If it makes you happy, yes, I see it. But that doesn't make things better for anyone. We've had more interesting discussions around this issue where people could actually present good arguments towards more control, and some of these conversations resulted in the development of more control features, as presented earlier in this thread.
Also, it's important to realize that it's not me or Canonical that has control over the updates, so it's not me knowing better than you. The goal of this exercise is to have good tooling that would allow updates to flow between a publisher and a user with a better overall outcome.
That means, for example, that we are putting more pressure on publishers to get it right, because they will more quickly and obviously break people if they release something broken. There are actual high profile publishers that changed their processes because of that.
We are also putting more pressure on the tooling, because we need to be able to recover gracefully when the update does fail, and that's one of the reasons why we have a more polished transition and rollback mechanism than any package manager out there.
Yes, maybe it won't work, but it's a very interesting problem and is worth solving. Then, even if we don't fully solve it, the exercise will have been worth it, because it improved all those aspects in meaningful ways.
But I hear you... you're mad at me. Point taken. :-)
Also, it's important to realize that it's not me or Canonical that has control over the updates, so it's not me knowing better than you. The goal of this exercise is to have good tooling that would allow updates to flow between a publisher and a user with a better overall outcome.
That means, for example, that we are putting more pressure on publishers to get it right, because they will more quickly and obviously break people if they release something broken. There are actual high profile publishers that changed their processes because of that.
We are also putting more pressure on the tooling, because we need to be able to recover gracefully when the update does fail, and that's one of the reasons why we have a more polished transition and rollback mechanism than any package manager out there.
Yes, maybe it won't work, but it's a very interesting problem and is worth solving. Then, even if we don't fully solve it, the exercise will have been worth it, because it improved all those aspects in meaningful ways.
But I hear you... you're mad at me. Point taken. :-)