sudo ALL=NOPASSWD: aptitude update
to the sudoers gives almost the right rights. If there is no user
input into aptitude, then this does not add any new such security
holes.
/usr/bin/aptitude would be safer, but yes.
On Sunday 05 April 2009 7:15:20 am John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
Still, an overnight auto-update seems like a sensible default for
novice users who don't need or want to know what an update is. This is
what I set my computer too when I am overseas and leave my computer on
for family to use.
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Mackenzie Morgan maco...@gmail.com wrote:
There's already an option in System - Administration - Software sources to
have updates installed automatically. There's also cron (the reason my mom's
computer gets updates at all).
Are there any problems with enabling
2009/4/5 Remco remc...@gmail.com
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Mackenzie Morgan maco...@gmail.com
wrote:
There's already an option in System - Administration - Software sources
to
have updates installed automatically. There's also cron (the reason my
mom's
computer gets updates at
2009/4/5 Remco remc...@gmail.com
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Mackenzie Morgan maco...@gmail.com
wrote:
There's already an option in System - Administration - Software sources
to
have updates installed automatically. There's also cron (the reason my
mom's
computer gets updates at
On Sunday 05 April 2009 4:45:38 pm Remco wrote:
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Mackenzie Morgan maco...@gmail.com wrote:
There's already an option in System - Administration - Software sources
to
have updates installed automatically. There's also cron (the reason my
mom's
computer gets
Op zondag 05-04-2009 om 17:10 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Mackenzie
Morgan:
The only trouble is that some updates stop services. Hal may need to
be restarted, and if Firefox isn't restarted after an update it breaks
royally.
Actually, a running firefox shows you a warning and a restart
Op zondag 05-04-2009 om 22:45 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Remco:
Are there any problems with enabling automatic updates by default?
I'd suggest, if we implement this, that automatic (security) updates are
*ALWAYS* delayed until something like 24h-36h after the release. That
gives us the time
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 5:10 AM, Mackenzie Morgan maco...@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any problems with enabling automatic updates by default?
Most users don't care about updates to the point that they never
install them. And even if they would open the update manager, they
would more likely
On Sunday 05 April 2009 11:55:10 pm Jan Claeys wrote:
Op zondag 05-04-2009 om 17:10 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Mackenzie
Morgan:
The only trouble is that some updates stop services. Hal may need to
be restarted, and if Firefox isn't restarted after an update it breaks
royally.
Op maandag 06-04-2009 om 00:43 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Mackenzie
Morgan:
On Sunday 05 April 2009 11:55:10 pm Jan Claeys wrote:
Actually, a running firefox shows you a warning and a restart button (or
at least it did?) if it's older than the on-disk version. I guess
that's part of the
Matt Wheeler wrote:
but can we trust update-manager not to break and give someone
privileges they shouldn't have? I don't know, maybe we can, I just
think it's worth being very careful about it.
If you don't trust update-manager you would have to check everything
after an update. I don't
2009/4/4 Nils Kassube kass...@gmx.net:
If you don't trust update-manager you would have to check everything
after an update. I don't think anybody will do that even after
providing the password. Most users don't even know what to look for to
check the system.
That's not the point I'm trying to
Olá Matthew e a todos.
On Thursday 02 April 2009 09:47:32 Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
For example here, if measurement has shown that downloading on average
takes 60% of the time and installing on average takes 40 % of the time,
and you're installing updates where the downloading is 80 %
Olá Remco e a todos.
On Thursday 02 April 2009 14:12:00 Remco wrote:
One wishlist idea I have is that updates can be installed without having to
provide a password.
There's a public wishbug to allow Security Updates to be auto-installed, as an
option available on OEM,regular installer an on
2009/4/3 (``-_-´´) -- BUGabundo ubu...@bugabundo.net:
Olá Remco e a todos.
On Thursday 02 April 2009 14:12:00 Remco wrote:
One wishlist idea I have is that updates can be installed without having to
provide a password.
There's a public wishbug to allow Security Updates to be
2009/4/4 Remco remc...@gmail.com:
That's a different idea though. My idea is that having to provide a
password is an unnecessary hurdle to people. Why must a password be
provided to start the update process? A policy could be made to allow
the update manager to do its thing without passwords.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Surfaz Gemon Meme wrote on 01/04/09 21:24:
Sorry but I do not understand you.
Why do you want to create new applications and not to improve and
adopt PackageKit?
