I tried to comment on Richard's post but for some reason my comment is still awaiting moderation 1h later while 4 new ones have been posted so I'll comment here too.
Choosing if we want suspend on lid close is not about working around kernel bugs. I have had suspend working for maybe 10 years but have always disabled that.
I want to be able to decide when my laptop should suspend or not. Everyday I move my laptop, for example to go to a meeting, and want to be able to close the lid for transport for a few minutes without disconnecting from IRC/losing my ssh/...
I also sometimes close the lid at night to keep it running in my bedroom until something finishes, which I did not think about first, but a comment from Janne reminded me, so I am not the only one doing it.
When I want to suspend, I use the function key. I don't plan disconnecting the lid switch (which I am happy to have turning off the screen) to please "the UI designers for GNOME 3.0".
Hey Pascal, no FOSDEM this year? Anyway, gsettings set org.gnome.settings-daemon.plugins.power.lid-close-ac-action 'blank' (but I agree this could still be exposed in the UI)
Nice, at least the setting still exists.<br>And yes I will attend FOSDEM :)
I assumed that any apps that inhibit standby/shutdown would also prevent this lid thing happening? Otherwise you're right - why disconnect everything if I just want to move from a to b?
I 100% agree with you. I never wanted the notebook to suspend even if I'm on battery... I hate to have to move the pc with the lid open just because stupid windows go standby... :)
Less options = easier, right? Even if that means you will search hours for the hidden option to make Gnome do what you actually want.<br><br>Someone should explain Gnome devs why this is a misconception.
the blogger got the point.<br><br>Less options is easier, for sure, lesser option is simply stupid
What option should we remove there to make room for this setting?<br>It needs to fit on small screens too.
One wise man (don't recall the name though) once said:<br>"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler"<br>I think he's got the point and gnome devs tend to make everything far too simple.
Andreas: is the goal to make a single UI that fits on small (I presume you mean something like a 10" netbook screen) as well as a 22" monitor? (that's a genuine question I have, not rhetoric)
Andreas: won't GTK3 have scrollbars?
Andreas, the primary goal should always be to make users' lives easier. If that happens to make it harder to design a pleasing preferences window, tough. Development is hard. The solution isn't to stop doing it.
It seems that most use cases that were raised on the original blog post (and by you) weren't against "suspend on lid close", just that /sometimes/ it is inconvenient. This sounds more like a use case for the "suspend inhibit" style applet rather then anything else.
+1<br><br>In looking at some of the changes it seems pretty clear I don't know how to use my computer. God forbid one of them is hired to redesign something that matters, like a car dashboard instrument panel. They'd probably replace the speedometer with an arrow that lengthens as you increase speed, and the fuel gauge with a coloured dot that shows green when full, yellow when not full, and red when empty. Much simpler!
From the mockup at http://live.gnome.org/Design/SystemSettings/Power<br>The part you should remove is the useless battery state at the bottom. It's already visible in the top bar.
@Andreas- you ask what should be removed to make room for the setting? Have you *seen* those mockups of the dialog? It's full of wasted space already - that big grey bit at the top with an "All Settings" button and nothing else, eating up 40-50 pixels of precious space. The redundant "battery charging" information at the bottom, as Olivier pointed out. Fix that kind of stuff, and fitting a 1024x600 netbook screen shouldn't be unreasonable.
Years later, Linus' criticism is still valid: "I don't use Gnome, because in striving to be simple, it has long since reached the point where it simply doesn't do what I need it to do."<br><br>What is so spectacularly difficult or distasteful about following VLC's lead: a "simple" preferences view and an "advanced" preferences view for those who want it? I'm very tired of being told by GNOME that users don't want too many features.
In Gnome Land, the gnome suspends you :).
Acked-by: Sven Neumann
@Ben<br>Nice idea. Are you volunteering to maintain that extra code?
Good UI-design for setting consist of: <br>- good defaults (means many users never want to change the settings)<br>- possibility to easily change basic settings (for all users that want/have to adapt the settings) <br>- an advanced button to tweak the system (for 10% power users) <br><br>Gnome developers should never forget the power users.