Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[mac_v]

Alex Launi wrote:
>> 
> 
> It's Tuesday morning, you get up and turn on your computer. Whilst you
> were fast asleep dreaming of sugar plums and sexy librarians Ubuntu
> packagers were hard at work packaging updates for your favourite
> operating system. Now that it's morning, these updates are available,
> for you! You boot up and arrive at the slick new GDM. But what's this
> message?
> 
> "New updates available! Click here to install"
> 
> Some days you're very busy, and need your computer right away so you
> chose to ignore them and log right in. 

> What gave you this impression? This is absolutely not the case. If you
> reread my scenario, you'll see that potentially all you do at login is
> authorize the updates (in the non-reboot case).

>
> We have already taken the user's password/username, they're effectively
> logged in, just not to their normal desktop session. We can connect to a
> network by this point.
>


Your scenario is at the GDM.
You state that the the updates notification arrives just at the login!
Which cannot happen.
The usual secure wireless connection takes atleast about 10-15 sec to
connect... after which the system has to check for updates... which will
take atleast 1-2mins...

If the user is not connected then the updates cannot be notified at the
GDM at all!

After the user is connected and he receives the updates notification
only after a few minutes of starting up after which the downloads
need to start which takes time again!

If the user has to browse, either the user has to wait for the system to
finish or if prompted to reboot again the user reboots just within
10-15mins of startup! which is a hindrance to workflow even the the
start of the work!

which is why update installation is not done at startups!

This concept has a lot more flaws, but i dont want to express them all
since i dont see it gathering any support.

AFAIK, i dont want to spend time initially for updates... But rather get
on with my work and do my updates only when I'm free.

cheers,
mac_v

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[Alex Launi]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 9:54 PM, mac_v  wrote:

> Your scenario is at the GDM.
> You state that the the updates notification arrives just at the login!
> Which cannot happen.
> The usual secure wireless connection takes atleast about 10-15 sec to
> connect... after which the system has to check for updates... which will
> take atleast 1-2mins...
>
> If the user is not connected then the updates cannot be notified at the
> GDM at all!
>

We know we have updates before we get to gdm, during the previous session we
checked and found updates, we took note of this state but wait to take any
action until next gdm. I don't see what you're not understanding.

This concept has a lot more flaws, but i dont want to express them all
> since i dont see it gathering any support.
>

No please do, because I'm confident that I can address them, and /have/
addressed them in my initial scenario.


>
> AFAIK, i dont want to spend time initially for updates... But rather get
> on with my work and do my updates only when I'm free.
>

You DO get on with your work, you just start the update process first, and
then move on.

People, please read my entire story carefully before trying to point out
your 'flaws'. I've addressed many of these in my initial proposal.


-- 
--Alex Launi
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[mac_v]

Alex Launi wrote:
> 
> We know we have updates before we get to gdm, during the previous
> session we checked and found updates, we took note of this state but
> wait to take any action until next gdm. 

First of all you painted a story saying:
devs had update ready in the night and the user got the update in the
morning! That is misleading !

BUT assuming that the update state was checked before:
1: Why wait? What is the advantage in deferring the update?
2: Why defer a security update to the next boot?
3: What about users who do not shutdown the systems? no updates for them?
4: What if the [non-security]update to a program is deferred to the next
boot and the program crashes, causing work loss?

If the propsal for the above is that the system waits [x hrs/days]
before reminding the user of the update.
5: what is the use of having updates scheduled for boot?
6: what is the acceptable time limit to defer an update?[the update may
be critical to the program the user needs, which has been crashing,
would the user want this update immediately?]

> 
> You DO get on with your work, you just start the update process first,
> and then move on.
> 

What you need to remember is that work may involve net browsing, so
speeds are hampered during the work. The user might mot have planned on
using the net , but needs to browse for research , so his only option is
to cancel the on going update?

 also if the user is allowed to work and it prompts for reboot, isnt
that a break in work flow? he may choose to do it later , but the main
purpose of the proposal does not achieve its goal .

cheers,
mac_v

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[Alex Launi]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:51 AM, mac_v  wrote:

> First of all you painted a story saying:
> devs had update ready in the night and the user got the update in the
> morning! That is misleading !
>

It was supposed to be an allusion to some kind magic entity like god, Santa
Claus, or the easter bunny. I'm sorry if you're a non-native speaker and
read that literally. I didn't consider that some people wouldn't get humour,
and mistake my jokes for proposals. The story was supposed to be playful.


> BUT assuming that the update state was checked before:
> 1: Why wait? What is the advantage in deferring the update?


Because we have a problem with how updates are presented. We need to find a
way that makes updates not a chore but a fun task and makes sure the user
ACTUALLY installs them, rather than just ignoring a notification icon.

>
> 2: Why defer a security update to the next boot?


Why defer it for 2 weeks while the icon sits idle. For high priority updates
we may want a mechanism to update the user, this is ok in this case because
it's not a normal update, it's high priority and must be addressed now. This
is similar to the actionable notification debate.

>
> 3: What about users who do not shutdown the systems? no updates for them?


Theyre essentially the same as the autologin people, we say "have updates
been here for  days, now we need to show a window because they havent
been to a login screen

>
> 4: What if the [non-security]update to a program is deferred to the next
> boot and the program crashes, causing work loss?


What? This isn't a real case. The bug causing the crash existed before the
update was available, the user already know this app is buggy. Or, the user
hasn't ever experience the bug before and may not suffer from it at all.
It's possible the bug might strike in the day before installing the patch,
but it more likely would have already happened or isn't going to happen. So
basically this potentially /prevents/ issues. Currently if you update
firefox, a lot of stuff in XUL breaks due to its lazy loadig


> If the propsal for the above is that the system waits [x hrs/days]
> before reminding the user of the update.


Do you mean notifiying updates havent been installed or something? Or Is
this a follow up to 4. If it's a follow up to for you can skip the follow
ups with a "im not going to answer because 4 made no sense".

5: what is the use of having updates scheduled for boot?


To help ensure they actually install updates.


> 6: what is the acceptable time limit to defer an update?[the update may
> be critical to the program the user needs, which has been crashing,
> would the user want this update immediately?]
>

This is irrelevant to the discussion and is an implementation detail.

>
> >
> > You DO get on with your work, you just start the update process first,
> > and then move on.
> >
>
> What you need to remember is that work may involve net browsing, so
> speeds are hampered during the work. The user might mot have planned on
> using the net , but needs to browse for research , so his only option is
> to cancel the on going update?
>
>  also if the user is allowed to work and it prompts for reboot, isnt
> that a break in work flow? he may choose to do it later , but the main
> purpose of the proposal does not achieve its goal .
>

This is what we do now so this isn't actually a regression. If you read
story (for what, the 3rd time?) you'll see that the user is NOTIFIED that
this update will require a reboot. So the user is already aware that in a
short time theyll be aksed to reboot, they can chose to wait and go make
some tea or proceed with the knowledge that a reboot will be necessary soon.





-- 
--Alex Launi
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[David Siegel]

I think it would be interesting if the user must wait at GDM for updates 
to finish (assuming they were downloaded previously), and is only 
allowed to log in when updates have finished. This process only takes a 
minute or two, and the user can choose to not initiate the updates or 
cancel them and log in at any point.


David

Alex Launi wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:51 AM, mac_v > wrote:


First of all you painted a story saying:
devs had update ready in the night and the user got the update in the
morning! That is misleading !


It was supposed to be an allusion to some kind magic entity like god, 
Santa Claus, or the easter bunny. I'm sorry if you're a non-native 
speaker and read that literally. I didn't consider that some people 
wouldn't get humour, and mistake my jokes for proposals. The story was 
supposed to be playful.
 


BUT assuming that the update state was checked before:
1: Why wait? What is the advantage in deferring the update?


Because we have a problem with how updates are presented. We need to 
find a way that makes updates not a chore but a fun task and makes 
sure the user ACTUALLY installs them, rather than just ignoring a 
notification icon.



2: Why defer a security update to the next boot?


Why defer it for 2 weeks while the icon sits idle. For high priority 
updates we may want a mechanism to update the user, this is ok in this 
case because it's not a normal update, it's high priority and must be 
addressed now. This is similar to the actionable notification debate.



3: What about users who do not shutdown the systems? no updates
for them?


Theyre essentially the same as the autologin people, we say "have 
updates been here for  days, now we need to show a window because 
they havent been to a login screen



4: What if the [non-security]update to a program is deferred to
the next
boot and the program crashes, causing work loss?


What? This isn't a real case. The bug causing the crash existed before 
the update was available, the user already know this app is buggy. Or, 
the user hasn't ever experience the bug before and may not suffer from 
it at all. It's possible the bug might strike in the day before 
installing the patch, but it more likely would have already happened 
or isn't going to happen. So basically this potentially /prevents/ 
issues. Currently if you update firefox, a lot of stuff in XUL breaks 
due to its lazy loadig
 


If the propsal for the above is that the system waits [x hrs/days]
before reminding the user of the update.


Do you mean notifiying updates havent been installed or something? Or 
Is this a follow up to 4. If it's a follow up to for you can skip the 
follow ups with a "im not going to answer because 4 made no sense".


5: what is the use of having updates scheduled for boot?


To help ensure they actually install updates.
 


6: what is the acceptable time limit to defer an update?[the
update may
be critical to the program the user needs, which has been crashing,
would the user want this update immediately?]


This is irrelevant to the discussion and is an implementation detail.


>
> You DO get on with your work, you just start the update process
first,
> and then move on.
>

What you need to remember is that work may involve net browsing, so
speeds are hampered during the work. The user might mot have
planned on
using the net , but needs to browse for research , so his only
option is
to cancel the on going update?

 also if the user is allowed to work and it prompts for reboot, isnt
that a break in work flow? he may choose to do it later , but the main
purpose of the proposal does not achieve its goal .


This is what we do now so this isn't actually a regression. If you 
read story (for what, the 3rd time?) you'll see that the user is 
NOTIFIED that this update will require a reboot. So the user is 
already aware that in a short time theyll be aksed to reboot, they can 
chose to wait and go make some tea or proceed with the knowledge that 
a reboot will be necessary soon.





--
--Alex Launi


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
  



___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[Paulo J. S. Silva]

2009/6/17 David Siegel 

> I think it would be interesting if the user must wait at GDM for updates to
> finish (assuming they were downloaded previously), and is only allowed to
> log in when updates have finished. This process only takes a minute or two,
> and the user can choose to not initiate the updates or cancel them and log
> in at any point.
>
> David


Are you kidding?

Wouldn't it be much more reasonable to do this at shutdown (or logout for
users that don't shutdown). When I login, I want to my stuff. When I logout
I am saying: "I'm done for know". Imagine that you are leaving home, a
little late, and decide to look for a map in google maps. Wife and kids are
already in the car. The you scream from the office "Dear, will have to wait
for five minutes more because Ubuntu is forcing me to update now!"

Actually the whole concept of updates at login sounds very weird to me, for
exact the same reason I described above. I can leave home while the computer
is udpating itself (and shutting down)...

Paulo
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[David Siegel]

Paulo J. S. Silva wrote:
2009/6/17 David Siegel >


I think it would be interesting if the user must wait at GDM for
updates to finish (assuming they were downloaded previously), and
is only allowed to log in when updates have finished. This process
only takes a minute or two, and the user can choose to not
initiate the updates or cancel them and log in at any point.

David


Are you kidding?

