Contributor turbolad - Ubuntu brainstorm

Ubuntu QA:

Blog

Brainstorm

Package status

Update manager

Idea sandbox

Popular ideas

Ideas in development

Implemented ideas

Contributor turbolad on Update manager

Update manager should notify in advance if installing updates needs rebooting.

Written by amoalsale the 3 May 12 at 04:52. New

Many times when we get notification that updates are available for the system we often click on install update button without even looking at the details as we know keeping the system up-to-date keeps it stable. But many times once updating is finished systems asks for reboot and everytime its not possible to reboot immediately. For example when we are working on remote sessions on telnet or ssh or editing something important on internet.
It may also be observed that untill you do not reboot the system it behaves irratically.

40
votes

10
votes

See the 6 comments or propose a solution (latest comment the 16 Aug 12 at 10:35) >>

Update Manager: updating open programs not possible - users should close them

Written by turbolad the 2 Apr 12 at 10:32. Not an idea

When the Update Manager is updating the programs, these programs should not be open at the same time.

Here's an example of what I've witnessed: if Chromium is open at the same time that Flash Player is being updated, the user visits a website with Flash content and the site says Flash is not installed. But when Chromium is closed and opened again after the update, Flash Player works again.

0
votes

Solution #1: Advise users that open programs may need to be closed during updating

Written by turbolad the 2 Apr 12 at 10:32.

To help avoid the confusion of programs behaving unexpectedly e.g. Chromium when Flash Player is updated, recommend that programs may have to be closed during the update process, or recommend the programs be closed and opened again if the update applies changes to the program.

It's "sod's law" that newbies will have many programs open when the Update Manager is updating them, and problems arise which confuses the user. I've witnessed that!

See the 3 comments or propose a solution (latest comment the 3 Apr 12 at 10:29) >>

64-bit Flash Player PPA for restricted extras install on Ubuntu 64-bit versions

Written by turbolad the 15 Feb 11 at 16:13. Implemented

No idea so far has suggested that users are offered a means of easily obtaining the 64-bit Flash Player when installing the restricted extras. Having checked the other ideas for duplicates, none have mentioned adding the special repository, until Adobe releases the stable version of 64-bit Flash Player.

32-bit Flash on 64-bit Ubuntu is known to be very problematic!

39
votes

Selected solution (#1): Add the special 64-bit repository when restricted extras are installed on 64-bit

Written by turbolad the 15 Feb 11 at 16:13.

Ubuntu cannot legally include Adobe Flash Player with the installation, so users have to request it by installing the restricted extras.

For 64-bit versions of Ubuntu, there is a special repository (PPA) which allows users to always have the latest 64-bit beta versions of Flash Player: https://launchpad.net/~sevenmachines/+archive/flash

While "beta" is not perfect, it allows users to have a fully functioning Flash Player and the repository will allow the beta versions to be kept up to date for security (Flash player has a poor track record for security, so keeping Flash up-to-date using that PPA is crucial!).

THIS IS A TEMPORARY FIX UNTIL THE 64-BIT FLASH PLAYER COMES OUT OF "BETA". Please read the comments. Cheers.

See the 7 comments or propose a solution (latest comment the 22 Sep 11 at 01:16) >>

Recommend users leave Update Manager on "Long term support releases only"

Written by turbolad the 10 Feb 11 at 11:07. Not an idea

The default setting for upgrades in the Update Manager is to show "Long term support releases only" (LTS). Users should know this is the recommended default.

-18
votes

Solution #1: Recommendation text in Update Manager

Written by turbolad the 10 Feb 11 at 11:07.

Above the setting to change the "Release upgrade", have the following wording (or similar wording) in red text - example of layout:

____________________________________

It is recommended to leave the setting below to "Long term support releases only".
Changing the release upgrade option is intended for advanced users.

Release upgrade
Show new distribution releases: |Drop-down options|
____________________________________

Upgrading Ubuntu more frequently increases the chances of regressions - PLEASE READ THE COMMENTS.

28
votes

Solution #2: Change the default to non-LTS releases

Written by Darwin Survivor the 13 Feb 11 at 07:54.

Why is the default LTS-only releases when
A) Ubuntu website promotes the newest (LTS or not)
B) Canonical & Friends advertise "new version every 6 months"

This is just down-right confusing to inexperienced users. Besides, the 6-month release contain important updates such as open/libreoffice, firefox, thunderbird that even windows users are getting WAY before ubuntu LTS users.