We have not made any decisions about whether this program would be based
on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Evan wrote on 01/04/09 22:21:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Matthew Paul Thomas m...@canonical.com
mailto:m...@canonical.com wrote:
...
The front end would display two progress bars, one for download and
one for installation.
Hopefully that
Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
If you download and install everything that has 0 dependencies first, then
the
ones that depend on those things, and on up the tree, it could be doable.
Except for cyclical dependencies. For those, you'd need to get both
downloaded
before running dpkg on them.
One wishlist idea I have is that updates can be installed without
having to provide a password. Installing updates must be as easy as
possible, because I often see that icon in other people's notification
area, with hundreds of updates available. They just don't really care.
Remco
--
Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
On Wednesday 01 April 2009 3:34:06 pm Derek Broughton wrote:
No, he means install some packages while others are still downloading.
I can see that being very advantageous to a dial-up user, but I wonder if
it can even be possible.
If you download and install
Martin Olsson wrote:
Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
If you download and install everything that has 0 dependencies first,
then the ones that depend on those things, and on up the tree, it could
be doable. Except for cyclical dependencies. For those, you'd need to get
both downloaded before running
Op donderdag 02-04-2009 om 11:42 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Martin
Olsson:
The new updates available screen doesn't tell the user which ones are
critical/security
updates.
They are in a different section already, I think? (But jaunty has no
real security updates, I guess.)
Popularity
Op donderdag 02-04-2009 om 11:42 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Martin
Olsson:
The algorithm should focus on keeping both the network and the
CPU/HDD at the highest possible utilization rate at all times.
This is extremely difficult to (pre-)calculate, because it's dependent
on CPU speed, hard
On 03/31/2009 06:19 PM, Evan wrote:
While apt, synaptic, update-manager, and gnome-app-install all do decent
jobs of providing front-ends for package management, there are a few issues
and common feature requests which bear taking a look at. This is a strawman,
so feel free to rip it apart as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Evan
Evan wrote on 31/03/09 23:19:
While apt, synaptic, update-manager, and gnome-app-install all do
decent jobs of providing front-ends for package management, there are
a few issues and common feature requests which bear taking a look at.
On Wednesday 01 April 2009 6:02:38 am John Vivirito wrote:
On 03/31/2009 06:19 PM, Evan wrote:
While apt, synaptic, update-manager, and gnome-app-install all do decent
jobs of providing front-ends for package management, there are a few
issues
and common feature requests which bear taking
One gigantic improvement would be downloading package deltas
instead of whole .DEB files. I don't think this is necessarily that
hard to do in a reliable fashion. I assume you already thought
about that and it might be out of Ubuntu's scope (i.e. better
developed separately and then integrated
Sorry but I do not understand you.
Why do you want to create new applications and not to improve and adopt
PackageKit?
I think it would be a good idea to start by replacing gnome-app for
Packagekit. Let me explain, using PackageKit as an easy tool to install
programs and Synpatic as the advanced
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Matthew Paul Thomas m...@canonical.comwrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Evan
Evan wrote on 31/03/09 23:19:
While apt, synaptic, update-manager, and gnome-app-install all do
decent jobs of providing front-ends for package
Someone said:
One gigantic improvement would be downloading package deltas instead of whole
.DEB files.
I care even more about doing that for apt-get update, than apt-get upgrade.
I am using a bit 56k, and I have seen in last few days that apt-get
update is part of cron.daily now.
I did not
John Vivirito wrote:
On 03/31/2009 06:19 PM, Evan wrote:
While apt, synaptic, update-manager, and gnome-app-install all do decent
jobs of providing front-ends for package management, there are a few
issues and common feature requests which bear taking a look at. This is a
strawman, so feel
Op woensdag 01-04-2009 om 15:25 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Matthew
Paul Thomas:
The front end would display two progress bars, one for download and one
for installation.
Hopefully that isn't necessary. I shouldn't see two progress bars for
something that, from my point of view, is a
On Wednesday 01 April 2009 3:34:06 pm Derek Broughton wrote:
John Vivirito wrote:
On 03/31/2009 06:19 PM, Evan wrote:
While apt, synaptic, update-manager, and gnome-app-install all do decent
jobs of providing front-ends for package management, there are a few
issues and common feature
Evan escreveu:
While apt, synaptic, update-manager, and gnome-app-install all do
decent jobs of providing front-ends for package management, there are
a few issues and common feature requests which bear taking a look at.
This is a strawman, so feel free to rip it apart as necessary.
I miss
56 matches
Mail list logo
