Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756211Ab0HKWMu (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Aug 2010 18:12:50 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([74.125.121.35]:26919 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751390Ab0HKWMt convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Aug 2010 18:12:49 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to: cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-system-of-record; b=qYs9lQb3tofxHj5OVXNMMbx8xV4afJqoUxKfE2jED4wxJCWV+cnPskZWJtrmgztrs E35Ch9IaplpNRFLxHskaQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20100806225453.GA3947@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100807061558.GA28087@thunk.org> <20100808155719.GB3635@thunk.org> <20100808213821.GD3635@thunk.org> <20100811193106.GB24435@thunk.org> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:12:44 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three From: Brian Swetland To: Felipe Contreras Cc: "Ted Ts'o" , david@lang.hm, "Paul E. McKenney" , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arve@android.com, mjg59@srcf.ucam.org, pavel@ucw.cz, florian@mickler.org, rjw@sisk.pl, stern@rowland.harvard.edu, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, menage@google.com, david-b@pacbell.net, James.Bottomley@suse.de, arjan@infradead.org, swmike@swm.pp.se, galibert@pobox.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-System-Of-Record: true Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2103 Lines: 50 On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> Once "the right solution" exists and solves our problems, we'll >> certainly look into switching over to it.  I've yet to see a proposal >> in all this arguing that appears to me to be an improvement over what >> we have today with suspend blockers.  I find the "don't do what you're >> doing because someday, somebody will do it better" to be an >> uncompelling argument. > > That was not an argument, it was an opinion. If you want an argument > go back to read this one: > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1021834 > >> Given your opinion that Android lacks multitasking (what? really?) > > This is what I'm talking about when I say multi-tasking, Android > certainly doesn't have anything remotely like that: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7emvUBpEkbU Home + pick app -> switch to the app in whatever state it was in. Home (longpress) -> recent app list + pick app from popup -> switch to recent app in whatever state it was in. pull down alert windowshade + pick app from alerts list -> switch to that app I routinely flip back and forth between email / browser / IM / musicplayer / etc I have no problem with you perhaps liking the visuals of the N900 better, but to say Android lacks multitasking (as you explain it below) is incorrect: > By multi-tasking I mean me (the user) being able to perform multiple > tasks at the same time. > For example: writing an email, while browsing the web, while having IM > conversations. Obviously not exactly at the same time; start writing > an email, go browse for some url, copy, answer a pending IM message, > go back to the mail, paste. As far as implementing app switching with a deck of cards metaphor, I've seen that done by some OEMs with Android, though it's not the default system UI. Brian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/