Philipp Kern <pk...@debian.org> writes: > On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 06:00:50PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: >> I have been told by several newbies that the "updates available" >> notification, and them subsequently following the prompts to update >> their own system, was the first time they'd ever felt like they were in >> charge of a computer, rather than the other way around. >> >> I presume that Gnome upstream has since decided that the notification >> was untidy, or some such, since I recently noticed one such user who has >> seen no notifications since upgrading to jessie, and was therefore no >> longer keeping up with updates. >> >> How depressing. > > On the other hand I don't see why I, as a user, need to care about the > constant churn of updates myself. Why do I have to spend brain cycles on > that? What are my options? Am I going to inform myself on each and every > update (which is what I do - out of curiosity - for every Windows > update)? > > Option a): I don't update because I don't feel comfortable doing the > decision. > > That's the approach I have seen with Windows users. "The update might > break something, it's better to wait everything out until someone > forces me to do something." > > Consequence: Missing security updates. > > Option b): I don't update because I know it might break me. > > The hold-out only works for so long. I might hold back parts of Gnome > because I don't like the changes. I will soon be forced to force-feed > myself with the new update because something depends on it. > > Helps if you temporarily want to avoid a bug for a week or two. > Only works for expert users or for high-profile bugs with high PR. > > Consequence: Misery delayed, not avoided. > > Option c): I am curious to see the list of updates and accept all > updates anyhow. > > Consequence: Occasional breakage - potentially correlatable, up-to-date > system, brain cycles spent on things that might be better spent > elsewhere. > > Option d): I just go with the flow and accept all updates silently. > > Consequence: Occasional breakage - not necessarily correlatable, > up-to-date system.
Is it not the case that we're actually witnessing is: Option e): get updates applied only at reboot, with no prior notification that they are available, such that people who always suspend, or simply leave systems running all the time get no updates until something bad happens, and they suffer a forced reboot. Consequences: Unexpected changes of behaviour which will give a false impression of being caused by reboots, leading to the impression that Debian cannot be trusted to maintain behaviour between boots. Often out of date system. Corrosive loss of user confidence, since they'll feel like they're not in charge A steady trickle of irrelevant bugs. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
