Re: Design choice for suspend option only
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/03/12 02:13, Mark Blakeney wrote: I googled it that first day I tried gnome-shell. This is the problem in a nutshell: users, whether expert or novice, are having to google how to turn off their own computers. There is a discussion at https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=643457 Some people there show cases where shutting down would be the preferred action, e.g. to prevent data loss, save energy or use a different OS. Felipe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk9UtOwACgkQ3e5RNKzod9fbTQCeLQU2dDEB2H3SLDrlNPfNz5JY wVMAniyuGdW58EjMKD/IFAYzGw+PbL7W =qoOf -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Design choice for suspend option only
Can somebody please post a reference to a discussion amongst the gnome3 developers about why they decided to only provide a suspend option on the user menu (and hide the power off option with the alt modifier)? I would really like to know by what rationale they came to this astonishing decision? I like and promote gnome-shell but frankly it is embarrassing to have to apologise for this design choice to new users. It leaves an awkward first impression. ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Design choice for suspend option only
On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 13:01 +, Mark Blakeney wrote: Can somebody please post a reference to a discussion amongst the gnome3 developers about why they decided to only provide a suspend option on the user menu (and hide the power off option with the alt modifier)? I would really like to know by what rationale they came to this astonishing decision? Oh crap, not this again. This has been discussed over and over and over and over, and, yes, over again. I promise you nobody here is interested in hearing about this *AGAIN*. The horse is dead, and covered with post mortum bruising. Please don't kick it anymore. I have no idea where the 'reference discussion' is. Search the archives, you'll find tons of crap about this. I like and promote gnome-shell but frankly it is embarrassing to have to apologise for this design choice to new users. It leaves an awkward first impression. So enable the extension that changes the behavior, then be happy. https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/5/alternative-status-menu/ -- System Network Administrator [ LPI NCLA ] http://www.whitemiceconsulting.com OpenGroupware Developer http://www.opengroupware.us Adam Tauno Williams ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Design choice for suspend option only
On 2 March 2012 13:19, Adam Tauno Williams awill...@whitemice.org wrote: I like and promote gnome-shell but frankly it is embarrassing to have to apologise for this design choice to new users. It leaves an awkward first impression. So enable the extension that changes the behavior, then be happy. https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/5/alternative-status-menu/ Or press the button that you used to turn it on. Desktop computers are the only devices in the world (that I can think of) where the off button traditionally isn't the same as the on button. Ross ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Design choice for suspend option only
On Friday, March 02, 2012 13:40:19 Ross Burton wrote: On 2 March 2012 13:19, Adam Tauno Williams awill...@whitemice.org wrote: I like and promote gnome-shell but frankly it is embarrassing to have to apologise for this design choice to new users. It leaves an awkward first impression. So enable the extension that changes the behavior, then be happy. https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/5/alternative-status- menu/ Or press the button that you used to turn it on. Desktop computers are the only devices in the world (that I can think of) where the off button traditionally isn't the same as the on button. Ross I by no means wish to bring this subject back into the mailing list, but I think he referred to discussion among developers (actually, I believe it would be designers) regarding this feature when it was first brought up/implemented. Anyway, from what I understand, I think most designer's discussions are made via IRC, so good luck finding a log on that :( Cheers Juan Manuel ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Design choice for suspend option only
Il 02 marzo 2012 16:43, Josh Leverette coder...@gmail.com ha scritto: I don't care what the reasoning behind it is. Why can't somebody put an option in the settings dialog? why are we forcing this down people's throats? I agree it's the right way forward, but users don't see it that way and there's no reason to force it. We have an option, though arguably not in a settings dialog. It's at extensions.gnome.org, third item on the first page, using default sorting. Giovanni Sincerely, Josh On Mar 2, 2012 9:26 AM, Juan Manuel Santos vicariou...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, March 02, 2012 13:40:19 Ross Burton wrote: On 2 March 2012 13:19, Adam Tauno Williams awill...@whitemice.org wrote: I like and promote gnome-shell but frankly it is embarrassing to have to apologise for this design choice to new users. It leaves an awkward first impression. So enable the extension that changes the behavior, then be happy. https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/5/alternative-status- menu/ Or press the button that you used to turn it on. Desktop computers are the only devices in the world (that I can think of) where the off button traditionally isn't the same as the on button. Ross I by no means wish to bring this subject back into the mailing list, but I think he referred to discussion among developers (actually, I believe it would be designers) regarding this feature when it was first brought up/implemented. Anyway, from what I understand, I think most designer's discussions are made via IRC, so good luck finding a log on that :( Cheers Juan Manuel ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Design choice for suspend option only
