I have never, ever left auto updating turned on because i often can't spare the bandwidth, may be using an IP address I don't want to make non-Tor connections from, or cannot spare the CPU load on the netbook. I have yet to have a use case where I could get away with it on something other than a server(for which it may be crucial).
On 5/19/2017 at 5:59 PM, "Len Ovens" <l...@ovenwerks.net> wrote: > >On Fri, 19 May 2017, Ross Gammon wrote: > >> On 05/17/2017 12:38 AM, eylul wrote: >>> Disabling auto-updates should NEVER be the default, period. It >would >>> leave users system vulnerable to attacks. > >Strongly dissagree on that one. Auto updates are performed on no >real time >schedule and often happen while the user is trying to do >something. If >auto updating _must_ be done then it should be moved to cron and >the user >should be asked to choose the time. If autoupdates are turned off, >there >_is_ a warning Icon that shows up in the top bar that says "hey >you >haven't updated for a while would you like to check for updates." >That is >good enough. The user can choose when that happens. This also >avoids the >"hey I need Chromium so a can join a meeting on hangouts but I >can't >download it because some other process is up dating my system for >some >unknown amount of time." > >> Fair enough (considering there are other use cases for US than >audio work). > >Auto update can be anoying no matter what kind of work is being >done. It >slows compile times, graphic render times (so video too) and >introduces >those "it works most of the time but every once in a while" kinds >of bugs. > >>> Users can turn off the auto-updates if they want to.(Go to >>> "software&Updates" -> "Updates". You can change how often the >system >>> checks for updates, it currently only downloads and installs >>> automatically security updates, and displays the rest.) >Advanced users >>> can make that choice. It is not ours to make. > >It is very much our choice to make. High disk/network/cpu load >activities >should _never_ be run without user request on a work machine. The >user >should have to work hard to screw up their system, it should not >be done >for them (automatically). > >> Well - I prefer to check what the updates are before installing >them. >> Sometimes, they can be quite disruptive (e.g. temporarily >disabling >> something). It might be better to pull the internet cable out >instead ;-) > >Yup, one more reason for no auto updating. > > ----------- >In thinking about auto mounting of media I realize that we >probably don't >need it. Automounted or not, the devices icon shows up in the file >browser >anyway... so what does automount gain besides opening a new window >in the >middle of things? Does it improve a workflow? > > >-- >Len Ovens >www.ovenwerks.net > > >-- >ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list >ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com >Modify settings or unsubscribe at: >https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
