I read in a non-Fedora list that GNOME3 has dropped the ability to do power management, and that all laptops will suspend when the cover is closed, like it or not. Hopefully that's just a users who doesn't know how to do config, but some feedback would be helpful, that behavior would be a total show stopper.
It's desirable in many cases to turn off the display and lock, but in business use the computer is likely to be doing something useful the users needs to continue.
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
I read in a non-Fedora list that GNOME3 has dropped the ability to do power management, and that all laptops will suspend when the cover is closed, like it or not. Hopefully that's just a users who doesn't know how to do config, but some feedback would be helpful, that behavior would be a total show stopper.
It's desirable in many cases to turn off the display and lock, but in business use the computer is likely to be doing something useful the users needs to continue.
AFAIK, changing the laptop-cover closing behavior won't be possible through the GUI but will be possible though gconf or whatever G3's equivalent is, if it's different.
Tom H wrote:
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Bill Davidsendavidsen@tmr.com wrote:
I read in a non-Fedora list that GNOME3 has dropped the ability to do power management, and that all laptops will suspend when the cover is closed, like it or not. Hopefully that's just a users who doesn't know how to do config, but some feedback would be helpful, that behavior would be a total show stopper.
It's desirable in many cases to turn off the display and lock, but in business use the computer is likely to be doing something useful the users needs to continue.
AFAIK, changing the laptop-cover closing behavior won't be possible through the GUI but will be possible though gconf or whatever G3's equivalent is, if it's different.
Thanks for the prompt reply. I understand this choice came because some Apple laptops melt if you don't suspend when you close the cover, but after reading the article I checked the CPU temp on a few of mine, and they seem likely to survive. Fan may or may not work a little harder, though.
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
Tom H wrote:
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Bill Davidsendavidsen@tmr.com wrote:
I read in a non-Fedora list that GNOME3 has dropped the ability to do power management, and that all laptops will suspend when the cover is closed, like it or not. Hopefully that's just a users who doesn't know how to do config, but some feedback would be helpful, that behavior would be a total show stopper.
It's desirable in many cases to turn off the display and lock, but in business use the computer is likely to be doing something useful the users needs to continue.
AFAIK, changing the laptop-cover closing behavior won't be possible through the GUI but will be possible though gconf or whatever G3's equivalent is, if it's different.
Thanks for the prompt reply. I understand this choice came because some Apple laptops melt if you don't suspend when you close the cover, but after reading the article I checked the CPU temp on a few of mine, and they seem likely to survive. Fan may or may not work a little harder, though.
You're welcome. AFAIK the (silly IMHO) reason for this decision is to have fewer options available because too many options are confusing and a bad thing and to have a consistent behavior when closing a laptop cover when using GNOME. Feel free to google away and enjoy the discussions/arguments...
Many useful configurations are missing from GNOME 3, I deeply hope them be back in later GNOME revise builds. GNOME3 is largely alike KDE 4.0.0 on the aspect of matureness seen now.
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 02:17, Tom H tomh0665@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
Tom H wrote:
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Bill Davidsendavidsen@tmr.com
wrote:
I read in a non-Fedora list that GNOME3 has dropped the ability to do
power
management, and that all laptops will suspend when the cover is closed,
like it
or not. Hopefully that's just a users who doesn't know how to do
config, but
some feedback would be helpful, that behavior would be a total show
stopper.
It's desirable in many cases to turn off the display and lock, but in
business
use the computer is likely to be doing something useful the users needs
to continue.
AFAIK, changing the laptop-cover closing behavior won't be possible through the GUI but will be possible though gconf or whatever G3's equivalent is, if it's different.
Thanks for the prompt reply. I understand this choice came because some
Apple
laptops melt if you don't suspend when you close the cover, but after
reading
the article I checked the CPU temp on a few of mine, and they seem likely
to
survive. Fan may or may not work a little harder, though.
You're welcome. AFAIK the (silly IMHO) reason for this decision is to have fewer options available because too many options are confusing and a bad thing and to have a consistent behavior when closing a laptop cover when using GNOME. Feel free to google away and enjoy the discussions/arguments... -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
Thanks for the prompt reply. I understand this choice came because some Apple laptops melt if you don't suspend when you close the cover, but after reading the article I checked the CPU temp on a few of mine, and they seem likely to survive. Fan may or may not work a little harder, though.
Melt? How about catch on fire. That is a 'bad thing'. It is best to 'hide' such selections from users who are not aware of such dangers.
James McKenzie
On 02/28/2011 11:45 AM, James McKenzie wrote:
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
Thanks for the prompt reply. I understand this choice came because some Apple laptops melt if you don't suspend when you close the cover, but after reading the article I checked the CPU temp on a few of mine, and they seem likely to survive. Fan may or may not work a little harder, though.
Melt? How about catch on fire. That is a 'bad thing'. It is best to 'hide' such selections from users who are not aware of such dangers.
We are confusing 2 issues here -
(i) configuring the choices of lid-close event.
(ii) Thermal events -
If temp crosses threshold - then shutdown.
(ii) is the issue here - and disallowing (i) as a solution is inappropriate.
