GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 643457
Removal of the power button is inconvenient for desktop use and wastes energy
Last modified: 2017-07-28 12:34:22 UTC
Wiki: http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design/Whiteboards/SystemStopRestart The reasoning there leaves the common operation of switching your computer off before you go home completely out. This will waste energy because the computer is suspended all night (> 12 hours) while it could be completely off without breaking any workflow. William Jon McCann: "Encouraging the use of suspend will very likely result in a dramatic power savings for many people. If you only have the options: a) continue to run at full power b) stop everything you're doing, save all your work, close all your apps, lose all your state, wait for the system to power off; you have a problem. In this case, your selfish motivations are in opposition to low power consumption. That's not going to turn out well. And no amount of preaching will change that." While I completely agree with Jon on the case of a lunchbreak I completely disagree for the go-home case stated above. In German companies it is usually even just not allowed to not switch off your desktop. For mobile devices the page above may be right, for desktop it is not. I can provide more energy figures and evidence if necessary. And I hope you won't close this like the mailing list discussion (which led to nothing like about any mailing list discussion but that's not your fault): "I'm usually inclined to ignore claims like this that don't provide any supporting evidence. But since you're probably going to keep on saying it anyway..." Thanks I marked that as blocker on purpose because it kills your environment.
I have to say that since I'm trying to use gnome-shell, I always assumed that the "Power off" button was not implemented yet, so I was using "sudo halt" in a term. Having to use a key to make it appear is the less intuitive thing ever.
A few things about the workstation case. Many of these issues should be mitigated by use of a hybrid suspend which is robust against power loss. Though we can't necessarily expect it, ideally, workstations with important state should be equipped with UPS units. In the case of power loss, where a hybrid suspend was not used, I would like to see a suspended computer resume and save state to disk (hibernate). My understanding is that already works for some if not all laptops in a similar situation. So, even in the workstation case (which is less interesting than mobile these days) I think suspend still makes the most sense. Power loss is uncommon. It is equivalent to popping out the battery of your laptop. Again, the power option hasn't been removed. I'll leave this open in case Owen wants to add anything.
Jon: Please don't fiddle with the Target field. Thank you.
> So, even in the workstation case (which is less interesting than mobile these > days) I think suspend still makes the most sense. Power loss is uncommon. It > is equivalent to popping out the battery of your laptop. The workstation case might be less interesting that the mobile case but it still isn't uncommon in anyway. Power loss might be uncommon (depending greatly on where you live...) but you are not covering the energy argumentation at all. I see no problem hiding "Power Off" on mobile devices btw, but I wonder if it can be detected reliable, probably by just checking if we have a battery or not. Remember that german elementary school kids already learn that only the power used by devices in standby (TV, PC, etc.) is responsible for an additonal need of two nuclear power plants* in Germany. I am pretty sure I could find exact number here if you are interested. To be honest, I wonder why it would be such a bad user-interface design to have just one additional button is this menu. I really appreciate the removal of minimize/maximize and I see a reasoning behind hiding complex energy option but this just sounds silly to me. Don't get me wrong, I brought this up here (and on the ML) to avoid running a useless flamewar on Planet GNOME but I hope that will at least get user testing & feedback on the next GNOME3 user day. * sidenote: nuclear power plants are a highly political topic in Germany...
I don't see Sri's comment answered on https://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design/Whiteboards/SystemStopRestart , Jon proposed to have Owen comment on this one. Until then I'll keep the Target field, at least.
(In reply to comment #5) > I don't see Sri's comment answered on > https://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design/Whiteboards/SystemStopRestart , Jon > proposed to have Owen comment on this one. > Until then I'll keep the Target field, at least. I don't see anything in Sri's comment that raises new points unknown in the deisgn process or blocker issues, it seems to be more an inquiry into the design. - The Power Off option is hidden because we don't believe it's necessary in that menu, not because we think users should necessarily know how to hold down alt to get to it. The primary way that a user would shut down (if they, say, need to disconnect power) would be to log out and shut down through GDM. - The suspend option is in the menu to give consistent behavior between laptops and desktops - to have a single thing that we do by default.
(In reply to comment #6) > - The Power Off option is hidden because we don't believe it's necessary in > that menu, not because we think users should necessarily know how to hold down > alt to get to it. The primary way that a user would shut down (if they, say, > need to disconnect power) would be to log out and shut down through GDM. So the one-click "Shut down" option in GNOME2 will actually require two steps ("Log out" and then "Shut down") in GNOME3? Just want to have this crystal-clear to communicate it.
And when laptop crashes on suspend, are we supposed to tell users "hold down the Alt key and click 'Power Off', as the default option is broken for you"? I still don't see why "Logout..." couldn't provide options to turn off the computer...
Hello, I just wanted to point out the fact that I absolutely never ever used the suspend option in the former power off/suspend/halt dialog box : on a laptop, closing the lid just puts the laptop on suspend. What about displaying both on the same line ?
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > I don't see Sri's comment answered on > > https://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design/Whiteboards/SystemStopRestart , Jon > > proposed to have Owen comment on this one. > > Until then I'll keep the Target field, at least. > > I don't see anything in Sri's comment that raises new points unknown in the > deisgn process or blocker issues, it seems to be more an inquiry into the > design. > > - The Power Off option is hidden because we don't believe it's necessary in > that menu, But in the real world like mine, we need to have a power-off button, because we need to turn off the machine before leaving work. Despite of the mobile phenomenon, desktop usage is still a majority of businesses, and that button for them is very important. >not because we think users should necessarily know how to hold down > alt to get to it. The primary way that a user would shut down (if they, say, > need to disconnect power) would be to log out and shut down through GDM. ??? What??? I haven't been in an OS desktop that I needed first to logout before I can shutdown. Logging out, it is just that, to logout from the current *user* session especially in a multi-seat/user environment. Yes, there is a shutdown option, but no way this is the primary way of shutting down a system. Imagine, windows users who will be using Linux for the first time, do you expect them to log-out so that they can shutdown the machine? And that is a two-step task, where we can just implement it with a visible (NO, do not hide it) power off button. I can't understand why. > > - The suspend option is in the menu to give consistent behavior between > laptops and desktops - to have a single thing that we do by default. Not a valid reason at all. The thing(whatever) that you do by default is not what we are doing as users(Graphic Artists, Business users, etc). +1 for adding the visible Shutdown button at the user menu.
I completely agree with Allen and Johannes, and also think that simply hiding "Power Off..." is the wrong thing to do. (Coincidentally, I am also German. ;) ) Unfortunately, I haven't found this bug beforehand, so I posted my thoughts on the mailing list [1]. In addition, I'd like to ask: how is an additional (as opposed to a hidden) "Power Off" menu item a problem? I understand the rational for encouraging suspending in the case where state should be preserved, but how does an additional option to completely shutdown (to save *all* energy, for instance over night) have a negative impact on this? I mean, two options which, in my opinion, clearly communicate the different use cases aren't too much, are they? [1] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-shell-list/2011-March/msg00131.html
(In reply to comment #8) > And when laptop crashes on suspend, are we supposed to tell users "hold down > the Alt key and click 'Power Off', as the default option is broken for you"? I am informed in the mailing list that GNOME Shell will detect if your system is capable of Suspending before it shows that option, until then, it will only show the alternative(?). And even if my system is capable, the momentum is still strong, I still cannot trust the Linux kernel to properly suspend my system, so I have never use that because of a _bad_ experience. Maybe from an Ubuntu-powered Dell system, it will work. > > I still don't see why "Logout..." couldn't provide options to turn off the > computer... There must be an option to power off the system at the login page. It is an obvious feature.
> > There must be an option to power off the system at the login page. It is an > obvious feature. No, its not! Let's think about any other electronic device. (TV/Phones/MusicPlayers/...) They all have only 1 button to turn the application ON. To turn it OFF, we again have to use that very same button. Do any of those applications have a menu for shutdown? Why not? Is anyone left wondering how to turn off the TV ? (atleast I havent seen any TV which has a menu to turn it OFF) Why do computers alone need a menu item to shutdown? Let's just use the very same button we use to turn ON the system to turn it OFF. (for others who want the button to do different things, I guess the dconf will still available)
> There must be an option to power off the system at the login page. It is an > obvious feature. You should avoid to use sarcasm in text-based discussions; it is easily misunderstood due to the lack of voice and body language. (This is not meant as an attack, but a friendly suggestion.) Aside from that, this is a very valid point: saying that powering off should be done by logging out and then choosing shutdown/restart requires the knowledge that the screen that is used for login actually also provides shutdown options - which is strange to assume if you don't already know it. So it is not much more discoverable then the Alt-key-hidden "Power off..." menu item. If there were no use case for powering off instead of suspending, I'd be fine with that. However, as was mentioned in this bug report, there is - power saving and environment friendliness, of which the latter especially should be an ideological concern for the GNOME project, in my opinion. Therefore I currently see no reason why the option to properly shut down should be hidden from the user. (As I have not seen the answer to my question in comment #11 yet, though, I won't say that "there is no reason", just that I don't see it right now,)
(In reply to comment #13) > > > > There must be an option to power off the system at the login page. It is an > > obvious feature. > > No, its not! > > Let's think about any other electronic device. (TV/Phones/MusicPlayers/...) > They all have only 1 button to turn the application ON. > To turn it OFF, we again have to use that very same button. > Do any of those applications have a menu for shutdown? Why not? > > Is anyone left wondering how to turn off the TV ? (atleast I havent seen any TV > which has a menu to turn it OFF) Actually, a TV still has two ways of shutdown: the OFF button on the remote control, which is akin to "Suspend" (that is, standby); the the TV's OFF button, which is the equivalent of "Shut Down". While it's not a "menu", there's still the same distinction bewteen OFF modes. > Why do computers alone need a menu item to shutdown? > Let's just use the very same button we use to turn ON the system to turn it > OFF. Because most non-computer power-driven devices simply don't have any state to save when being turned off, either because there is nothing to adjust (e.g. lamps) or the state is determined by simple mechanics such as knobs (hair driers, electric stoves, ...). So a simple OFF button which just disconnects the power is all that is needed. It makes no sense to compare this to computers, with all their state such as open windows, documents, etc. that might need saving - or not. So offering the choice of either keeping all state and trading in a bit of energy vs. discarding that state (e.g. because what you have done is finished or you will do something different tomorrow anyway) and therefore wasting no energy at all seems sensible. > (for others who want the button to do different things, I guess the dconf will > still available) It has been mentioned several times in this bug report why hiding these options from inexperienced users is not a good idea, especially for the environment.
