[ubuntu-studio-devel] Next cycle

eylul eylul at ubuntustudio.org
Sat May 20 00:32:32 UTC 2017

I had a long email written refuting this (which unfortunately went to
Len instead of the mailing list :D).

I don't feel we are a good representative of the skill level of a
general user here. (this ML is mostly developers or at least expert
users, and that reflects on arguments so far). If the choice is
inconvenience and slight risk of breaking (again these are only security
updates, not all updates) vs potential risk of security issues with far
more serious consequences I think it is best to give users solutions
that require minimal maintenance by default, and allow them to override
if they choose to. (not everyone has the skillset nor the interest to
keep up with security issues and what each update does) I am well aware
I am being outvoted here so this will probably be my last comment on the
topic but I still feel strongly still that the best solution is to keep
the auto-updates on by default. I do understand all your points about
why giving easier opt-out to users is a good idea through, and I agree.

I also think that having controls on ubuntustudio-controls to turn
updates on and off is something we can have a consensus on, regardless
of decision? (I actually like a lot of what Len suggested about having
cron based updates where you can set up the time, and reminders about
system being out of date. All of these are good ideas.

Another idea related to this might be to have an introduction screen to
help people finalize their setup. (it would be also good to introduce
the users to audio setup in the controls from the get go). Some of the
other flavors have a similar tools available. I also like the idea of
writing a documentation that Ross suggested (which would make a good
blog post around the launch time).


On 05/20/2017 03:02 AM, lukefromdc at hushmail.com wrote:
> 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" <len at 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 at lists.ubuntu.com
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel

More information about the ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list