Re: suspend and hibernate nomenclature

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1360 bytes --]

On Sunday 14 May 2006 17:39, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Ne 14-05-06 16:32:24, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 20:01 +0000, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > > 
> > > > 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. Please keep me cc'd if you discuss, as I'm not subscribed to
> > > > this list.
> > > > 
> > > > Full description of the problem is here:
> > > > http://live.gnome.org/GnomePowerManager/SleepNames and I would encourage
> > > > you guys to add comments to the end of the wiki if required.
> > > 
> > > Please do not use word 'thaw'. We already freeze processes during
> > > suspend, and we thaw them during resume.
> > 
> > Got any better ideas? It needs to *just* apply to hibernation, not a
> > generic term like wake.
> 
> reanimate?  As you said, users are unlikely to see this one.
> 
> Alternatives:
> 
> dehibarnate (unhibernate?), resume-from-disk :-), ressurect,
> resuscitate (particulary useful if s-2-disk is buggy :-), revive, ...

Maybe "wake up"? :-)

Rafael

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