Comment 34 for bug 331054

There are often differences of opinion about what makes for better
usability. A bug report is a poor place to discuss those, because you
end up talking only to the people who agree that it's a bug. I'm only
here because I have a specific interest in this first wave of reactions
to the work I've put in motion and am leading, but in future, I won't be
engaged on individual bugs, especially on those that I don't think are
bugs :-)

The best place to address those differences is on a mailing list. For
the moment, the ubuntu-devel list would be best, but I'll look into
getting one together for focused discussion on user experience.

Even there, the people writing the code will largely carry the day.
Opinions are welcome, but recognise that none of us will get everything
we want. Saying "this doesn't work for me" is useful, but saying it
again and again isn't. Everyone on the GNOME, KDE, Ubuntu or Canonical
user experience teams can change their mind, including me, when
presented with good evidence well articulated.

> I don't think that offering to install updates on shutdown is a good idea because having seen the aftermath of that behaviour in Vista (note that I am not arguing against it purely because Windows does it, but because everyone hates the fact that it does) many issues spring to mind:
> * It makes the whole shutdown process feel slow (the phantom 30 minute shutdown in Vista).
>
We would make the process much more explicit: install updates with clear
progress indication, *then* shutdown.

> * As that will be the only task that the computer is doing certain less experienced users or even all laptop owners will feel obliged to wait for it (especially if they like to turn their computer off at the wall) - that is a pain for them and a great disruption.
>
It would be optional on shutdown.
> * Even if it is optional, most of the time users will feel obliged to say confirm whether or not they will resent it.
>
They would resent being hacked even more.

Mark