(In reply to comment #15) > > > > Is anyone left wondering how to turn off the TV ? (atleast I havent seen any TV > > which has a menu to turn it OFF) > > Actually, a TV still has two ways of shutdown: the OFF button on the remote > control, which is akin to "Suspend" (that is, standby); the the TV's OFF > button, which is the equivalent of "Shut Down". While it's not a "menu", > there's still the same distinction bewteen OFF modes. > What I meant was that the Built-in TV's power-down button or the Remote's power button are the same place for the ON/OFF actions. Not somewhere else in the TV's option menu. It's kinda akin to systems having a power button and a suspend button. IMO, the modifier key displaying the menu item is a wrong design, maybe an added feature. :-) Just my opinion... > > Why do computers alone need a menu item to shutdown? > > Let's just use the very same button we use to turn ON the system to turn it > > OFF. > > > It makes no sense to compare this to computers, with all their state such as > open windows, documents, etc. that might need saving - or not. So offering the > choice of either keeping all state and trading in a bit of energy vs. > discarding that state (e.g. because what you have done is finished or you will > do something different tomorrow anyway) and therefore wasting no energy at all > seems sensible. > What does any of that have to do with the option being displayed in the menu? Even if it is displayed nothing of that changes if user just hits shutdown and we have no session/app-state save built in. Session state is what needs to be fixed in the apps or implemented! Simply Displaying the option in the menu does not fix any of those. Displaying the option still makes it a requirement that the user needs to save documents.
(In reply to comment #15) > > It makes no sense to compare this to computers, with all their state such as > open windows, documents, etc. that might need saving - or not. So offering the > choice of either keeping all state and trading in a bit of energy vs. > discarding that state (e.g. because what you have done is finished or you will > do something different tomorrow anyway) and therefore wasting no energy at all > seems sensible. > Err, nvm I understood that wrong! But we _can_ shutdown, its just not in the menu. Last I heard there was some discussion of implementing Shutdown for long button press. Not sure where that is right now.
(In reply to comment #17) > (In reply to comment #15) > > > > It makes no sense to compare this to computers, with all their state such as > > open windows, documents, etc. that might need saving - or not. So offering the > > choice of either keeping all state and trading in a bit of energy vs. > > discarding that state (e.g. because what you have done is finished or you will > > do something different tomorrow anyway) and therefore wasting no energy at all > > seems sensible. > > > > Err, nvm I understood that wrong! > But we _can_ shutdown, its just not in the menu. > > Last I heard there was some discussion of implementing Shutdown for long button > press. Not sure where that is right now. The problem is not that you _cannot_ shut down - of course you always can, if not in the menus, then from the terminal. The point is that it is completely non-obvious how to do so without knowing it beforehand, and that is the issue that I have. I mean, how in the world would someone assume that the shutdown feature might turn up if he presses Alt or presses the power button long enough? If I wouldn't follow the development discusssions - which most users don't do - and would look at the menu, I would think that GNOME 3 just doesn't offer a way to properly shut down my computer. And that's wrong. So what harm is there to add Shut Down as a second option? It only means that the user _can_ choose it - he can still suspend if he likes that better. (P.S.: This discussion is unrelated to the ON/OFF button discussion. I really don't mind if my ON/OFF button is mapped to "Suspend", actually I'm fine with that as this is exactly how it is on my laptop right now. But this doesn't change anything about the need for a shut-down menu item.)
(In reply to comment #18) > > (P.S.: This discussion is unrelated to the ON/OFF button discussion. I really > don't mind if my ON/OFF button is mapped to "Suspend", actually I'm fine with > that as this is exactly how it is on my laptop right now. But this doesn't > change anything about the need for a shut-down menu item.) I realize why this bug has been filed, but what I'm saying is; to use only the Power Button as a consistent place to turn ON/OFF and not the menu to turn OFF when we turn ON from a button.
I am not quite sure if it is correct but to post it but there is also 3rd option I use the most - hibernation. I don't like suspend as I cannot switch systems (Linux+Gnome is my first system but sometimes I need to switch to the secondary system) and as system is powered off it does not waste energy. I imagine that hibernation for a night would solve both problems as it is as stateful as the suspend while being as power-saving as suspend. (In reply to comment #13) > > > > There must be an option to power off the system at the login page. It is an > > obvious feature. > > No, its not! > > Let's think about any other electronic device. (TV/Phones/MusicPlayers/...) > They all have only 1 button to turn the application ON. > To turn it OFF, we again have to use that very same button. > Do any of those applications have a menu for shutdown? Why not? > My phone have one power button which turns off the screen and/or powers on. The power off feature is in the menu. Additionally the music players, phones, tablets and other mobile devices are much more mobile than our x86 laptops. The standard advertised length on battery for laptop is 4h-6h and the OS have much less control over suspend then on mobile devices (i.e. usually don't have wake-on-press-of-key while wake-on-call is standard mobile phone feature). The highier power requirements and not 'just working' with suspend requires explicit turning off/suspend in addition to timeout features.
"Power Off" is an elementary feature which should need no arguments for being non-obscurely included. That is like discussing whether there should be an "P" key on the keyboard (or perhaps we could type it with Alt+S?)
Can we please avoid the forum noise ("me too" etc) a bit? I get bugmail on every comment, and this is not a voting contest. Thank you.
I just have two simple thoughts on this topic: First of all, as long as I can just hit the physical power button on my machine (regardless of whether I'm on my netbook, macbook, or my desktop) and it pops up a dialog that offers to physically power down the machine cleanly, then I don't really care whether or not 'shut down' appears in any other menu. Secondly, perhaps the 'suspend' option could be programmed to suspend for just an hour or so, and then proceed to a full shutdown/hibernate after that length of time. That might appeal to a more power-conscious audience because that then allows them to suspend during their lunch break and achieve a full shutdown at the end of the work day without any extra UI clutter.
(In reply to comment #14) > > There must be an option to power off the system at the login page. It is an > > obvious feature. > > You should avoid to use sarcasm in text-based discussions; it is easily > misunderstood due to the lack of voice and body language. (This is not meant as > an attack, but a friendly suggestion.) > Thanks...I agree.
I was thinking about some proposal that probably could make most people happy: * Show the power off option if the device doesn't have a battery * Show suspend if there is one (and suspend is available) gnome-power-manager can most likely give us that information and it would solve the problem of the mobile/stationary use-case. The disadvantage though is that it will be inconsistent on screenshots and would have to be addressed in the help files. If there is interest I might try to create a patch though I cannot promise if I have the time.
As people are commenting What about: - Add a poweroff/reboot entry (in all cases) - Keep the Suspend entry and make it do hybrid suspend (only on laptop?) - When the user push the alt button Suspend become Hibernate my 2¢
Johannes: The problem is, many users with a battery also want to hibernate or power off. I don't think the difference is between desktops/laptops: it's about individual/corporate preferences and policies.
I've stopped following this thread (and all those in the mailing list) because they've all become redundant. IMHO, it is obvious that there must be a Power Off menu item in the status menu. For this reason, and for people that just cannot agree with designers, I've put up an extension that completely replaces the status menu, as a band aid until this is changed in the main tree. It is "alternative-status-menu" in the semi-official repository. Still hoping that this will be fixed in 3.0 or 3.2... let the flame war begin!
(In reply to comment #2) > So, even in the workstation case (which is less interesting than mobile these > days) I think suspend still makes the most sense. Power loss is uncommon. It > is equivalent to popping out the battery of your laptop. Power loss is not uncommon. It just depends where you are. I have lived in places where there has been no power loss in years (ie. Finland), and I have lived in places where it is very common to loose power for 2-4 hours a week depending on the time of the year (ie. India).
