On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Akira Li <4kir4...@gmail.com> wrote: >> This seems like a lot of effort to unreliably design around a problem that >> will matter to only a tiny fraction of users. > > - people's computers are mostly on batteries (laptops, tablets, > smartphones) -- "suspended from power management" use case > - corporations's computations are mostly virtualized -- possible > "ressurected", "migrated" use case > > i.e., the opposite might be true -- non-virtualized PCs connected to AC > are (becoming) minority.
That's a massive over-simplification, of course, but given that my current desktop computer is running a dozen or so VMs for various purposes (usually not more than 3-4 concurrently), I can't disagree with you. However, there still are plenty of computers that are always either fully running, or fully shut down; just because people _can_ suspend with applications running doesn't mean they _will_. (Quite a few of my VMs, for instance, do not get saved/suspended - I shut them down whenever I'm done with them. Even when I do suspend a VM, I often terminate applications in it, and just use suspension to save having to boot the OS every time. But that's partly because those VMs are the ones running Windows for specific proprietary apps, and thus are coping with the vagaries of those apps.) In any case, it's not at all a problem to have the protection on systems that won't actually need it. Much better than lacking the protection on a system that does. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