Wouldn't it be much more reasonable to do this at shutdown (or logout 
for users that don't shutdown). When I login, I want to my stuff. When 
I logout I am saying: "I'm done for know". Imagine that you are 
leaving home, a little late, and decide to look for a map in google 
maps. Wife and kids are already in the car. The you scream from the 
office "Dear, will have to wait for five minutes more because Ubuntu 
is forcing me to update now!"


The updates are complete opt-in. You just don't click to begin them if 
you don't have time for them. They don't begin automatically, they don't 
even ask you to initiate them. They just sit in the corner, and you 
click on them, or you don't. If the wife and kids are waiting, don't 
click on them.




Actually the whole concept of updates at login sounds very weird to 
me, for exact the same reason I described above. I can leave home 
while the computer is udpating itself (and shutting down)...


Paulo


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
  



___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[Joshua Blount]

On 06/17/2009 10:40 AM, Paulo J. S. Silva wrote:


Wouldn't it be much more reasonable to do this at shutdown (or logout 
for users that don't shutdown). When I login, I want to my stuff. When 
I logout I am saying: "I'm done for know".



Interesting that you suggest shutdown.

When I shutdown, I generally need my machine to go down *now*.

It may be a good idea, as David suggested, to look past our personal 
user stories, and look for what most people would find useful.


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[Alex Launi]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Paulo J. S. Silva wrote:

> Are you kidding?
>
> Wouldn't it be much more reasonable to do this at shutdown (or logout for
> users that don't shutdown). When I login, I want to my stuff. When I logout
> I am saying: "I'm done for know".
>

When I'm finished work, I'm in a much bigger hurry than when I'm arriving. I
want to go home, see my friends, and have fun. I don't want to wait for the
computer to update. When I'm logging in however, MOST of the time I'm about
to do work for a while, so I have time to sit and wait for updates.


> Imagine that you are leaving home, a little late, and decide to look for a
> map in google maps. Wife and kids are already in the car. The you scream
> from the office "Dear, will have to wait for five minutes more because
> Ubuntu is forcing me to update now!"
>

There's a big issue with reading on this list. If you read what David and I
both said, you're not forced to update. You have to tell it to update.


-- 
--Alex Launi
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[Vadim Peretokin]

I'll second this. In my use-case, my mother *really* hates doing updates
(only does them after a while, and hates the orange icon - I suppose that'll
improve with an upgrade to jaunty). Forcing her to wait for updates after
she turns on the computer for something would really be backwards.

Nevermind that it takes away control from the user and instead of
spoon-feeding, it force-feeds them.
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[David Siegel]

Vadim Peretokin wrote:
I'll second this. In my use-case, my mother /really/ hates doing 
updates (only does them after a while, and hates the orange icon - I 
suppose that'll improve with an upgrade to jaunty). Forcing her to 
wait for updates after she turns on the computer for something would 
really be backwards.


Nevermind that it takes away control from the user and instead of 
spoon-feeding, it force-feeds them.


Vadim, check out my last email. When we discuss these things, it's best 
to give each suggestion the benefit of the doubt so we don't 
accidentally attribute invented flaws to good ideas.


When you turn on your computer, you are engaging with it, signaling that 
you have time and attention to give to the machine.


When you turn off your computer, are are disengaging with it, signaling 
that you need to go do something else and not use the machine any more. 
The "Set it and forget it" mentality of updates at shutdown is actually 
a very advanced user behavior, and does not work well for anyone, even 
advanced users, on portable computers.


David




___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
  



___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[Vadim Peretokin]

>
> When you turn on your computer, you are engaging with it, signaling that
> you have time and attention to give to the machine.


Why do you think so? A computer can be turned on perform a task with its
help, not to maintenance on itself. Sometimes one wants to google a map or
something quickly before leaving would be an example.
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[Alex Launi]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Vadim Peretokin wrote:

> Why do you think so? A computer can be turned on perform a task with its
> help, not to maintenance on itself. Sometimes one wants to google a map or
> something quickly before leaving would be an example.
>

This is a less common use, and one that is handled in our proposed
interaction with no impact on the user.


-- 
--Alex Launi
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[mac_v]

David Siegel wrote:
> The core of the idea is, at the face browser, there is a present icon
> when you have updates already downloaded and ready to install. They
> might even be unpacked already. Beside the present is a simple
> description like "13 updates available, requires restart. Click to
> update." The user either logs in as usual, ignoring the icon (maybe it's
> at the bottom/corner of GDM), or clicks the present. Clicking the
> present prompts for a password, and then shows an elegant progress bar,
> installing the updates. If the updates required a restart, the machine
> simply restarts, and our new 10 second boot time brings the machine back
> up before the user even notices it's restarting. We don't have to
> confirm shutdown, because nobody is logged in. Then, the user logs in to
> her newly updated desktop.
> 
> There are drawbacks to this approach, sure, but do you honestly not see
> any merit? I think it delivers a much more pleasant experience than
> asking the user at shutdown. At GDM, the user is not in a hurry, and
> they can take a moment to decide if they would like to update or not.
> Asking the user to update at shutdown feels like a rushed decision; the
> machine is shutting down, and you have a brief moment to either opt-in
> or opt-out of updates.
> 

I *do see the merits of implementing this* , but i'm not sure as to what
updates you are intending the use.[only for updates requiring reboot/
for all updates]... Since you have described the scenario for the
updates requiring restart, while Alex was saying to use it for all the
updates.

*If you want to implement it for all the updates*...
If the updates are not requiring reboot, then finishing the process asap
is better, why procrastinate?

You are viewing this only from a developers perspective!

*What is the actual Fun for the regular user during the updates* ?
Even if a lot of bling is added to the present icon+face browser+GDM ,
all the user has to do is to wait for a longer time to get his work
done! Do you really want to start your Monday morning for an update that
was known to the system on the previous Friday? I feel this would be
irritating.

So since the user has a choice to postpone, the update he will choose it
rather than loose time... how much ever little it might be.

How many users are going to say "Yay i'm updating"?
Do users even care what packages they are updating?
unless the user has a problem with a software , he is not going to be
having any enthusiasm for the updates for which he is not going to see
any personal benefits.Updates are done just to improve the system
stability and only the devs know how.

System requiring updates shows that the system is not baked
properly and the problems were discovered only in hindsight.
An update is for a problem within the system.
An ideal system would be one that doesnt require updates, which can
never be achieved.
 So drawing too much attention to the system flaws is not need, updates
need to be subtle, so that the user doesnt even notice them.

Even though i hate to admit, the major achievement present removal of
the update notification icon is, not much thought goes into updates. If
i used to delay the updates there used to be the icon constantly
reminding me that updates are required and i have a broken system...
But i still dont appreciate the update window popping-up by itself.


*If used ONLY for the Updates that require restart* then this would be
nice... Since you say that ,
the *packages are downloaded beforehand as soon as available* ,
,the *rest of the updates can be done while the user is working* .

If this is your idea , I think a lot of your idea was lost in
translation when Alex was proposing it.

The way i see it being a good way to implement this is:
When the user receives the updates notification,
user *chooses to download the packages* ,
Installation of Updates the dont require restart are done immediately,

Now before starting the installation of package+dependencies, which
requires a restart, the user is warned that  this particular package
requires a reboot.

User either chooses, "install now" or "during next boot" .

For good implementation of this, updates need to be clearly marked as
1:security
2:critical>solves a major crash/freeze issue of the package / major
improvement of package responsiveness
3:non-critical>minor tweaks to performance

So when the user is presented with the update requiring reboot, is told
that " This update solves a crash/freeze problem seen in this package /
Gives you major improvement of package responsiveness "

So the user decides , if he has a the problem he can do the update
immediately... If not delay it for the next boot.

If the user later chooses to update before the boot, he should be able
to do so from the update manager,
 where a reminder says"Install pending updates".

The same can be done for the firefox updates too...
 download the updates when the user accepts
and since it requires restart of the browser

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[ajmctaggart]

LOL, good point.  That's why I made one though, because until someone does
start to express what their thoughts are, it's just a discussion floating
around (which is important, don't get me wrong!)

I do like the "Notification-esqu," style to your mockup much more.  The
present, however; that too may be a bit misleading. :)
Perhaps based on what updates they have selected to actually accept:
Important, Recommended, Pre-released, Unsupported; maybe that present should
be my "Imminent Death," icon; on a Security update, for example.

Either way, I like the visuals...
One question, does this present an extra step for those designing GDM themes
going forward?

-Anthony

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:44 AM, David Siegel wrote:

> Kind of kitchy, but puts a more positive spin on the updates. Your mockup
> makes it look like you must update immediately or risk certain death.
>
> David
>
> ajmctaggart wrote:
>
>> Ok, so clearly there are pros/cons to every update situation.  Perhaps
>> what I would like to see, as the user, is the option to have the ability to
>> be notified of an update when I want it, at startup or shutdown?  Looks like
>> a simple edition to the "Setting," menu of current Update Manager, as there
>> are already the option for Download, Notify only, etc.
>>
>> Perhaps this is what the gdm login screen would look like?  Obviously the
>> usability experts may have some ideas on placement, wording, etc...
>>
>> I just wanted to get a visual out there.  Obviously the discussion is
>> still on the table, and I am not too sure if it should really be ignored as
>> a viable option on user interaction with updates.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Anthony
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Vadim Peretokin 
>> > vpereto...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>When you turn on your computer, you are engaging with it,
>>signaling that you have time and attention to give to the machine.
>>
>>
>>Why do you think so? A computer can be turned on perform a task with
>>its help, not to maintenance on itself. Sometimes one wants to
>>google a map or something quickly before leaving would be an example.
>>
>>___
>>Mailing list: 
>> https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
>>
>>Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
>>
>>Unsubscribe : 
>> https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
>>
>>More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[Paulo J. S. Silva]

Thinking more carefully, updates, and specially security updates, are
really very, very important. So why not do it all? I mean:

1) Allow updates at login, as it is suggested here

2) Leave a permanent notification symbol on the panel while the
session is on (this would take care of notifying users that use
auto-login and users that do not logout)

3) Allow updates at logout/reboot/shutdown

With that so reminders only the people who really don't want to update
won't do it.  For security conscious people, that usually don't
postpone the updates too much the reminders would not be too much
because they would just vanish away once you update for the first
time.

Moreover, with such pervasive upgrade reminders, I don't really see
the need for pop-unders or to interrupt the user work flow in any
form. This strategy may be able to make everyone happy and adapt to
any work flow.

Another advantage, I see is that in GDM and in the
logout/restart/shutdown dialog there is enough space to present the
upgrade icon with a text explaining what it means. After a while the
user will learn what the icon means. Hence, in the panel there is no
need for a long message explaining the icon.

What you think? Ubiquitous   upgrade reminders?

Paulo

2009/6/17 David Siegel :
> Kind of kitchy, but puts a more positive spin on the updates. Your mockup
> makes it look like you must update immediately or risk certain death.
>
> David
>
> ajmctaggart wrote:
>>
>> Ok, so clearly there are pros/cons to every update situation.  Perhaps
>> what I would like to see, as the user, is the option to have the ability to
>> be notified of an update when I want it, at startup or shutdown?  Looks like
>> a simple edition to the "Setting," menu of current Update Manager, as there
>> are already the option for Download, Notify only, etc.
>>
>> Perhaps this is what the gdm login screen would look like?  Obviously the
>> usability experts may have some ideas on placement, wording, etc...
>>
>> I just wanted to get a visual out there.  Obviously the discussion is
>> still on the table, and I am not too sure if it should really be ignored as
>> a viable option on user interaction with updates.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Anthony
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Vadim Peretokin > > wrote:
>>
>>        When you turn on your computer, you are engaging with it,
>>        signaling that you have time and attention to give to the machine.
>>
>>
>>    Why do you think so? A computer can be turned on perform a task with
>>    its help, not to maintenance on itself. Sometimes one wants to
>>    google a map or something quickly before leaving would be an example.
>>
>>    ___
>>    Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
>>    
>>    Post to     : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
>>    
>>    Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
>>    
>>    More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> Post to     : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[Sohail Mirza]

Love the package icon, David.  :)

To jump into the fray, I'm not sure what the advantage is of forcing the
user to wait during the upgrade rather than processing the upgrade after
they've logged in.  Alex's original suggestion of having the user choose to
login and THEN update seems to make more sense.  But, please do share your
reasoning.

