Re: suspend and hibernate nomenclature

[Richard Hughes <hughsient@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1678 bytes --]

On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 09:05 -0600, Jordan Crouse wrote:
> On 07/05/06 19:02 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > First, sorry for the random mail to this mailing list.
> > 
> > I'm the developer of gnome-power-manager. The latest mini-project of
> > mine is to fix the suspend-hibernate nomenclature used by OSS projects.
> > 
> > This might not effect the lowest layers of the stack (i.e. I want to
> > focus on the stuff used by *users*), so this might not be applicable to
> > you guys. 
> 
> I would say thats probably a pretty accurate assessment.  Since you are a GUI
> developer, you can tell the users whatever you want, and you can translate
> under the scenes.  In that case, using terms like "hibernate" makes perfect 
> sense.

Sure, agreed.

> But at the lower level, I favor a more clinical terminology, because it
> reduces confusion amongst system developers. Thats not to say that our 
> current terminology is sane, (because it isn't), but I would far prefer
> precise numbers over vague synonyms for sleeping. :)

Up to you guys :-)

> *Our* task, as I see it, is to make sure that the underlying descriptions
> are intelligent and persistent, so *you* don't have to change your 
> application every time something a new kernel is released.  But as soon as
> we've figured that out, then it will be no thing for you to take an
> "hibernate" from the top end, and turn it into the right term for the kernel.

Sure, I totally agree the user shouldn't know about any of this stuff,
but I thought I should bring the website to your attention to keep you
guys in the loop with GUI users... :-)

Anyway, thanks for this mail, feedback has been great so far.

Richard.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]