Unclear language about Automatic Updates in Software Sources

I agree. I got pretty confused by the wording too.

Reviewing this bug report and its comments it seems that multiple people are in agreement about this issue. Subsequently, I am confirming this bug report. For future reference you can manage the status of bug reports by clicking on the current status in the yellow line and then choosing a new status in the drop down box. You can learn more about bug statuses at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Status .

This bug is still present in Hardy. It's important to fix because implicitly downloading all updates in the background, when the user only wants security updates, is expensive on some Internet connections. So, Hardy +1?

I think we either need a fourth option, or just two check (not radio) boxes as follows:
 1 Download all updates in the background
 2 Download and install security updates without confirmation

Surely if you've checked "Check for updates" you'd expect it to notify you? I don't think it needs to be explicitly stated. If it does there could be a sentence above the check boxes: "You will be notified about available updates."

This bug seems to be a duplicate of Bug #88278, or vice versa.

Why is their no option to INSTALL all updates automatically?

I think it should get higher priority, as it is really confusing. I spent almost an hour trying to find the answer, while it could be fixed with a simple rephrase.

Please also refer to question 55615. It would be great if one could at least change the word "install" to "notify" until a more flexible system is implemented. Currently, the behaviour is just wrong, since "Automatically install updates without confirmation" doesn't automatically install anything.

This silly bug lives on into intrepid and (I presume) jaunty. I really think its priority should be increased as it is very poor wording/options in a place where clarity is very important.

Can we clarify one thing. Is the reality that:

1. The text is misleading.

or

2. The text is exactly describing the real situation -- that you can't download all updates and automatically install security ones.

My experience is that if you choose "install security updates without confirmation", you end up with big bunch of the other updates which still need downloading. This suggests that [2] is the situation and the text is simply telling the truth.

If the text is misleading, surely a fix to the wording would be pretty trivial?

Gavin

I agree, this is an issue. I had to search online for clarification regarding these vaguely worded settings, at which point I was referred to this particular page, which better explains the functions of the options.

I'm surprised that this hasn't been addressed yet in Karmic. As an advanced user I was confused and needed to search for clarification on the meaning of the wording, however a less experienced user is very likely to be misled without noticing the ambiguity.

I propose giving the user more control and making the interface clearer by using a grid layout with radio-buttons instead:

          Install Download Notify
Security: ( ) ( ) ( )
Other: ( ) ( ) ( )

Sorry, I'll try that text diagram again with non-breaking spaces:

          Install Download Notify
Security: ( ) ( ) ( )
Other: ( ) ( ) ( )

Still present in 10.04 .. Does the "Download all updates in the background" mean "Install all updates in the background" ?????

No Pétur, "Download all updates in the background" means exactly what is says - it will download all updates, but won't install them.

This has been bugging me for several releases now. It's just not clear at all. In my case, I want to download all updates automatically, but NOT install them automatically -- so that when I'm ready to install them, I can do so without waiting for a long download process. But the choice "Download all updates in the background" is ambiguous; there's no way to know whether that means "and install them" or "but don't install them". I see that "Josh Brown" (comment above) says it's the latter, but there's no way for me to verify that, other than a) trial and error, or b) searching the internet, neither of which should be necessary. The wording and/or options need to be deobfuscated.

I'm a relatively advanced user and there was no way for me to feel confident in choosing one of these options without doing research. Not only is the wording ambiguous, but the options are too few. For example, what if for some reason I wanted the security updates to be downloaded in the background? Or what if I wanted all updates to be automatically installed?
These seem like separate issues but they are part of why the ambiguous wording is problematic. Why does one of these options pertain to security updates only, while the other two pertain to all updates? This adds to the confusion. I like the idea of a grid of radio buttons that was suggested, but if the text could be made more clear and possibly have the option to hover over or click on the text for more detailed information, it would help too.
Something should be changed, anyway. I think that this should actually be a higher priority because even though it's an issue of wording, the wording is describing settings for a very important function. I think to say that this is of low importance is like saying that documentation for a given software is trivial. If everything works as intended by the developer but people don't know how the developer intended it to work, the potential for misuse is great.

A papercut, maybe? Not sure if an ordinary user is expected to mess with update settings, but they might, and rewording the text to be less ambiguous seems like a fairly minor fix, at least as a start.

Since the average user is unlikely to be editing their update settings, this bus is outwith the definition of a paper cut.

