unity-design team mailing list archive

["Paulo J. S. Silva" <pjssilva@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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, internet connectivity broken,
> kernel upgrade asks if the menu.lst should be changed, etc). How do we
> let the user control the update process in these cases ? How do we
> make sure the user's attention isn't needed ?

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).

Anyhow, problems can arise and they will only show up in the next boot,
which may be a very bad time. The same problem would happen in updates
at login.

>  * 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 don't think Mark, or anybody here is saying that updates should be
forced on logout (or shutdown). We are just saying that the option
should be presented to the user (maybe with the default action being
update, I am not completely sure about this). If the person wants the
machine to turn off fast, he/she should just skip the upgrade.

> I'm not against the idea itself, but I think it should be an optional
> thing, not enabled by default.
> 

As I said, updates at any moment should be optional (maybe if the update
is the default action).

best,

Paulo