As an example of inappropriately forcing the user to wait for an update, I
recently subscribed to the Gnome Colors PPA.  For those who have done the
same, you'll notice that they update frequently (nearly every day).  That's
a fairly large and lengthy update process to be waiting for.

The only situation in which I think the user should be forced to wait is
perhaps when there is an update that requires a reboot.  Are we able to
identify these updates beforehand?  If so, then in this case the message
treatment on GDM could change as well, saying something along the lines of
"12 updates available.  Click to install and reboot".

Perhaps the best choice though is to never force the user to install.  Even
in the case where a reboot is required, leaving a reboot notification in the
notification tray sounds like the right thing to do.


On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:44 PM, David Siegel
wrote:

> Kind of kitchy, but puts a more positive spin on the updates. Your mockup
> makes it look like you must update immediately or risk certain death.
>
> David
>
> ajmctaggart wrote:
>
>> Ok, so clearly there are pros/cons to every update situation.  Perhaps
>> what I would like to see, as the user, is the option to have the ability to
>> be notified of an update when I want it, at startup or shutdown?  Looks like
>> a simple edition to the "Setting," menu of current Update Manager, as there
>> are already the option for Download, Notify only, etc.
>>
>> Perhaps this is what the gdm login screen would look like?  Obviously the
>> usability experts may have some ideas on placement, wording, etc...
>>
>> I just wanted to get a visual out there.  Obviously the discussion is
>> still on the table, and I am not too sure if it should really be ignored as
>> a viable option on user interaction with updates.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Anthony
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Vadim Peretokin 
>> > vpereto...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>When you turn on your computer, you are engaging with it,
>>signaling that you have time and attention to give to the machine.
>>
>>
>>Why do you think so? A computer can be turned on perform a task with
>>its help, not to maintenance on itself. Sometimes one wants to
>>google a map or something quickly before leaving would be an example.
>>
>>___
>>Mailing list: 
>> https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
>>
>>Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
>>
>>Unsubscribe : 
>> https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
>>
>>More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>


-- 
sfm
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[Mark Shuttleworth]

I'm just catching up on this thread, and want to help draw it to a
conclusion.

Updates-on-login are interesting, but I think fatally flawed because of
the common requirement to reboot after updates.

Updates are an irritation and interruption at any time, we must accept
that. I've seen people say "I generally prefer for XXX to happen
immediately" whether XXX is login, shutdown, boot or restart. There's no
good time to offer the updates.

What we can do is to make sure updates are bulletproof (thank you to the
Ubuntu Platform team for their hard work on  SRU's) and that updates
don't need to ask questions. We can also come up with good solutions to
the problems that some apps have if they are running during an update,
such as Firefox and Mozilla. Both of them can now statefully be
restarted, we should consider doing that as part of the update.

My guidance is to do (a) updates in-session well, and (b)
updates-on-shutdown, on the basis that the former can be scheduled by
the user between work, and the latter at least comes at a time when the
user is moving their attention away from the desktop.

I also very much like the rebranding of updates as gifts! Let's run with
that.

Mark


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[Steve Dodier]

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

SD.

PS : forgot to forward to Ayatana ML again x.x
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[Paulo J. S. Silva]

Mark,

Why not present the upgrade option in the three situations? At login, at
log out/shutdown and during the session (only once per session or per
day or whatever is a reasonable time)? This would be a away to encourage
upgrades. The key here is to make updates at each moment optional. So
that they do not disrupt the user work flow unless he/she accepts it.

If the user decides to update at login or during a session the system
should tell him when the update needs a restart and prompt the user if
he/she wants to continue.

best,

Paulo



___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[Paulo J. S. Silva]

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


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[Alan Pope]

2009/7/4 Steve Dodier :
>  * 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 know a few people who initiate the shutdown process, and as they are
in a hurry will leave the shutdown happening as they stuff the laptop
in their bag. If the system carried on working in the bag - performing
updates - which are often fairly intensive CPU/IO wise, there's the
real possibility the laptop will overheat and become permanently
damaged.

If it was an option "Shutdown" / "Suspend" / "Shutdown with updates"
then one can clearly make the choice whether to install or not on that
occasion. I think the Windows way of doing it is worth looking at, but
with the default to be "Shutdown" and not "Shutdown with updates".

Cheers,
Al.

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[Alex Launi]

On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:03 AM, Mark Shuttleworth  wrote:

> Updates-on-login are interesting, but I think fatally flawed because of the
> common requirement to reboot after updates.
>

This is actually the case where update on login works best. Any other time
rebooting is totally interruption. You're working, you need to decide
whether or not rebooting is important enough, and then if you do decide to
reboot, you need to save all of your state, and actually do the deed.
Immediately after boot you don't have this problem. Instead of starting to
work and then being disturbed, you delay starting until you can really
start, without interruption.

-- 
--Alex Launi
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[Vincenzo Ciancia]

On sab, 2009-07-04 at 15:31 -0300, Paulo J. S. Silva wrote:
> 
> 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). 

I know that perhaps it is overkill to talk about this right now but I
hear too many voices in favour of automatic upgrades.

It happened to me several times in my life that an update broke the
system often in unrecoverable ways. In jaunty, the pre-latest intel
update (sigh) broke Xorg, it could not start because of a problem in
detecting the LVDS. I do not have any clue on how to get elder debs, so
I had to wait next update and use karmic in the meantime. (Let me open a
parenthesis: I could not figure out how to bring the wireless network up
from command line because iwconfig seems to be a no-action nowadays -
NetworkManager does not have a command line interface; usability in
extreme situations should be taken more into account perhaps by making a
specific investigation on the current system).

You can now jump on me and say "aha! that was not a security upgrade",
but the truth is that it happened several times since when I started to
appreciate upgrades (debian potato) and I can't tell when an upgrade was
for security reasons because I never cared to make a distinction.

I think many already stated this, but if the plan is to do any automatic
upgrade, then it MUST be backed up by a sane rollback policy. It just
suffices to keep a copy of the very basic needs of apt, and a copy of
the old debs in the systems with their configuration, we have everything
in place from the technical side.

OTOH, there is the problem that an upgrade may convert e.g.
configuration files to new formats. But this is not going to happen for
a security upgrade, that could be made into a strict requirement.

I recall some discussion about automatized revert on
ubuntu-devel-discuss, but is the idea still appreciated?

Vincenzo



___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[Mark Shuttleworth]

Alex Launi wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:03 AM, Mark Shuttleworth  > wrote:
>
> Updates-on-login are interesting, but I think fatally flawed
> because of the common requirement to reboot after updates.
>
>
> This is actually the case where update on login works best. Any other
> time rebooting is totally interruption. You're working, you need to
> decide whether or not rebooting is important enough, and then if you
> do decide to reboot, you need to save all of your state, and actually
> do the deed. Immediately after boot you don't have this problem.
> Instead of starting to work and then being disturbed, you delay
> starting until you can really start, without interruption.

's a fair point.


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[Vincenzo Ciancia]

Mark Shuttleworth ha scritto:

Alex Launi wrote:
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:03 AM, Mark Shuttleworth > wrote:


Updates-on-login are interesting, but I think fatally flawed
because of the common requirement to reboot after updates.


This is actually the case where update on login works best. Any other 
time rebooting is totally interruption. You're working, you need to 
decide whether or not rebooting is important enough, and then if you 
do decide to reboot, you need to save all of your state, and actually 
do the deed. Immediately after boot you don't have this problem. 
Instead of starting to work and then being disturbed, you delay 
starting until you can really start, without interruption.


's a fair point.


I agree entirely, and for the gift icon, let me say "me too" even if 
it's not in vogue right now :) It can be presented in linked 
documentation with some propaganda sentence like "The ubuntu developers  
do a  hard work every day to ensure that the system you are using, 
besides being free (link) is also as bug-free and secure as possible, 
therefore, they have prepared a new update for your system". This would 
impress positively people, even if perhaps it should be checked with 
some study.


As the usual nobody who I am, I have two remarks, though.

1) how does this work? If the system knows that there are updates, then 
it certainly knew it before last reboot (network is typically not up at 
boot for laptots at least). Then if the system knows there are updates, 
it is good to know it as soon as possible (If I am planning to leave the 
laptop unattended because I am going away for lunch break, it's a very 
good time to do updates). So I will somewhat be interrupted before the 
login. Even if, I may decide to postpone updates, and then yes, being 
reminded just as I log in is very good.


2) if it's just a reminder in the gdm window it's good.  I did not 
follow all the threads so sorry if this is obvious, but I imagine the 
gift icon saying "updates available" *and* a checkbox appearing only 
under the selected user name, when an administrator user name is 
selected. This naturally requires an administrator password to work 
(because otherwise the system just won't let you log in as that user 
otherwise). This covers an interesting use case: the administrator does 
not use the machine. Not in a professional network, I mean, but in a 
small business or just in the family. E.g. my mother's laptop in my home 
town. Then normal users, who would not get update notifications at all, 
may be informed of updates available and eventually tell the 
administrator, without this becoming annoying. ***But*** if it has to be 
a pop-up on login, it will look like the typical microsoft-like pressure 
on the user to do things. The windows after-login experienec, with 
several pop-ups coming up trying to get the user to do anything from 
registering the anti-virus and paying money for that to installing 
updates, is the typical thing I show to people, just before showing them 
ubuntu. A pop-up immediately after login would be a big loss in the 
image of ubuntu to users IM*H*O.


Vincenzo



___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[David Siegel]

Mark Shuttleworth wrote:

Alex Launi wrote:
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:03 AM, Mark Shuttleworth > wrote:


Updates-on-login are interesting, but I think fatally flawed
because of the common requirement to reboot after updates.


This is actually the case where update on login works best. Any other 
time rebooting is totally interruption. You're working, you need to 
decide whether or not rebooting is important enough, and then if you 
do decide to reboot, you need to save all of your state, and actually 
do the deed. Immediately after boot you don't have this problem. 
Instead of starting to work and then being disturbed, you delay 
starting until you can really start, without interruption.


's a fair point.


Also, as there is no user state before login, we can reboot the machine without 
user confirmation. With fast-boot and KMS, we completely remove the pain from 
rebooting after updates -- in fact, the user probably won't even notice the 
reboot (we should suppress startup sounds on the reboot).


David

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[Joshua Blount]

On 07/06/2009 08:21 PM, David Siegel wrote:



Mark Shuttleworth wrote:

Alex Launi wrote:
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:03 AM, Mark Shuttleworth > wrote:


Updates-on-login are interesting, but I think fatally flawed
because of the common requirement to reboot after updates.


This is actually the case where update on login works best. Any 
other time rebooting is totally interruption. You're working, you 
need to decide whether or not rebooting is important enough, and 
then if you do decide to reboot, you need to save all of your state, 
and actually do the deed. Immediately after boot you don't have this 
problem. Instead of starting to work and then being disturbed, you 
delay starting until you can really start, without interruption.