Those who forget Vista are doomed to repeat it http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/11/21.html
(In reply to comment #30) > Those who forget Vista are doomed to repeat it > http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/11/21.html While it may or may not make sense depends largly on enviroment: - Log off is sometimes needed. For example on university lab machines people notoriously forget to log off which causes problems (machines are restricted to 1 session only to not test how many people can be log on simoultainously and forgot to log back in - and such limit will be achived quickly if such option was not provided). On the other hand on 1-user machine I use it as reboot of gnome (ok. poweruser case but still). - Restarts/Hibernation. If anyone have dual boot for any reason (say tests FreeBSD for sake of argument) it is must-have option. Preferably hibernation as it saves the state but it may cause surprises when user access shared data. - Suspend/Hibernation. Unfortunatly it may go wrong - both on Linux and Windows (for example on my laptop Windows tries to hibernate but never succeeds). -------------------------------- I'm NOT a designer but: - Switch user/lock screen is natural merge - Suspend/hibernation can be merged in some conditions but there probably should be option for more power saving users OR closing lid suspends while hibernation is and option in menu next to power-off - Log off option is needed when resources are scarce. Possibly it should be just an option in Pessulus to change switch user/lock screen to log off - Assuming hibernation works does anyone wants power-off (as oppose to hibernate when finishing and rebooting after updates?). I don't use it but possibly someone have - [Possibly after integrating it with grub/other bootloaders and policykit - "switch system to" (hibernates and selects next system automatically)] Setting aside the last option it would be 2-3 options (and 3-4 choices adding lid) - lock screen, hibernate and optionally log off as oppose to 4 in current gnome shell (lock screen, switch user, log out and suspend).
(In reply to comment #30) > Those who forget Vista are doomed to repeat it > http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/11/21.html We also have a plan(for an NGO where I volunteered) to make every session ends when a student leaves the computer a compulsory so that all of the students will have unique sessions. Therefore, log-off/end session function is specifically needed. I believe this can all be easily fixed to offer a setting for IT people to customize of which functions are relevant to them by turning them on, off or do a hybrid setup. Choices are provided to accommodate as much number of users as possible, so removing some functions will only cater a few(removing their headaches) and ignoring the large portion of the populace.
(In reply to comment #0) > William Jon McCann: "Encouraging the use of suspend will very likely result in > a dramatic power savings for many people. If you only have the options: a) > continue to run at full power b) stop everything you're doing, save > all your work, close all your apps, lose all your state, wait for the > system to power off; you have a problem. In this case, your selfish > motivations are in opposition to low power consumption. That's not > going to turn out well. And no amount of preaching will change that." This reasoning is right, but no the implementation. Based on the reasoning of McCann, we need to have an implementation explicit as possible: The user should be able to choose between suspend or stop theire work as clearly as possible. So, I propose to have always 2 entries in the menu: "Suspend" and "Stop". I think we can't make more explicit. Click on the "Suspend" entry show a system model window. This window have to choices: "Only Suspend" and "Suspend and Power Off". The first is technically suspend-to-ram and the second choice is suspend-to-disk. Have a window add the posibility to confirm and save time in case of error from a mouse click. This window don't show applications running. Click on the "Stop" entry show a system modal window, like the present-day system modal window of "Power Off", with the list of applications running and two choices: "Power Off" and "Restart". Can you do more explicit?
> b) stop everything you're doing, save > all your work, close all your apps, lose all your state, wait for the > system to power off; you have a problem. Tell that to corporations who mandated every computer(Desktop which is still interesting anyway to businesses!) to be turned off completely during non-working hours. IMHO these design decisions really drives my mind crazy, I am now stop following this design stupidity.
Having to log out in order to Shutdown is CRAZY! This is such a bad idea it literally would stop me from using the Desktop. A shutdown setting needs to be easily accessible to the user both via a keyboard-command and mouse from the primary Desktop. This is critical to everyday use of the Desktop.
**************************************************************************** DO READ comment 22 before adding unhelpful comments that don't provide any new insight, otherwise I might deactivate your account. Thank you. ****************************************************************************
Please accept my apology for Comment 35. I believe it is good principle to provide dual methods for implementing commands --at least one via keyboard-shortcut and one via mouse. Unfortunately, so far, I have not discovered a method of shutdown via a keyboard-shortcut. I feel strongly that this needs to be addressed. As for the mouse, it appears to me that without a Shutdown option in the menu then the user is without an efficient way to shutdown via the mouse. Instead he/she is forced to use a Terminal command via keyboard (which involves more typing than a keyboard-shortcut would require) or to initiate a logout and wait for this action to complete, which can take several seconds or more, before gaining a method of shutdown via the mouse. Less experienced users may not even know how to shutdown via the Terminal and will initially become confused with a lack of shutdown command in the menu, resorting to forced shutdowns by holding down the power button. (I witnessed this myself on a computer where pressing the power button was configured to do nothing). I think security should also be a factor of consideration. It provides heightened security to fully shutdown the machine. Security firms and government agencies may institute practices that require shutdown if the computer will not be used even for a short period of time (e.g., to help protect against insertion of malware ridden USB keys et. al, or to fully secure an encrypted hard drive). The environment of operation may also require shutting down the machine or even a quick shutdown method. Again government agents in the field with a laptop may require a quick shutdown option for security or when facing exigent circumstances. Omission of a shutdown command in the menu and the lack of a keyboard-shortcut communicates that the developer does not want the user to shutdown. And with added burden to shutdown created by the design, people that require this option may migrate to designs that facilitate it in a more efficient manner.
(In reply to comment #13) > > > > There must be an option to power off the system at the login page. It is an > > obvious feature. > > No, its not! > > Let's think about any other electronic device. (TV/Phones/MusicPlayers/...) > They all have only 1 button to turn the application ON. > To turn it OFF, we again have to use that very same button. > Do any of those applications have a menu for shutdown? Why not? Actually, that is not true at least for Kindle, iPod and other devices. You can't really turn them off, only restart them :-). But I do agree a button to power off the system is needed in the main menu. Can't we do "à-la-Windows" style? I mean: [ Suspend ▸ ] where lingering for a couple of seconds over the item will show a drop-down list with "Restart", "Shut-down", "Hibernate"? I know many people did not like that design in Windows when it came out, but by now it's well understood and something the users are (more or less) used to.
(In reply to comment #37) > > I think security should also be a factor of consideration. It provides > heightened security to fully shutdown the machine. Security firms and > government agencies may institute practices that require shutdown if the > computer will not be used even for a short period of time (e.g., to help > protect against insertion of malware ridden USB keys et. al, or to fully secure > an encrypted hard drive). Incidentally, it puzzles me why before suspending the screen is not blocked (no password is asked on resume). I could go away, and someone sitting at my desk could operate it without needing my password, reading all my data etc. Think about a colleague after I left office, or a child after parents went away. This is semantically different from powering off (which requires to input your password when starting up the system again), so I wonder if it is the right choice not to lock the screen. After all, it is locked automatically after a certain amount of inactivity (say, 15 minutes), why suspending for hours and bringing the system back to life should be any different?
Matteo, that's not related to this issue at all, please see bug 619955.
Guarding against Data loss is a consideration point as well if a system's design makes shutdown more difficult to accomplish. First of all, not all systems support Hibernate. And even if Hibernate is supported, it does not guard against data loss like shutdown does. Suspend/Sleep still uses battery power when active. A laptop left too long on Sleep will run out the battery, perhaps risking data loss. When a user is busy working on his/her computer and the power goes out, the user's UPS starts beeping that it will soon run out of battery, the user is not going to put the computer into Suspend. Forcing the user to have to log out and then shutdown adds unnecessary time to the shutdown process. In addition, the user may want to shut down the computer and disconnect from all power supplies during a storm to guard against electrical spikes. Having the ability to swiftly shut down without unnecessary delay is needed here as well. Shut down should be easily and quickly accessible from the Desktop for purposes of protecting against data loss and hardware damage.
Sorry - I hope it is not 'me too' comment but I it seems to be left unmentioned on this page. If user have flight he may want to use computer on airport. However (s)he is required (at least in Europe) to switch off all electronic devices. I don't know if suspending computer is sufficient but I am certainly not willing to risk my life over it [inconvinience of switching off the computer even with one more evil option in menu ⋘ (>200 people having aircrash)*(probability of crash > 0)]. The 15 minutes of suspend + hibernate is improvement but I would still like to be sure that the computer is switched off.
I have read the whole thread and saw that only one person mentioned it (comment #13), so I decided to say it out loud. I found current behavior at last controversial, but there is nothing wrong with it. There is strong rationale behind that. What is more, people should read user manual before actually using something (we do that for washing machines or microwaves, right?). As long as documentation is easy to find and accurate, altering Suspend to Shutdown is OK. But I also think that desktop environment is not only about providing sane defaults. Desktop environment should provide sane defaults AND give tools to change it for people who really needs or wants to. So all these users complaining about not-easy-available shutdown button could change this for themselves. Don't you think that everyone would be happy then? I don't think there is need for any GUI to do that. This could be achievable through some low-level configuration tools (dconf? I'm not really sure since I don't use GNOME (yet ;) ) or even modifying some text-file. The idea is, that user is able to customize environment a way he or she likes. In a future, it would be great that user could also add his own menu entries or alter commands triggered when certain item is selected (e.g. he or she could also change status for any messenger that isn't Empathy). Just my two cents. PS. I'm sorry in advance for any mistakes, English isn't my mother-tongue.
