Automatic updates

[Griot]

I voted YES because it would be a handy option to keep an eye on the relevant updates. I'd like to retain control over the process and I'm going to use it (if this option becomes available) for the purpose of information only.

[mavrothal]

There is a first time for everything.
Does not make sense till it happens, till every future puppy includes hidden system breaking risk. Especially with your suggestion - option the user to configure it to do the updates automatically without confirmation.
Even official service pack can become a problem, because the developers do not have information what is installed/changed inside save file from the user and how this service pack could affect it.
Included or not at least add second recommendation message to back up the save file before updating.

This can go on for ever. I really do not have the time.
You started form "this is a disaster" (system update is something every distro has. apt-get does exactly that...) to "what if it was an elephant" to "but you said you may expand it" to ... what next.
Please just tell us to use your debian-spin and leave it there. You are not gaining any points/users by trying to shoot down others, specially with wild and unsubstantiated assumptions.

It is clear that some people think this option is a good idea and some they do not want to have the option to deside for thenselves. To me will never make scene why someone does not want to have the option to be informed but I do not really intend to spend any more time contemplating it.

Edit: Oops... Here is the first time

Are we reading the same thing? It actually says that was not the update that generated the problem!

PS: I do not intend to go on on this any longer. It is what it is...

[saintless]

Please just tell us to use your debian-spin and leave it there. You are not gaining any points/users by trying to shoot down others, specially with wild and unsubstantiated assumptions.

I can't remember writing here anything about my debian-spin. If you have a problem with it use the debian-spin thread to share it.
apt-get update options are exactly the opposite to your suggestion - the user has control what to install and description of each package.

Are we reading the same thing? It actually says that was not the update that generated the problem!

Now I doubt we are reading or speaking the same language. I guess you think uninstalling the update reverse back the previous state before the update was installed? Yes it is like that in debian-spin. Not in Puppy.

PS: I do not intend to go on on this any longer. It is what it is...

Done.

[balloon]

I had the just same thought in Japanese Facebook group. I added a YES vote.
I think that the implementation of the function should be able to advance.
I think that it is necessary to build the environment where Puppy can tolerate for unknown security issues.

[Bird Dog]

To be able to click a button and see what updates your OS needs is very convenient and it would save the user (especially new user) from searching the forum security section for updates and I would vote yes to this.
To download automatically I'll vote no like another user already mentioned because of problems I had with Ubuntu (almost had to toss the HD)
The manual check would be very helpful to a new user with an old computer because the OS needed would not be the latest and need updates (heartbleed, shellshock, wget). This would also help the helper who wouldn't have to gather all the links to the updates when helping a newcomer and just say here's your OS and don't forget to check the update button for three updates.
Speaking of which is there a place where we could direct someone with all the updates for each OS. For example we tell the newcomer here is a link of all the updates for Precise, Wary, Lucid etc. until we get an update button.

Thanks
Bird Dog

[watchdog]

Speaking of which is there a place where we could direct someone with all the updates for each OS. For example we tell the newcomer here is a link of all the updates for Precise, Wary, Lucid etc. until we get an update button.

The manual user-authorized check for updates wants to be an improvement for new puppies. It can be "dangerous" or not depending on its use. For old puppies I think it would be a hard work to collect all the possible security and not-only-security updates in repositories. Someone use a puppy to just get online without security needs, others want to secure login to the online bank. It depends on your needs what might be installed in your puppy.

[ardvark]

Hi all...

I voted no mainly because of my experiences with other distributions that have this feature, usually with update windows popping up every single session wanting me to update or upgrade. This will happen even if I set the updater to check only weekly.

Regards...

[mavrothal]

I voted no mainly because of my experiences with other distributions that have this feature, usually with update windows popping up every single session wanting me to update or upgrade. This will happen even if I set the updater to check only weekly.

But the proposed feature leaves it up to the user if the automatic check will be activated. And can be deactivated at a latter point too.
So what is the fear if this feature is included? Not to be able to resist activating it?...

BTW I hope you all have updated to wget 1.16 as all previous versions can be avenues of compromise if you visit a malicious site.

[ardvark]

So what is the fear if this feature is included? Not to be able to resist activating it?....

My concern would be how such a feature is implemented. If it's strictly a manual check that the user initiates and there is complete writeup about the offered update and any reported side affects and breakages, then I might be inclined to support it. I really don't want to see how this whole procedure is handled in Windows and Ubuntu, as examples, ported over to Puppy.

Thank you for the heads up concerning wget, however I am unable to find 1.16 in a .deb at the moment.

Regards...

[ASRI éducation]

But the proposed feature leaves it up to the user if the automatic check will be activated. And can be deactivated at a latter point too.
So what is the fear if this feature is included? Not to be able to resist activating it?...

BTW I hope you all have updated to wget 1.16 as all previous versions can be avenues of compromise if you visit a malicious site.

I agree with mavrothal.
If the utility update allows the user to:
- choose the updates to installed
- view information concerning the proposed updates
Regards

[mavrothal]

Thank you for the heads up concerning wget, however I am unable to find 1.16 in a .deb at the moment.

