On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:55 PM, mac_v
<drkvi-a@xxxxxxxxx> 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 a forced shutdown.
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.
But users *has to wait for the updates at login* .
Yes, but because they're starting their computer they're not trying to go somewhere else. See the difference? When they're shutting down they're trying to leave; by trying to do more after they've said stop, we're delaying them from moving on.
As ScottK has said , there are policies in place which ensure updates
dont break stable releases. Most of the problems occur for us during the
alpha and beta releases.
I'm not concerned with breakage from updates, that's another issue. debconf isn't from breakage.
Average users use the computers at any time they want. Not everyone
wants to wait for updates to get to their work [or] hungover every time
they start their machine...
I don't know why you think I'm only looking at one use case. I'm not really focused on any particular use scenario. You're right not everyone wants to wait for their updates to get started, but before you start is a better time to wait than after you finish and want to leave.
Same way, most people wont mind spending the extra 45sec at the end of
work.
How many times have you stretched/relax just after finishing work?
So many times you hear people saying "just give me a sec, let me stretch
out, before i head out"
Not everyone is in a hurry to run away from their system/office.
It is more often you see people relaxing just after work and spending
some time chatting with the co-workers before they head out. Even if
they are waiting , a 45secs while they are chatting doesnt matter.
Sure, but what if the update takes 10 minutes? Having to wait to leave is so much worse than having to wait to get started because of the fact that's been stated in this thread multiple times about the nature of each action. Before you start you have time. You're about to sit down, you haven't started anything, and a reboot is not going to affect your work. If at shutdown you have to wait, now the computer is keeping you at it when you need to leave. This is not good.
Thats is exactly why there are problems with login updates.! It always
needs a reboot! atleast until something comes up where we dont start the
kernel.
Really we need to get away from the issue that rebooting is a problem. It's not. The problem is destroying the user's mental context.
finally ! That is what *we have to focus on Minimizing Disruptions* ,
the user shouldnt even realize they are updating. we should Only focus
on least intrusion methods.
I don't agree with this. Upgrading is an important part of using your system and we need to make sure they get done, but we need to do so in as non-obtrusive a way as possible. This doesn't mean sneaking them im, it means finding the right time and right way to present the user with the fact that they're available, and need installed.
You are forgetting something>
*we are not designing Ubuntu Only for the people on this list* , Ubuntu
is used more on Desktops than laptop on the whole, that is what we have
to design not based our personal experiences , but for the Average users.
Your assumption that only corporate environment uses desktop is wrong.
How many laptops are sold/used in comparison to desktops?
I'm not forgetting anything, I know who we're designing Ubuntu for. If you think that laptops aren't a primary use case, you're severely out of touch. Google around, laptop sales are much higher than desktop sales, and this trend does not seem to be going away any time soon.