On 04/22/2011 10:27 AM, Ted Gould wrote:
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 ;-)
Ah, there you go, volunteering me for work items! We can talk about
this over beers in Budapest!
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.
My understanding is that macbooks running the latest versions of OS X,
always write a hibernate image to disk when sleeping, however the
machine still goes into S3 (sleep). If the system is resumed and power
has never dropped below critical level, then it's just like a normal
suspend/resume. If however the system runs out of juice...the next time
it's booted, it will resume from the hibernate image.
This is different than a normal Ubuntu install, where sleep == suspend,
with no hibernate image written. If the battery reaches a critical
level, the machine is woken up, and the power manager will initiate a
hibernate ( unless the user has changed the default setting ).
pm-utils does support something called pm-suspend-hybrid which acts like
the OS X sleep, but I have little experience with it.
Does anybody care to comment on the current state of pm-suspend-hybrid?
Regards,
/tony
--Ted
--
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