's a fair point.


Also, as there is no user state before login, we can reboot the 
machine without user confirmation. With fast-boot and KMS, we 
completely remove the pain from rebooting after updates -- in fact, 
the user probably won't even notice the reboot (we should suppress 
startup sounds on the reboot).




This is a really good point. We would do well to remember that users 
don't get frustrated simply at rebooting, their frustration is delaying 
their ability to *use* their desktop. Time and the appearance of more 
time is the source of the problem with rebooting, not the fact that a 
machine needs to cycle due to a kernel update or whatever.


--
Joshua Blount // Ubuntu One // http://launchpad.net/~jblount

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[Dylan McCall]

On Sat, 2009-07-04 at 10:15 +0200, Steve Dodier wrote:
> 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 ?
>  * 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'm not against the idea itself, but I think it should be an optional
> thing, not enabled by default.
> 
> SD.

Why is there an assumption that updates on shutdown would work like
Windows, where it basically tricks the user by doing that as a default?
There are much better ways to do this with the same functionality minus
the negatives, largely because we don't depend on it. (Thanks mostly to
cleverer file systems).

I think it makes a lot of sense to have a "Shut down when finished"
check box in the update progress bar, as well as an Update and Shut Down
option that the user can optionally choose when he is logging out. As an
alternative, the former could be replaced by a smarter log out process
that detects a running process like an update and waits for it to quit
before proceeding. This would remove the cruftiness of that first
solution and scale to other things, too.

Something really important to remember is that a cancelled update is a
really, really bad thing (for us and them). Thus, we should never risk
anything that would cause such behaviour. For example, I thought for a
second it would be cool to auto install updates at boot if they have
been downloaded already (like fsck), but it would not be safe to cancel
that (unlike fsck), triggering numerous loud exclamations of a rude word
that looks similar to the command.
With that in mind, I think automatic updates are evil (downloading them
isn't so much), but the benefits can be mostly obtained by giving the
user the right buttons to press.


For the rebooting end of things... how well is GNOME's session saving
working in 9.10? Perhaps the user's session after an update could be
saved, so when the system reboots he gets something reasonably close to
what he left. A hack to automatically log in could be interesting, too,
although possibly a security disaster. (I'm no security expert, so maybe
there's a good way to do it).


I also really love the gift icon. It's cute and meaningful. Although it
may be better suited to notification about new releases :)


-- 
Dylan McCall 


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[Scott Kitterman]

On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:46:19 -0400 Joshua Blount  
wrote:
>On 07/06/2009 08:21 PM, David Siegel wrote:
>>
>>
>> Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
>>> Alex Launi wrote:
 On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:03 AM, Mark Shuttleworth >>> > wrote:

 Updates-on-login are interesting, but I think fatally flawed
 because of the common requirement to reboot after updates.


 This is actually the case where update on login works best. Any 
 other time rebooting is totally interruption. You're working, you 
 need to decide whether or not rebooting is important enough, and 
 then if you do decide to reboot, you need to save all of your state, 
 and actually do the deed. Immediately after boot you don't have this 
 problem. Instead of starting to work and then being disturbed, you 
 delay starting until you can really start, without interruption.
>>>
>>> 's a fair point.
>>
>> Also, as there is no user state before login, we can reboot the 
>> machine without user confirmation. With fast-boot and KMS, we 
>> completely remove the pain from rebooting after updates -- in fact, 
>> the user probably won't even notice the reboot (we should suppress 
>> startup sounds on the reboot).
>>
>
>This is a really good point. We would do well to remember that users 
>don't get frustrated simply at rebooting, their frustration is delaying 
>their ability to *use* their desktop. Time and the appearance of more 
>time is the source of the problem with rebooting, not the fact that a 
>machine needs to cycle due to a kernel update or whatever.
>

On the other hand, fast boot is an explicit Ubuntu design goal for a 
variety of reasons including users typically start their computers because 
they want to use them.  

Before getting too set on installing updates at boot, I'd suggest some 
discussion with the people on the Ubuntu foundations team working on faster 
boot speed.

Scott K

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[mac_v]

Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 
> On the other hand, fast boot is an explicit Ubuntu design goal for a 
> variety of reasons including users typically start their computers because 
> they want to use them.  
> 
> Before getting too set on installing updates at boot, I'd suggest some 
> discussion with the people on the Ubuntu foundations team working on faster 
> boot speed.
> 
> Scott K
> 

^+1 to Scott,
The only problem with constant reboots is, the delay to get your work
started, this leads to people not installing the updates at boot at all,
 but rather later during the system use.

Is there a way to explicitly *not start the package and update it* ?

Like for example , now , when we do an update which asks for a reboot,
We only need to reboot once, But when updates are done at login , we are
rebooting twice[well not reboot exactly but starting the system twice].

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*

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!

The only scenario which is against updates at shutdown is for laptops ,
needing immediate shutdown.
*So doing updates at shutdown and allowing option to instant shutdown*
is more logical and user friendly.

cheers,
mac_v

PS:BTW, *the present icon used in update manager window would be nice*

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[Mike Rooney]

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:42 PM, mac_v wrote:
> Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>
>> On the other hand, fast boot is an explicit Ubuntu design goal for a
>> variety of reasons including users typically start their computers because
>> they want to use them.
>>
>> Before getting too set on installing updates at boot, I'd suggest some
>> discussion with the people on the Ubuntu foundations team working on faster
>> boot speed.
>>
>> Scott K
>>
>
> ^+1 to Scott,
> The only problem with constant reboots is, the delay to get your work
> started, this leads to people not installing the updates at boot at all,
>  but rather later during the system use.
>
> Is there a way to explicitly *not start the package and update it* ?
>
> Like for example , now , when we do an update which asks for a reboot,
> We only need to reboot once, But when updates are done at login , we are
> rebooting twice[well not reboot exactly but starting the system twice].
>
> 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*
>
> 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!
>
> The only scenario which is against updates at shutdown is for laptops ,
> needing immediate shutdown.
> *So doing updates at shutdown and allowing option to instant shutdown*
> is more logical and user friendly.
>
> cheers,
> mac_v

Yeah, I think I see what you mean, this is kind of cool. So during one
session my updates are downloaded automatically in the background. The
next time I restart, before the desktop environment is loaded, we
display a large present graphic with an encircling progress bar that
says "Updating your system" and something like "Press Escape to boot
immediately without updates". Being pre-downloaded, this could be
pretty fast. Afterwards it goes in to the normal boot sequence, or if
a reboot is required, restarts the kernel.

I agree that log-in time is not very disruptive since I have nothing
to interrupt except my patience and if I am in a hurry I can just
press escape. That said shut-down also has some potential. I think it
is cool that we are throwing out all sorts of ideas and conceptually
iterating on them. Keep it up!

Michael Rooney
mroo...@ubuntu.com

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[mac_v]

Mike Rooney wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:42 PM, mac_v wrote:
>> Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> On the other hand, fast boot is an explicit Ubuntu design goal for a
>>> variety of reasons including users typically start their computers because
>>> they want to use them.
>>>
>>> Before getting too set on installing updates at boot, I'd suggest some
>>> discussion with the people on the Ubuntu foundations team working on faster
>>> boot speed.
>>>
>>> Scott K
>>>
>> ^+1 to Scott,
>> The only problem with constant reboots is, the delay to get your work
>> started, this leads to people not installing the updates at boot at all,
>>  but rather later during the system use.
>>
>> Is there a way to explicitly *not start the package and update it* ?
>>
>> Like for example , now , when we do an update which asks for a reboot,
>> We only need to reboot once, But when updates are done at login , we are
>> rebooting twice[well not reboot exactly but starting the system twice].
>>
>> 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*
>>
>> 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!
>>
>> The only scenario which is against updates at shutdown is for laptops ,
>> needing immediate shutdown.
>> *So doing updates at shutdown and allowing option to instant shutdown*
>> is more logical and user friendly.
>>
>> cheers,
>> mac_v
> 
> Yeah, I think I see what you mean, this is kind of cool. So during one
> session my updates are downloaded automatically in the background. The
> next time I restart, before the desktop environment is loaded, we
> display a large present graphic with an encircling progress bar that
> says "Updating your system" and something like "Press Escape to boot
> immediately without updates". Being pre-downloaded, this could be
> pretty fast. Afterwards it goes in to the normal boot sequence, or if
> a reboot is required, restarts the kernel.
> 
> I agree that log-in time is not very disruptive since I have nothing
> to interrupt except my patience and if I am in a hurry I can just
> press escape. That said shut-down also has some potential. I think it
> is cool that we are throwing out all sorts of ideas and conceptually
> iterating on them. Keep it up!
> 
> Michael Rooney
> mroo...@ubuntu.com
> 

Yup that is it...
I like the encircling progress bar... :)

But rather than doing auto-download of updates,
I meant when notified of updates in-session the user chooses to download
& install , packages which dont require reboot are done immediately,
but when a package requires a restart ,
the system just notifies "The following packages will be installed
during next boot", note : *we do not mention the word reboot*.

For firefox updates , the system says "Firefox will be updated when
browser is closed", and the updates window closes...
The FF updates wait till the browser is shut down and updates FF without
disturbing the user.

cheers
mac_v

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[Alex Launi]

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 2:21 AM, David Siegel wrote:

> Also, as there is no user state before login, we can reboot the machine
> without user confirmation. With fast-boot and KMS, we completely remove the
> pain from rebooting after updates -- in fact, the user probably won't even
> notice the reboot (we should suppress startup sounds on the reboot).
>
> David
>

I'm lovin it.


On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 5:30 AM, Dylan McCall  wrote:

> Why is there an assumption that updates on shutdown would work like
> Windows, where it basically tricks the user by doing that as a default?


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.


For the rebooting end of things... how well is GNOME's session saving
> working in 9.10? Perhaps the user's session after an update could be
> saved, so when the system reboots he gets something reasonably close to
> what he left. A hack to automatically log in could be interesting, too,
> although possibly a security disaster. (I'm no security expert, so maybe
> there's a good way to do it).


Even if their desktop is restored, you've still destroyed mental context,
and that's the hardest part to rebuild. It's easy to open a text editor, or
open office back up, the hard part is getting back to where you were
mentally.


On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 6:16 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:

> On the other hand, fast boot is an explicit Ubuntu design goal for a
> variety of reasons including users typically start their computers because
> they want to use them.


This is a similar case to fsck, it's not that often so it's not really a
huge deal wrt boot times.


On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 7:42 AM, mac_v  wrote:

> ^+1 to Scott,
> The only problem with constant reboots is, the delay to get your work
> started, this leads to people not installing the updates at boot at all,
>  but rather later during the system use.


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.


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?


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; however, they absolutely do not help the second
case. Windows is case in point. Windows desktop go notoriously unupgraded,
the upgrades on shutdown has been shown to *not work*. At all. Upgrade on
login however has not (to the best of my knowledge) ever been attempted. Is
this because it's a terrible idea? Maybe, but from the discussion on this
list I'm not inclined to think that's the case. It's just *new*, and new
things are scary. In the reboot case we minimize the disruption, granted we
don't eliminate it, but we take enough of the pain away that it's
effectively no longer an issue and also we have a much more prominent
display that updates are needed. Your full attention is now given to "Should
I upgrade", instead of having a pop under window or a notification tray icon
that you don't notice. I think people are likely to say yes when it's so
prominently displayed in the UI, and they're not already focused on
something else.