that site is not accessible in regions that do not have an internet connection. A shut down button should not have to be downloaded. Sincerely, Josh On Mar 2, 2012 9:59 AM, Giovanni Campagna scampa.giova...@gmail.com wrote: Il 02 marzo 2012 16:43, Josh Leverette coder...@gmail.com ha scritto: I don't care what the reasoning behind it is. Why can't somebody put an option in the settings dialog? why are we forcing this down people's throats? I agree it's the right way forward, but users don't see it that way and there's no reason to force it. We have an option, though arguably not in a settings dialog. It's at extensions.gnome.org, third item on the first page, using default sorting. Giovanni Sincerely, Josh On Mar 2, 2012 9:26 AM, Juan Manuel Santos vicariou...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, March 02, 2012 13:40:19 Ross Burton wrote: On 2 March 2012 13:19, Adam Tauno Williams awill...@whitemice.org wrote: I like and promote gnome-shell but frankly it is embarrassing to have to apologise for this design choice to new users. It leaves an awkward first impression. So enable the extension that changes the behavior, then be happy. https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/5/alternative-status- menu/ Or press the button that you used to turn it on. Desktop computers are the only devices in the world (that I can think of) where the off button traditionally isn't the same as the on button. Ross I by no means wish to bring this subject back into the mailing list, but I think he referred to discussion among developers (actually, I believe it would be designers) regarding this feature when it was first brought up/implemented. Anyway, from what I understand, I think most designer's discussions are made via IRC, so good luck finding a log on that :( Cheers Juan Manuel ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Design choice for suspend option only
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Diego Fernandez aiguo.fernan...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:19 AM, Adam Tauno Williams awill...@whitemice.org wrote: On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 13:01 +, Mark Blakeney wrote: Can somebody please post a reference to a discussion amongst the gnome3 developers about why they decided to only provide a suspend option on the user menu (and hide the power off option with the alt modifier)? I would really like to know by what rationale they came to this astonishing decision? Oh crap, not this again. This has been discussed over and over and over and over, and, yes, over again. I promise you nobody here is interested in hearing about this *AGAIN*. The horse is dead, and covered with post mortum bruising. Please don't kick it anymore. Lol... poor horse! Yes, MANY of us agree it's a horrible design decision. No, they're not going to change it. Yes, it is a shame. No, it's not worth trying to continue fighting it. As for the OP, just tell people the decision was made because nowadays most people only suspend their computer and the designers thought people get confused when presented with multiple options. If they don't like the decision, install the extension for them. I have no idea where the 'reference discussion' is. Search the archives, you'll find tons of crap about this. I like and promote gnome-shell but frankly it is embarrassing to have to apologise for this design choice to new users. It leaves an awkward first impression. So enable the extension that changes the behavior, then be happy. https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/5/alternative-status-menu/ -- System Network Administrator [ LPI NCLA ] http://www.whitemiceconsulting.com OpenGroupware Developer http://www.opengroupware.us Adam Tauno Williams ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list -- Diego Fernandez - 爱国 ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Design choice for suspend option only
again, not everyone has an internet connection and they should not have to download a shut down button. Making it an option in the settings dialog is a perfectly acceptable design decision. Sincerely, Josh On Mar 2, 2012 10:39 AM, Diego Fernandez aiguo.fernan...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Diego Fernandez aiguo.fernan...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:19 AM, Adam Tauno Williams awill...