unity-design team mailing list archive

[mac_v <drkvi-a@xxxxxxxxx>]

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 shut off
> their workstations and now have to decide whether to stay longer and
> wait for the upgrade to complete, or have to upgrade on Monday when they
> return (which if it was at login would be perfect since they'd be tired
> from a long weekend of binge drinking and could use the extra minute to
> get some coffee and advil). If they leave without upgrading that's it-
> they leave but they remain ungraded and that's the problem we're trying
> to solve, getting people to actually upgrade. If they decide to upgrade
> they have two options, stay and wait for it to complete, or leave and
> hope everything goes ok. If they stay we've just given them a bad start
> to their weekend, if they leave it's quite possible they could arrive
> Monday morning and have never actually logged out because debconf was
> asking them a question and the upgrade STILL isn't finished.
> 

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.

But users *has to wait for the updates at login* .

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.

You are looking at things only from one perspective,
You are focused on only 1 use case that computers are used from 9-6 ,
but think of the average user.
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...

*Most often people want to work* , *not procrastinate at the beginning*
of the day!

> 
Steve Dodier wrote:
>  so I suggest that instead of
> doing updates "on shutdown", the shutdown GUI says "There are updates
> available, it is recommanded to do them before shutting down, click here
> to open the Update manager", and it opens the Updater Manager. Once
> updates are done, it offers to proceed with shutdown.
> 

You are doing the same process! both are the same.
you are saying user finishes work >update then shutdown.!
what everyone else is saying is :
user finishes work > update while shutting down!

What is the difference?

> 
> Constant meaning "once every long while". It's not like we have updates
> that require reboot daily. Mmost people don't mind an extra 45 seconds
> to get started if it means not being bothered once they're already going. 
> Â 

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.

While the same wait at the start of work is really frustrating.

There is also the option for users who just want to shut down immediately!




> 
>     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*
> 
> 
> How are you going to not start the kernel?
> Â 
> 

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.


>     This way the user never actually reboots .
> 
>     But, i guess ,this can be done better with updates at shutdown.
>     With *updates at shutdown the user never has to actually reboot* . the
>     word Reboot doesnt even have to be used!
> 
> 
> Rebooting isn't a problem in and of itself, the interruption is the
> problem. Updates during use can be very disruptive (in the reboot case
> especially) and difficult to present in a way that actually encourages
> users to Update (see the debate on notification icon, pop under, etc.,
> etc.). Updates on shutdown totally avoid the disruption if a reboot is
> needed, you're absolutely right about this; 

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.


> 
> And unfortunately for updates at shutdown, laptops are a huge primary
> use case, probably more than desktops at this point. I know I haven't
> owned a desktop for years, and neither have most of the people I know.
> Show of hands, how many of you are on laptops right now? Desktops are a
> use case for corporate environments, and I addressed that Scenario
> earlier- see my short story about David and Ivanka's long weekend.
> Â 
> 
>     *So doing updates at shutdown and allowing option to instant shutdown*
>     is more logical and user friendly.
> 
> 
> QED, Ipso Facto, but not really.
> 
> 

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?

*You are thinking of only a small user group but not the general users*
, Ubuntu is also meant to be a home OS. You need to think how would a
design benefit the average user ,  not how it benefits us personally.

I think someone in the design team said it perfectly,
*personal scenarios should not bias the OS design* ,
*a design should be based on the best use case of the majority* of
average users.

If you read my earlier reply , _I like both options_ but when you update
at login , we are compelled to reboot ,
But during shutdown , we dont need to reboot.

That is why it is logically a better option because it presents less
interruptions to the user

Cheers,
mac_v