Comment 58 for bug 267141

On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 10:26 +0000, James Westby wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am aware of the issue, and I think the others are too.
>
> I would actually lean towards removing uswsusp from the archive,
> if we don't want people to use it, and we make it very difficult to
> do so, then having it in the archive is just a cause of confusion in
> my opinion.
>
> Enabling s2ram would allow it to work, yes, but then we have to
> deal with two sources of problems, when it's not immediately
> clear which method the user is using, and it doesn't help to get
> the kernel method fixed, which should be able to work for everybody.
>
> Thanks,
>
> James

Basically you're saying keep it broken until the long term fix comes
out?

Whatever happened to "freedom of choice"? By leaving uswsusp broken in
this manner, it forces users who would choose to use uswsusp to just use
the kernel method. And I prefer uswsusp over the kernel method for
hibernating because the kernel method takes an incredibly long time for
resuming from hibernation, which is around the same amount of time taken
for starting up the computer.

Until the kernel method gets up to speed, why not at least allow users
to use uswsusp?

I can already picture this conversation happening somewhere in the
world:
A: Ubuntu takes so long to hibernate and resume! Why?!
B: Because Ubuntu uses the kernel method for hibernating which doesn't
involve compression.
A: Well, can I use another method to make it faster?
B: Yeah, there's uswsusp, but you can't use it because the Ubuntu devs
don't want you to.
A: Why don't they want me to?
B: Ask them.

--
Chow Loong Jin