Re: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
On Wednesday 23 June 2010 20:32:34 Nathan Dorfman wrote: > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > "Nathan Dorfman" wrote: > >>On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:46 AM, wrote: > >>> I think is very simple...that option can be added but not make it the > >>> default choice, so anyone that can and want to activate it will be > >>> satisfied. We are just making Ubuntu richer in users' options. > >> > >>I agree. This is exactly what I'm proposing. A valid point has been > >>raised about increased load on the update servers, but I think that's > >>an issue that will have to be addressed if needed, rather than a valid > >>reason to continue not having an hourly update option. > >> > >>Moreover, how many people would even see the option or bother to > >>enable it? I would guess that most people probably don't want to be > >>harassed by update-manager more than once per day. On the other hand, > >>if you're in the subset of users who have "Install security updates > >>without confirmation" enabled, you might probably find that checking > >>for updates only once per day is insufficient. > >> > >>Lastly, it is worth noting that Fedora is also a pretty high-profile > >>distribution, and they're able to provide this option (presumably) > >>without their servers grinding to a halt. Again, I would venture to > >>guess that only a small fraction of their users actually change the > >>setting from its default of "daily." > >> > > AIUI, it wouldn't help much on Ubuntu since by default u-m doesn't pop up > > it's window for security updates if it's been opened in the last two > > days. > > Wow. Honestly, I wasn't even aware of this. However, what if the > 'install security updates without confirmation' option is enabled? > > > Scott K I am going to be the devil in this discussion and just ask .. is this even necessary? Sure, might be a "nice to have" option, but are hourly update checks really worth the effort. I honestly cannot think of a single bug (even security related) that would be so critical a user needs it on the hour instead of once a day. Like I said, its nice to have, but is it really worthwhile making somebody do the work needed for this if only a very small subset of people will use it for what I see as really very little gain. There are bigger issues that that time can be spent on rather. Gareth McCumskey -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
Your right but we talk about an option. We shouldn't make it default but it was a nice to have for all people with broadband. I thing it's an good idea. The update-servers have sufficent power? -- Nils Am 23.06.2010 08:43, schrieb Shane Fagan: > You have to remember that not everyone has broadband and not everyone > can download/upload that much. Checking hourly does add up to a lot of > network activity and if you are in a third world country you wouldnt > like it. > > > -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
I'm not sure how you can say "I honestly cannot think of a single bug (even security related) that would be so critical a user needs it on the hour instead of once a day." What would your reaction be if you were to learn that you had been browsing the web for the past 12 hours with a remotely exploitable version of firefox? Just shrug it off and continue with your day? On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Gareth McCumskey wrote: > > > On Wednesday 23 June 2010 20:32:34 Nathan Dorfman wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Scott Kitterman > wrote: >> > "Nathan Dorfman" wrote: >> >>On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:46 AM, wrote: >> >>> I think is very simple...that option can be added but not make it the >> >>> default choice, so anyone that can and want to activate it will be >> >>> satisfied. We are just making Ubuntu richer in users' options. >> >> >> >>I agree. This is exactly what I'm proposing. A valid point has been >> >>raised about increased load on the update servers, but I think that's >> >>an issue that will have to be addressed if needed, rather than a valid >> >>reason to continue not having an hourly update option. >> >> >> >>Moreover, how many people would even see the option or bother to >> >>enable it? I would guess that most people probably don't want to be >> >>harassed by update-manager more than once per day. On the other hand, >> >>if you're in the subset of users who have "Install security updates >> >>without confirmation" enabled, you might probably find that checking >> >>for updates only once per day is insufficient. >> >> >> >>Lastly, it is worth noting that Fedora is also a pretty high-profile >> >>distribution, and they're able to provide this option (presumably) >> >>without their servers grinding to a halt. Again, I would venture to >> >>guess that only a small fraction of their users actually change the >> >>setting from its default of "daily." >> >> >> > AIUI, it wouldn't help much on Ubuntu since by default u-m doesn't pop up >> > it's window for security updates if it's been opened in the last two >> > days. >> >> Wow. Honestly, I wasn't even aware of this. However, what if the >> 'install security updates without confirmation' option is enabled? >> >> > Scott K > > I am going to be the devil in this discussion and just ask .. is this even > necessary? Sure, might be a "nice to have" option, but are hourly update > checks really worth the effort. I honestly cannot think of a single bug (even > security related) that would be so critical a user needs it on the hour > instead of once a day. > > Like I said, its nice to have, but is it really worthwhile making somebody do > the work needed for this if only a very small subset of people will use it for > what I see as really very little gain. There are bigger issues that that time > can be spent on rather. > > Gareth McCumskey > -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Subject: Re: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