@whitemice.org wrote: On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 13:01 +, Mark Blakeney wrote: Can somebody please post a reference to a discussion amongst the gnome3 developers about why they decided to only provide a suspend option on the user menu (and hide the power off option with the alt modifier)? I would really like to know by what rationale they came to this astonishing decision? Oh crap, not this again. This has been discussed over and over and over and over, and, yes, over again. I promise you nobody here is interested in hearing about this *AGAIN*. The horse is dead, and covered with post mortum bruising. Please don't kick it anymore. Lol... poor horse! Yes, MANY of us agree it's a horrible design decision. No, they're not going to change it. Yes, it is a shame. No, it's not worth trying to continue fighting it. As for the OP, just tell people the decision was made because nowadays most people only suspend their computer and the designers thought people get confused when presented with multiple options. If they don't like the decision, install the extension for them. I have no idea where the 'reference discussion' is. Search the archives, you'll find tons of crap about this. I like and promote gnome-shell but frankly it is embarrassing to have to apologise for this design choice to new users. It leaves an awkward first impression. So enable the extension that changes the behavior, then be happy. https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/5/alternative-status-menu/ -- System Network Administrator [ LPI NCLA ] http://www.whitemiceconsulting.com OpenGroupware Developer http://www.opengroupware.us Adam Tauno Williams ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list -- Diego Fernandez - 爱国 ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Design choice for suspend option only
Everybody that is able to install linux + gnome-shell without internet connection should be able to press the alt button or open a terminal and use one of the approximately 42 methods to shut down. And if its really that important to have the button grep + vim will help you. Am Freitag, den 02.03.2012, 10:44 -0600 schrieb Josh Leverette: again, not everyone has an internet connection and they should not have to download a shut down button. Making it an option in the settings dialog is a perfectly acceptable design decision. Sincerely, Josh On Mar 2, 2012 10:39 AM, Diego Fernandez aiguo.fernan...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Diego Fernandez aiguo.fernan...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:19 AM, Adam Tauno Williams awill...@whitemice.org wrote: On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 13:01 +, Mark Blakeney wrote: Can somebody please post a reference to a discussion amongst the gnome3 developers about why they decided to only provide a suspend option on the user menu (and hide the power off option with the alt modifier)? I would really like to know by what rationale they came to this astonishing decision? Oh crap, not this again. This has been discussed over and over and over and over, and, yes, over again. I promise you nobody here is interested in hearing about this *AGAIN*. The horse is dead, and covered with post mortum bruising. Please don't kick it anymore. Lol... poor horse! Yes, MANY of us agree it's a horrible design decision. No, they're not going to change it. Yes, it is a shame. No, it's not worth trying to continue fighting it. As for the OP, just tell people the decision was made because nowadays most people only suspend their computer and the designers thought people get confused when presented with multiple options. If they don't like the decision, install the extension for them. I have no idea where the 'reference discussion' is. Search the archives, you'll find tons of crap about this. I like and promote gnome-shell but frankly it is embarrassing to have to apologise for this design choice to new users. It leaves an awkward first impression. So enable the extension that changes the behavior, then be happy. https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/5/alternative-status-menu/ -- System Network Administrator [ LPI NCLA ] http://www.whitemiceconsulting.com OpenGroupware Developer http://www.opengroupware.us Adam Tauno Williams ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list -- Diego Fernandez - 爱国 ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Design choice for suspend option only
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 10:06:28AM -0600, Josh Leverette wrote: that site is not accessible in regions that do not have an internet connection. A shut down button should not have to be downloaded. You're repeating the same discussion. Please at least do not top post while continuing the same discussion. -- Regards, Olav ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Design choice for suspend option only
2012/3/2 clemens clem...@lab21.org: Everybody that is able to install linux + gnome-shell without internet connection should be able to press the alt button or open a terminal and use one of the approximately 42 methods to shut down. And if its really that important to have the button grep + vim will help you. Isn't the direct opposite more likely, that if you don't have an internet connection you're more likely not to be technically interested? But I'm having a hard time beliving that you would find a strong correlation either way. It probably has more to do with wealth and age. -- www.twitter.com/Rovanion ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Design choice for suspend option only
On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 09:43:20 -0600, Josh Leverette wrote: I agree it's the right way forward, but users don't see it that way and there's no reason to force it. Josh, why is it the right way forward? Can somebody please provide a link to an intelligent argument why this design choice makes sense? ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Design choice for suspend option only