If (ii) is broken for some class - then possibly one could argue that lid event - or a host of other things that may raise temps could be disallowed - how about using the CPU - disallow - or the power supply for that matter ... :-)
But let us not confuse the issues please - the problem with overheating should be handled by thermal event handler not lid close.
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Genes MailLists lists@sapience.com wrote:
On 02/28/2011 11:45 AM, James McKenzie wrote:
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
Thanks for the prompt reply. I understand this choice came because some Apple laptops melt if you don't suspend when you close the cover, but after reading the article I checked the CPU temp on a few of mine, and they seem likely to survive. Fan may or may not work a little harder, though.
Melt? How about catch on fire. That is a 'bad thing'. It is best to 'hide' such selections from users who are not aware of such dangers.
We are confusing 2 issues here -
(i) configuring the choices of lid-close event.
(ii) Thermal events -
If temp crosses threshold - then shutdown.
The problem is that this was not a thermal event, it was the fact that the power draw contined until the Lithium-Ion battery caught fire. This is a fault that the battery's internal thermal device did not function and is well documented.
(ii) is the issue here - and disallowing (i) as a solution is inappropriate.
Agreed. If I want lid close, suspend, let me select it. If I don't, let me select it.
But let us not confuse the issues please - the problem with overheating should be handled by thermal event handler not lid close.
True. However, some folks mistakedly think that ii is related to i. It is not nor should it be. If the thermal breaker is 'broken' then a series of events could and have triggered it. Batteries have 'breakers' for a reason.
James McKenzie
On 02/28/2011 10:04 AM, James McKenzie wrote:
Agreed. If I want lid close, suspend, let me select it. If I don't, let me select it.
Yes. The Gnome devs have, once again, decided that the way they like to do things is the One True Way and everybody using Gnome must do things their way. I'd complain on the forums at gnome.org, but for all practical purposes that's a waste of time because nobody ever responds except to flame you if you disagree with the devs.
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 9:51 PM, Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/28/2011 11:34 PM, James McKenzie wrote:
Agreed. If I want lid close, suspend, let me select it. If I don't, let me select it.
It is configurable via dconf.
Which is where one of the reasons given for not providing a GUI way of changing lid-close behavior breaks down;
From http://afaikblog.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/on-laptop-lids-and-power-settings/
"First, it increases integration between software and hardware. GNOME becomes identified with the behaviour of the device in question, not just the software that runs on it. It’s about designing the behaviour of the whole product."
So, when using someone else's laptop, you'll never know whether the she/he has used dconf to change that setting or not. So GNOME 3's behavior won't necessarily be consistent.
Of course, if the dconf option hadn't been made available, the discussions would've been even more "robust." But the justification for this change is dishonest and feels very much like the choice was made on the basis of "this is what we want to impose on our users" or "we want GNOME 3 to behave like OS X" (I'm typing the latter on an OS X-powered MacBook Pro and as an owner of an iPhone and an iPad so I'm not a Mac-hater) but the developers wanted to try not to *seem* arrogant or exhibit OS X envy... :(
On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 08:21 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 02/28/2011 11:34 PM, James McKenzie wrote:
Agreed. If I want lid close, suspend, let me select it. If I don't, let me select it.
It is configurable via dconf.
Rahul
I admit I don't know what dconf is. Running it causes a core dump on my machine; and there is no : man dconf
However, what happens when the lid is closed can be configured in GNOME through the power management icon in the right side of the upper panel.
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Aaron Konstam akonstam@sbcglobal.net wrote:
On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 08:21 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
It is configurable via dconf.
I admit I don't know what dconf is. Running it causes a core dump on my machine; and there is no : man dconf
AFAIK gconf has been renamed dconf.
On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 11:48 -0500, Tom H wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Aaron Konstam akonstam@sbcglobal.net wrote:
On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 08:21 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
It is configurable via dconf.
I admit I don't know what dconf is. Running it causes a core dump on my machine; and there is no : man dconf
AFAIK gconf has been renamed dconf.
If gconf was renamed dconf, boy does that not make sense. And what is the dconf in FC14 renamed to. I guess I will hear from list member who will be unnamed (but you know who you are) who believes that developers can do anything they want to and to hell with confused users.
On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 16:04 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Tom H wrote:
AFAIK gconf has been renamed dconf.
It wasn't just renamed, it was rewritten.
GConf was a XML-like configuration storage system.
dconf is a binary (think Windows registry) configuration storage system. It was designed for speed.
That avoids the big question. If something is rewritten does that mean it has to be renamed? And if dconf is usefull in F14 what will be its name in F15?
Aaron Konstam wrote:
If something is rewritten does that mean it has to be renamed?
That question is beyond the scope of this mailing list. Take it up with the Gnome folks.
And if dconf is usefull in F14 what will be its name in F15?
dconf is dconf and will forever be known as dconf.
-
Aaron Konstam -
Bill Davidsen -
bsfmig -
Genes MailLists -
James McKenzie -
Joe Zeff -
Michael Cronenworth -
Rahul Sundaram -
Tom H