Feature #7781
"Mark as read" option on 'update available' messages when Persistence enabled
0%
Description
From Tails-support:
- My only worries about auto-internet are possible “MUST UPDATE” or
“Updates Available” postings. I avoid this nuisance like my Windows & Adobe programs. Ugh!
- I wonder how a “mark as read” option for users that have Persistence enabled might work and/or if there’s a wishlist item for it, or what arguments there may be as to why it’d be a bad idea. (I’ve given this far less thought than others likely have).
- This has crossed my mind a few times. I see no compelling argument not
to have it. It’s worth a Low priority ticket IMO.
Subtasks
History
#1 Updated by BitingBird 2014-08-14 14:45:27
I don’t see the interest. If users don’t want to have the “must update” message, then… they update. This happens once every 6 weeks, that’s not often. And it’s a real security problem to keep using an outdated version.
the only case where I see why a user would want to not see those messages is if the next version doesn’t work for them. But in that case, they should make a bug report, and it’s probably going to be fixed in the next version, so they’ll have the “annoying” messages for only 6 weeks.
#2 Updated by emmapeel 2014-08-14 15:06:13
BitingBird wrote:
> I don’t see the interest. If users don’t want to have the “must update” message, then… they update. This happens once every 6 weeks, that’s not often. And it’s a real security problem to keep using an outdated version.
>
> the only case where I see why a user would want to not see those messages is if the next version doesn’t work for them. But in that case, they should make a bug report, and it’s probably going to be fixed in the next version, so they’ll have the “annoying” messages for only 6 weeks.
Yeah I agree, actually that is more or less what I answered in the Tails-support mailing list (Message-Id <20140814101109.19f18238@aktivix.org>) but then some devs showed interest for a ticket so I reported it here…
#3 Updated by intrigeri 2014-08-14 20:21:21
> the only case where I see why a user would want to not see those messages is if the next version doesn’t work for them.
… or, when we’re displaying a security warning for weeks, before providing a fix. Like, since 2 weeks, until September 2. That’s why people are complaining, actually, I think. Granted, it’s a rare situation, but it happens.
#4 Updated by kytv 2014-08-14 20:23:03
BitingBird wrote:
> I don’t see the interest.
As I see it, it could only make sense in a case like the current I2P situation since there’s nothing for users to update to (yet) but they need to know there is a problem with I2P. Once the user acknowledges “You don’t need to remind me about this problem, I’ve read the alert. Cheers! [ticks the box]” they won’t see that same alert.
Other than for this particular type of notice it wouldn’t make much—if any—sense; for the “you really should update” alerts, yes, if they don’t want to see it they really should update. For the I2P case, users just have to deal with it until 1.1.1.
Thankfully for the user on -support, this particular type of alert is pretty rare. For the other times he should just update if he cares about security; if he doesn’t care about security or anonymity, this isn’t a particularly useful project for him…
#5 Updated by intrigeri 2014-09-22 12:40:59
- Status changed from New to Rejected
I’ve re-read the comments, and indeed this happens very rarely. A low priority ticket would mean “if someone wants to implement it, we’re happy to take it”, but:
- we would have to maintain it forever;
- it requires to add a persistence option (we still want things to be opt-in in there, right?) and the corresponding documentation;
- the notification system will likely be changed when we move to Jessie, and then more work to adapt our stuff.
So, I’m rejecting this: it just doesn’t seem worth the long-term effort. If anyone disagrees, please reopen, set “type of work” to discuss, and explain why :)