Some more reasons: Rational arguments: * Most of the people I know turn their computer off, even if they leave it for just two or three hours. Most of the people here in Austria do a thing which is called power-saving. * None of my machines (not even my laptop) supports standby nor hibernate reliable. My laptop crashes most of the time, and standby/hibernate on my desktop means it turns of the harddrive. Not a very good solution if you are sleeping in the same room with your computer. Emotional arguments: * How can anybody come to the idea to remove the power switch menu option? What damn crazyness is that?? I'm mean it take about 30 pixels in a menu where is plenty of space, so this shouldn't be a reason. Also computer users normally understand the difference between shutdown and hibernate/standby (or it could be explained in a small hint window). My comments to some of the comments above: @Vish, I don't know what TV device you have, but mine has those options that you are denying. I can send it to standby with the remote control, or I can shut it down with a button on the TV. The difference is about 8 W/h or 16 € a year, which is not much, but the same is true for my satellite reciever, my dvd player, my home dolby sourround system and many other devices. And another thing: "Displaying the option still makes it a requirement that the user needs to save documents.": OMG what do you think users are, brainless sheeps? Files MUST be saved anyway. Did you ever hear "Save often, save early?" @Nick ("Having to log out in order to Shutdown is CRAZY!"): you are so right!! @Mirosław Zalewski: "But I also think that desktop environment is not only about providing sane defaults. Desktop environment should provide sane defaults AND give tools to change it for people who really needs or wants to." Gnome developers seem to forget about the latter part recently. I don't mind being banned, deleted or anything else. This comment is for the sake of my own sanity. When I installed Gnome 3 today and had to ask google how to shut down, i was more than baffled. IMHO, a shutdown option is not a feature, it's not an extra and it's nothing one would have a discussion about. A shutdown button is essential, it's the first thing I would programm after having the start up finished. I really don't have the slightest idea how anybody would remove the shutdown button. Also notice that I didn't want to insult anybody, but this discussion really made me go to the top....
(In reply to comment #43) > I found current behavior at last controversial, but there is nothing wrong with > it. There is strong rationale behind that. What is more, people should read > user manual before actually using something (we do that for washing machines or > microwaves, right?). That's right, but it doesn't mean we don't need an intuitive UI design. As an extreme example, if we add a button "Remove all" in the panel, which will remove all the files in the file system, and write in the manual saying "never do that if you don't really want....".... Removing the "power off" button is not that severe a problem, but it does confuse people like me, for nearly a month. I simply don't understand why such a widely used button is hidden by default. One can't even restart easily his/her computer! Besides, the "suspend" is not quite reliable in Linux yet, but it provides false safety feeling: everything will be back after it wake up; however the truth is the wake up can fail frequently in Linux.
(In reply to comment #0) > William Jon McCann: "Encouraging the use of suspend will very likely result in > a dramatic power savings for many people. If you only have the options: a) > continue to run at full power b) stop everything you're doing, save > all your work, close all your apps, lose all your state, wait for the > system to power off; you have a problem. In this case, your selfish > motivations are in opposition to low power consumption. That's not > going to turn out well. And no amount of preaching will change that." The thing is, the option to suspend/sleep/hibernate has always been there, in plain sight. People who don't like to suspend now won't be encouraged to suspend when the "Power off" button is gone. And people who do care a little about energy consumption will now resort to wasting more energy with "Suspend" instead of powering off/hibernating for the night. I don't see any way how removing the "Power off" button could possibly convince people to save more power. I understand that Gnome tries to simplify our options, but I think this decision they've gotten wrong, annoying laptop users (who tend to simply close the lid to suspend and thus a "Power off" button is much more important to them than a "Suspend button"), dual-booters, and the environmentally-conscious. To keep Gnome simple, yet users happy, here's what I would propose: How about having "Suspend", "Log out", and "Power off" in the Gnome menu and adding a "Quit all applications" button to the session menu? If there are applications running, "Power off" would act just like today's "Hibernate", saving the computer's state first and then powering off. If hibernation doesn't agree with the user's hardware, the user should get a "Quit all and power off" button instead. The same with "Log out": if there are any apps running, the session should be saved. This would get rid of the need for an additional "Switch user" button. P.S. As an aside, Chrome OS has a very good way of dealing with power management options, but, unfortunately for Gnome, they are tied to the hardware: closing the lid suspends, pushing the "off" button for a little while logs off, pushing it longer powers off, and the session is always saved.
So we've got: - suspend (to ram) - which puts your machine in stand-by, and your RAM active. You can't remove power (battery and/or AC) - hibernate (suspend to disk) - similar but slower, and you can remove power - power off The first works often, but relies on power; the second doesn't need power but is more brittle (needs to write ram to swap, can't boot a different kernel, no dual booting with shared partitions, etc); the third is pretty reliable, but doesn't keep your state. Now, what I'm wondering is this: if GTK/Gnome had proper session management, and on logout/power off your session and state was reliably saved - could we then default to "power off" instead of "suspend" or "hibernate"? In a (my?) perfect world "suspend" would be invoked after the screen saver kicked in for a while, "hibernate" after an even longer time. And "power off" on request, in the menu. But I've never seen an electrical device that couldn't be shut down, or where you had to jump through hoops to shut down. The most difficult is my iPhone I guess, where you have to press the power button for a few seconds, and then confirm. But having to log out + wait + press shut down button or holding a modifier key + menu + shut down seems a lot of hoops for a functionality that nobody will be able to completely avoid. If we assume all people _will_ need it eventually, why hide it?
I think there is a serious design problem. The fact is that, no matter how long one can argue that people can do without the option to shutdown, people actually *do* need to shutdown. Taking myself as an example, I often use a netbook that has about 2 hours of charge. I certainly do not want to suspend only to find out that I lost 10 minutes of those precious 2 hours. And I also do not use suspend for my desktop computer, as I am worried that a power failure may corrupt the data. Yes, that can happen also when I am working, but why take the additional risk for all the time during the day and night when the computer may actually be off? So, until I only work with a battery-powered computer which lasts 8 hours, I am basically stuck with powering off. And even then, I will need to restart if I have to use Windows, say to check my sites in IE. Moreover sometimes problems happen, and a restart is the quickest way to reset everything, and get a working computer. Many more arguments have been made for the need to shutdown in the previous comments: * care for the environment * corporate restrictions * security measures - say for encrypted drives * entering a plane * wake up may *not work* on your hardware * a power failure activated the UPS, and one has to shut down quickly and probably something else that I am now missing. I can think more: * changing the battery * leaving the laptop off for long, say when leaving for the holidays In the end shutting down the computer is such a common operation that I do not believe anyone can do without for long. When I wanted to shutdown I lost twenty minutes searching everywhere, before eventually resorting to Google. I am pretty sure this is not the smooth experience that the developers have in mind for the users. People expect to be able to shut down the computer and, while I appreciate the changes in design taken by the Gnome 3 team, refusing to see the use cases for suth down is just blind. I would go as far as saying that this single issue may be the key factor that drives one person that otherwise would try Gnome 3 away from it. Imagine: I show Gnome 3 to a friend which is a Windows user; he plays with it and enjoys it very much, so he asks me to install some Linux distro with Gnome 3 on his machine. The very first time he uses it on his own, he cannot find how to shutdown, so he loses 20 minutes before finally calling me for help. I explain that he just needs to press Alt to change the menu. He decides that "this Linux thing" is too complicated and asks me to wipe everything. Do you think this would be too far-fetched?
(In reply to comment #48) > The fact is that, no matter how long one can argue that people can do > without the option to shutdown, people actually *do* need to shutdown. And you can! You log out with your user, and then you can shut down.
I am pretty sure that there are many users that do not realize this. It is not as hidden as the Alt modifier, but still far from obvious. All in all, in this discussion I have read many arguments for keeping the shutdown option, and not a single argument for removing it.
(In reply to comment #47) > So we've got: > > - suspend (to ram) - which puts your machine in stand-by, and your RAM active. > You can't remove power (battery and/or AC) > - hibernate (suspend to disk) - similar but slower, and you can remove power > - power off > > The first works often, but relies on power; the second doesn't need power but > is more brittle (needs to write ram to swap, can't boot a different kernel, no > dual booting with shared partitions, etc); the third is pretty reliable, but > doesn't keep your state. > > Now, what I'm wondering is this: if GTK/Gnome had proper session management, > and on logout/power off your session and state was reliably saved - could we > then default to "power off" instead of "suspend" or "hibernate"? > > In a (my?) perfect world "suspend" would be invoked after the screen saver > kicked in for a while, "hibernate" after an even longer time. And "power off" > on request, in the menu. > > But I've never seen an electrical device that couldn't be shut down, or where > you had to jump through hoops to shut down. The most difficult is my iPhone I > guess, where you have to press the power button for a few seconds, and then > confirm. But having to log out + wait + press shut down button or holding a > modifier key + menu + shut down seems a lot of hoops for a functionality that > nobody will be able to completely avoid. If we assume all people _will_ need it > eventually, why hide it? My 2 cents as a user: I would like hibernate/power off to be combined into one menu item, but suspend to ram should be kept as either a separate item, or somehow encompassed by a "suspend session" action which could tie together suspend/lock screen/switch user. Hibernate/power off are both used in the same way and having two separate buttons makes the menu more confusing for idiots like me. IMO the best way to keep the interface simple and intuitive is to have "power off" bring up a dialog with a "quit all applications" checkbox that is checked by default. I don't consider suspend to disk and suspend to ram to be similar enough to combine them, and would prefer some distinction between which options power off the computer and which don't, for the reasons already mentioned.
I use both laptop and desktop on daily basis. Have Fedora 15 Beta installed on my laptop. my laptop case: whenever I want to suspend my laptop - I just close the lid - I don't need an option in menu to suspend it, I just do an obvious thing - I am done with my laptop, so I just close the lid. It works just fine. though from time to time I need to power off my laptop, hence I'd like to see an option in the menu, to power it off, not suspend. my desktop case: I have a "suspend" button on my keyboard, so whenever I want to suspend my desktop, I would just hit that button. but on daily basis I switch on my desktop when I get home and switch it off before I go to bed. no, I do not want to suspend it, I want to power it off. Even on standby computer uses power, hence I want to avoid power consumption. so, in my humble opinion, current design is illogical and unclear - by default user is offered with an option, which, in most cases will not be used (on laptop user can just close the lid, on desktop there will be a key or keys combination on the keyboard), while the most obvious thing like "Power off / restart" option is hidden by default. I understand that some folks claim users should read the user's manual before installing Gnome 3, but I thought Gnome 3 was designed in usability and ease of use in mind - in my humble opinion, it fails on that particular item - users should not be forced to read notes in the user's manual in order to power off their machines. Thanks.
