Le mardi 01 février 2011 à 02:04 +0100, Jan Claeys a écrit : > Rick Spencer schreef op ma 31-01-2011 om 11:04 [-0800]: > > The reasoning for hiding Hibernate includes: > > 1. It doesn't work well for many users on many machines. > > So do lots of other features, including suspend to RAM. Not using > hibernate by default could be a good idea, but disabling it goes a bit > too far IMO (and by "disable" I mean remove it from the GUI entirely). > > > 2. It's very slow. > > Personally I don't care about that. It's slow on every OS, and if it > works you don't really need to care about the time. > > > 3. It's not as useful because users can just suspend. > > Except that some hardware runs out of battery very quickly (anything > less than a day I consider "quick"), even when you "just suspend". > > > 4. The difference between hibernate and suspend is confusing. > > It's not confusing when using a working hybrid suspend... +1 to all of the points you make, Jan. I know non-power users that use it all the time, and it's still far quicker than fresh boot on many machines (depending on the amount of RAM in particular).
What's the point of preventing people that use hibernation on machines that support it from using it? Just to remove one item from the menu? Doesn't make sense to me. On machines where hibernate doesn't work, people will naturally avoid using it, because anyway they are used to seeing GUI items they don't use or understand, all over the desktop. It isn't that disturbing. When hibernation works on a computer, it is reliable, and it can be very useful to avoid closing all your apps when you're working on a task with many different apps (web pages, PDFs, text documents...). It would be silly to require people to just suspend when they are done, and wait until the machine is out of battery power so that it hibernates at that point. Regards -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