The only scenario 

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[Steve Dodier]

So is it possible to know *before* when a reboot will be required ? Very
likely yes, right ? It only happens when hardware drivers and kernel get
updated ?

The packages list is updated when the computer is turned on, anyway, but
let's assume Mr. User didn't do his updates Monday, then Tuesday he can be
offered this update on GDM (i don't think its feasible on boot if we already
list other OSes according to the new Boot specs, and since there is already
disk encryption  + fscheck). And if the user clicks on "Updates available
(reboot needed afterwards)" in GDM he's asked to identify in order to
process the updates, and then it updates and reboots.

But if Mr. User refuses to do the updates, update-notifier should bother
him, or not ? And on next computer boot, should it still be on GDM ?

As for updates on shutdown, Alex raises a good point. It requires the user
to stay in front of the computer, 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.

I know that in most cases this is not needed since the update will happen
well, but i think its better to make users expect to have to act. If their
mirror goes down, if debconf asks if a file should be merged, if a dep is
broken, if a public PPA key is missing, then the user will need to be able
to act in order to solve the problem.
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[mac_v]

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 kn

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[Alex Launi]

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:55 PM, mac_v  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.


-- 
-- Alex Launi
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[mac_v]

Alex Launi wrote:

> 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.

As you say, "chances are" i.e> user *can wait* but is not forced to,
but for a login update user *has to wait* .

Login update is a forced behavior. while the shutdown is the users
option to stick around!

*A forced behavior is always frustrating* , while if the user is waiting
 out of his own discomfort it is not frustrating since he chooses to stay.

We are just looking for a solution that doesnt frustrate the user.

cheers,
mac_v

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[Siegfried Gevatter]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

2009/7/7 mac_v :
> As you say, "chances are" i.e> user *can wait* but is not forced to,
> but for a login update user *has to wait* .
>
> Login update is a forced behavior. while the shutdown is the users
> option to stick around!

Why is it forced? If I understood the proposal correctly, you'd be
asked if you want to update, and required to introduce your password
for the updates to be installed. Nobody will "force" you to do
anything.

- --
Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT)
Ubuntu Developer. Debian Contributor.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJKUz/vAAoJEBz8IvM2PerjRiEIAJ+mnFCIeD3ounhpFa+F9xvN
budrRZ+IQl66A9rTvQBoUTFY/bH5t0ixj7/44udENteQwDh8so1kkAi6Exp/fNyb
aNa2CwKVJG74HcgzOfXA1Shyl/tjRCOQvLyXlb8oYYP7sVHbPE+ROaHdl2657BKc
FSMQWehU2LqqX+IDpanVgC/bCFMFUN5QEOPW547boDDAxcUND5sDi3iyjGgdSBDq
icPIKMHmBCIFa8xjNzK1LbfsCt+N9ro1/Qd1pBWxhX/11eHHFPIlgIisjUuopY39
nErRHntk1AxOtVhjp2IO3BvG1X1WmbxR0/6ivquwnji+ZChzggrwq4QgCHoZjzk=
=oO6H
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[Vincenzo Ciancia]

Il 07/07/2009 12:55, mac_v ha scritto:

Why do they have to wait! there is no need , it is just
install+shutdown! User just selected install and shutdown!


I just don't trust the system enough to guarantee it will shut down, and 
don't trust an old laptop I use at office enough to be sure that it 
won't burn the office if left unattended for the night.



___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[mac_v]

Siegfried Gevatter wrote:
> 2009/7/7 mac_v :
>> As you say, "chances are" i.e> user *can wait* but is not forced to,
>> but for a login update user *has to wait* .
> 
>> Login update is a forced behavior. while the shutdown is the users
>> option to stick around!
> 
> Why is it forced? If I understood the proposal correctly, you'd be
> asked if you want to update, and required to introduce your password
> for the updates to be installed. Nobody will "force" you to do
> anything.
> 

Well... the user has to update at some point, right.

Even if he chooses to ignore it for now, he has to do it again at some
time. We are forcing him to wait,. He will have to sit idle , waiting
for the system to update.

While the shutdown update its his own choice to wait.

cheers,
mac_v

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[Alex Launi]

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:18 PM, mac_v  wrote:

> Well... the user has to update at some point, right.
>
> Even if he chooses to ignore it for now, he has to do it again at some
> time. We are forcing him to wait,. He will have to sit idle , waiting
> for the system to update.
>
> While the shutdown update its his own choice to wait.
>

This isn't much of a choice. You can wait, and know that everything is
working, or you can leave and maybe you'll come back next time and realized
that you never shut down, or your battery died in the middle of a kernel
upgrade. Choice isn't always best. In fact, it's often not.


-- 
--Alex Launi
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[Scott Kitterman]

On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:12:24 +0530 mac_v  wrote:
>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*
>

The current mechanism involves touching a file with the package postinst, 
so there is no way to know prior to install if a package update will 
require reboot or not.  

Scott K

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[Paulo J. S. Silva]

Em Ter, 2009-07-07 às 11:14 +0200, Steve Dodier escreveu:

> I know that in most cases this is not needed since the update will
> happen well, but i think its better to make users expect to have to
> act. If their mirror goes down, if debconf asks if a file should be
> merged, if a dep is broken, if a public PPA key is missing, then the
> user will need to be able to act in order to solve the problem.
> 
> 
I am sorry, but do you realize that the ordinary users we are talking
about here would not know what to do in any of those cases? For an
ordinary user updates should go without questions. I am not an ordinary
user but usually my updates don't ask me do any of those things.

The best idea I've seen so far is Vencenzo's one. Spend time and effort
making it possible to revert upgrades if failure occurs at next login.

Another interesting venue of thinking, would be to postpone updates that
need user interaction (the package manager started the upgrade and
realizes that the configuration file changes and wants your
intervention, he then reverts the upgrade to the original package and
warns the user in the next login that an update was pending because it
needs manual user intervention).

I believe that both ideas are worth considering.

And David Siegel, yes I can always think about specific cases where
people wants to move away from the computer or start working right now.
There is no solution that will cover all cases. We can only hope to find
a solution that works in most of the cases and is not very bad in the
corner cases. I still think that updates should be possible at any time,
let it be login, regular use, or logout.

Paulo



___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[Vincenzo Ciancia]

Paulo J. S. Silva ha scritto:

Em Ter, 2009-07-07 às 11:14 +0200, Steve Dodier escreveu:

  

I know that in most cases this is not needed since the update will
happen well, but i think its better to make users expect to have to
act. If their mirror goes down, if debconf asks if a file should be
merged, if a dep is broken, if a public PPA key is missing, then the
user will need to be able to act in order to solve the problem.




I am sorry, but do you realize that the ordinary users we are talking
about here would not know what to do in any of those cases? For an
ordinary user updates should go without questions. I am not an ordinary
user but usually my updates don't ask me do any of those things.

The best idea I've seen so far is Vencenzo's one. Spend time and effort
making it possible to revert upgrades if failure occurs at next login.
  


This is not my idea: I've seen people talking on it on the 
ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list. Just don't know how it ended.


Vincenzo


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login

[mac_v]

Comparing the updates at login and shutdown...


*Updates at login* : *Shutdown*:

_Steps involved_:
Start sys-processes  ---
Wait for password-not needed,user has already approved-
UpdateUpdate
Shutdown Shutdown
Restart   ---


The user definitely has to wait for updates and a bit longer for a Login
update.[atleast 1min extra than the update process for the
start+password+restart]
But the user does not need to wait at all for the Updates at Shutdown.

_Con_:to This idea...
Outdated updates ---
User *has* to wait   user *might want* to wait!/Windows does it!
User has to approve, ---
   the update twice
 [for download&install]


Remember, the outdated updates are because the updates are detected only
from the previous session, so if the user uses a system only once a week
he is notified only of old updates!

When an *Update at Login idea has no clear advantage* ,
the *deciding factor should not be that it is a new idea* or Windows
does the shutdown method , so we do it differently!.

The only negative use case for a shutdown update is> the user who wants
instant shutdown.
*Here the users have the option for instant shutdown* .


cheers,
mac_v




___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

[Ayatana] Updates on Login (was: Re: [Fwd: Update manager])

[Alex Launi]

I figured I should start a new thread for this, so that you can all continue
your icon vs. pop-under debate, which is still relevant for the auto-login
case, although it becomes much less important. I've copied and pasted the
relevant posts from the previous thread into this one. Have at it.

===

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Alex Launi  wrote:
I had meant to chat with Martin Pitt after his plenary, but never managed to
catch up with him. I forgot about it until I was going through my notebook
the other day. It would be really great if when update-manager presented
itself, some bugs (ones that you reported/subscribed to on LP) had a nice
messsage that made you really excited to update because your bug was fixed!
Make updates fun!

David Siegel also had a really great idea for making updates fun (and it
also solves the issue of how to handle updates- notification icon or
pop-under window) at the "install updates on shutdown" discussion. Let me
preface this with these are his ideas and not mine, I think they're great
and he deserves the credit. His idea was to do updates at login. We could do
the checking while you're using, and then if we find them on reboot show
them in gdm with a nice present icon, like we're giving you a gift. This way
if an update requires a restart, you don't have to save your state, restart,
blah blah blah and interrupt your entire workflow, you haven't started yet.
It might not be possible now, but when the clutter gdm finally lands we
could do it really beautifully.

-- 
-- Alex Launi

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:06 PM, tacone  wrote:
Good intent, bad idea.
When you turn on the pc it's because you needed. Windows shows the
update notification on shutdown, which makes much more sense (and if
you just installed some reboot requiring update, even more).

I wouldn't oppose to a well done, good designed entry on shutdown:


Updates available !  Keeping your system up to date is important.
[x] Install the updates before logging out. [ Open the update manager ]
-

Stefano

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Alex Launi  wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:06 PM, tacone  wrote:

> Good intent, bad idea.
>

I disagree, let's imagine this scenario, together...


It's Tuesday morning, you get up and turn on your computer. Whilst you were
fast asleep dreaming of sugar plums and sexy librarians Ubuntu packagers
were hard at work packaging updates for your favourite operating system. Now
that it's morning, these updates are available, for you! You boot up and
arrive at the slick new GDM. But what's this message?

"New updates available! Click here to install"

Some days you're very busy, and need your computer right away so you chose
to ignore them and log right in. That's ok, they'll be available when you're
ready. Update Manager shouldn't go away, you should be able to launch it
yourself manually if you want to update once you've logged in and found out
that DST was this weekend and you've got some extra time.

But today you decide to click. The interface changes nicely into a screen
displaying what updates are available, and asking for your username and
password to authorize install / log in. If you're not an administrator we
will politely tell you that you can't perform an upgrade, and that you
should let your administrator know that your system needs some updates. At
this point we just finish the login, since you just gave us your info.
Awesome.

Now let's say you are an admin, this update requires no reboot so we log you
right in, and when the desktop is loaded there is already a dialog waiting
giving you the progress of your update. You may continue working, you
weren't cost much time, and your system is fully secure because you're up to
date.

But next time there might be a kernel upgrade, which will require a restart.
In this case we should ask the user what they'd like to do. In some cases
the estimated time to finish (which we will show) may only be 2 minutes, and
we can afford that so we just halt the login and modally install the
upgrades, or we allow them to say "ok i recognize that this update will need
a restart to apply, but I need my computer- so lets continue like there are
no updates that require a reboot, and I will reboot when I'm ready.



Awesome, right?

-- 
--Alex Launi

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Charlie Kravetz  wrote:
What about those who use an autologin? They will never see those gdm
screens.

