Am 20.08.2011 13:08, schrieb Denis Washington: > Am 20.08.2011 12:41, schrieb Giovanni Campagna: >> Il giorno sab, 20/08/2011 alle 09.05 +0200, Denis Washington ha scritto: >>> Hi, >>> >>> The question if there should be an always-visible "Power Off..." status >>> menu item next to "Suspend" has been discussed to death already. >>> However, I do not want to bring up that same exact discussion again, but >>> propose a compromise solution, which I already mentioned in the bug >>> report yesterday [1], but for those who don't follow that bug, here is >>> the idea: >>> >>> There would still be only the "Suspend" option in the status menu. >>> However, if the user has no application windows open (or if the dash >>> shows no applications running anymore, I don't know if this is the >>> same), clicking on "Suspend" would bring up a dialog which asks if the >>> user would like to shut down the computer completely instead, explaining >>> shortly that he would lose no state (because no application is open) and >>> that he would save more power this way. Closing the laptop lid would >>> obviously still always suspend. >>> >>> The advantage of this solution is that the original intention of the >>> current design would be preserved - application state is never lost - >>> while making it easy for the user to save power if there is no state to >>> lose. If he or she doesn't like or want complete shutdown (because of >>> the boot time on next usage, or because he/she knows there is a >>> background process running that should be resumed next time) there is >>> still the option to suspend anyway. >>> >>> What do you think? >> >> I see your points, and it would surely help the user deciding when to >> suspend and when to poweroff. Nevertheless I don't like this proposal >> because we would have the same menu item with two different actions, >> which is pretty confusing, expecially if the cause of the different >> result is not immediately evident. Also, we would have two different >> dialogs, one with Suspend and one without it (since you don't want >> Suspend if you explicitly asked Power Off...). > > The idea is that not a regular "Power Off" dialog is shown, but one for > this specific case which explains why it is offering a shutdown option, > something in the lines of: > > +-------------------------------------------------------+ > | * Power Off? * | > | | > | You currently have no applications open. Powering the | > | computer off completely would not cost any loss of | > | data and saves power. | > | | > | [Suspend] [Power Off] | > +-------------------------------------------------------+ > > with "Power Off" doing a normal shutdown. > >> It is true that your behavior is more akin to what the user wants, than >> what we have today. But with this particular issue, I think we need to >> leave the policy decision completely in the hands of the user (because >> edge cases not covered by design happen to be the majority and not just >> edges). > > The only left common use case I could think of is restarting on updates. > Showing a "Restart" option conditionally for such situations could be a > solution for that. I wouldn't describe any other use case (such as > restarting for dual-booting another OS) as "common" in the sense of > "encouraged work flow". > > Regards, > Denis
There's still a problem with this. I _always_ have at least Pidgin running (implies some IRC windows visible), so there would be a need for a more sophisticated logic for determining if "no application is running" than just checking for open windows since closing them wouldn't really "lose current state". Having a whitelist for common IMs could work for most, but won't for everyone, as always. Marcel _______________________________________________ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