(personal opinion) it is the right way forward because your computer should be in one of two states. In use or not in use. When it isn't in use it should be conserving power, whether laptop or desktop. Shutting it down and booting it back up are processes most users don't have the patience for. Suspending to RAM is a quick process that saves power. I personally think it should then suspend to disk (hibernate) after an hour or so. In what cases does a user really need to have their computer shut down cold? restarting is useful for updates and the like occasionally, but why shut down unless absolutely needed? The reason I dislike it is that the battery on my netbook is so old and worn down that I believe many others would feel similar to myself in wanting to shut down because the suspend eats too much power even. If they made hibernate the default option, I'd even be ok with that. But, the end result is a better user experience. Slow boot times are never the way to a user's heart, and this is why I believe they do this. Sincerely, Josh On Mar 2, 2012 4:04 PM, Mark Blakeney mark.blake...@bullet-systems.net wrote: On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 09:43:20 -0600, Josh Leverette wrote: I agree it's the right way forward, but users don't see it that way and there's no reason to force it. Josh, why is it the right way forward? Can somebody please provide a link to an intelligent argument why this design choice makes sense? ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Design choice for suspend option only
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 5:01 AM, Mark Blakeney mark.blake...@bullet-systems.net wrote: Can somebody please post a reference to a discussion amongst the gnome3 developers about why they decided to only provide a suspend option on the user menu (and hide the power off option with the alt modifier)? I would really like to know by what rationale they came to this astonishing decision? Hi Mark, The reason is that GNOME 3 is geared towards power saving and wear and tear. Shutting down your laptop is not as good as suspend. So when people as you, it's because suspend is a better mode than shutting down and booting up. Since that increases wear and tear on your laptop especially drives. Suspend lets you instantly start working again. If suspend is not working then we need to push for the Linux eco-system to make it work. Not making compromises forces people to actually fix the various issues and that makes Linux better. On a Mac, I never ever think of shutting down, I just close the lid and then open up again. Why? Because suspend is nearly instantaneous. One could argue that it doesn't make sense for a desktop, but honestly for myself I never shutdown my machine, it's better to go into a power saving mode. I like and promote gnome-shell but frankly it is embarrassing to have to apologise for this design choice to new users. It leaves an awkward first impression. I appreciate you evangelizing for us. Thank you. I hope the points I raised will help there. sri ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Design choice for suspend option only
The reason is that GNOME 3 is geared towards power saving and wear and tear. Shutting down your laptop is not as good as suspend. Do you have any sources to back up the claim that suspending your computer saves more electricity than hibernating or shuttting it down? So when people as you, it's because suspend is a better mode than shutting down and booting up. Since that increases wear and tear on your laptop especially drives. This I can imagine being true, but yet again is there anything behind these claims more than thin air? Suspend lets you instantly start working again. If suspend is not working then we need to push for the Linux eco-system to make it work. Not making compromises forces people to actually fix the various issues and that makes Linux better. Though it would be a good idea to have a blacklist of hardware on which not to suspend, though that might be a distributors task rather than one of Gnome even though it's in boths interest to give the user a good experience. On a Mac, I never ever think of shutting down, I just close the lid and then open up again. Why? Because suspend is nearly instantaneous. One could argue that it doesn't make sense for a desktop, but honestly for myself I never shutdown my machine, it's better to go into a power saving mode. Though we do have to reboot at times to get that kernel with those new security patches running. -- www.twitter.com/Rovanion ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Design choice for suspend option only
On 2 March 2012 22:03, Mark Blakeney mark.blake...@bullet-systems.net wrote: On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 09:43:20 -0600, Josh Leverette wrote: I agree it's the right way forward, but users don't see it that way and there's no reason to force it. Josh, why is it the right way forward? Can somebody please provide a link to an intelligent argument why this design choice makes sense? Hi, The important point you need to start from is that the gnome developers are right and you are wrong - after that it's a lot easier to come up with reasons - as lots of people do. For example There is no shutdown because shutting down is a bad fashion choice and the shell police have decided that reprobates will just have to sudo shutdown and once you try not shutting down for a while you'll understand unless you are too old or not clever enough or not open to new design concepts and work flows. Don't forget you can also just add a hotkey /sarcasm Regards, Tim -- You could help some brave and decent people to have access to uncensored news by making a donation at: http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk/friends/ ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Design choice for suspend option only
