Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> Jamin W. Collins: By "gratuitously difficult" I meant you had to (1)
> notice the icon, (2) recall that orange starburst = updates available
> (possibly assisted by a notification bubble, if you happened to look
> during the time the bubble was visible), (3) click on it (the panel
> icon, not the bubble!), and (4) click a button in a separate window.
> With the behavior I designed, you needed to (1) click the button in the
> window. With the 9.04 behavior you need to (1) notice the minimized
> window, (2) unminimize it, and (3) click the button in the window.
> That's not nearly as good, but it's still easier than the 8.10 behavior,
> because the window switcher button is (usually much) larger than the
> icon was.
>
Matthew > this shows just how biased u are towards "the behavior u designed"
 u forgot that the new method also needs a recall + an additional step
of wondering when did i open the update window, so the count is _5_
steps for the new system
even if u want to count it as 4[recall is definitely a step for new
windows] why replace a system ,which u  urself acknowledge as not
"nearly as good" ,for the existing working method which involves the
same number of steps? if u are not making it easier then why change?
the present design DOES NOT make it in anyway shorter or easier, its
just ur bias which makes it seem so.

a good design should NOT exist only from ones own point of view , but
also an unbiased view from all sides...

> Uwe Schilling, Thomas Nardone: As I have already explained several
> times, this is far from the only time programs need to open windows
> unprompted; and conversely, even with a browser blocking popup windows,
> a determined Web site author can still open popup windows or things that
> look like windows. Therefore, trying to distinguish real prompts from
> fake ones by whether they open manually or automatically is dangerously
> wrong. Better defence mechanisms include making Web windows more
> obviously non-native (with help from both the browser and the Ubuntu
> theme), and more informative handling of downloaded executables (Windows
> Vista and especially Mac OS X do a much better job of that than Ubuntu
> does).

so rather than making it hard u are making it easier for the malicious
guys, by creating such security holes ? and telling other softwares to
be better at their job for the holes u create?

> The updates window may not meet that standard yet, but we'll fine-tune the design until it does. 

why didnt u wait till the design meets the standard?
this is like serving uncooked food and saying it would be better when it
is fully cooked,
what we are saying is why wasnt it fully cooked before being force
fed[made a part for the ubuntu-desktop]?

> I have seen no evidence, in this bug report or anywhere
> else, of "the simple need for a form of persistent notification" for
> software updates.

u want an example? the graphics card for my laptop has now changed from
fglrx to Ati drivers and i'v been having several abrupt X-session
shutdowns even in this "completed OS", but this  is not a security issue
in the real sense,  but when i get the updates for this driver i wouldnt
be notified until a week later , but what if i get disrupted in the
middle of an important work and loose all the work? i'v already had
several X restarts several times, but since i NOW save my work regularly
i dont loose data as i did initially...
guess u are waiting for an evidence to debunk 'your design'... the
design is a disaster waiting to happen! atleast for me...

another example:just a few days ago firefox released security updates
back to back in a couple of days,since it was a security updateit was
notified immediately, but for regular updates the interval is 7
days,when an update is done sometimes it might not work well for
everyone, only on the release the devs might know about this and correct
it immediately, so when u have set the default for 7 days the user has
to wait for another update which might have been available the very next
day? u could have set the pop-ups to show up ONLY when the user hasnt
updated for a considerable amount of time.

from ur explanations it just shows ur passion to defend your new design
behavior, but the problem is that not once do u acknowledge the design
flaws others point out, and consider that it would be looked into, this
is what the whole bug report is about
the devs are just being close minded to their design and not thinking
from a general point of view, and not seriously considering the valid
problems several users have raised...