--
Charlie Kravetz
Linux Registered User Number 425914  [http://counter.li.org/]
Never let anyone steal your DREAM.   [http://keepingdreams.com]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:17 PM, ajmctaggart  wrote:
...This was hilarious, sexy librarians and all...
Me personally, I don't have a *huge *issue presenting updates at the
beginning of a log-in sequence.  As a user, you know they are there, and you
either ignore or proceed.

I can't help but think though, that when I logi

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login (was: Re: [Fwd: Update manager])

[mac_v]

Alex Launi wrote:
>> I disagree, let's imagine this scenario, together...

> > 

The whole "dream" assumes that the downloads are already
downloaded/quickly downloaded...

Consider users with slow connections, so the downloads take time to be
initially downloaded download is larger the longer the wait time!

Downloads take time, also when the user is connected to via a secure
*wireless connections the connection is established ONLY after login* ,
which allows the passkey use!

cheers,
mac_v

ajmctaggart wrote:
> > 
> > Again, just a user here...
> > However, Windows does give the option to download the updates in the
> > background then notify when they've fully downloaded. 
> > 
> > Would a behavior similar to this make the "updates on login," option any
> > more tempting?
> > 

AFAIK Auto downloads of the updates is far worse!
1: user might be using 3G at some point where the downloads cost a lot!
2: downloads while i'm watching streaming video content would cause the
lags in my videos which i would hate.

cheers,
mac_v



___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login (was: Re: [Fwd: Update manager])

[Alex Launi]

Ok, based on these questions I'm not convinced you carefully read my entire
post. I addressed these in my story, but I'm happy to do so a second time.

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 8:38 PM, mac_v  wrote:

> The whole "dream" assumes that the downloads are already
> downloaded/quickly downloaded...
>

What gave you this impression? This is absolutely not the case. If you
reread my scenario, you'll see that potentially all you do at login is
authorize the updates (in the non-reboot case). Once you've said "ok,
update" you continue to the desktop, where download/install can happen. In
the case that a reboot will be required, you are given the option to wait or
proceed.

>
> Downloads take time, also when the user is connected to via a secure
> *wireless connections the connection is established ONLY after login* ,
> which allows the passkey use!


We have already taken the user's password/username, they're effectively
logged in, just not to their normal desktop session. We can connect to a
network by this point.


-- 
-- Alex Launi
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login (was: Re: [Fwd: Update manager])

[David Siegel]

Alex Launi wrote:
I figured I should start a new thread for this, so that you can all 
continue your icon vs. pop-under debate, which is still relevant for 
the auto-login case, although it becomes much less important. I've 
copied and pasted the relevant posts from the previous thread into 
this one. Have at it.


===

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Alex Launi > wrote:
I had meant to chat with Martin Pitt after his plenary, but never 
managed to catch up with him. I forgot about it until I was going 
through my notebook the other day. It would be really great if when 
update-manager presented itself, some bugs (ones that you 
reported/subscribed to on LP) had a nice messsage that made you really 
excited to update because your bug was fixed! Make updates fun!


David Siegel also had a really great idea for making updates fun (and 
it also solves the issue of how to handle updates- notification icon 
or pop-under window) at the "install updates on shutdown" discussion. 
Let me preface this with these are his ideas and not mine, I think 
they're great and he deserves the credit. His idea was to do updates 
at login. We could do the checking while you're using, and then if we 
find them on reboot show them in gdm with a nice present icon, like 
we're giving you a gift. This way if an update requires a restart, you 
don't have to save your state, restart, blah blah blah and interrupt 
your entire workflow, you haven't started yet. It might not be 
possible now, but when the clutter gdm finally lands we could do it 
really beautifully.


--
-- Alex Launi

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:06 PM, tacone > wrote:

Good intent, bad idea.
When you turn on the pc it's because you needed. Windows shows the
update notification on shutdown, which makes much more sense (and if
you just installed some reboot requiring update, even more).

I wouldn't oppose to a well done, good designed entry on shutdown:


Updates available !  Keeping your system up to date is important.
[x] Install the updates before logging out. [ Open the update manager ]
-

Stefano

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Alex Launi > wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:06 PM, tacone > wrote:


Good intent, bad idea.


I disagree, let's imagine this scenario, together...


It's Tuesday morning, you get up and turn on your computer. Whilst you 
were fast asleep dreaming of sugar plums and sexy librarians Ubuntu 
packagers were hard at work packaging updates for your favourite 
operating system. Now that it's morning, these updates are available, 
for you! You boot up and arrive at the slick new GDM. But what's this 
message?


"New updates available! Click here to install"

Some days you're very busy, and need your computer right away so you 
chose to ignore them and log right in. That's ok, they'll be available 
when you're ready. Update Manager shouldn't go away, you should be 
able to launch it yourself manually if you want to update once you've 
logged in and found out that DST was this weekend and you've got some 
extra time.


But today you decide to click. The interface changes nicely into a 
screen displaying what updates are available, and asking for your 
username and password to authorize install / log in. If you're not an 
administrator we will politely tell you that you can't perform an 
upgrade, and that you should let your administrator know that your 
system needs some updates. At this point we just finish the login, 
since you just gave us your info. Awesome.


Now let's say you are an admin, this update requires no reboot so we 
log you right in, and when the desktop is loaded there is already a 
dialog waiting giving you the progress of your update. You may 
continue working, you weren't cost much time, and your system is fully 
secure because you're up to date.


But next time there might be a kernel upgrade, which will require a 
restart. In this case we should ask the user what they'd like to do. 
In some cases the estimated time to finish (which we will show) may 
only be 2 minutes, and we can afford that so we just halt the login 
and modally install the upgrades, or we allow them to say "ok i 
recognize that this update will need a restart to apply, but I need my 
computer- so lets continue like there are no updates that require a 
reboot, and I will reboot when I'm ready.




Awesome, right?

--
--Alex Launi

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Charlie Kravetz 
mailto:c...@teamcharliesangels.com>> wrote:

What about those who use an autologin? They will never see those gdm
screens.

--
Charlie Kravetz
Linux Registered User Number 425914  [http://counter.li.org/]
Never let anyone steal your DREAM.   [http://keepingdreams.com 
]


On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:17 PM, ajmctaggart 

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login (was: Re: [Fwd: Update manager])

[tacone]

> We should definitely consider as many update scenarios as possible in order
> to find the one that users will prefer. We are very quick to start
> implementing updates and shut down without considering something radically
> different because many of us have experiences updates at shutdown when using
> Windows. Neither solution is perfect, both have their merits, and this is
> the perfect place to discuss them.

May I ask which merits may the Updates-at-login-time have ?

It's not that Windows is perfect, but some times there's a rationale
behind the choices done by it. (and, btw, I hated the way Windows
tried to trick you into upgrading at shutdown)

The drawbacks of updates in GDM are many:
- some people auto login, they won't see anything (not big issue, but
also not nice)
- perceived bigger lag between power on  and operability (due to the
need to perform a choice)
- being reminded to reboot right after having just powered on is not nice.
- increased delta with Gnome and possible loss of compatibility with
existing GDM themes
- increases the workload startup (while the updates are being
performed), in a timeframe when there's already load (as the gnome
desktop is loading, and the first applications you'll launch will
load).

I don't think we really need to "think different" at all costs.

Stefano

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login (was: Re: [Fwd: Update manager])

[David Siegel]

tacone wrote:

We should definitely consider as many update scenarios as possible in order
to find the one that users will prefer. We are very quick to start
implementing updates and shut down without considering something radically
different because many of us have experiences updates at shutdown when using
Windows. Neither solution is perfect, both have their merits, and this is
the perfect place to discuss them.



May I ask which merits may the Updates-at-login-time have ?

It's not that Windows is perfect, but some times there's a rationale
behind the choices done by it. (and, btw, I hated the way Windows
tried to trick you into upgrading at shutdown)

The drawbacks of updates in GDM are many:
- some people auto login, they won't see anything (not big issue, but
also not nice)
- perceived bigger lag between power on  and operability (due to the
need to perform a choice)
- being reminded to reboot right after having just powered on is not nice.
- increased delta with Gnome and possible loss of compatibility with
existing GDM themes
- increases the workload startup (while the updates are being
performed), in a timeframe when there's already load (as the gnome
desktop is loading, and the first applications you'll launch will
load).

I don't think we really need to "think different" at all costs.

Stefano
  

Tacone,

People who auto-login or never restart can be handled differently. 
Personally, I auto-login, so I would not use this feature, but let's not 
think of gurus like us, who participate on Linux mailing lists, and 
let's think instead about the average user, who might be made 
uncomfortable by computers in general, and may be nervous about their 
first venture into Linux.


The core of the idea is, at the face browser, there is a present icon 
when you have updates already downloaded and ready to install. They 
might even be unpacked already. Beside the present is a simple 
description like "13 updates available, requires restart. Click to 
update." The user either logs in as usual, ignoring the icon (maybe it's 
at the bottom/corner of GDM), or clicks the present. Clicking the 
present prompts for a password, and then shows an elegant progress bar, 
installing the updates. If the updates required a restart, the machine 
simply restarts, and our new 10 second boot time brings the machine back 
up before the user even notices it's restarting. We don't have to 
confirm shutdown, because nobody is logged in. Then, the user logs in to 
her newly updated desktop.


There are drawbacks to this approach, sure, but do you honestly not see 
any merit? I think it delivers a much more pleasant experience than 
asking the user at shutdown. At GDM, the user is not in a hurry, and 
they can take a moment to decide if they would like to update or not. 
Asking the user to update at shutdown feels like a rushed decision; the 
machine is shutting down, and you have a brief moment to either opt-in 
or opt-out of updates.


David

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login (was: Re: [Fwd: Update manager])

[Vincenzo Ciancia]

Il giorno mer, 17/06/2009 alle 09.26 -0500, David Siegel ha scritto:
> I auto-login, so I would not use this feature, but let's not 
> think of gurus like us

The argument "that's for gurus" or "power users" keeps popping up :)
This can not be applied here: auto-login is enabled by checking an
innocent checkbox during install, and I am sure this is more interesting
for non-power-users who have only one user account on their machine.

Not that I do not find the idea interesting, it's just an observation on
that particular argument that I don't like too much.

V.


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login (was: Re: [Fwd: Update manager])

[Allan Caeg]

Vincenzo Ciancia wrote:

Il giorno mer, 17/06/2009 alle 09.26 -0500, David Siegel ha scritto:
 
I auto-login, so I would not use this feature, but let's not think of 
gurus like us



The argument "that's for gurus" or "power users" keeps popping up :)
This can not be applied here: auto-login is enabled by checking an
innocent checkbox during install, and I am sure this is more interesting
for non-power-users who have only one user account on their machine.

Not that I do not find the idea interesting, it's just an observation on
that particular argument that I don't like too much.

V.
  
Yeah. It's a good thing that you pointed out that auto-login can be 
activated during install. I use the auto-login feature too and run 
xtrlock on startup for protection but that's already offtopic.


I don't think that updates on login or at shutdown is a good idea. 
Routine fsck can attest to this. Most of the time, it's not the right 
time to wait for updates because the user is in a hurry to do what he 
wants to do with the computer, in my case at least. It's a good thing 
that there's an option now to cancel this routine check. Unlike fsck, 
updates can be done on a running DE session. If notifying about updates 
at startup really is a good idea, the right thing to do could be simply 
notifying the user that there are updates and letting the user choose 
whether or not to permit the upgrade while not restricting the user from 
doing typical desktop operations while the upgrade is running. A use 
case would be Jack wants to IM his classmate soon because she texted him 
she is already online. Jack turns the computer and sees updates 
notifications after he logged in. He then permits the upgrade and while 
the upgrade is running, he opens Pidgin so he can chat right away. The 
upgrade should be after GDM because some people auto-login or don't use 
GDM. Also, processing package information while loading GDM would slow 
down login. That would be very annoying.