I want to stress a fact that was mentioned, but I think was not emphasized enough : suspend works well and fine on some configuration, but it can just fail and give an experimented user an horrible time. On my personal laptop, when I use Suspend, everything seems to work well, until I try to turn my machine back on. At that point, I can't get anything else than a black screen. Even the SysRq keys don't work anymore. If I press continually on the power button, the computer will eventually seem to turn off, but if I try to turn it on again, it will still be blocked to a black screen, without any BIOS phase. I didn't precisely kept track on what exactly I did to make it starts again, but I know for sure it implies removing the power cord and waiting for some time. And I really find being completely unable to even get the BIOS working a very, very stressful situation. Therefore, I really do believe the Shutdown button should be present. And I even think it must be more advertised than the Suspend option, at least until huge Suspend problem become *really* uncommon on Gnome-running systems. Right now, video drivers troubles prevent a lot of users from being able to suspend.
*** Bug 651158 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I installed Gnome 3 at work yesterday. Then I wanted to shut down the computer before I left to go home (And no, "suspend" won't cut it. I want it *OFF*.) I spent the next 10 minutes googling about the missing shut down button (while wondering why the hell anyone would remove such a button). To my horror, I discovered that holding the 'alt' key will allow you to actually turn off the machine. That's noting more than "easter egg" functionality. With all the talk of design and usability in Gnome 3, I'm shocked to see such a poor decision as that. The magic alt key easter egg just simply isn't usable (unless you spend 10 minutes googling for it). After further Googling and reading bug reports, I discovered that you can also shutdown by first logging out. This is unacceptable as well. Not only does this take us back 15 years in functionality, it also takes twice as many steps. Let me illustrate: Gnome 2.x ============= 1. Click "System" from the menu bar. 2. Click "Shutdown". 3. Press enter key to confirm. Done. Gnome 3 ============= 1. Click my name. 2. Click logout. 3. Wait while Gnome closes and GDM stats up (can take several seconds)... (Notice at this point we've exceeded the number of steps/time it took in Gnome 2.) 4. Click the computer icon. 5. Choose shutdown. 6. Press enter to confirm. Done. It effectively takes twice as many steps (and maybe more than twice as much time, depending on how long gdm takes) to shut down the computer as before. *Unless* of course, you magically know about the 'alt' key Easter egg. Usability fail.
To be clear... I lost ~20 minutes of time googling/RTFM'ing on trying to figure out how to do a task (turn off the computer) that's been an obvious part of every desktop operating system since Windows 95 (a full 17 years ago). By this time, I expect there to be "shut down" button. It's a standard feature. There needs to be (menu-driven) way to turn off the computer (and have it happen right now). It needs to be obvious. Forcing people to resort to reading the manual for such a simple task is unacceptable and just plain poor design. A good menu design would work like this: * Lock Screen / Switch Users - Gives the standard locked screen with the button for switching users. The first user's programs continue running. * Suspend - Suspends to RAM for a time, then hibernates. The time before hibernate can be configurable from 0 to "never" (this way you can always just suspend, or always just hibernate, or let the computer handle switching between the two at the set time). * Logout - ("I'm done here and I'm not coming back anytime soon.", closes programs and lets someone else sign in; for shared "computer lab" use) * Shutdown / Restart - Brings up the previous shutdown countdown window. You have a button (selected by default) to shutdown now, a cancel button, and a restart button. This covers all of the use cases, while being as simple as possible (i.e. not like Vista's nine options). Notice the first two options cover the situation where the user is planning to return and wants to save state. The second two options cover the situations where the user doesn't care about saving state or wants to purposely lose the state.
By the way - the 'Suspend' that is shown instead of Log Off is dangerous. I clicked on that and my screen went black and the power to the screen went off - it is a Dell display and the green button turned to dim orange. I had to manually power cycle to recover.
(In reply to comment #57) > By the way - the 'Suspend' that is shown instead of Log Off is dangerous. I > clicked on that and my screen went black and the power to the screen went off - > it is a Dell display and the green button turned to dim orange. Suspend puts your computer in a low-power mode. Everything there seems like it's doing what it's supposed to be doing. > I had to manually power cycle to recover. Depending on the hardware, either tapping the keyboard enough times or pressing the power button shortly should bring it right back up.
(In reply to comment #56) > This covers all of the use cases, while being as simple as possible (i.e. not > like Vista's nine options). Notice the first two options cover the situation > where the user is planning to return and wants to save state. The second two > options cover the situations where the user doesn't care about saving state or > wants to purposely lose the state. Except 'hibernate and reboot' - I use it quite often to switch systems.
(In reply to comment #59) > Except 'hibernate and reboot' - I use it quite often to switch systems. As most people probably want to have some filesystems shared acros OSes (documents, music, whatever), using "hibernate and reboot" to do OS switching is a good way to destroy them...
(In reply to comment #60) > (In reply to comment #59) > > Except 'hibernate and reboot' - I use it quite often to switch systems. > > As most people probably want to have some filesystems shared acros OSes > (documents, music, whatever), using "hibernate and reboot" to do OS switching > is a good way to destroy them... Setting aside multiboot to other Linux distros/*BSD (I assume people who have multiple instances of those are power users) it can be simply handled by threating NTFS/VFAT/HFS/HFS+ volumes as external volumes and unmount on suspend/hibernation in the same way as usb external disks/sd cards/... are threated. System should warn people if it is not possible to unmount device anyway as I think most people would assume that when computer is 'switched off' you may unplug devices[1]. [1] Some people assume that you can always unplug them but I don't think thay matter in this discussion.
Comment #56 is probably one of the best ones on this discussion. I want to propose the following: Users may want to: - Quit their own session - Quit all sessions The two possibilities for doing so (both of which can be desirable) are: - Save current state - Properly power off So the most reasonable menu would look like the one described by Jeremy: […] - Lock Session - Log out… -------------------- - Suspend - Power off… To make sure the user understands what he's doing, he/she should: - Be offered/recommended the "switch user" option when choosing "logout" while applications are running (and/or have to check "quit all applications") - Be offered/recommended to hibernate when choosing "Power off" while applications are running (and/or have to check "quit all applications") "Lock session" would lock the screen. The lock screen offers the option to log in as another user. If this is not obvious enough, a dialog could be displayed. Advantages: - All relevant use cases are covered - Number of options in the menu stays the same - Users are prevented from accidentally losing data - (see other comments for good reasons to change the menu) Wouldn't that be a good solution?
*** Bug 646613 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 651752 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I would like to mention that suspend/hibernate is still broken on a lot of hardware, so leaving the user the choice between letting the computer run or letting it crash, or use a hidden/inconvenient power-off procedure will probably leave most of them choosing the first option and waste a lot of energy. I am using up-to-date Ubuntu on three different PCs, one of them a notebook, and on none of them suspend works, hibernate works only on the notebook. Power-off works on all three.
*** Bug 652030 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I never use the suspend feature, even on laptops. Neither do my parents. In fact, my mother uses her laptop as a pseudo-desktop computer - it stands in my parents' apartment, stationary, and she turns it on and off as needed. Placing the laptop in suspend for days is wasteful. And, having plenty of other matters to concern herself with, she would quickly forget the key combination for showing the power off menu entry even if I told her.
*** Bug 652393 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I'm a little bit torn about this because I haven't had any issues with the feature but my partner has. Yesterday she had tried to print a document for work in LibreOffice on f15 but the printer didn't show up for her straight away (Ubuntu is very responsive in that regard) so she closed it and 'shutdown' until I came home. When I came in, I booted up her laptop and discovered that the file was 0 bytes - this is a problem but I've seen bug reports elsewhere for this. I retyped her letter for her, got it printed and heard a familiar noise. Asking her what she'd done she says "I have to hold the button down to turn it off right?". I tell her no, it should always just sleep. She tells me that she doesn't like the light - it's a HP with a flashing white LED during sleep. Because the menu didn't have an option where she expected, and even though a 'shutdown' box appears when if you just press her power button, she assumed press-hold on the power button was the same thing. Whether this was the cause of her earlier data loss or any other issues I don't know but I have told her not to do it. Apologies for the rambling nature of my comment but I figured it is a useful use-case for the UI with someone unfamiliar with it that has a rather destructive workaround :(
It seems clear the design intention is to just give preference to "suspend" over "shutdown"and this is confirmed in the design whiteboard for System Suspend, Stop, and Restart [1]. The principal problem I see is that many people doesn't have a clear idea of what suspend is and what they usually want to do is just to shutting down its computer. If the user want to "shutdown" its computer, she has two options: 1) as mentioned in the design whiteboard, holding down a modifier key will give access to other power down options. This option has the problem that isn't intuitive, it uses a UI pattern that AFAIK isn't used in the rest of the shell. When you know it, it is very convenient, but I personally think isn't at the same level of self-explanatory UI of the rest of the shell. 2) the other alternative, which it is stated as the recommended way to shut down GNOME 3 by Owen Taylor in c6, is to log out, and then shut down from the login screen. The main problem I see with this alternative is seems a little bit awkward for most users. Many users, maybe "contaminated" with their previous experience with computers, take it for granted they have an easy to access "button" in the UI for shutting down its computer. Waiting for the login screen takes a lot of time for something you expect to find in first place. I think the power down options can be improved a lot. I'm not a designer, but I feel there should be better alternatives. Even a design a-là-Windows as @Matteo Settenvini suggests I think is better, though I switch "Suspend" with "Power down" and showing a dialog with the option available like "Restart", "Shut down" and "Suspend". But, this is where we can make the difference with a good designed dialog for making clear to the user that suspend is our recommended way to stop using the system. [1] https://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Design/Whiteboards/SystemStopRestart
"Contaminated"? Yes, of course, because the ability to shut down the computer without going to the login screen first is such a terribly evil feature. The task of developers is to provide means for the user to achieve their goals most effectively, not to create artificial obstacles in their way because the developers "know better". If the user wants to shut down the computer from the desktop session, you may not like it, you may consider it evil, wasteful, whatever, but it's *their right* and it's something they can reasonably expect based on their experience with other DEs.