Distros also provide patched version of older wget versions. Check your updates

BTW is not necessary that visiting legitimate site only can protect you since as many as 12 million sites might be compromised

[ardvark]

Check your updates

Thank you and done, looks like I got the patched version.

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not opposes to having program that downloads and installs program and/or file updates. What I am opposed to is it running automatically with no or little user control. Plus, it needs to give a fully explanation of what each patch does and any reported side effects and breakages so the user can decide if he or she wants it.

Regards...

[neerajkolte]

I'm not opposes to having program that downloads and installs program and/or file updates. What I am opposed to is it running automatically with no or little user control. Plus, it needs to give a fully explanation of what each patch does and any reported side effects and breakages so the user can decide if he or she wants it.

My thoughts exactly.
Thanks.

- Neeraj.

[mavrothal]

I'm not opposes to having program that downloads and installs program and/or file updates.

But this is NOT about downloading and much more installing anything!!!
This is only about automatically letting the user know that an update exists.
What the users does with this information is its own business. (s)he may choose "blindly" to download and update or check the forum to see what is it about before (s)he download and install or just ignore it.

Regarding the nature of the update itself is up to the developer what information may or may not provide about it in advance, ie before you download or before you install.

Currently, BK that is using service_pack, and 666philb that is using quickpet "tahr bug fix", provide information about the content of the update only in the forum and after you install the update.

But again you are not talking about "automatic updates" here, we are talking about "automatic information about available updates".
That is why I' keep being surprised that people "do not want to know"!

[rokytnji]

I'm not opposes to having program that downloads and installs program and/or file updates. What I am opposed to is it running automatically with no or little user control.

Show me a distro other than Windows that does that without user intervention.
I have not seen that feature in Slackware, Debian, Arch, Ubuntu, etc......

I know Windows has that feature. But you have to set that up that way with
Express install, Don't tell me.

Usually voting No means opposed in my neighborhood.
I voted Yes. Because common sense dictates it.

[oldyeller]

I'm not opposes to having program that downloads and installs program and/or file updates.

But this is NOT about downloading and much more installing anything!!!
This is only about automatically letting the user know that an update exists.
What the users does with this information is its own business. (s)he may choose "blindly" to download and update or check the forum to see what is it about before (s)he download and install or just ignore it.

Regarding the nature of the update itself is up to the developer what information may or may not provide about it in advance, ie before you download or before you install.

Currently, BK that is using service_pack, and 666philb that is using quickpet "tahr bug fix", provide information about the content of the update only in the forum and after you install the update.

But again you are not talking about "automatic updates" here, we are talking about "automatic information about available updates".
That is why I' keep being surprised that people "do not want to know"!

This is the first that I recall about it being about information. If that is the case than that would be OK. As long there is not a pop-up any where except in the ppm about the information.

[mavrothal]

This is the first that I recall about it being about information. If that is the case than that would be OK. As long there is not a pop-up any where except in the ppm about the information.

But the poll reads

Automatic check for updates.
YES. The user can authorize automatic checks
NO. No the user should only check manually

And the text of the first post says:

However, such a system does require the user to authorize (once) automatic connection and status-check with ibilio.org.

What do you think? Should future puppies include this security/stability/bugfix feature or should the individual user should be responsible of checking regularly for updates and bugfixes?

And further reaffirmed it in many other cases after that.

Maybe was clear enough but I really do not know what else to do.
It would appear that people read more to it than what is written down.
As I said before is the "M$-exposure" effect

[ardvark]

This is only about automatically letting the user know that an update exists.

...Which is bothersome to me, I don't like update programs (or any other program) that keep popping up even when I tell them I don't want them to or leaves me an icon on the toolbar with a balloon that keeps popping up for me to enable it. I will take care of it manually.

Also, the program needs to fully state the information I've mentioned without users having to go somewhere else for it. This would be helpful for newer users or those without much experience in using computers. With Linux especially, update packages can break others. I've experienced that for myself.

If an option was allowed where a user could choose one or the other (automatically and the format which I've mentioned was offered) and the program was respectful of that choice then I would be willing to be supportive of your request.

Regards...

[oldyeller]

OK, I stand corrected on this. I guess when it comes to the word automatic for most for computers like updates or information. Some of us just don't like that word when it applies to things getting installed that the user has no control of.

I came to puppy for the fact that no one could install anything on my computer unless I did it. So since this is about information on updates. Than it is a good thing since you have already stated that it would be on the user to check on the updates and what it will affect and the possibility of it causing other problems. Than I will say yes to this poll.

Cheers and Have a good day

[mavrothal]

This is only about automatically letting the user know that an update exists.

...Which is bothersome to me, I don't like update programs

But this is an opt-in feature. Do not activate it!
(and really checks once a week and has no balloons of any kind- Forget windows. Really)

The issue is that by voting "no" in a propose opt-in feature it implies that you want nobody else to have this option.