On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 12:06 -0400, Tony Espy wrote: > 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.
I'm confused, wouldn't your work there be effectively building that whitelist? Sounds like work you've already done ;-) > > 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. So I guess that'd be the list of things we should discuss in the session. What are the requirements and changes we'd need to make hibernate work well enough to make this a reality? We can't budget time if we don't know what we want :-) Also, I thought this *was* how OSX did things. Can you explain how that works as I don't know. --Ted
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- ubuntu-desktop mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop