On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Lennart Poettering <mzerqung@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Di, 02.10.18 14:34, Hans de Goede (hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > >> Ok fair enough. Keeping it easy for users to try out hibernate is >> a valid argument. > > This is just weird. Why would GNOME expose a button to regular user > that reads "hey, press me, please use this feature, but it's not going > to work, and nobody is going to help you with it or fix bugs, > kthxbye". That's just awful UI. > > Quite frankly, this is quite ridiculous. GNOME is not the only user of > this, we shouldn't expose crap that doesn't work in the UI, regardless > what the UI looks like. GNOME has every right to assume that what the > underlying layers advertise works. And when it doesn't then the > underlying layers should stop advertising this. Exactly, gnome is not the only user of this. Why make everyone else change to accommodate gnome? The advertisement that the kernel supports (and the hardware claims to support) hibernate are based on the best available knowledge. If you don't want to expose it in the typical gnome UI, fine, leave it in tweak. People know to look there anyway. I am personally not a fan of how much configuration information gnome hides from the default UI, but it has been that way for years, and it is well known how to work around it. TBH, there are plenty of reasons to not want a fully capable system to hibernate. Whether it be not wanting your memory content written out to disk automatically, wanting faster resume when you know you have enough battery to handle the expected suspend time, etc. The policy should be configurable somewhere. > > If the kernel folks apprently are not willing to clean this up, nor > stop advertising its availability, then I guess we can mask this out > in the systemd RPM, but what a mess, now systemd.rpm suddenly becomes > the dumping ground for policy decisions when kernel code is good > enough and when it isn't, and when the kernel maintainers want to > support something or not. > If systemd is truly just a proxy for the mechanism, there is no actual policy there, why would systemd bother filtering it out at all? Justin _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list -- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