I also don't agree with updates on shut down. I'm on a laptop and it's 
annoying when Windows doesn't want to power off when I want it to 
because I'm uncomfortable with bagging my laptop and carrying it around 
while it upgrading. That's just bad for my hard drive and my hardware 
will be hot.



___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login (was: Re: [Fwd: Update manager])

[Martín Soto]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:01 PM, David Siegel
wrote:

> I am glad this is being explored. I originally suggested we consider
> updates at GDM (1) to challenge our thinking about this problem through
> inversion, and (2) to rebrand updates as something fun and exciting to
> receive, not a system maintenance chore that takes place during a dark
> shutdown scenario.


I find this idea laudable, but I wonder how viable it is. The type of
updates we are talking about are a chore, because they are exclusively aimed
at closing security holes and fixing critical bugs. It is not that we are
going to the user with a smile and bag of assorted goodies. It's rather like
we're suddenly knocking at his door and telling him "we just noticed there's
a big hole in your roof and, unless you let us do our work ASAP, it'll soon
start raining in your living room." In a way, it's not that bad: We're
pointing out a serious problem (if it isn't serious, why are we releasing
updates anyway?) and offering a solution free of charge, but he must be
bothered to open his door and let us mess around for a while.

Trying to hide this reality behind a nice present icon sounds kind of sneaky
to me. Sort of if I give you a mop wrapped in colorful present paper, in the
hope that you clean my floor with it. My strategy would be to be honest and
make it clear that this is a chore, that, as any other chore, must be
completed rather sooner than later. We understand, however, that the user
may have something urgent going on and may not be able to do it right now,
but we'll keep insisting.


> Also, we do fsck at boot, so bookending the user experience with two
> drawn-out, systemic maintenance tasks seemed very imposing.
>
> We should definitely consider as many update scenarios as possible in order
> to find the one that users will prefer. We are very quick to start
> implementing updates and shut down without considering something radically
> different because many of us have experiences updates at shutdown when using
> Windows. Neither solution is perfect, both have their merits, and this is
> the perfect place to discuss them.


Agreed. Recent answers in this thread show that updates at login, at logout,
or at some point in-between may be appropriate depending on the user and
situation. How about using them all?

But before we move into that, let me pose a more basic question. How
important is it for the Ubuntu community that users install their updates in
a timely fashion? I ask this because I think that no technical solution will
work unless the community stands behind it. Any attempt at getting users to
install their updates will involve a certain degree of pestering, which, in
turn, will result in negative reactions from at least some people. It is
important that the community has a consistent, friendly and, above all,
positive answer for these people.

I can think of all sort of arguments that can be presented positively,
ranging from "we're making sure that your valuable data is safe" to "we are
good Internet citizens and want to make sure that Ubuntu is no place for
botnets and malware to flourish." Once we have some basic agreement about
this point, we can think of ways of pestering people in the less "pestery"
way possible ;-)

Cheers,

M. S.
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login (was: Re: [Fwd: Update manager])

[tacone]

> People who auto-login or never restart can be handled differently.
> Personally, I auto-login, so I would not use this feature, but let's not
> think of gurus like us, who participate on Linux mailing lists, and let's
> think instead about the average user, who might be made uncomfortable by
> computers in general, and may be nervous about their first venture into
> Linux.


>
> The core of the idea is, at the face browser, there is a present icon when
> you have updates already downloaded and ready to install. They might even be
> unpacked already. Beside the present is a simple description like "13
> updates available, requires restart. Click to update." The user either logs
> in as usual, ignoring the icon (maybe it's at the bottom/corner of GDM), or
> clicks the present. Clicking the present prompts for a password, and then
> shows an elegant progress bar, installing the updates. If the updates
> required a restart, the machine simply restarts, and our new 10 second boot
> time brings the machine back up before the user even notices it's
> restarting. We don't have to confirm shutdown, because nobody is logged in.
> Then, the user logs in to her newly updated desktop.
>
> There are drawbacks to this approach, sure, but do you honestly not see any
> merit? I think it delivers a much more pleasant experience than asking the
> user at shutdown. At GDM, the user is not in a hurry, and they can take a
> moment to decide if they would like to update or not. Asking the user to
> update at shutdown feels like a rushed decision; the machine is shutting
> down, and you have a brief moment to either opt-in or opt-out of updates.

David, don't think I want to discourage you in any way. I'm pretty
happy with initiatives like yours.
But, of course, one has to see which advantages those effectively bring.

Frankly, seems to me that the only merit you cite ('more pleasant
experience') is highly subjective as it is the consideration that at
login the user is less in hurry than on shutdown. The hurry factor, by
the way, varies depending on the platform (desktop/notebook/netbook).
I'd frankly consider a netbook/notebook user always in hurry, and that
brings down both the login/logout alternatives. For a desktop, though,
the shutdown is nicer.

Sure everything can be ignored, but that also means that such feature
would affect a lower percentage of users, making it less compelling.
I also think that doing things at start up will require much more code
respect of the shutdown option and increased complexity in the
configuration panels (see for example the proposed configuration panel
that will be needed for handling the pop-under intrusiveness
http://tinyurl.com/koommq . are we sure we need that?)

A few more points:
- auto-downloading the updates is already there, but it's optional and
opt-in - and for a reason. I couldn't afford to use that in my current
situation for example (pay for bandwith). Slow connections may not
afford it. And so on.
- I think that making the user wait for uploads to complete before
login will lead to quite of a backslash, no matter if it's opt-in.
You're proposing opt-in to an undesiderable feature. I still would
have no problem with that, but I'm sure many people would not like it.
- I have the feeling it will be more difficult to code and would
re-use much less of the existing infrastructure.

As a side note, I don't like having update opt-in even on shutdown,
but for sure I think it would be much better than in GDM and may be
helpful for some.

Let me iterate it again, I don't want to bash you or your idea. I just
think it's not good and I encourage you to find some other good point
about it or come out with something different.

Stefano

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login (was: Re: [Fwd: Update manager])

[David Siegel]

My roll on the Canonical Design and User Experience team is to make Ubuntu the 
most enjoyable to use operating system in the world, so I hope you can forgive 
me for making "[it offers a] more pleasant experience" the main thrust of my 
argument.


I am not decidedly in favor of updates at GDM over updates at any other point in 
time. I am just trying to get us to think more broadly about solutions to the 
update problem, and not to jump to premature conclusions.


I can offer other arguable points of merit for updates at GDM:

(1) (This is completely subjective, but my personal experience does include the 
experiences of others, and is valid in itself) I often feel less rushed and 
stressed when booting my computer as opposed to shutting it down. When I log in, 
I wait for applications to load, my mail to download, my music player to start, 
etc. When I shutdown, I currently enjoy the luxury that my computer turns off 
immediately with no fuss; currently, shutdown does not involve waiting.


(2) Think of portable computer users (laptops and netbooks). They nearly always 
have more battery available at boot than at shutdown. In fact, many users shut 
their laptops down *only* when they are forced to due so due to an empty 
battery. We never want to initiate updates on insufficient power.


(3) Smaller cognitive burden. Think about the worker. At the start of the day, 
you boot your machine, grab some coffee, and return to your machine. At the end 
of the day, you just want to leave the office! Even if you knew you could leave 
something running on your machine and go home, it still might cause a lingering 
uncertainty (did it ask me for confirmation? Was there an error? Is my computer 
still on right now? Is it logged in?!)


Most of us would be perfectly comfortable initiating an update on shutdown, and 
walking away from our machine, but I'm not sure if less sophisticated users are 
similarly comfortable behaving this way.


Also, more and more devices running Ubuntu will be laptops and netbooks. We may 
want to focus more on those use cases, and less on the use case of a sedentary 
desktop.



David

tacone wrote:

People who auto-login or never restart can be handled differently.
Personally, I auto-login, so I would not use this feature, but let's not
think of gurus like us, who participate on Linux mailing lists, and let's
think instead about the average user, who might be made uncomfortable by
computers in general, and may be nervous about their first venture into
Linux.




The core of the idea is, at the face browser, there is a present icon when
you have updates already downloaded and ready to install. They might even be
unpacked already. Beside the present is a simple description like "13
updates available, requires restart. Click to update." The user either logs
in as usual, ignoring the icon (maybe it's at the bottom/corner of GDM), or
clicks the present. Clicking the present prompts for a password, and then
shows an elegant progress bar, installing the updates. If the updates
required a restart, the machine simply restarts, and our new 10 second boot
time brings the machine back up before the user even notices it's
restarting. We don't have to confirm shutdown, because nobody is logged in.
Then, the user logs in to her newly updated desktop.

There are drawbacks to this approach, sure, but do you honestly not see any
merit? I think it delivers a much more pleasant experience than asking the
user at shutdown. At GDM, the user is not in a hurry, and they can take a
moment to decide if they would like to update or not. Asking the user to
update at shutdown feels like a rushed decision; the machine is shutting
down, and you have a brief moment to either opt-in or opt-out of updates.


David, don't think I want to discourage you in any way. I'm pretty
happy with initiatives like yours.
But, of course, one has to see which advantages those effectively bring.

Frankly, seems to me that the only merit you cite ('more pleasant
experience') is highly subjective as it is the consideration that at
login the user is less in hurry than on shutdown. The hurry factor, by
the way, varies depending on the platform (desktop/notebook/netbook).
I'd frankly consider a netbook/notebook user always in hurry, and that
brings down both the login/logout alternatives. For a desktop, though,
the shutdown is nicer.

Sure everything can be ignored, but that also means that such feature
would affect a lower percentage of users, making it less compelling.
I also think that doing things at start up will require much more code
respect of the shutdown option and increased complexity in the
configuration panels (see for example the proposed configuration panel
that will be needed for handling the pop-under intrusiveness
http://tinyurl.com/koommq . are we sure we need that?)

A few more points:
- auto-downloading the updates is already there, but it's optional and
opt-in - and for a reason. I couldn't afford to use that in my cur

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login (was: Re: [Fwd: Update manager])

[David Siegel]

My role! :)

David

David Siegel wrote:
My roll on the Canonical Design and User Experience team is to make 
Ubuntu the most enjoyable to use operating system in the world, so I 
hope you can forgive me for making "[it offers a] more pleasant 
experience" the main thrust of my argument.


I am not decidedly in favor of updates at GDM over updates at any other 
point in time. I am just trying to get us to think more broadly about 
solutions to the update problem, and not to jump to premature conclusions.


I can offer other arguable points of merit for updates at GDM:

(1) (This is completely subjective, but my personal experience does 
include the experiences of others, and is valid in itself) I often feel 
less rushed and stressed when booting my computer as opposed to shutting 
it down. When I log in, I wait for applications to load, my mail to 
download, my music player to start, etc. When I shutdown, I currently 
enjoy the luxury that my computer turns off immediately with no fuss; 
currently, shutdown does not involve waiting.


(2) Think of portable computer users (laptops and netbooks). They nearly 
always have more battery available at boot than at shutdown. In fact, 
many users shut their laptops down *only* when they are forced to due so 
due to an empty battery. We never want to initiate updates on 
insufficient power.


