Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?

[Nathan Dorfman]

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
<garethm at nexustech.co.za> wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday 23 June 2010 20:32:34 Nathan Dorfman wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com>
> wrote:
>> > "Nathan Dorfman" <na at rtfm.net> wrote:
>> >>On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:46 AM,  <jonas.diaz.1866 at gmail.com> 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
>