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

[Nathan Dorfman]

On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Nathan Dorfman" <na at rtfm.net> 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?
>>
> 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.