Indeed, it is bizarre how some developers of popular software impose their personal preferences on their users, hiding or even removing common functionality, forcing them to use features that are inherently broken on Linux (Suspend) - effectively crashing the system when used accidentally (when missing out to use that silly easter-egg functionality to power-off). All that in an attempt to make users save energy, which is going to be a failure as pointed out by many here. At the same time, basic functionality like setting the screen to standby after a certain amount of idle time doesn't work. The user is left wondering - and looking for other desktop environments.
Does anyone know what happens next to this? Any Gnome Developer here or a team that can tell if this "feature" will be changed again, and when?
As you can read here (http://www.golem.de/1108/85539.html ,German article) the suspend feature will stay as it is in Gnome 3.2. If so i will change my Desktop to XFCE.
@sauron, Is that final? Good thing is we have so many alternatives, I hope for a GNOME 2 fork will come forward. Not necessarily I am annoyed of the hidden power-off thing in GNOME3, but because for the users, plus other factors. If 3.2 is so still 90% similar to the current release, then goodbye. I am with Linux hoping for a GNOME2 fork.
I had been using KDE since it appeared until I migrated from SuSE to Ubuntu some years ago and thus started to use Gnome 2.x. - and got used to it. Now, I am again a happy user of KDE - and I am again entitled to power-off or hibernate my PC.
You are forgetting the most beautiful thing about the linux/FOSS world: It's the user who gets to decide what to do with their computer. Gnome-3 developers seem to think otherwise. And it's not only this little poweroff thing, it's also "the clock should be here, the panel should be here and you aren't going to do anything about it". You are not the only ones. Google Chrome is another shining example, and some effort of Ubuntu show similar spirit. If I wanted dominance, I would go for Microsoft. It's time for a new major DE.
I'd like to just point out that there is plugin in gnome-shell-extentions to add the missing entries to menu. It is well maintained (i.e. the version 3.1.x follows shortly after 3.1.x version of gnome-shell). In GNOME 3.2 from what I understend there will be much easier plugin management (somehow similar to firefox extentions i.e. installing extentions from web repository, activating them, diactivating them).
Throwing myself in to the fire here... (In reply to comment #74) > As you can read here (http://www.golem.de/1108/85539.html ,German article) the > suspend feature will stay as it is in Gnome 3.2. If so i will change my Desktop > to XFCE. Let's try a primary source: http://www.gnome.org/news/2011/08/gnome-having-fun-at-desktop-summit-2011/ "Owen Taylor talked about GNOME version pi, and in particular the initial versions of GNOME 3 and what the future holds. He defended decisions such as hiding the option to power off a computer, saying it is needed to change behavior, but admitted that there are legitimate use cases for having that option and that the topic may need to be revisited." The suspend feature will stay, but Power Off may be re-added.
That would be nice, but I think "Power Off" if a must have default option. I don´t want to change it manually with plugins on a lot of machines. Sorry but I don´t get the point here...
Note that I intend to patch this out (probably by enabling the appropriate gnome-shell plugin) by default in Debian, since suspend does simply not work on a large variety of hardware we support.
(In reply to comment #81) > Note that I intend to patch this out (probably by enabling the appropriate > gnome-shell plugin) by default in Debian, since suspend does simply not work on > a large variety of hardware we support. In that case, we should show the "Power Off..." menu, as long as "pm-is-supported --hibernate" fails.
Excuse me, we just grab the "Suspend" state from UPower. UPower's Linux backend runs "pm-is-supported --suspend", not "--hibernate".
I'd like to note that on all systems I know, suspend is "supported" but fails on the end, leaving the system in a state as if it would have crashed.
(In reply to comment #84) > I'd like to note that on all systems I know, suspend is "supported" but fails > on the end, leaving the system in a state as if it would have crashed. If you can run: $ pm-is-supported --suspend && echo "Suspend is supported" || echo "Suspend is unsupported" and it says "Suspend is supported", but your machine crashes, please file a bug with pm-utils: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=pm-utils Attach a log of "pm-utils-bugreport-info.sh" and give basic system info: hardware, distro.
(In reply to comment #74, 76, 77) I am not interested in your personal stories. Please go to a forum to tell others your favorite operating system / desktop environment / distro or "me too"s.
(In reply to comment #85) > $ pm-is-supported --suspend && echo "Suspend is supported" || echo "Suspend > is unsupported" > Thanks for the quicky test. On F15 it says Suspend is supported. When I tested Suspend, I found that it does work - system does a graceful exit (presumably something is powered down). When I press a key, after a little while it revives. Side Effect: After revival, when I click on an unread message in Evolution, it says it cannot retrieve because it is off-line. I have to manually turn Evolution back On-Line.
As a possible compromise, how about offering the user to completely shut down if he chooses "Suspend" from the status menu and has no application windows open? In this case, the user most likely has no state to lose and can safely opt to save more power (the only disadvantage being the boot time on next usage). He or she could still choose to really suspend if he wishes to do so (e.g. if he knows he has a windowless background process that should resume).
Another possible compromise: let the physical power button of the PC do a full shutdown by default. This gives a TV-like separation of turning off by indirect means (TV: remote control, PC: peripherals) and turning off by directly pressing the device's power button. This is still somewhat undiscoverable, but I think it would work well.
A third, very simple solution: add "Shutdown" and "Restart" buttons to the "Log Out..." dialog. The intent of a user who chooses "Log Out..." is to end his session, and shutting down / restarting are means to do so, so it is consistent to offer him also these two options. (This is both more convenient and discoverable than requiring the user go to the login screen and shut down from there.) To make this even more discoverable, the "Log Out..." menu item could be moved into the same separator group as "Suspend". (This grouping would represent that both logout and suspend are used when the user really wants to stop using the computer, potentially for a longer period of time, while screen locking and user switching are more temporary measures.) This solution is simple, doesn't clutter the status menu, still promotes "Suspend" as the preferred way while making the other options more accessible, and is very easy to implement.
"clutter the dialog instead of the menu" is not really a win. we've been through all these permutations in the past...
well, I didn't read everything and probably this was said already, but what about a combobox like the one for the state? It would fit my usecase for the normal computer. For laptops I agree that just suspend is the way to go.
(In reply to comment #85) > (In reply to comment #84) > > I'd like to note that on all systems I know, suspend is "supported" but fails > > on the end, leaving the system in a state as if it would have crashed. > > If you can run: > > $ pm-is-supported --suspend && echo "Suspend is supported" || echo "Suspend > is unsupported" > > and it says "Suspend is supported", but your machine crashes, please file a bug > with pm-utils: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=pm-utils I seem to detect some laptop bias in Gnome3 here. Suspend works on the two laptops I tried but on neither of the desktops I use. In both desktop cases it claimed to be supported but crashed when I actually tried. Just yesterday I got quite annoyed when my finger slipped off the ALT-modifier just when I was about to click poweroff, so it turned into suspend/crash-me-now-plz. I understand Gnome often takes the stance that bugs lower in the stack should be exposed and fixed, rather than worked around. But is it realistic to expect that near-100% of these cases will be fixed before, let's say, Gnome 3.4 or 3.6? Leaving desktops in a somewhat broken state for years can't be the right approach. Users don't care if it's lower down in the stack, despite me explaining it's not really Gnome's fault. At what point is putting a (UI) workaround in place OK?
On my desktop system suspend and hibernation don't work and, then, I disabled both at BIOS. At least on Gnome 2.32 it causes hibernation/suspending options to not be shown, that looks fine to me, isn't it the case in Gnome3? I mean, if suspend/hibernation don't work, users can disable them at BIOS and, then, Gnome3 would offer poweroff option instead of suspending.
(In reply to comment #85) > (In reply to comment #84) > Attach a log of "pm-utils-bugreport-info.sh" and give basic system info: > hardware, distro. I can't find "pm-utils-bugreport-info.sh". I'm running ArchLinux, with pm-utils and pm-quirks installed, and I couldn't find "pm-utils-bugreport-info.sh" in any package. Do you have any idea where I could find it, or how I can still make a good bugreport ? Thanks.
(In reply to comment #96) > (In reply to comment #85) > I can't find "pm-utils-bugreport-info.sh". I'm running ArchLinux, with pm-utils > and pm-quirks installed, and I couldn't find "pm-utils-bugreport-info.sh" in > any package. > Do you have any idea where I could find it, or how I can still make a good > bugreport ? > Thanks. Seems to be upstream at Fedora only. I don't know why. http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=pm-utils.git;a=blob;f=pm-utils-bugreport-info.sh;hb=HEAD
(In reply to comment #97) > > Seems to be upstream at Fedora only. I don't know why. > > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=pm-utils.git;a=blob;f=pm-utils-bugreport-info.sh;hb=HEAD Yes. I have reported it to Debian (http://bugs.debian.org/642550), but upstream should probably take it.