(3) Smaller cognitive burden. Think about the worker. At the start of 
the day, you boot your machine, grab some coffee, and return to your 
machine. At the end of the day, you just want to leave the office! Even 
if you knew you could leave something running on your machine and go 
home, it still might cause a lingering uncertainty (did it ask me for 
confirmation? Was there an error? Is my computer still on right now? Is 
it logged in?!)


Most of us would be perfectly comfortable initiating an update on 
shutdown, and walking away from our machine, but I'm not sure if less 
sophisticated users are similarly comfortable behaving this way.


Also, more and more devices running Ubuntu will be laptops and netbooks. 
We may want to focus more on those use cases, and less on the use case 
of a sedentary desktop.



David

tacone wrote:

People who auto-login or never restart can be handled differently.
Personally, I auto-login, so I would not use this feature, but let's not
think of gurus like us, who participate on Linux mailing lists, and 
let's

think instead about the average user, who might be made uncomfortable by
computers in general, and may be nervous about their first venture into
Linux.



The core of the idea is, at the face browser, there is a present icon 
when
you have updates already downloaded and ready to install. They might 
even be

unpacked already. Beside the present is a simple description like "13
updates available, requires restart. Click to update." The user 
either logs
in as usual, ignoring the icon (maybe it's at the bottom/corner of 
GDM), or
clicks the present. Clicking the present prompts for a password, and 
then

shows an elegant progress bar, installing the updates. If the updates
required a restart, the machine simply restarts, and our new 10 
second boot

time brings the machine back up before the user even notices it's
restarting. We don't have to confirm shutdown, because nobody is 
logged in.

Then, the user logs in to her newly updated desktop.

There are drawbacks to this approach, sure, but do you honestly not 
see any
merit? I think it delivers a much more pleasant experience than 
asking the
user at shutdown. At GDM, the user is not in a hurry, and they can 
take a

moment to decide if they would like to update or not. Asking the user to
update at shutdown feels like a rushed decision; the machine is shutting
down, and you have a brief moment to either opt-in or opt-out of 
updates.


David, don't think I want to discourage you in any way. I'm pretty
happy with initiatives like yours.
But, of course, one has to see which advantages those effectively bring.

Frankly, seems to me that the only merit you cite ('more pleasant
experience') is highly subjective as it is the consideration that at
login the user is less in hurry than on shutdown. The hurry factor, by
the way, varies depending on the platform (desktop/notebook/netbook).
I'd frankly consider a netbook/notebook user always in hurry, and that
brings down both the login/logout alternatives. For a desktop, though,
the shutdown is nicer.

Sure everything can be ignored, but that also means that such feature
would affect a lower percentage of users, making it less compelling.
I also think that doing things at start up will require much more code
respect of the shutdown option and increased complexity in the
configuration panels (see for example the proposed configuration panel
that will be needed for handling the pop-under intrusiveness
http://tinyurl.com/koommq . are we sure we need that?)

A few more points:
- auto-downloading the updates is already there, but it's optional and
opt-i

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login (was: Re: [Fwd: Update manager])

[tacone]

> My roll on the Canonical Design and User Experience team is to make Ubuntu
> the most enjoyable to use operating system in the world, so I hope you can
> forgive me for making "[it offers a] more pleasant experience" the main
> thrust of my argument.

David, as I told before, there's no intent of bashing you.

> Even if you knew you
> could leave something running on your machine and go home, it still might
> cause a lingering uncertainty (did it ask me for confirmation? Was there an
> error? Is my computer still on right now? Is it logged in?!)

This is something I can agree with. (oh well, it should probably log
out before upgrading, but the other points still apply).

That said, I feel i've exhausted my thoughts on the topic. I'll leave
the rest of you brainstorm on the idea :)

Stefano

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login (was: Re: [Fwd: Update manager])

[Wouter Stomp]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:38 PM, David Siegel wrote:
> Most of us would be perfectly comfortable initiating an update on shutdown,
> and walking away from our machine, but I'm not sure if less sophisticated
> users are similarly comfortable behaving this way.
>

Most users don't care about updates and don't want to care about them.
Ideally all updates should be installed automatically in the
background without the user noticing anything. There is a strong study
by google favoring silenty updating the browser, as google chrome
does: http://www.techzoom.net/publications/silent-updates/index.en
Quote from the conclusion: "With silent updates, the user does not
have to care about updates and system maintenance and the system stays
most secure at any time. We think this is a reasonable default for
most Internet users. Furthermore, silent updates are already well
accepted for Internet Web applications." Of course this has some
downsides, but in the end, I think this is the way to go, not
bothering the end user with any computer maintainance tasks.

Cheers,

Wouter

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login (was: Re: [Fwd: Update manager])

[David Siegel]

I think this is the ideal, but every time I start to bring up implicit updates, 
I get smacked :)


David

Wouter Stomp wrote:

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:38 PM, David Siegel wrote:

Most of us would be perfectly comfortable initiating an update on shutdown,
and walking away from our machine, but I'm not sure if less sophisticated
users are similarly comfortable behaving this way.



Most users don't care about updates and don't want to care about them.
Ideally all updates should be installed automatically in the
background without the user noticing anything. There is a strong study
by google favoring silenty updating the browser, as google chrome
does: http://www.techzoom.net/publications/silent-updates/index.en
Quote from the conclusion: "With silent updates, the user does not
have to care about updates and system maintenance and the system stays
most secure at any time. We think this is a reasonable default for
most Internet users. Furthermore, silent updates are already well
accepted for Internet Web applications." Of course this has some
downsides, but in the end, I think this is the way to go, not
bothering the end user with any computer maintainance tasks.

Cheers,

Wouter


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login (was: Re: [Fwd: Update manager])

[tacone]

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:02 AM, David
Siegel wrote:
> I think this is the ideal, but every time I start to bring up implicit
> updates, I get smacked :)

Understandable.
I should also say that browser upgrades are different from whole OS
upgrade (not to mention we have PPA's and similar stuff).

That said, the setting for automated upgrades already exists
(system->administration->software sources->updates). If you feel this
is important, consider proposing a more prominent place to let users
opt-in automated upgrades. (like, say, Ubiquity. We may place a
"Perform the upgrades for me" checkbox just under the 'autologin'
checkbox)

Stefano

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login (was: Re: [Fwd: Update manager])

[Wouter Stomp]

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:22 AM, tacone wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:02 AM, David
> Siegel wrote:
>> I think this is the ideal, but every time I start to bring up implicit
>> updates, I get smacked :)
>

Had the same experience :-)

> Understandable.
> I should also say that browser upgrades are different from whole OS
> upgrade (not to mention we have PPA's and similar stuff).
>

Of course whole os upgrades are more complicated, but that doesn't
make it impossible. There are some problems to be solved (eg firefox
behaving strangely when it is updated while in use), but I haven't
seen any probkem brought up that can't be solved.

> That said, the setting for automated upgrades already exists
> (system->administration->software sources->updates).

That works only for security updates.

> If you feel this
> is important, consider proposing a more prominent place to let users
> opt-in automated upgrades. (like, say, Ubiquity. We may place a
> "Perform the upgrades for me" checkbox just under the 'autologin'
> checkbox)
>

That would be nice, and have it checked by default.

Wouter

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login (was: Re: [Fwd: Update manager])

[tacone]

>> If you feel this
>> is important, consider proposing a more prominent place to let users
>> opt-in automated upgrades. (like, say, Ubiquity. We may place a
>> "Perform the upgrades for me" checkbox just under the 'autologin'
>> checkbox)
>>
>
> That would be nice, and have it checked by default.

Disagreed. People tether from mobile phones and 3g usb modems. Or
they're in a 3rd world country and have slow connection.
Make it opt in.

Stefano

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login (was: Re: [Fwd: Update manager])

[Allan Caeg]

You might want to read this 
http://lifehacker.com/5295449/disable-ubuntus-annoying-update-manager-popup



Alex Launi wrote:
I figured I should start a new thread for this, so that you can all 
continue your icon vs. pop-under debate, which is still relevant for 
the auto-login case, although it becomes much less important. I've 
copied and pasted the relevant posts from the previous thread into 
this one. Have at it.


===

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Alex Launi > wrote:
I had meant to chat with Martin Pitt after his plenary, but never 
managed to catch up with him. I forgot about it until I was going 
through my notebook the other day. It would be really great if when 
update-manager presented itself, some bugs (ones that you 
reported/subscribed to on LP) had a nice messsage that made you really 
excited to update because your bug was fixed! Make updates fun!


David Siegel also had a really great idea for making updates fun (and 
it also solves the issue of how to handle updates- notification icon 
or pop-under window) at the "install updates on shutdown" discussion. 
Let me preface this with these are his ideas and not mine, I think 
they're great and he deserves the credit. His idea was to do updates 
at login. We could do the checking while you're using, and then if we 
find them on reboot show them in gdm with a nice present icon, like 
we're giving you a gift. This way if an update requires a restart, you 
don't have to save your state, restart, blah blah blah and interrupt 
your entire workflow, you haven't started yet. It might not be 
possible now, but when the clutter gdm finally lands we could do it 
really beautifully.


--
-- Alex Launi

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:06 PM, tacone > wrote:

Good intent, bad idea.
When you turn on the pc it's because you needed. Windows shows the
update notification on shutdown, which makes much more sense (and if
you just installed some reboot requiring update, even more).

I wouldn't oppose to a well done, good designed entry on shutdown:


Updates available !  Keeping your system up to date is important.
[x] Install the updates before logging out. [ Open the update manager ]
-

Stefano

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Alex Launi > wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:06 PM, tacone > wrote:


Good intent, bad idea.


I disagree, let's imagine this scenario, together...


It's Tuesday morning, you get up and turn on your computer. Whilst you 
were fast asleep dreaming of sugar plums and sexy librarians Ubuntu 
packagers were hard at work packaging updates for your favourite 
operating system. Now that it's morning, these updates are available, 
for you! You boot up and arrive at the slick new GDM. But what's this 
message?


"New updates available! Click here to install"

Some days you're very busy, and need your computer right away so you 
chose to ignore them and log right in. That's ok, they'll be available 
when you're ready. Update Manager shouldn't go away, you should be 
able to launch it yourself manually if you want to update once you've 
logged in and found out that DST was this weekend and you've got some 
extra time.


But today you decide to click. The interface changes nicely into a 
screen displaying what updates are available, and asking for your 
username and password to authorize install / log in. If you're not an 
administrator we will politely tell you that you can't perform an 
upgrade, and that you should let your administrator know that your 
system needs some updates. At this point we just finish the login, 
since you just gave us your info. Awesome.


Now let's say you are an admin, this update requires no reboot so we 
log you right in, and when the desktop is loaded there is already a 
dialog waiting giving you the progress of your update. You may 
continue working, you weren't cost much time, and your system is fully 
secure because you're up to date.


But next time there might be a kernel upgrade, which will require a 
restart. In this case we should ask the user what they'd like to do. 
In some cases the estimated time to finish (which we will show) may 
only be 2 minutes, and we can afford that so we just halt the login 
and modally install the upgrades, or we allow them to say "ok i 
recognize that this update will need a restart to apply, but I need my 
computer- so lets continue like there are no updates that require a 
reboot, and I will reboot when I'm ready.




Awesome, right?

--
--Alex Launi

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Charlie Kravetz 
mailto:c...@teamcharliesangels.com>> wrote:

What about those who use an autologin? They will never see those gdm
screens.

--
Charlie Kravetz
Linux Registered User Number 425914  [http://counter.li.org/]
Never let anyone steal your DREAM.   [http://keepingdrea