unity-design team mailing list archive

[Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Matthew Paul Thomas" <mpt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Scott Kitterman wrote on 03/08/10 19:23:
>> 
>> "Frederik Nnaji" <frederik.nnaji@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 19:21, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>...
>>>> "Frederik Nnaji" <frederik.nnaji@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>...
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 17:37, Florian Bruhin <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>...
>>>>>> 2010/8/2 Frederik Nnaji <frederik.nnaji@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Does* Ubuntu warn the user beforehand that the updates about to
>>>>>>> be made will eventually require a restart? I can't recall..
>
>In the update handling specification, I've specified that it should.
><https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SoftwareUpdateHandling#alert> (For the
>implementation, see
><https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/foundations-lucid-distiguishing-updates-that-require-restart>.
>I don't know how far that ever went.)
>
>>...
>>>> With the exception of Firefox updates, the old version works fine
>>>> until restart.  What you don't get is the benefit of the update.
>>>> Firefox will stop working if not restarted (and warns about this).
>>...
>>> so then red is the wrong color
>> 
>> Depends on what fix isn't in place. Leaving a remote root exploit in
>> place seems pretty red to me.
>>...
>
>But you're no less secure, at that moment, than you were when Ubuntu
>knew the update was available but you hadn't installed it yet. Should
>the icon be red then too? And if not, why should it be red now?
>

I'd say it should be red all along. 

Scott K