I believe that is a point for Free Software, not open source software.
Also, this also doesnāt grant software user authority over the upstreamās design decision, if one really donāt like it one would fork it and implement an option right away.
Have you tried pressing Ctrl + Alt + Delete 7 times in a row in a short period? That should workaround the problem :). Also, thereās Magic SysRq key at your disposal.
There is a reason why the developers are hesitated in giving the option, and I fully respect that while allowing them for seeking the possibilities to mitigate the impact.
Just as they specifically made a post for discussing disabling auto-updates, but do not respond to inquiries and concerns made in that post, just as in this post? āMaking a post and then ignoring itā is not the same as addressing the issue, itās deliberately to blackhole conversation for it.
āIf one does not like it then they can fork itā does not work when half of the software is proprietary and in tandem with internal design decisions. Also, since when has ājust fork itā really worked as an argument to a platform software of this kind?
Yeah, thatās pretty much the arrogant, condescending attitude I expected from this community. Not sure why I commented in the first place, in retrospect.
Well, this topic is about implementing desktop integration for the multiple update control mechanisms that snapd provides, it is not a debate on principles of snapd.
if you face issues with shutdown, this is a bug, snapd should gracefully stop a running update when a sutdown signal comes ā¦ i do not see it ever behaving that way and i run a lot of machines over here, you should definitely open a new topic in the snapd category and provide logs and info so this bug can be fixed and you do not get annoyed by it anymore ā¦ i think for the gist of ālets discuss how we better integrate snapds update control with the desktopā you are a bit off-topic though ā¦
there are plenty of other threads where the base principles of snap updates are being discussed, this is not one of them. turning every technical discussion into a complaint over basic snap principles does not really help to get the actual topic forward.
This is literally a topic about whether or not the snap desktop client should allow people to disable automatic updates. I provided a concrete example of how I had a problem with an automatic update. How is that unrelated? Actually, on second thought, I donāt care. Iām out. I shouldnāt have made an account here to post at all, I donāt know what I expected. This entire communityās attitude towards allowing users to have control over what they have installed has always been the same, arrogant position, and trying to argue about it here was a mistake. Iām just going to mute this and forget I made an account here.
Not agree with the inquiry != Do not respond the inquiry
I agree, however the API is available so anyone with enough motivation should be able to make a compatible Snap Store and, convince all the stakeholders to use it.
please re-read alans original post at the top, it is about exposing the features from:
to desktop users, nothing more. fundamental changes in behaviour of snaps need to be discussed for snapd itself, not in a desktop integration thread. there are already existing threads (linked above from several posts) that discuss this.
this thread is not about permanently disabling updates but about refresh.timer, refresh.hold, refresh.metered and refresh.retain exposure via the UI plus desktop notification integration of snapd.
and again: regarding your āexampleā that snapd slows/stalls shutdown, pretty please file a bug or open a thread in the snapd category and provide the logs you get asked for, since it is a bug.
this is unexpected behaviour that needs to be fixed.
I very much disagree. I cannot speak for @popey but it is clear to me this thread is about tweaking update control to better fit desktop users. Part of this is creating a GUI. Part of this is creating more options tailored towards desktop users. As an example from the original post:
The ability to completely switch off automatic refreshes is not possible via the CLI. This is a new feature. Many replies on this thread discuss what update control features should be added to better support desktop users. As an example, my proposal from the third post:
This is clearly the correct place to discuss the pains of the current update control limitations on the desktop. I do not agree with @imoutthiswasamistakeās tone, but that does not remove from the fact that this thread is the correct place to discuss those matters.
The current restrictions are very unpopular and have a number of unaddressed issues, like when you require a quick shutdown on the desktop.
Although this thread was started with the best of intentions, it seems as if it has gotten nowhere. Five months after the thread started, there has been no communication about any plans to address the issues.
Let us focus on the message instead of the tone. If @imoutthiswasamistakeās tone does not improve, then by all means use admin tools to prevent further abuse. Continuously discussing their tone, however, prevents us from actually solving the issues presented in this (and many other) threads.