It is at fedora only because this part : echo RPM rpm --qf '%{name}-%{version}-%{release}\n' -q kernel pm-utils hal hal-info gnome-power-manager vbetool radeontool hdparm echo $HR echo FEDORA RELEASE cat /etc/fedora-release is fedora-specific. And I'm afraid other parts may be as well.
I can't believe what I've been suffering on Gnome 3... But this bug was the last for me, I'm searching for another option. Why? Because the decision of remove the Shutdown option from the user menu was STUPID in my opinion! What do you want?? Make the learning curve of Gnome 3 even bigger?? Drive users crazy? Think as a new user, would you give a try on a system you CAN'T find yourself a way to do such a simple task like shutdown? Need to read a manual to learn how to shutdown your machine? I don't think so... None of the people I've brought to the open source world could afford it, and I'm sure they will leave GNU/Linux when Gnome 3 appears in front of them. And the lack of the shutdown function will be one of the reasons for that. I'm a 7-years Linux user, and I thought twice of back to Windows or Mac after spend more than 30 minutes searching for the shutdown option. I almost throw away my Laptop when I pressed the Magic 'Alt' and it appeared! It sounded like a joke for me... And I'm sure a lot of people will feel the same. Owen Taylor, do you know why people WILL NOT Log out and shutdown in GDM? Because the shutdown option were in the user menu for a long time, and before that it were on the system menu. This option were ALWAYS available without need to Log out first, so people keep searching and thinking: "I can believe this simple option is not available anymore. Only someone out of his mind would remove the shutdown option, I need to keep searching...". Please, Gnome 3 developers, You've already messed up all the environment, broke all the interface consistency with Gnome 2, so please, PLEASE, return the Shutdown button to where it shouldn't have been taken! Make the life of users that like Gnome a little bit less painful!
**************************************************************************** Again and for the very last time: This is not a forum. DO NOT ADD comments that don't provide any new insight and just repeat content of previous posts for your own personal user story, and DO READ https://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct before choosing your words. If you ignore this your GNOME Bugzilla account might be deactivated, as you trigger bugmail for everybody subscribed to this. ****************************************************************************
Cite the Code of Conduct all you want... but you cannot expect users to not express their frustration here. After googling for "gnome3 shutdown button", I too was ready to write a 3-page rant. Why should anyone need to do a google search to figure out how to shutdown their system? This was a ridiculousness decision, that much is very clear. You're silly if you expect not to hear about it from users. If anything, the fact that so many people have come to write rants should be an indicator of just how stupid this change was. Ban me if you'd like. I don't use Gnome anymore anyway because of this change (plus a few others that are just as stupid) and the way the user response to it has been summarily ignored by the developers. Banning me will only be further proof of how out-of-touch the developers are.
Well, my computer just got frozen when I was trying to wake it up. I don't think the kernel is stable enough to make "suspend" the only option. "Suspend" always gives people a false feeling that when they wake the computer up, everything will still be there. But the fact is sad, I have to press the power button for seconds and all my active stuff is gone. I understand the kernel problem is not your fault, but the users don't have to pay for it if you don't make "suspend" the only option. Besides, I vote that hiding the "shut down" button doesn't help at all. If you don't really care user's response, please just close it.
I haven't seen mentioned before the fact that if someone loses work as a result of being coerced into using non-working suspend, the total cost associated with recreating that work - both in energy, and other forms - can be huge compared with the cost of running the computer itself. I don't think it makes sense to use the latter as a justification for this behavior.
" I don't think the kernel is stable enough to make "suspend" the only option." +1. " the total cost associated with recreating that work - both in energy, and other forms" +1 @ Jeremy. My perception from the developer's response is that they will recommend the use of "Suspend" so that when errors comes like what cxcxcxcx@gmail.com reports, they need users to report that bug. There are tweaks (or band aids) to let you show the buttons you want, you might need max, min buttons in addition. So, please consider staying with the Shell.
we're not all mobile users using batteries and we're not workstation users using ups. as a desktop user I want to power off my pc EASILY as I always did. In certain countries or in certain parts of them, which could be also large or densely populated, there are daily black-outs, even more frequent in summer. A default suspend behavior means losing data. Could default to hibernate? Well,I boot in less then 15 seconds, hibernating is much slower. And time to time is good to start again the system to refresh its state. But, instead of defaulting and hiding, could you ASK me please what to do? Now I have to find tactics of escaping from "the System", geeky hacks. Give back freedom. My parents don't know they are actually suspending, not turning off the pc. They don't know how to power off gnome3 anymore. I feel ashamed to again tell them something different: "Now you have to press alt here.. you see?" Now not even pressing power button turns off the machine. Can't configure it, in gnome3.2 also this option has been removed. This is a kind of provocation. Yes, there is the shell. But, hell, I don't want to search on internet and use the shell, and shell is not user friendly at all. Suspend is not always a reliable option on linux, you know it. this remove-options race is pure ideology. "Gnome 3.2. No options. Made of easy" A.H.
Suspend doesn't work on my desktop PC and whenever I accidently forget about the <Alt> key for shutting down, I end up with a suspend of no return (and probably a corrupted file system?!). Unfortunately alternate-status-menu also doesn't work anymore: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=660520 Is there at least a dconf option availiable to bind the power button on my case to shutdown?
Found it, dconf-editor -> org.gnome.settings-daemon.plugins.power However this also doesn't work here but gnome-settings-daemon crashes instead and on every second try I end up on the login screen. This might just be a bug in Fedora 16 Beta and not an upstream problem though. Pretty hard to shutdown a computer with Gnome 3.
@Martin: Can you please file that in a diffrent bug against gnome-shell, gnome-settings-deamon or in fedora bugzilla, depending on where you think it is most appropriate? I think it will get lost in this bug otherwise.
*** Bug 662569 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to comment #6) > > - The Power Off option is hidden because we don't believe it's necessary in > that menu, not because we think users should necessarily know how to hold down > alt to get to it. The primary way that a user would shut down (if they, say, > need to disconnect power) would be to log out and shut down through GDM. That ritual is about as discoverable as holding down the alt key. I'm only a sample size of 1, but I personally found web pages describing the alt hack a few weeks before I learned about the "obviously" preferable log-out-then-hunt-for-a-tiny-power-down-icon-in-the-corner routine. The only intuitive mechanism I found for shutting down was to press the physical power button on the computer. Unfortunately, this doesn't even bring up a confirmation menu anymore. It's like someone hates me individually and is out to get me.
(In reply to comment #111) > (In reply to comment #6) > > > > - The Power Off option is hidden because we don't believe it's necessary in > > that menu, not because we think users should necessarily know how to hold down > > alt to get to it. The primary way that a user would shut down (if they, say, > > need to disconnect power) would be to log out and shut down through GDM. > > That ritual is about as discoverable as holding down the alt key. I'm only a > sample size of 1, but I personally found web pages describing the alt hack a > few weeks before I learned about the "obviously" preferable > log-out-then-hunt-for-a-tiny-power-down-icon-in-the-corner routine. > > The only intuitive mechanism I found for shutting down was to press the > physical power button on the computer. Unfortunately, this doesn't even bring > up a confirmation menu anymore. > > It's like someone hates me individually and is out to get me. I assume you are on Fedora 16. In that case, it is a known bug in acpid. Disable/mask/uninstall it, then the button press will be handled by gnome-settings-daemon, according to the options in dconf-editor.
There are already ways to shut down your system in GNOME 3: - press Alt to change the menu item - first logout, then shut down from GDM - do it from the command line as root - pull the plug/remove the battery Except for the last one, none of these are easily discoverable. There is no indication that using Alt would show additional functionality anywhere in the interface. There is not a good reason why the user would assume that a feature that is not present when he is logged in, would be actually present when he is logged out. You should not have to Google how to turn off your own computer. The rationale behind this decision seems to come from the assumption/desire that the current status should work for all use cases and HW out there. Sadly, this is not the case. A good solution for the time being would be to simply add the "Power off" functionality to the menu and get on with more interesting problems. There are many examples in this thread of cases where suspending is not an acceptable option: power saving, preventing data loss, switching to other OS, suspend is simply not reliable enough on specific HW/SW configurations, etc... In an ideal situation, it is true that there are cognitive benefits to avoid having to manually restore the system to its previous status whenever the computer is started. Maybe we could provide this with an improved way to save and restore sessions, independent of whether the device has actually been powered off or not. I do understand that showing only "Suspend" can be a preferable alternative in very specific situations. For instance, a tablet manufacturer might want to do it because it fits his concrete HW/SW combination and expected use scenarios. In those cases, it is the manufacturer the one who should remove the "Power off" option explicitly (e.g. through an extension or changing a configuration setting). Fixing this bug would immediately fix bug 647441 as well.
(In reply to comment #113) > There are already ways to shut down your system in GNOME 3: > - press Alt to change the menu item > - first logout, then shut down from GDM > - do it from the command line as root > - pull the plug/remove the battery > You can also simply press the power button, which will bring up a dialog asking you whether you want to shutdown or suspend. I think this is the most obvious way to power a computer off.
