After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 427815 - Idle and inactive times confusion
Idle and inactive times confusion
Status: RESOLVED OBSOLETE
Product: gnome-power-manager
Classification: Deprecated
Component: general
SVN TRUNK
Other All
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: GNOME Power Manager Maintainer(s)
GNOME Power Manager Maintainer(s)
: 446258 446892 472995 495602 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2007-04-09 10:30 UTC by Rodrigo Moya
Modified: 2020-11-06 20:14 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description Rodrigo Moya 2007-04-09 10:30:01 UTC
Some SuSE users have reported confusion about the idle/inactive timeouts in gnome-screensaver and gnome-power-manager, not understanding the difference between the two.

From a previous conversation with Richard:
"Is inactive the same thing as idle? I would argue inactive is
where the user isn't doing anything and idle is where the machine isn't
doing anything. Again, confusing as hell for the end user."

So, we should fix this confusion.
Comment 1 unggnu 2007-07-01 08:42:37 UTC
I can confirm this.
It seems that gnome-power-manager sleep times are directly connected to screensaver idle time. The lowest value you can choose is the screen saver time plus one minute. This is not so good since the lowest possible time is two minutes which is much on battery. The other problem is that you can't lock screen after five minutes if you want e.g. monitor to sleep on ac after five and on battery after two minutes. You have to choose one minute for screen saver which could be very annoying especially with locking. The other point is that this is not very intuitive and people could think that the lowest value they could choose are elven minutes (default screen saver idle time is ten minutes) which are very much on battery.
The separation of ac and battery is great but it doesn't help much with a linked screen saver or you disable the screen saver which could be dangerous if you forgot to lock the PC on your own.
Comment 2 Richard Hughes 2007-07-01 11:23:01 UTC
*** Bug 446258 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 3 Richard Hughes 2007-07-04 13:53:07 UTC
*** Bug 446892 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 4 Vincent Untz 2007-09-13 23:37:23 UTC
Wow, I've always wondered about this too.

I don't know if this should be in a new bug or not, but when you disable the screensaver, it seems it's not possible to get the screen to suspend with g-p-m.
Comment 5 Rodrigo Moya 2007-11-08 12:26:22 UTC
Yes, seems g-p-m and g-s are too tied (which is good, but adds this kind of problems). So, Richard/William, what do you think?
Comment 6 Jean-François Fortin Tam 2008-04-07 23:35:55 UTC
regarding Vincent's comment #4: wow, I was about to report an issue about this out of frustration of figuring this out after two years.

What is needed here as the next action to get this solved? Is it g-p-m's fault, gnome-screensaver's fault?

And while we are at it, why not merge g-p-m and the gnome screensaver dialog?
Comment 7 Jean-François Fortin Tam 2008-04-07 23:37:43 UTC
yay, mid-air collision. Forgot to add: "It baffles me that I need to enable a screensaver for the screen power save to work!"; this is very non obvious and it can take a long time for the user (such as me) to figure out that this is not a bug, but g-p-m's suspend depending on a screensaver to be set to activate.
Comment 8 Rodrigo Moya 2008-04-08 13:28:01 UTC
Yes, I think some kind of merge of g-s and g-p-m would help solving this.
Comment 9 Matthew Paul Thomas (mpt) 2008-06-04 09:32:26 UTC
Merging gnome-screensaver and gnome-power-manager is an interesting idea, but it's not required to fix this bug. This bug could be fixed merely by having gnome-power-manager ignore the screensaver "idle" setting altogether, letting you set the computer to go to sleep even before the screensaver would normally kick in.

Separately, gnome-screensaver could become smart enough to display the text (for example) "On battery, the screensaver won’t appear because the computer sleeps after 30 minutes", and even provide a button for opening the Power Management Preferences. But fixing this bug does not require waiting for either of those things.
Comment 10 Matthew Paul Thomas (mpt) 2008-06-04 09:34:28 UTC
*** Bug 495602 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 11 Matthew Paul Thomas (mpt) 2008-06-04 09:34:49 UTC
*** Bug 472995 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 12 Przemysław Kulczycki 2009-06-24 11:42:51 UTC
Possible solutions that I propose:
1) Add a duplicate of screensaver-idle settings to gnome-power-preferences
2) Add some text explaining why the lowest value for putting display to sleep is X.
Comment 13 unggnu 2010-03-16 15:36:31 UTC
This should be fixed since Gnome 2.28. The setting is now independent (while still inflexible).
Comment 14 Robert E A Harvey 2010-09-20 21:47:03 UTC
I think the GNOME Power Manager Manual could do with some definitions.  My installation still says "Put computer to sleep when inactive for:" but neithe sleep nor inactive are described in the manual.

Is sleep 'hibernate' or 'suspend'?  I've read the answers above & am still not sure.  The manual should explain.

Does 'inactive' mean keyboard & mouse?  or running applications?  Load below 50%?  or 5%?  Again, the manual should explain the meaning of words used.  Properly.
Comment 15 Richard Hughes 2010-10-18 08:47:54 UTC
(In reply to comment #14)
> Is sleep 'hibernate' or 'suspend'?  I've read the answers above & am still not
> sure.  The manual should explain.
> 
> Does 'inactive' mean keyboard & mouse?  or running applications?  Load below
> 50%?  or 5%?  Again, the manual should explain the meaning of words used. 
> Properly.

I think this would be a really nice first patch for somebody to send. Any volunteers?
Comment 16 Tobias Mueller 2010-12-25 09:51:21 UTC
Richard, is this bug an issue worth to fix? Based on comment #15, I think it is. Hence marking as NEW. I am also adding the gnome-love keyword.
Comment 17 André Klapper 2020-11-06 20:14:09 UTC
bugzilla.gnome.org is being replaced by gitlab.gnome.org. We are closing all old bug reports in Bugzilla which have not seen updates for many years.

If you can still reproduce this issue in a currently supported version of GNOME (currently that would be 3.38), then please feel free to report it at https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-power-manager/-/issues/

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry it could not be fixed.