See the 13 comments or propose a solution (latest comment the 8 Aug 11 at 00:50) >>

Non-LTS (Long Term Support) versions should be "beta" and used to create new LTS

Written by turbolad the 6 Feb 11 at 01:41. Not an idea

LTS versions of Ubuntu are released every 2 years on even-numbered years in the month of April. Between LTS releases, savvy users could test the non-LTS versions and report problems, so the LTS releases contain all the fixes RATHER THAN NEW FEATURES - which haven't been beta-tested. If it sounds confusing, let me explain briefly:

By default, the Update Manager tells users when LTS upgrade versions of Ubuntu are available. If the user wishes to upgrade to non-LTS versions at least every 6 months by selecting the option "Normal releases" in the "Updates" tab, they would have changed the DEFAULT setting in the Update Manager (or they may download the new Ubuntu .iso files if installing cleanly), so they are more likely to be experienced users of Ubuntu who don't mind installing the new Ubuntu OS regularly.

By building the LTS version from previously beta-tested releases, non-technical users and newbies are far less likely to experience problems after upgrading.

-16
votes

Solution #1: Non-LTS versions should be classed as "beta" to help build next LTS release

Written by turbolad the 6 Feb 11 at 01:41.

Given the default setup is for users to be informed of LTS releases, non-LTS should be classed as "beta" and new features added to these "beta" releases. When problems are discovered, reported and fixed - THEN add these features to the next LTS version. This would greatly reduce the problems users may experience when they have to upgrade, such as regressions (when a program or hardware device worked in the previous version of Ubuntu, but does not work in the next version) and so on.

An alternative is to show a warning message box to users if they change the Update Manager settings for "Normal releases" or try installing a non-LTS release cleanly.

-13
votes

Solution #2: Provide updates for each LTS release for at least 6 years or maybe longer.

Written by turbolad the 7 Feb 11 at 15:55.

A computer can be used with the same version of Ubuntu and users won't feel forced to upgrade Ubuntu, as this can cause problems...

Upgrading sometimes breaks programs or stops hardware devices working (sometimes things like power management stop working), which worked fine in the previous Ubuntu.

Please read my lengthy comment to see why users - who are familiar with Microsoft Windows - would find this solution more comfortable.

See the 8 comments or propose a solution (latest comment the 8 Aug 11 at 00:39) >>

Upgrading Ubuntu is not always desirable just to fix a few programs

Written by turbolad the 26 Jun 11 at 12:30. Already implemented

Why is it necessary to upgrade Ubuntu just to fix a few trivial programs? As an example, I could not install Ubuntu version 11.04 on a friend's PC (the Nvidia graphics driver was VERY problematic on Ubuntu version 11.04), but Ubuntu 10.10 did not have that problem - however a few programs such as the game "Lights Off" don't work in Ubuntu version 10.10. This is why I'm asking: is it really necessary to upgrade Ubuntu just to get the fixes for programs such as the "Lights Off" game?

Why not deliver the fixes via the Update Manager instead of forcing the user to upgrade the entire operating system?

0
votes

See the 3 comments or propose a solution (latest comment the 29 Jun 11 at 03:05) >>

Upgrade distribution is very long

Written by ementos the 12 Oct 10 at 18:28. New

Once every half year or at least once every 3 years, users need to upgrade own ubuntu. It's very long process... I upgrade it many times and I did it often evenings...
And the result was I was very tired next morning.

173
votes

188
votes

25
votes

48
votes

60
votes

Solution #5: Avoid too many scary looking questions

Written by turbolad the 26 Oct 10 at 23:13.

Newbies won't understand when asked if they should keep or replace file "XYZ" during an upgrade (where "XYZ" is the filename in question).

If a user was told to edit a file by a forum member for example, is it best to leave that file alone? Only replace that file if the newer one fixes the problem which forced the user to edit that file in the first place?

For newbies, I think it's best not to present them with these scary questions. For experts, an "Advanced" option could offer the experts what newbies don't like seeing. :)

53
votes

Solution #6: Simultaneously download and install

Written by kprateek88 the 3 Nov 10 at 12:27.

When I upgrade, it takes several hours to download the updates, and after that, several hours to install the updates. In the first phase, my CPU and hard disk are lying underutilised. In the second phase, the network is lying underutilised. It is annoying how the upgrader wastes users' time like this.

It should start installing the packages it has downloaded while it downloads more packages. If some packages could affect network connectivity, these can be kept for the end.

4
votes

Solution #7: Patch apt to use axel for simultaneous downloads.

Written by mickstephenson the 3 Nov 10 at 12:53.

The apt-fast script circumvents apt downloading the packages itself by downloading the packages using axel to /var/cache/apt/archives/ before calling apt-get.
Axel is a download manager that can sped up the download by using multiple connections, reducing download time. Over the course of full distribution upgrade the time saving will be very significant.
What I am suggesting is to patch apt to use axel without the need of running the apt-fast bash script.
More info on apt-fast: http://www.mattparnell.com/projects/apt-fast-and-axel-roughly-26x-faster-apt-ge t-installations-and-upgrades.html

1
votes

Solution #8: Use Debtorrent for faster downloading

Written by chinoto the 17 May 11 at 09:44.

Debtorrent uses bittorrent, HTTP (downloads in pieces), and pipelining (simultaneous downloading) to make the process of downloading anything through apt-get much faster and more reliable, all that is needed is widespread use of debtorrent which is suggested in this idea http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/7792/
I proposed some new ideas for implementation and tried to recap some of what everyone else had said in a comment on that page. (Its the one on May 17 2011)

See the 17 comments or propose a solution (latest comment the 18 Jan 11 at 20:49) >>

Update manager has to mage issues instead laying pc in an incomplete status

Written by FabioMarconi the 3 Jan 11 at 11:46. New

Hello
When something went wrong during updates, apport start and report the error.
Then nothing more, the normal-user is layed on his own, with a system in an incomplete (sometimes unusable) status.
If the bug is really present in the package, this is the only and right way, but if not?
Too many times peoples reports bugs that can be fixed with cleaning the cash and running again the update.
So why the update-manager don't tray to manage this issue (clean cache - update - upgrade) invocking apport only at the second issue of the wrong update?
As Ubuntu is every day much more joined by not expert user i think that this point need to be evaluated in-depht

61
votes

See the 1 comments or propose a solution (latest comment the 12 Jan 11 at 08:55) >>

Clean upgrade without losing data

Written by turbolad the 8 Nov 10 at 12:01. New

Many users complain that upgrading Ubuntu breaks programs, breaks device drivers, causes conflicts etc.

How do we solve this problem forever? It would be nice if users could keep Ubuntu updated indefinitely without problems.

Before users upgrade, there are 2 well known tips to avoid problems: 1. Try the new Ubuntu release on a live CD/DVD or live USB to check the device drivers work properly. 2. Cleanly install the new Ubuntu - this is faster than upgrading and works more reliably, although /home folders have to be backed-up beforehand.

50
votes

Solution #1: Upgrades must cleanly install without data loss

Written by turbolad the 8 Nov 10 at 12:01.

I'm not aware of anyone else posting this idea: when upgrading Ubuntu, the update installer could delete everything where Ubuntu is installed EXCEPT for the /home folder and its contents (alternatively, if it were possible to create a partition for /home which could automatically grow when its free space runs low, this would allow clean installs every time the user upgrades).

Now the upgrade can cleanly install everything fresh.

-7
votes

Solution #2: Demo mode before upgrade

Written by R33D3M33R the 9 Nov 10 at 12:02.

Installer can download all packages as it does now. But then it does not install them right away. Instead, it lets the user to choose some kind of Demo mode.

The Demo mode could be Wubi/LiveCD like enviroment, that would let the user to test hardware and software. After testing, he could close the Demo mode and continue upgrading or stop the install.

The Demo mode should also be deselected by default.

This Demo mode would eliminate the need to burn CD/DVD or create USB keys before install and save Ubuntu servers bandwidth, as components would be downloaded only once.

-6
votes

Solution #3: Demo mode to test the new Ubuntu version AND a clean install process

Written by turbolad the 12 Nov 10 at 11:33.

A combination of solutions #1 and #2. The upgrade can run in a similar manner to a Wubi or "live" mode for testing without installing. Users can test everything works (see comments), with a notification that the "live" mode runs slower compared to when it's actually installed.

The clean install method will ensure no "old" data gets left behind and everything gets installed fresh.

Hopefully this combination will put and end to the upgrade problems people often experience when upgrading to a newer version of Ubuntu.

13
votes

11
votes

Solution #5: Make ubiquity's "perserve home" functionality more obvious in the Live installe

Written by TwistedLincoln the 15 Nov 10 at 23:35.

The LiveCD's installer (ubiquity) allows you to install Ubuntu over the top of itself by selecting manual partitioning, and not choosing to format the root partition. It will then do a fresh install, but keep /home intact.

The installer should allow an "upgrade" choice that does this automatically without the user needing to go through the manual partitioning steps.

13
votes

See the 13 comments or propose a solution (latest comment the 13 Dec 10 at 12:36) >>

A compatibility check before upgrading to a newer version of Ubuntu

Written by turbolad the 3 Nov 10 at 15:51. Not an idea

It's great that users can upgrade to newer versions of Ubuntu either every 6 months or 12 months.

One thing the upgrade process seems to lack is a compatibility check at the beginning.

0
votes

Solution #1: Before the upgrade process takes place, check for compatibility issues

Written by turbolad the 3 Nov 10 at 15:51.

When the user decides to upgrade to a new release of Ubuntu, the upgrade program should check to see if there will be any compatibility problems BEFORE doing anything e.g. lack of new propriety drivers for brands such as Nvidia which don't have open source drivers.

On older computers, it would be worth checking the hardware requirements and alerting the user if their computer either does not meet the requirements or performance will be impaired with certain resource-hungry programs e.g. Flash player for Linux on single-core CPU's will perform poorly on videos above 480p and fullscreen.

See the 2 comments or propose a solution (latest comment the 29 Nov 10 at 13:17) >>

Submit your idea