On Fri, Apr 22, 2016, 6:48 PM Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Liam <liam.bulkley@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> First, suspending on Linux isn't reliable and hardware dependent. I'm only
> replying to this thread because I've had a long-standing issue with my
> current laptop (here's the bug reported by Florian:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329047).
OK?
The point is that having less options in order to make code more maintainable is smart but there's no point to having nice maintainable code that isn't useful.
> Second, are three power off options too many? It's not as though average
> users aren't well aware of all these options.
In my opinion, yes it's too many for the average user if we're
sampling a global audience. The options should be sleep and poweroff.
When sleep initiates first generation a hibernation file and then
actually do suspend to RAM. If sufficient battery remains, resume
happens from RAM and if not from the hibernation file. Oops, except we
can't resume from the hibernation file due to misconfiguration by
default.
In your opinion, there shouldn't be a restart option either?
To keep this on track I'm only going to say one more thing: opinion and feelings are fine until they result in systems becoming less reliable. At that point, supporting data seems like a minimum requirement.
I certainly agree that s3 should work as you say. In fact, the dracut conf in f22 includes the resume module so obviously the intention was that hibernation wouldn't be such an esoteric option. And as I commented in the bug report, it's better to at least have the chance of recovering your session with hibernation than a guarantee of lost state with s3 completely draining the battery.
> In general, I'd love to see data supporting people's preference for either:
> 1) not being able to choose and having an unpredictable resume experience,
> or 2) exposing the three options so they can determine what trade-off they
> are willing to make given their usage.
I disagree. The user is at least as unreliable as any party in the
discussion except when it comes to their consternation at data loss as
a result of being tricked into hibernating when the system is
configured out of the box to never ever recover properly from
hibernation. It's silly.
The user is an expert in their own use cases and priorities. Data—not from a single user, but from many—allows you to validate, or invalidate, your assumptions. Regardless, the real problem here is not hibernation itself but bad OOB configuration - which is fixable.
The OS is obligated to try to resume the hibernation file, or to not
provide options to ever create a hibernation file in the first place
and instead produce whatever sensible warnings come with an impending
poweroff.
Warnings are useless for an unattended or emergency poweroff. Hibernation isn't.
-- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
