Comment 151 for bug 332945

>ddumont, that something is years-old and well-established does not mean
>it is correct. (For example, applications have been asking for over 25
>years whether you want to "save changes" to documents, but that's always
>been nonsense and should be fixed eventually.) Nor does it mean the
>behavior should be configurable. (Though in this case, it is.) And we're
>obviously not "choosing to ignore" feedback, albeit that your unhelpful
>tone makes that quite tempting.

I apologise for my "tone" but you must realise that your opening statement
sounds rather arrogant.
Who are you to decide what is right and what is wrong? We are the users, we
get to decide.

In fact, judging form the length of this thread and the number of dupes, I'd
say that the feedback has been a rather resounding "no" to your proposed
change and I hope that you consider backing it out completely until a less
annoying solution presents itself.

On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Matthew Paul Thomas <email address hidden>wrote:

> ddumont, that something is years-old and well-established does not mean
> it is correct. (For example, applications have been asking for over 25
> years whether you want to "save changes" to documents, but that's always
> been nonsense and should be fixed eventually.) Nor does it mean the
> behavior should be configurable. (Though in this case, it is.) And we're
> obviously not "choosing to ignore" feedback, albeit that your unhelpful
> tone makes that quite tempting.
>
> ami_nakata, all the examples I provided in the mailing list message, of
> automatically-opening windows, are also what you call "off-task"
> windows. Providing the ability to turn them off would imply either that
> they weren't necessary in the first place, or that there was a different
> but similarly effective way to present them. If we thought either of
> those things were true, we wouldn't be doing this in the first place. If
> you have an alternative proposal for how to present persistent
> notifications, then as I suggested to Peter Whittaker, you're welcome to
> post them on the Ubuntu wiki for further discussion.
>
> --
> [Jaunty] Update Notifier icon would provide useful status information
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/332945
> You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
> of the bug.
>
> Status in Ubuntu Release Notes: New
> Status in “update-notifier” source package in Ubuntu: Confirmed
> Status in update-notifier in Ubuntu Jaunty: Won't Fix
>
> Bug description:
> I am referring to the removal up the update-notifier in the Gnome
> notification area. The discussion of it is embedded in the thread headed
> by:
>
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2009-February/027416.html
>
> Specific messages worth reading are:
>
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2009-February/027434.html
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2009-February/027451.html
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2009-February/027454.html
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2009-February/027437.html
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2009-February/027445.html
>
> Matthew Paul Thomas says that the desired behavior is:
>
> * When there are security updates, Update Manager will open and show
> them (plus any other available updates) within a day.
>
> * When there are non-security updates, Update Manager will open and
> show them *one week* after it was last opened (whether it was last
> opened manually or automatically, and regardless of whether updates
> were actually installed then).
>
> * When there are no available updates, Update Manager will not open
> automatically at all.
>
> Desired by whom? And where was discussion of this change that effects the
> entire Ubuntu community? Because some percentage of users don't apparently
> understand that the notification area has meaning, we are not going to use
> it for updates? Chow Loong Jin raised a valid point that if update
> notification is now done by opening the entire update manager program,
> perhaps evolution and similar should open their application UIs rather than
> use the notification area. And there are concerns about unintended
> functional consequences of this ill-conceived change, discussed in the
> thread.
>
> Personally, I predict that opening the Update Manager window while people
> are working will piss off a lot of users when it happens, and may result in
> them wanting to disable automatic checking. Yes, that'll be highly
> desirable, won't it?
>
> In other words, this change should be corrected, and a notification icon
> should be displayed when updates are available.
>
> To disable the new behaviour and get the old behaviour use:
>
> gconftool -s --type bool /apps/update-notifier/auto_launch false
>
> Take into account that this gconf change is not supported.
>