And there I was, thinking there was something wrong with my recently-upgraded machine! Being a lazy dev, I just added a cron job to apt-get update on the hour... So I get hourly checks, as per the original thread, but this isn't exactly friendly for the average user ): -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- The competent programmer is fully aware of the limited size of his own skull. He therefore approaches his task with full humility, and avoids clever tricks like the plague. - Djikstra. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
"Loïc Martin" wrote: >On 23 June 2010 20:18, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> AIUI, it wouldn't help much on Ubuntu since by default u-m doesn't pop up >> it's window for security updates if it's been opened in the last two days. > >Why that may happen on Kubuntu, it hasn't been true on any post-Jaunty >Ubuntu releases . Kubuntu uses a different system with it's own problems (which are being addressed). >By default, u-m desn't pop up whether there are security updates or >not, even if the user hasn't updated for month. I can run for weeks >before remembering to fire up u-m manually, and the users I've >installed Ubuntu on don't do that, so they end up month late in >updates (even though they were installing updates regularly >pre-Jaunty). Jaunty had it open behind other windows, so there was a >chance some users would notice it if (and only if) they were not just >having Firefox full screen all the time. With Karmic and Lucid, u-m >doesn't show at all. > >For inexperienced users, automatic upgrades might be a choice to >consider, if only they were not the kind of users that could handle it >the worst, since they won't remember to save their work regularly. > I'm a bit surprised to hear Ubuntu doesn't notify about updates. Scott K -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
On 23 June 2010 20:18, Scott Kitterman wrote: > AIUI, it wouldn't help much on Ubuntu since by default u-m doesn't pop up > it's window for security updates if it's been opened in the last two days. Why that may happen on Kubuntu, it hasn't been true on any post-Jaunty Ubuntu releases . By default, u-m desn't pop up whether there are security updates or not, even if the user hasn't updated for month. I can run for weeks before remembering to fire up u-m manually, and the users I've installed Ubuntu on don't do that, so they end up month late in updates (even though they were installing updates regularly pre-Jaunty). Jaunty had it open behind other windows, so there was a chance some users would notice it if (and only if) they were not just having Firefox full screen all the time. With Karmic and Lucid, u-m doesn't show at all. For inexperienced users, automatic upgrades might be a choice to consider, if only they were not the kind of users that could handle it the worst, since they won't remember to save their work regularly. Cheers, Loïc -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > "Nathan Dorfman" wrote: > >>On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Nathan Dorfman" wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:46 AM, wrote: > I think is very simple...that option can be added but not make it the > default choice, so anyone that can and want to activate it will be > satisfied. We are just making Ubuntu richer in users' options. I agree. This is exactly what I'm proposing. A valid point has been raised about increased load on the update servers, but I think that's an issue that will have to be addressed if needed, rather than a valid reason to continue not having an hourly update option. Moreover, how many people would even see the option or bother to enable it? I would guess that most people probably don't want to be harassed by update-manager more than once per day. On the other hand, if you're in the subset of users who have "Install security updates without confirmation" enabled, you might probably find that checking for updates only once per day is insufficient. Lastly, it is worth noting that Fedora is also a pretty high-profile distribution, and they're able to provide this option (presumably) without their servers grinding to a halt. Again, I would venture to guess that only a small fraction of their users actually change the setting from its default of "daily." >>> AIUI, it wouldn't help much on Ubuntu since by default u-m doesn't pop up >>> it's window for security updates if it's been opened in the last two days. >> >>Wow. Honestly, I wasn't even aware of this. However, what if the >>'install security updates without confirmation' option is enabled? >> > No idea. > > The current way it works was a deliberate design decision during Jaunty > development. Personally I think hiding available updates was a poor design > choice, but that's the decision that was made. Well, I can certainly understand the desire to make it easy for the majority of users, who don't want to be bothered too often. However, I strongly feel that there should be options available for those of us who wish to keep our systems as up to date as possible, particularly in the area of security updates. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
"Nathan Dorfman" wrote: >On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> >> >> "Nathan Dorfman" wrote: >> >>>On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:46 AM, wrote: I think is very simple...that option can be added but not make it the default choice, so anyone that can and want to activate it will be satisfied. We are just making Ubuntu richer in users' options. >>> >>>I agree. This is exactly what I'm proposing. A valid point has been >>>raised about increased load on the update servers, but I think that's >>>an issue that will have to be addressed if needed, rather than a valid >>>reason to continue not having an hourly update option. >>> >>>Moreover, how many people would even see the option or bother to >>>enable it? I would guess that most people probably don't want to be >>>harassed by update-manager more than once per day. On the other hand, >>>if you're in the subset of users who have "Install security updates >>>without confirmation" enabled, you might probably find that checking >>>for updates only once per day is insufficient. >>> >>>Lastly, it is worth noting that Fedora is also a pretty high-profile >>>distribution, and they're able to provide this option (presumably) >>>without their servers grinding to a halt. Again, I would venture to >>>guess that only a small fraction of their users actually change the >>>setting from its default of "daily." >>> >> AIUI, it wouldn't help much on Ubuntu since by default u-m doesn't pop up >> it's window for security updates if it's been opened in the last two days. > >Wow. Honestly, I wasn't even aware of this. However, what if the >'install security updates without confirmation' option is enabled? > No idea. The current way it works was a deliberate design decision during Jaunty development. Personally I think hiding available updates was a poor design choice, but that's the decision that was made. Scott K -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
Uhmmm I don't like that option very much, because imagine that the security updates are being installed and I'm in a hurry and I need to shutdown the machine, I assume that It'll will bother you if Ubuntu tells you that you cannot shutdown the PC. Or there's a black out, something that is very common on Lat America, wouldn't it mess up the OS if the installation is stopped in the middle of the process???...I think that just adding the option and make it a non default choice will be enough. Or is there a way to optimize the process of updating???... Atte. Jonas. Enviado desde mi dispositivo movil BlackBerry® de Digitel. -Original Message- From: Nathan Dorfman Sender: ubuntu-devel-discuss-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:32:34 To: Scott Kitterman Cc: Subject: Re: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option? On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > "Nathan Dorfman" wrote: > >>On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:46 AM, wrote: >>> I think is very simple...that option can be added but not make it the >>> default choice, so anyone that can and want to activate it will be >>> satisfied. We are just making Ubuntu richer in users' options. >> >>I agree. This is exactly what I'm proposing. A valid point has been >>raised about increased load on the update servers, but I think that's >>an issue that will have to be addressed if needed, rather than a valid >>reason to continue not having an hourly update option. >> >>Moreover, how many people would even see the option or bother to >>enable it? I would guess that most people probably don't want to be >>harassed by update-manager more than once per day. On the other hand, >>if you're in the subset of users who have "Install security updates >>without confirmation" enabled, you might probably find that checking >>for updates only once per day is insufficient. >> >>Lastly, it is worth noting that Fedora is also a pretty high-profile >>distribution, and they're able to provide this option (presumably) >>without their servers grinding to a halt. Again, I would venture to >>guess that only a small fraction of their users actually change the >>setting from its default of "daily." >> > AIUI, it wouldn't help much on Ubuntu since by default u-m doesn't pop up > it's window for security updates if it's been opened in the last two days. Wow. Honestly, I wasn't even aware of this. However, what if the 'install security updates without confirmation' option is enabled? > Scott K -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > "Nathan Dorfman" wrote: > >>On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:46 AM, wrote: >>> I think is very simple...that option can be added but not make it the >>> default choice, so anyone that can and want to activate it will be >>> satisfied. We are just making Ubuntu richer in users' options. >> >>I agree. This is exactly what I'm proposing. A valid point has been >>raised about increased load on the update servers, but I think that's >>an issue that will have to be addressed if needed, rather than a valid >>reason to continue not having an hourly update option. >> >>Moreover, how many people would even see the option or bother to >>enable it? I would guess that most people probably don't want to be >>harassed by update-manager more than once per day. On the other hand, >>if you're in the subset of users who have "Install security updates >>without confirmation" enabled, you might probably find that checking >>for updates only once per day is insufficient. >> >>Lastly, it is worth noting that Fedora is also a pretty high-profile >>distribution, and they're able to provide this option (presumably) >>without their servers grinding to a halt. Again, I would venture to >>guess that only a small fraction of their users actually change the >>setting from its default of "daily." >> > AIUI, it wouldn't help much on Ubuntu since by default u-m doesn't pop up > it's window for security updates if it's been opened in the last two days. Wow. Honestly, I wasn't even aware of this. However, what if the 'install security updates without confirmation' option is enabled? > Scott K -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
"Nathan Dorfman" wrote: >On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:46 AM, wrote: >> I think is very simple...that option can be added but not make it the >> default choice, so anyone that can and want to activate it will be >> satisfied. We are just making Ubuntu richer in users' options. > >I agree. This is exactly what I'm proposing. A valid point has been >raised about increased load on the update servers, but I think that's >an issue that will have to be addressed if needed, rather than a valid >reason to continue not having an hourly update option. > >Moreover, how many people would even see the option or bother to >enable it? I would guess that most people probably don't want to be >harassed by update-manager more than once per day. On the other hand, >if you're in the subset of users who have "Install security updates >without confirmation" enabled, you might probably find that checking >for updates only once per day is insufficient. > >Lastly, it is worth noting that Fedora is also a pretty high-profile >distribution, and they're able to provide this option (presumably) >without their servers grinding to a halt. Again, I would venture to >guess that only a small fraction of their users actually change the >setting from its default of "daily." > AIUI, it wouldn't help much on Ubuntu since by default u-m doesn't pop up it's window for security updates if it's been opened in the last two days. Scott K -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:46 AM, wrote: > I think is very simple...that option can be added but not make it the default > choice, so anyone that can and want to activate it will be satisfied. We are > just making Ubuntu richer in users' options. I agree. This is exactly what I'm proposing. A valid point has been raised about increased load on the update servers, but I think that's an issue that will have to be addressed if needed, rather than a valid reason to continue not having an hourly update option. Moreover, how many people would even see the option or bother to enable it? I would guess that most people probably don't want to be harassed by update-manager more than once per day. On the other hand, if you're in the subset of users who have "Install security updates without confirmation" enabled, you might probably find that checking for updates only once per day is insufficient. Lastly, it is worth noting that Fedora is also a pretty high-profile distribution, and they're able to provide this option (presumably) without their servers grinding to a halt. Again, I would venture to guess that only a small fraction of their users actually change the setting from its default of "daily." -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
I think is very simple...that option can be added but not make it the default choice, so anyone that can and want to activate it will be satisfied. We are just making Ubuntu richer in users' options. Atte. Jonas. Enviado desde mi dispositivo movil BlackBerry® de Digitel. -Original Message- From: Nathan Dorfman Sender: ubuntu-devel-discuss-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:38:35 To: Shane Fagan Cc: Subject: Re: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option? On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:43 AM, Shane Fagan wrote: > On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 22:49 -0400, Nathan Dorfman wrote: >> Personally, I would prefer it, and I think it's quite reasonable. Thoughts? >> > > You have to remember that not everyone has broadband and not everyone > can download/upload that much. Checking hourly does add up to a lot of > network activity and if you are in a third world country you wouldnt > like it. > > Daily is fine we dont get that many updates to justify anything else. [Sorry, forgot to Cc the list the first time around.] So? I am suggesting that a new option be added, not that the default be changed. For those of us not in third world countries, I don't think it is at all reasonable to wait up to 24 hours to be notified of a critical security update. > --fagan > > -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:43 AM, Shane Fagan wrote: > On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 22:49 -0400, Nathan Dorfman wrote: >> Personally, I would prefer it, and I think it's quite reasonable. Thoughts? >> > > You have to remember that not everyone has broadband and not everyone > can download/upload that much. Checking hourly does add up to a lot of > network activity and if you are in a third world country you wouldnt > like it. > > Daily is fine we dont get that many updates to justify anything else. [Sorry, forgot to Cc the list the first time around.] So? I am suggesting that a new option be added, not that the default be changed. For those of us not in third world countries, I don't think it is at all reasonable to wait up to 24 hours to be notified of a critical security update. > --fagan > > -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
