On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Chuck Anderson <cra@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 09:34:24AM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: >> I think that those advanced settings are better handled through optional >> after-installation downloads, in much the same way that we don't ship >> gnome-tweak-tool in the default installation (because if those settings >> were required, we would really want them to be in the default settings UI). > ^^^^^^^^ > > I find this statement offensive to the intelligence of our users. It > basically disrepects some users' preferences by saying they aren't > "required" so it should be harder to set them. Look at the bright side, an email thread about power management is a massive improvement all by itself. >From a development, nuts and bolts, standpoint, power management is fraught with peril and non-trivial. From a user standpoint, it's basic shit that should f'n work, it's 2016 for crying out loud. So there's a fairly deep divide between what can be done, should be done, and what's expected. The typical user doesn't consider power management advanced, let alone optional, and should be enabled by default not merely installed by default. This is part in parcel with the whole hibernation debacle on Fedora, where data loss due to no hibernation support is not considered release blocking data loss because *wave hands, say hibernation sucks*. I'd play along with that if the interface guidelines mandated programs save their own state so they can tolerate a power off without user intervention, you know, like we've had on smart phones for half a decade. But in the meantime the word smithing that real data loss isn't really data loss is just silly. It can't rain all the time, so maybe the sun's about to come out when it comes to power management on Fedora. -- Chris Murphy -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
