----- Original Message ----- > On 28/07/16 00:13, Chris Murphy wrote: > >> > >>> (the right way to fix this would be to get information on how connected > >>> standby > >>> works on Intel machines, and implement that, not holding my breath > >>> though) > >> > >> > >> The solution should not be H/W dependent. > >> I have the same laptop since 2012 and I do not have light sensors for > >> example. Should I not have the option to set this manually? > > > > That's nonsense. You're basically saying leveraging hardware features > > is persona non grata, everyone should just accept mediocre power > > management, which is precisely what we already have in even the best > > case let alone the worst case, compared to smart phones. Of course > > this should be better, and of course it should involve the user far > > less than it does. > > We are comparing smart phones to laptops now? > Why does a DE for desktops and laptops compare it self with a smart phone? > And even then, I have yet to see a smart phone OS without a UI to adjust > manually screen brightness, auto lock, auto sleep etc. > Ditto for a "PC" OS, like MacOS or Windows. > > What you have done is remove expected and working functionality without > offering at least the same functionality and you rationalize your > decision by saying that it was the "wrong" thing to do. We have screen brightness, auto lock and auto sleep configurations in GNOME, right now. There's no separate brightness configuration for AC/battery on any mobile platform that I know of, neither is there any on macOS. > When you say, not you but Bastien, that users hated the auto dimming in > Gnome2 for example, you are hiding the fact that there was a way for the > user to change this behavior. Why would we keep a feature that appeared broken, and would want disabled by default? > > I don't understand this desire to manually futz with things, except > > that it suggests the automatic thing isn't working correctly, in which > > case it's a bug that should be fixed. But an option to manually do > > things just because, that's not convincing to me at all. There are all > > kinds of power managements events that are happening in firmware that > > you have no control over, and wouldn't want control over. > > > > > > I don't understand why functionality was removed before the new > functionality was ready. > You are arguing for something that is not possible yet in Linux, but you > have removed the previous UI nevertheless? > > I am sorry but the real Linux desktop, the one that people pay real > money for, includes tweakUI, a poweroff button, screen brightness UI etc. > You might argue all day about non issues that become issues because of > your opinion, but the fact is that there is *no* way that a paying > customer would tolerate a system where they could not control the above. > > You will say of course that this is fedora not RHEL, but the fact is > that Gnome3 as shipped with RHEL has reversed every single one of the > above decisions. > > So next time, when *a lot* of people complain you should listen, else > the paying people will complain and then there will be problems. We listen to feedback from our users (and customers), and we haven't had a single person want separate brightness settings for battery and mains power. In fact, they wanted the brightness to stay the same when they plugged or unplugged their systems. Which is what we implemented. If you have specific requests about power management functionality, file them upstream, they will be considered. Separate brightness settings for AC/battery power still won't be though. -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