The reason is that GNOME 3 is geared towards power saving and wear and tear. Shutting down your laptop is not as good as suspend. Do you have any sources to back up the claim that it's less power consuming to suspend a computer then to shut it down or hibernate it? So when people as you, it's because suspend is a better mode than shutting down and booting up. Since that increases wear and tear on your laptop especially drives. This I can imagine being real, but again is there anything more behind this than speculation? Suspend lets you instantly start working again. If suspend is not working then we need to push for the Linux eco-system to make it work. Not making compromises forces people to actually fix the various issues and that makes Linux better. On a Mac, I never ever think of shutting down, I just close the lid and then open up again. Why? Because suspend is nearly instantaneous. One could argue that it doesn't make sense for a desktop, but honestly for myself I never shutdown my machine, it's better to go into a power saving mode. Except those times we need to load a new kernel with new security patches on. -- www.twitter.com/Rovanion ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Design choice for suspend option only
Except those times we need to load a new kernel with new security patches on. If there's installed updates, we should swap the Suspend button with a Restart button. That's the designed behaviour, and I believe there's an open bug for it, we just haven't implemented it yet. -- Jasper ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Design choice for suspend option only
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Sriram Ramkrishna s...@ramkrishna.me wrote: [...] On a Mac, I never ever think of shutting down, I just close the lid and then open up again. Why? Because suspend is nearly instantaneous. [...] exactly! very well put - close the lid causes suspend. in the menu there should be power item which shall give you dialog box to power down, restart or suspend, which would work as a confirmation of the action as well - simple as that. but now we have two ways to suspend (lid or button). it is simply a waste. of course, desktop computers do not have lid to close, but it is rare to suspend them as well... one more click would not hurt. or they suspend after period of inactivity... or do they suspend at all? we can argue, but, as many pointed out, there is _no_ research made - just opinions. regards, w ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Design choice for suspend option only
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Jasper St. Pierre jstpie...@mecheye.net wrote: Except those times we need to load a new kernel with new security patches on. If there's installed updates, we should swap the Suspend button with a Restart button. That's the designed behaviour, and I believe there's an open bug for it, we just haven't implemented it yet. so what happend to the spatial ui idea? completely forgotten? disappearing options will be very helpful indeed. regards, w ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Design choice for suspend option only
Den 3 mar 2012 00.58 skrev Jasper St. Pierre jstpie...@mecheye.net: Except those times we need to load a new kernel with new security patches on. If there's installed updates, we should swap the Suspend button with a Restart button. That's the designed behaviour, and I believe there's an open bug for it, we just haven't implemented it yet. Well that introduces quite the inconsistency doesn't it. I'm sure the user wouldn't appriciate the computer restarting with his unsaved documents instead of suspending like it usually does. Though I do think I saw, or maybe it's just me imagining, some plan for an updates menu alongside networking, battery and the rest on the top tanel. A small icon that would change if there were updates available and if the computer needed rebooting to load a new kernel. But these are just tangent topics that have little or nothing to do with the original question of this thread. ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
Re: Design choice for suspend option only
On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 14:35:13 -0800, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: On a Mac, I never ever think of shutting down, I just close the lid and then open up again. Why? Because suspend is nearly instantaneous. I use a Mac laptop also, and I *usually* suspend, but not always. E.g. if I am planning to leave the laptop unused for a few days then I shut it down. On my MBA with SSD the cold bootup time is almost as quick anyhow. But this is the problem - the Mac still presents the user with the shutdown option. Gnome-shell remove/hides this option. And please don't suggest it is still there with the Alt key - that is so un-discoverable that I was shocked when I googled it that first day I tried gnome-shell. I thought the Gnome philosophy was to make things obvious to users?! Having menu options change text while a key is held down - I have never seen this before in my life. Look, I really like gnome-shell. I like Unity also but think gnome-shell is cleaner and simpler. Overloading the single meta key/hotspot for all of launcher/ search, dash, activities/apps view, and multi-desktop management etc is smart and intuitive to learn. That suspend only option just stands out as an odd one and seems to be universally ridiculed around the forums. It is a slight against an otherwise nice design. I was interested to find the history of how and why that design choice came about. ___ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