(In reply to comment #114) > (In reply to comment #113) > > You can also simply press the power button, I like a quiet workplace, so my computer box is around the other side of my desk. I have longer cables for keyboard and mouse (KVM for another computer too). (A singing disk drive brings on my tinnitus..) To press the power button, I have to go around the desk, where I cannot see the screen. When I have gone this far, I held the button down long enough to power-off the box.
After upgrading by mistake at 70 years old, my father's desktop computer (fujitsu esprimo 3.2ghz) hangs at reboot when he uses suspend... Why this half-idiot idea is free as in "not free to choose" ?.. Why you must search on internet how to shutdown you computer after an upgrade, when a "shutdown" option displaying a (configurable) dialog allowing to suspend, hibernate, shutdown or restart the computer is perfectly obvious for anybody using computers ?.. I love this comment: >> That is like discussing whether there should be an "P" >> key on the keyboard (or perhaps we could type it with Alt+S?)
"Bug" remains the same in GS 3.2.. Even the "Power off" extension doesn't work in some of my machines, because of the last API modifications. Julien, Suspend by default is only a - bad - design decission, there was no need of changing the "classic" way of shutting down a computer... Most users employ the Power Off option because they want to shut down completely their DESKTOP computers after working with them:-). Suspend is only useful when you have a reliable power source or you have enough battery, and it isn't very useful for desktop machines... Power Off by case button is very cool and MAC-ish, but how many machines could use this mechanism without problems - it doesn't work very well even in Windows systems -? We live in a PC world, MACs are another beasts that have their own OS :-D. A reasonable solution would be: - Create a GSettings key with the option; we could even control what items appear in the menu (for kiosk mode or security reasons). - Integrate the power off options "selector" in the Energy control inside GNOME Control Center, NOT in gnome-tweak-tool. We have another "simple" option: delete the Suspend and Logout menu entries, replace them with a Power Off/ Logout button and move the power off options to a separate window, like Power Off extension do. Basically, integrate the Power Off extension in mainstream Shell code, and let the suspend only function to be an extension - as they it should have benn since 3.0 version -. A final thought: we must remember that almost 99,99% of GNOME installations are DESKTOP and LAPTOP machines - netbooks are essentially laptops too -, they aren't smartphones or tablets. One size doesn't fit all.
Just in case this workaround might help someone: On my desktops where suspend is broken, I symlinked /usr/bin/pm-is-supported to /bin/false (after dpkg-divert). After doing this gnome-shell displays the "Power off..." button instead of "Suspend", as is appropriate in that case. I realise some people with working suspend would still prefer to have a visible option to power off; but for me personally, the only important issue was not exposing a "crash-me" button; or worse, the system crashing because it tries to suspend automatically when inactive for some time. I still believe the assumption that suspend works is wrong, but maybe that should be a separate bug (gnome-settings-daemon? gnome-power-manager? upower? pm-utils?).
Thank you Mourad De Clerck! Symlinking /usr/bin/pm-is-supported to /bin/false works for me on Fedora 16 as well. On my Desktop (AsRock Z68 Pro3 based) the Power Off button at my case, that was mentioned to be used several times above for real shutdown, lead to a "suspend of no return" by default and so I had to be really careful and concentrate on shutting down my system doing the <Alt>-<Click> stunt in the menu..
Thanks, Mourad and Martin... But we need a good and final solution, not workaround. I respect designers work, but when you found a mistake you must name it "mistake" instead of "feature". Unles you provide info about this feature with an enormous amount of bugs from people who were asking for a Suspend only option, I insist: this is a BAD design decission. You can call it Canis Lupus, but a wolf is always a wolf :-D.
everyone knows that the current design is .... , every blog review point it out, bunches of duplicate bugs, even biggest distributions are applying patches (ubuntu, opensuse, mint). there's already a definitive mockup by Allan Day dated 14/11 https://github.com/gnome-design-team/gnome-mockups/blob/master/power-off/power-off.png and this should be imperatively implemented and relative bugs finally marked as FIXED and discussions closed. we are 99%,you 1%. so why all this nonsense restrictive power-related taboo, ever asked yourself? My personal opinion: upcoming Intel Corporation chipsets.
(In reply to comment #121) > so why all this nonsense restrictive power-related taboo, ever asked yourself? > My personal opinion: upcoming Intel Corporation chipsets. Please go to a forum for spreading and discussing FUD, otherwise your account might get blocked. You have been warned. See comment 101.
(In reply to comment #121) > everyone knows that the current design is .... , every blog review point it > out, bunches of duplicate bugs, even biggest distributions are applying patches > (ubuntu, opensuse, mint). > > there's already a definitive mockup by Allan Day dated 14/11 > https://github.com/gnome-design-team/gnome-mockups/blob/master/power-off/power-off.png > and this should be imperatively implemented and relative bugs finally marked as > FIXED and discussions closed. we are 99%,you 1%. > > so why all this nonsense restrictive power-related taboo, ever asked yourself? > My personal opinion: upcoming Intel Corporation chipsets. So single users doesnt' want to power off the¡r computers, of course xDDDD. Come on... Copy-paste the power off extension and finish this annoying bug once for all.
(In reply to comment #123) > (In reply to comment #121) > > everyone knows that the current design is .... , every blog review point it > > out, bunches of duplicate bugs, even biggest distributions are applying patches > > (ubuntu, opensuse, mint). > > > > there's already a definitive mockup by Allan Day dated 14/11 > > https://github.com/gnome-design-team/gnome-mockups/blob/master/power-off/power-off.png > > and this should be imperatively implemented and relative bugs finally marked as > > FIXED and discussions closed. we are 99%,you 1%. > > [...removing FUD from quote...] > So single users doesnt' want to power off the¡r computers, of course xDDDD. Allan's mockup does a "Power Off..." item in the single user case, above "Lock Screen" (although putting it below might be slightly nicer). Allan, if you're listening, do you still support this mockup as a possible solution? What do others in the design team think?
> we are 99%,you 1%. josephk, we are 99% but they can block our accounts :P We should stay quiet and don't try to give them more reasons to fix this mistake (as more reasons were necessary).
(In reply to comment #125) > josephk, we are 99% but they can block our accounts :P > We should stay quiet and don't try to give them more reasons to fix this > mistake (as more reasons were necessary). Banning users is more fun than listening to them, apparently.
I agree with those who would like to see the option back in the user menu, but I'll not elaborate on that because I would continue to beat a dead horse. I would like to emphasize that aside this issue, I'm a satisfied user of GNOME 3 and that I'm grateful for the work of the developers and designers. I have a more relevant question however. I read quite a few of the last comments and Allan Day's blog, but I can't seem to figure out if anything is going to change regarding this situation in GNOME 3.4? Could anyone please shed some light on that question?
(In reply to comment #127) > I can't seem to figure out if anything is going to change regarding > this situation in GNOME 3.4? No, there isn't.
I will try to be constructive. People are arguing whether there should but multiple options or not. I believe that this is not the real problem. When reading http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/11/21.html , most people will agree that his proposed solutions is right. Only one option, called "bye". I understand that this is what GNOME is aiming. Unfortunately, the implementation is not following: - There's still the differentiation between GDM and a locked screen (while it should be exactly the same) - Suspend and hibernate are not always reliable (Linux or hardware fault but it happens) - Suspend is a word understood by technical users as something that still consume power (and it's probably right in 99% of the case, that hybrid/intelligent case is something I've yet to see) - Suspend is not a word understood by non-technical users (while shut-down is). So maybe, those points have to be addressed first?
Maybe something like this will make your lives easier: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/672467
Debarshi, I agree that it should be configurable, but the default should be that both the suspend and shutdown buttons are visible. A configuration option could be provided to hide the shutdown function if desired, this could be handy is some use cases.
This appear to have been fixed by a recently committed patch (attachment 213809 [details] [review]) from bug 675802, which reintroduced the "Power Off" menu item. The new design is here: https://live.gnome.org/GnomeOS/Design/Whiteboard/SystemStopRestart#Design_Updates So, be happy! ;-)
(In reply to comment #132) > https://live.gnome.org/GnomeOS/Design/Whiteboard/SystemStopRestart#Design_Updates Actually address is: https://live.gnome.org/GnomeOS/Design/Whiteboards/SystemStopRestart#Design_Updates (It's WhiteboardS, not Whiteboard) Thanks for your work on GNOME! :) Mirosław Zalewski
Thanks for your work, that's nice (although personally I would have preferred to have also suspend in the menu for laptops and desktops supporting it: in laptops you can close your lid, but not on deskops). Also, I think the position of Lock and Power off should be switched, since the last item of such a list is easier to scan for, and you don't call Lock explicitly very often (normally just happens when you go AFK). But these are more personal feelings. One minor comment, though: shouldn't it be "Power off…" instead of "Power off", as you should hint that a dialog will be presented to the user, asking whether to restart or turn off the computer? I believe it was in the old HIG document.
(In reply to comment #134) > One minor comment, though: shouldn't it be "Power off…" instead of "Power off", > as you should hint that a dialog will be presented to the user, asking whether > to restart or turn off the computer? > I believe it was in the old HIG document. See bug 662811.
Now I cannot power off my computer from the power-off button... interesting. Was powering off a useless feature too?
@Alberto Salvia Novella: Do you think that anyone can offer you help when you re-read your last comment? You do not provide any steps to reproduce whatever problem you experience, five years after the last activity on this bug report. You may want to take a look at https://wiki.gnome.org/Foundation/CodeOfConduct if you want to participate in a constructive way instead of adding snarky comments.