On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Richard Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 13:58 +0200, Patryk Zawadzki wrote: > > Hibernate is a special case of suspend. > > It's really not. Hibernate takes a few minutes, and allows you to power > down. Suspend takes a few seconds and cannot be powered down. These are > important differences that users _do_ understand. > > These might seem technical differences, but they are very important. > > > > The latter is either suspend > > to ram or suspend to disk. system-suspend-hibernate provides a nice > > fallback scheme where system-hibernate does not. > > Right, so you're talking about hybrid suspend/hibernate. If you want to > expose that, then I would argue just do hybrid when you want to > hibernate (if available) in the UI, as resume from hibernate takes a few > seconds, not a minute or so, as long as you don't power down. You never > want to do hibernate if hybrid is supported, there's just no point. > > Richard.
Hmm, that's a pretty compelling argument. Suspend and hibernate might not be too different technically, but they are from a user perspective. (Imagine pulling the power-cord when suspended-to-ram) With system-suspend being the fallback icon for system-suspend-hibernate, users can be easilly confused into pressing the wrong button. Especially since both are usually present on the same dialog-windows. With users in mind, it might be best not to have suspend be the fallback for hibernate. Stephan _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