Eu concordo plenamente, porem é bom salientar que atualizações de segurança
o próprio nome já diz, agora informar que estão disponíveis atualizações de
segurança e instalar GAMES no lugar é um pouco destemperado em meu
churrasco, creio que o correto é informar o usuário que existem atualizações
disponíveis, porem na linguagem que consta no sistema do próprio.

2010/12/15 justindisgustin <email address hidden>

> I'm a relatively advanced user and there was no way for me to feel
> confident in choosing one of these options without doing research. Not only
> is the wording ambiguous, but the options are too few. For example, what if
> for some reason I wanted the security updates to be downloaded in the
> background? Or what if I wanted all updates to be automatically installed?
> These seem like separate issues but they are part of why the ambiguous
> wording is problematic. Why does one of these options pertain to security
> updates only, while the other two pertain to all updates? This adds to the
> confusion. I like the idea of a grid of radio buttons that was suggested,
> but if the text could be made more clear and possibly have the option to
> hover over or click on the text for more detailed information, it would help
> too.
> Something should be changed, anyway. I think that this should actually be
> a higher priority because even though it's an issue of wording, the wording
> is describing settings for a very important function. I think to say that
> this is of low importance is like saying that documentation for a given
> software is trivial. If everything works as intended by the developer but
> people don't know how the developer intended it to work, the potential for
> misuse is great.
>
> ** Description changed:
>
> - In Feisty the options for automatic updates in the Software Sources
> - window are unclear.
> + In Feisty, Intrepid, Jaunty, Karmic and Lucid the options for automatic
> + updates in the Software Sources window are unclear.
>
> Currently they are:
>
> -Install security updates without confirmation.
> -Download all updates in the background
> -Only Notify about updates
>
> Which leads to the obvious, and I imagine wrong-headed, question - What
> if I want to install security updates without confirmation and download
> all updates in the background?
>
> I can infer that the security policy goes from most automated to least,
> and so that if I'm installing security updates I'm also downloading the
> rest. But why not spell it a little more clearly? I remember the old
> language seemed good but this is the best I can do, ordered from least
> automated to most:
>
> Notify about available updates and ask for permission to install.
> - but don't install any.
> + but don't install any.
> Download all updates in the background and install security updates
> without confirmation.
>
> If that is too long, I think this might be explicit enough, though still
> potentially ambiguous.
>
> Only notify about available updates.
> Download all updates in the background.
> Download all updates in the background and install security updates
> without confirmation.
>
> --
> You received this bug ...

Why not convert the radio group into check boxes? (see attached screenshot) Allowing users to select each option independently of the others should resolve this issue.

To clarify my last suggestion, the first two check boxes (install and download) should be enabled only when the third (notify) is unchecked.

That's an interesting suggestion, but just turning radio buttons into checkboxes couldn't solve a problem with unclear language.

I have covered how to fix the problem in the updates specification. <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SoftwareUpdates#settings> Now we just need someone to implement it.

Bug 357676 appears to have a branch to fix this.

Users do update and Software Sources is offered from the Edit menu in Software-Center making it a fairly easy dialogue to come across.
The current language is a bit ambiguous there.

Consider marking this bug as a duplicate of #357676.

It's fixed! Looks like "mutually exclusive ui but orthogonal states" gets a better response than "unclear language".

Bug #357676 does indeed have a linked branch that solves the problem, however it looks like this has been the situation for quite some time; the merge has been awaiting approval since 2010-07-25.

We can't get to this bug in Natty, but I'm targeting it to 11.10, as I feel we should fix it.

"Download all updates in the background" is obviously a source of confusion:

http://www.techhamlet.com/2010/11/ubuntu-install-updates-automatically/
http://www.spotht.com/2010/11/configure-ubuntu-to-install-updates.html

Both of those sites recommend selecting "Download all updates in the background" to get all updates downloaded *and installed* automatically. Which is not what this option actually does.

And to repeat the question of #4 above - Brett Alton back in 2008 - "Why is their no option to INSTALL all updates automatically?" Good question.

Surely the language is not merely unclear but actually wrong! In relation to updates and updating, I think the 3 terms "notify", "download" and "install" are pretty unambiguous. And then the phrase "Install security updates without confirmation" is also pretty unambiguous. I do not believe that this describes what happens! I do not believe that any updates to my lucid installation have EVER been installed without first asking me to confirm it.

Am I misunderstanding the use of the phrase "without confirmation"? Are we in Wonderland?

This has been fixed in Oneric see: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/software-properties/+bug/357676/comments/4

Brilliant! Thanks :)