[Pm-utils] Re: s2both

[David Zeuthen]

On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 21:11 +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 03:53:19PM -0400, David Zeuthen wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 08:52 +0100, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> > > Do not even think about s2both in upstream pm-utils, since there is apparently
> > > no interest in including userspace-suspend support (at least my patches get
> > > silently dropped all the time) at all.
> > 
> > Why is that? Who is not interested in doing hybrid sleep?
> 
>   I'm not. 

I was asking who was opposed to pm-utils offering this mechanism, not
necessarily whether users wanted to use it.

> When I suspend-to-ram I'm doing it mainly because it's way
> faster than suspend-to-disk, only few seconds compared to almost two
> minutes. I doing it when I don't have time to wait for STD. And resume
> from STR fails more often than from STD.
>   On the other hand, I'm doing suspend to disk when I don't want my
> battery depleted during night or longer trip.
>   Hybrid sleep would actually carry mainly disadvantages of both: long
> suspending time, non-reliable wakeup, battery depletion.

So that _might_ be good reason for providing a toggle in the UI...

<rant>
... but, really, it's not really a good reason (and you all know it) as
Apple have already showed this can be done in a way so the user don't
know the difference. But until some things starts sucking less I guess
we can throw UI at solving these problems. Sigh. 

At least if things like gpm and kpowersave starts providing the option
to use it on all distros then, who knows, maybe someone will fix the
underlying problems.
</rant>

      David