On Wed, 2010-06-23 at 08:07 +0100, Joao Pinto wrote: > Keep in mind that checking for updates involves a non-trivial > download > of package lists from all repositories the user is subscribed > to. > Unfortunately, it is a much more intense operation than it > appears. > > > > AFAIK the download is only performed if the packages list was changed, > if the local file timestamp matches the server file the cache will be > kept intact. This would only have a significant impact for a very > volatile archive. > > It still has to ping and check which does take some upload and download. --fagan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
> > Keep in mind that checking for updates involves a non-trivial download > of package lists from all repositories the user is subscribed to. > Unfortunately, it is a much more intense operation than it appears. > > AFAIK the download is only performed if the packages list was changed, if the local file timestamp matches the server file the cache will be kept intact. This would only have a significant impact for a very volatile archive. -- João Luís Marques Pinto GetDeb Team Leader http://www.getdeb.net http://blog.getdeb.net -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 22:49 -0400, Nathan Dorfman wrote: > Personally, I would prefer it, and I think it's quite reasonable. Thoughts? > You have to remember that not everyone has broadband and not everyone can download/upload that much. Checking hourly does add up to a lot of network activity and if you are in a third world country you wouldnt like it. Daily is fine we dont get that many updates to justify anything else. --fagan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
On Wed, 2010-06-23 at 00:38 -0400, Nathan Dorfman wrote: > A fair point, but I think that up to 24 hours without a critical > security update could be undesirable in some situations. Certainly, I > think the default should remain "daily." For what it's worth, Fedora's > default is daily but it does provide an hourly option. I still think > it would be preferable for Ubuntu to have one as well... Wouldn't it be awesome if our machines had an optional xmpp connection to each of the servers and when there is a critical security update it could tell each of the machines to update their packages. Just throwing out a solution there, no reason machines couldn't be async. I wonder if xmpp can cope with millions of connections. Martin -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 21:38, Nathan Dorfman wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Dylan McCall wrote: > > Keep in mind that checking for updates involves a non-trivial download > > of package lists from all repositories the user is subscribed to. > > Unfortunately, it is a much more intense operation than it appears. > > > > A fair point, but I think that up to 24 hours without a critical > security update could be undesirable in some situations. Certainly, I > think the default should remain "daily." For what it's worth, Fedora's > default is daily but it does provide an hourly option. I still think > it would be preferable for Ubuntu to have one as well... > > -- What would happen if the package lists were retrieved using zsync? Wouldn't that make it so there was less downloading, and the differences calculations would be on the client, not the server. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Dylan McCall wrote: > Keep in mind that checking for updates involves a non-trivial download > of package lists from all repositories the user is subscribed to. > Unfortunately, it is a much more intense operation than it appears. > A fair point, but I think that up to 24 hours without a critical security update could be undesirable in some situations. Certainly, I think the default should remain "daily." For what it's worth, Fedora's default is daily but it does provide an hourly option. I still think it would be preferable for Ubuntu to have one as well... -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Nathan Dorfman wrote: > Personally, I would prefer it, and I think it's quite reasonable. Thoughts? > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > Keep in mind that checking for updates involves a non-trivial download of package lists from all repositories the user is subscribed to. Unfortunately, it is a much more intense operation than it appears. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
million machines hitting the update servers every hour. hm On Jun 23, 2010, at 10:49 AM, Nathan Dorfman wrote: > Personally, I would prefer it, and I think it's quite reasonable. Thoughts? > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
