On 9 August 2012 21:31, Colin Guthrie <[email protected]> wrote: > 'Twas brillig, and Pascal Terjan at 09/08/12 20:04 did gyre and gimble: >> Yes because it totally makes sense to have a command to halt the >> operating system but leave the machine using some power for nothing >> (and preventing you from powering it on with wol). I am sure someone >> believes it can be useful in some strange scenario. > > It's very useful and it was essential for me during the previous release > to debug shutdown logic.
That's off topic. We hide kernel messages on boot despite them being usefull for debugging And for end users, it's horrible: they think the computer is frozen. If they didn't press <escape> before, they've no way to understand what happen! > I want to see and read the debug that happens here and with a regular > poweroff the debug disappears before you can read it. It's maybe not > something you want to use regularly, but it doesn't mean it's not > useful. There were always "poweroff" and "halt" commands - the names > speak for themselves, it's just people got used to broken behaviour in > the past. If you want to power your machine down, just type "poweroff". > If you want to halt it, then type "halt". Kinda self explanatory really. > Use the right tool for the right job :) Yet it's again 12 years of pratice, against documentation on internet and the like
