? What? I haven't been in an OS desktop that I needed first to logout before I can shutdown. > need to disconnect power) would be to log out and shut down through GDM. The primary way that a user would shut down (if they, say, >not because we think users should necessarily know how to hold down Despite of the mobile phenomenon, desktop usage is still a majority of businesses, and that button for them is very important. > - The Power Off option is hidden because we don't believe it's necessary inīut in the real world like mine, we need to have a power-off button, because we need to turn off the machine before leaving work. > deisgn process or blocker issues, it seems to be more an inquiry into the > I don't see anything in Sri's comment that raises new points unknown in the > Until then I'll keep the Target field, at least. > proposed to have Owen comment on this one. * sidenote: nuclear power plants are a highly political topic in Germany. Don't get me wrong, I brought this up here (and on the ML) to avoid running a useless flamewar on Planet GNOME but I hope that will at least get user testing & feedback on the next GNOME3 user day. I really appreciate the removal of minimize/maximize and I see a reasoning behind hiding complex energy option but this just sounds silly to me. To be honest, I wonder why it would be such a bad user-interface design to have just one additional button is this menu. I am pretty sure I could find exact number here if you are interested. Remember that german elementary school kids already learn that only the power used by devices in standby (TV, PC, etc.) is responsible for an additonal need of two nuclear power plants* in Germany. I see no problem hiding "Power Off" on mobile devices btw, but I wonder if it can be detected reliable, probably by just checking if we have a battery or not. Power loss might be uncommon (depending greatly on where you live.) but you are not covering the energy argumentation at all. The workstation case might be less interesting that the mobile case but it still isn't uncommon in anyway. > is equivalent to popping out the battery of your laptop. > days) I think suspend still makes the most sense. > So, even in the workstation case (which is less interesting than mobile these I marked that as blocker on purpose because it kills your environment. But since you're probably going to keep on "I'm usually inclined to ignore claims like this that don't provide any I can provide more energy figures and evidence if necessary.Īnd I hope you won't close this like the mailing list discussion (which led to nothing like about any mailing list discussion but that's not your fault): In German companies it is usually even just not allowed to not switch off your desktop.įor mobile devices the page above may be right, for desktop it is not. While I completely agree with Jon on the case of a lunchbreak I completely disagree for the go-home case stated above. And no amount of preaching will change that." Motivations are in opposition to low power consumption. If you only have the options: a)Ĭontinue to run at full power b) stop everything you're doing, saveĪll your work, close all your apps, lose all your state, wait for the William Jon McCann: "Encouraging the use of suspend will very likely result in a dramatic power savings for many people. This will waste energy because the computer is suspended all night (> 12 hours) while it could be completely off without breaking any workflow. The reasoning there leaves the common operation of switching your computer off before you go home completely out.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |