On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 06:29:40PM -0500, Alan Cox wrote: > Utterly. On multihead boxes I've seen it take 30% of the total CPU time > and 20% of the network bandwidth. Its eeeeevil because it should be a > service daemon so it runs *ONCE* and it should chat over dbus or something > to the display which -should-not-flash- - it's very bad UI design (movement > out of the user focus area is distracting) and sucks resources. It also gets 'stuck' sometimes, making the user believe that everything is up to date, whilst running up2date -l, or yum will find packages that need updating. I've also seen it claim updates are available that running up2date on the command line can't find. *boggle* The whole thing needs a bullet in its head imo. I never thought I'd say it, but after having recently bought a mac for my wife, Apple did something right. They have something (possibly a cron job) that looks for updates at a user specified interval, and if nothing is found, it does nothing. You don't even know it checked. If it does find something, it pops up a dialog. None of this flashing red bubble nonsense. The whole time you're blissfully unaware of this going on, which is a big win memory footprint wise. I've heard from other quarters that even Microsoft's update notifier is becoming more sensible than ours. They even have a 'download the updates in the background when things are idle' option aparently, which sounds cute. (think I'd rather be around when it applies them though). > If someone could have that fixed and in testing tomorrow that would be > fantastic ;) Wouldn't it be great ? They'd be my fedora hero-of-the-day. Dave
