Wow. 1-4 times a day?
Usually: 1: when I am moving from train to work 2: when I am leaving work to train 3: when I am moving from train to home 4: when I am leaving computer for bed :)
Why is it necessary to reboot? I would like to understand this use case better.
I am using testing/unstable/experimental + external tools, and have some troubles with few actions, which I did not had enough time to try to solve. Some of those problems are related to hibernate, an example is a freeze when I change wifi state will booting from an hibernation, and another one is that sometimes, pm-hibernate just does nothing. For first example, I know how to reproduce, but lacks time to fix it, for the latest, I have no clue about when and why it happens.
Hardware/kernel/driver things are still mysterious for me.I also have some troubles because of mechanical/electrical problems inside of my computer, which also makes safer for my data to shutdown.
Another reason is that it's "harder" to hibernate than to shutdown:I have no DE, and I do not really like the idea behind using daemons to do things as simple as controlling the power management.
I do not like too to have a constant root console opened.And what make things easier is that using the power switch of my computer is actually faster than using "su\n<password>\npm-hibernate\n"
That's things I could fix, by example by understanding how acpi can be configured, but I did not had enough time for that for now. I really would like to understand how to configure acpi, since some of keys on my eeepc are just doing nothing.
There is those problems, but I also have a strong (wrong) habit to use #poweroff instead of #pm-hibernate. Well... another thing is that's actually easier to write poweroff :D This habit is not so bad, since my computer's boot speed is really small. Less than a minute to have it fully working...
I am also thinking to configure my computer to make it "modal" (with runlevels): I do not always have the use for all stuff which is loaded in default situation, and selecting the mode at boot is easier than using a root access to change runlevel when things are running. By example, I have no use for ssh when I am not at home or at work, since I do not have access to more than one computer in those situations. At work and in train, I do not need the wifi, and I am using different networks settings in different buildings (wpa-ssid and keys) and so I could use runlevels to change parameters. Runlevels could be a convenient way to manage that, but they can be changed by root or at boot. Root is not a convenient way, from an ease of use point of view.
(Currently, I am starting things at hand when I need them...)
And that is because they are not old computers. I have a dinosaur which takes ages, hibernate or not, and seeing how the hardware is old, I prefer the regular checks made on disk by boot process. I do not need computer as fast as light, but I'm pleased hen things does not takes ages while keeping some security checks.I am still using a Pentium 133MHz machine with 112M ram and a 1G hard drive. It has the best power envelope for the task it is doing. Ireboot it every time a new linux kernel security upgrade is installed.It is a pretty slow machine and takes a minute or two to reboot. I feel the reboot speed every time I reboot it. But that only happens every other month or so when Linux upgrades are released.That's because I kept the use of shutdown instead of hibernate, except if I have something I want to keep alive from a session to another. But, of course, if boot speed is not an issue for you, you are free to make it slower :)I will say that turnabout this-for-that applies here. :-) It is your choice to shutdown your eee pc completely. Instead you could suspend it and have fast resume performance. It is your choice to use a full shutdown and have slow performance. :-)Every user have his own requirement for a computer, especially for people using a linux distribution I think.I definitely believe that there is never one size fits all. I try tosupport people doing a variety of things that I would never personallydo. But that does not mean that simply because someone can do something that it is a good thing to do it.
I too. But I also know that I have got some wrong uses, and that I should forget them :D
But let's not get too from from the topic point under discussion. Thepoint I was refuting was this one:> berenger.morel@neutralite.org wrote:> > The immediate problem to change the symlink to bash instead of dash> > is that it will slow down his system boot sequence, ...I strongly believe that it is not an "immediate problem". Classifyingit as a problem is much too strong. That is where I objected. Yes there is a measurable difference in boot speed. But it isn't more than a few seconds. (I would love it if someone would remind us of the boot timings with a reference to benchmark data.) But I disagree that changing a symlink from dash to bash causes an "immediate problem". Nor even a minor problem. It is the way Debian systems were released and shipped for years and years. The change is an improvement. But the reversion of that change is not a bug. The biggest improvement in my mind is not even the performance difference. It is the portability gained. By writing scripts suitable for POSIX /bin/sh those scripts are much more likely to run unchanged on every system and not just the one it is written on. Having worked on many systems over many years I value clean portability more than performance. Bob
You are true, little slow down are not a problem, and even less nowadays when people sounds like to love to use bloatwares and big DE. I should have said immediate consequence, because I was really meaning the first difference noticeable.
And about the portability problem, I did not thought about it immediately, but IIRC I mentioned the fact that there could be scripts not working perfectly in a first time, did not I?