On 04/21/2011 11:49 AM, Ted Gould wrote:
On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 11:34 -0400, Tony Espy wrote:
On 04/19/2011 08:09 PM, Jason Warner wrote:
Hi Everyone - Sending this on behalf of John Lea, desktop design lead.

==============================================

Currently Ubuntu contains two separate sleep functions, suspend and
hibernate.  This choice confuses users and is a un-necessary
complication to 'sleeping' the computer.  The proposed change is to
combine both 'suspend' and 'hibernate' into a single 'sleep' function.
   When the user presses 'sleep', the computer should both suspend and
hibernate simultaneously.  The computer remains suspended for a set
period of time (e.g. 30min) or until the battery charge falls below a
set level.  At the point the suspend state is discarded, and if  the
user wakes the computer after this point their state is restored from
hibernate.  However if the user wakes the computer before the suspend
state is discarded, the computer is restored from 'suspend' and the
'hibernate' state is discarded.

I'm not a fan of this idea.

If suspend works for the vast majority of users, why complicate it by
adding a timed "auto-hibernate" to the equation?  As a few folks have
pointed out, what if hibernate fails?  What if the BIOS doesn't properly
support a wake timer?

I'm pretty sure the latter criteria for triggering hibernate ( critical
low-battery event while suspended ) already works.  It essentially wakes
the system from suspend, the power manager notices the battery is
critically low, and invokes a hibernate.  The timed scenario would work
in a similar manner, except that after a timer event wakes the system,
the power manager would have to have added logic to trigger the hibernate.

I'm much more in favor of hiding or even removing hibernate from the UI,
as long as it remains an option for "critical low-battery" event for
those systems that properly support hibernate.

I think these are all valid cases, but I think that we should support
this feature.  I think how we should handle this is with a whitelist if
machines that we know hibernate works on.  We can provide instructions
on adding your machine to that list if you want.  Otherwise machines
that get certified by a vendor that cares about Ubuntu could ship their
machine in that whitelist.

Two words come to mind..."maintenance nightmare".  ;)

After having lived through OEM-hell the last three months dealing with ACPI stress testing and hibernate failures on Sandy Bridge machines, the idea of maintaining a whitelist of machines that are known to have a working hibernate function, doesn't seem very practical to me.

What I think this does, and I don't believe it's really a bad thing, is
makes it so there are effectively two Ubuntu experiences.  That which
you get from installing off of the CD on random hardware, and that which
you get when you use a hardware vendor that cares about Ubuntu.  I think
that we need to make the experience the best we can for hardware vendors
that want to participate in Ubuntu -- and provide reasonable fallback
for those who don't.

Personally, if we really want to consider this idea, I think we need to put cycles into making hibernate work better first ( faster, more user feedback, ... ).

Another alternative would be to explore something more radical, along the lines of what OS X does, which actually tries to combine hibernate and sleep as opposed to running them in a serial fashion as proposed.

/t




--
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Reply via email to