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

[Gareth McCumskey]

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