Regarding a complete disablement of refreshes this wont be in any UI if it isnāt also in snapd itself, in the API etcā¦ you wonāt disable updates without having backend support in snapd itselfā¦
Itās good to know this is being worked on. It seems the PR you link will solve the issues of applications refreshing while they are running. Users get enough of an advance warning and can choose when to close the application. @zyga-snapd It might be useful to talk about those PRās in these threads, I donāt think many people interested in these features are following snapdās pull requests. This PR shows you are listening and trying to solve the issues discussed in this thread. Itās good to be vocal about that
Regarding complete disablement of refreshes; I donāt think that is necessary to solve the complaints. I think the main thing people want is to be notified of refreshed before they happen and to have the option to delay certain or all refreshes at that point.
To provide some context; when I have a big demo or presentation, I want to pause all updates until after the demo. I donāt think itās a good user experience if I need remember to hold all refreshes before each presentation. My system should notify me that it wants to do a refresh and at that time I can make the consideration whether this is a good time to update. Ideally, these notifications should also provide some detail in what the updates entail (like the version change).
I propose that the ādonāt notify meā toggle in the notifications drop-down (on Gnome) or equivalent be used to indicate that you want to suspend updates until youāve finished doing whatever it is that required you to say āI am busyā.
It does not solve my use case entirely, but I still think itās a good idea. The reason why it doesnāt solve my use case is that I will only toggle ādonāt notifyā during the presentation, not the evening before the presentation. At that time, I still want to receive notifications, I just donāt want any significant changes to my system.
That feature has been mostly discussed here [WIP] Refresh App Awareness . That thread needs an update. There has been good recent progress in that area.
Back in 2018 I filed a proposal to have the refresh, hold etc options available via the āSoftware & Updatesā app (software-properties) included by default to manage updates in Ubuntu, do mark yourself as affected by that bug!
There is one primary reason I decided to finally dump Windows and switch over to Linux.
The reason was that I hated Microsoft deciding for me and deploying new software on my computer without my consent.
I see the benefit for non-savvy users. I still want a way to turn this off. I paid for the computer, I pay for all software (buy software and donate to open-source). The way I see it - I have a natural born right to have full control over my computer and other devices.
I donāt mind if the option to turn off auto-updates is hidden in a deep hierarchy of menus and behind multiple scary warning dialogs. But I want this option.
It needs to be my decision if and when to update. I came to Linux because I thought I would finally have this level of control, only to find out that Iām still going to be treated like a childā¦
Iām a loooong-time GNU/Linux and Ubuntu user.
I was very disappointed about the current forced update policy of snap!
Iām using Linux setups in professional, custom tailored environments, such as audio recording studios, video digitization workstations, etc.
These machines have very specific hardware/software constellations that need to be thoroughly tested, and once everything plays well together, updates are disabled and only performed manually, cherry-picking which component to update when - and especially if.
I understand security concerns (Iām admin and software developer myself), but a major reason for me to use Linux is that I need to have full control over what happens on our setups. This includes the ability to run a stable setup as long as I want to. If this means requiring a very old version of a certain software: so be it.
The freedom to use, study, share and improve - as I see fit.
To quote a previous comment:
It needs to be my decision if and when to update. I came to Linux because I thought I would finally have this level of control, only to find out that Iām still going to be treated like a childā¦
There are people who want automatic updates, and people who donāt.
It has always been that way and there is a reason for it.
Thank you for all your hard work at making Linux an amazingly user-friendly system, but:
Please donāt continue patronizing users.
I am too using my computer to do some actual work.
My experience is that I had been āhackedā 0 time in 21 years, with the same 6 letters password (which is in the p@wned password databases).
On the oposit the last time an update prevented me from working was 1 month ago (MuseScore), and I remember that my setup was broken by upstream bugs in systemd 3 times during the last 2 years, that my setup was broken many times by trying a new kernel (RT for audio), a new Ardour, a new LibreOffice (from so-called āstableā distros repositories). I think the order of magnitude is 100 times in 21 years.
So the point is 100 times broken because of a buggy update released in a āstableā repository, against 0 time hacked.
Iām not aware of any actual relation to Snap. Just pointing out another incident of people and companies being totally screwed over just for following the ābest practiceā of keeping all of their software fully up-to-date (or letting a vendor decide for them when it was time to update).
From the article: āLike MSP attacks, supply chain hacks also have a multiplicative effect; tainting one software update can yield hundreds of victims.ā
Stop forcing auto-updates! You are putting your users at risk!
