[NTLUG:Discuss] Ubuntu Developer Summit for version 10.04

[Ralph Green]

On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 08:15 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 00:26 -0500, Ralph Green wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 13:21 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
> > > >   The way update notification works in 9.04 is really annoying.  I know
> > > > what they were trying to accomplish, but the solution is worse than the
> > > > cure.  The single worst part is having Update Manager open up on the
> > > > screen when it find updates.  This happens in the middle of
> > > > presentations, or other things you are trying to use the computer for.
> > > > I don't tend to work on the newest computers and Update Manager is not
> > > > only distracting, but noticeably slows down the desktop until it
> > > > finishes loading.
> > > 
> > > It, by design, should always start in the background and ask for
> > > attention.  So if it is appearing above any window, that is a bug.
> > > 
> >   It starts in the background.  But, that is still a bad thing.  It
> > noticeably slows down whatever you are working on until it finishes
> > loading.  The window itself is distracting and it starts flashing in the
> > task bar until you pay attention to it.  
> > 
> > > >  Now, you can turn off the auto launch of Update Manager, but that still
> > > > leaves notifications that are too strong.  That big red arrow comes up.
> > > > It makes it look like your system is in danger, even if the updates is
> > > > something like the recent time zone updates.  I am about to start
> > > > putting a cron job in to "pkill update-notifier" once an hour or more
> > > > often.  One of the things I do is setting up machines for people who
> > > > have very little computer experience.  I have kept the deployed machines
> > > > at Ubuntu 8.10 so far.  I don't want to stay with an older version, but
> > > > the way 9.04 works for notifying about updates is just not acceptable.
> > > > Is it going to get better?
> > > 
> > > First, in general I would not recommend killing update-manager.  Things
> > > like security updates should be acted upon promptly.  I think no matter
> > > how much computer experience someone has, they should learn this on any
> > > system they're nominally put in charge of.
> > > 
> > > I think that the solution you're probably looking for here is just to
> > > set up autoinstall updates.  You can do that in software sources, you
> > > shouldn't get any popups.  And as long as you don't enable things like
> > > backports the system should remain stable.
> > > 
> >   That is not the solution I am looking for.  It is not even close.  I
> > need to have usable systems and automatic updates is not the way to
> > accomplish that.  There was at least one time this last 6 months that an
> > update broke stable systems.  It was the Intel X11 drivers and an update
> > made them where X would not start.  I have several computers.  I waited
> > a day or two, and logged in from a virtual console and updated to get
> > things working.  I don't expect inexperienced computer users to do that.
> > Automatic updates is not something I can safely deploy.  I expect I
> > would have ended up driving around North Texas, visiting customers and
> > fixing their computers.
> > 
> > > Autoupdate isn't setup by default as many people feel uncomfortable with
> > > the computer doing things without their permission.  Personally, I feel
> > > like this is a misperception as it already turns of the screen for
> > > you :)  But, that's the reason it's not enabled by default.
> > > 
> >   I hope that is not the only reason it is off.  Whoever makes that
> > decision for Ubuntu should know it is likely to cause infrequent, but
> > serious problems if it is turned on.  My customers run pretty simple
> > applications, mostly email and web browsers.  A lot of people run more
> > demanding applications that have even more dependencies.  Ubuntu has
> > been pretty good about updates not breaking things, but not good enough
> > to recommend auto update.
> > 
> >  I would not want auto update for myself, either.  I have two computers
> > that run a bunch of virtual machines using VirtualBox.  Neither can use
> > KVM because they don't have hardware virtualization support.  I have to
> > shutdown all those virtual machines and reboot the host machine when one
> > of the many updates comes through that requires rebooting.  I need to
> > control when that happens, so the work being done by those virtual
> > machines is not impacted too badly.  I may run more virtual machines at
> > home than many people, but I know I am not alone.  Auto update would be
> > a terrible thing for me have turned on.
> 
> After all this, it seems to me that you're saying you don't want updates
> being shown to users.  Ever.  Which seems like a bad idea as we'd be
> effectively creating users that couldn't maintain their own computers --
> which is not good.  We need to make the update solutions we deploy
> empowering for users, not make them more dependent on professionals.
> Now, I'm not saying that we're there, but I think that should be the
> goal.
> 
 I absolutely want users to know about updates and have control over
when to install them.  I don't want their work interrupted, like the
current system does.  I saw that happen during a presentation this last
weekend.  It was distracting and served no useful purpose.  The
presenter was not going to stop the presentation and do software
updates.  I would like to see notification, but not a large red arrow
that demands attention.  And, if some people think every little update
demands immediate attention, then perhaps there should be a way to
customize notifications.
 When I suggested I might kill update-notifier, I did not spell out all
of what I had in mind there.  I was also thinking about setting up conky
and having it show the number of updates available.  I don't have that
working in a way I am happy with yet.  But, I definitely want the user
to know about available updates.  I probably would not propose conky as
a general solution.  Just toning down the notifications is a better
general solution.  Is this a topic that would be good to talk to someone
at the Ubuntu Developer Summit about?

> For your specific case I'd say just blank /etc/apt/sources.list and keep
> a backup copy around for when you come to service the machine.  Then you
> can just apt-get update and apt-get dist-upgrade.  And move the blank
> file back.
> 
 Just killing the update notifier seems cleaner than this.  Then, the
user could run Synaptic or Update Manager at any time they wished to get
all updates.  I don't want to take any control from the users.

Good day,
Ralph