ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Christian Dywan <christian.dywan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Am Mo, 5. Okt, 2015 um 10:02 schrieb Benjamin Zeller 
<benjamin.zeller@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Am 05.10.2015 um 09:07 schrieb Christian Dywan:
> > I think a whitelist with commands that can be easily extended would 
> > be interesting for this. For example:
> >
> > Type "make".
> > Wait a few seconds.
> > Terminal shows a popup "Allow task to continue running in the 
> > background?"
> >
> > From now on every invokation of make won't be stopped. And if it 
> > finishes in the background, it can show a notification.
> >
> > Conversely most tasks in a terminal don't need this and you can 
> > still benefit from lifecycle most of the time.
> >
> > Just my 2 cents,
> >     Christian
> This sounds even more complicated than anything else for the user     
> :D.
> Having a list of commands that can be executed in the background is 
> not great UX...

The way I see it you grant permission to a task to continue running the 
same way you confirm that your location can be tracked or the camera 
may be used. You don't have to actually maintain a list unless you 
think you gave permission to the wrong one. And the decision is always 
up to you, nothing can secretly hog your cpu.
> > Am So, 4. Okt, 2015 um 3:44 schrieb Sam Bull <sam.hacking@xxxxxxxx>:
> > > Just had a thought on these special cases in the terminal. I'm 
> > > still not
> > > liking the idea of giving a lifecycle exception to the terminal, as 
> > > I
> > > don't think it's needed for most use cases.
> > >
> > > But, what if we had a special command that would run a command in 
> > > the
> > > background. In the same manner that the sudo command runs any 
> > > command as
> > > a different user, another command (e.g. runbg) could run any 
> > > command as
> > > an external background running command.
> > > 	Presumably this command would do something along the lines of 
> > > forking
> > > the process so that it is not owned by the terminal app and thus not
> > > dependent on the terminal to keep running. I'm not sure how complex 
> > > this
> > > is to implement, any thoughts on whether this would be a viable
> > > approach?
> But what would keep them from putting runbg into their .desktop files 
> of the apps?
> Or to start a process from the app with that command. Technically we 
> would just get
> background processing for everybody ;).
>
> > > On Fri, 2015-10-02 at 16:40 +0200, Thomas Voß wrote:
> > > >  Alan gave this example of compiling, doing mails and browsing at 
> > > > the
> > > >  *same* time. Obviously, the focus is on
> > > >  compiling here :) doing mails and browsing are just other tasks 
> > > > being
> > > >  executed at the same time. Now mail and browsing are certainly
> > > >  perfectly fine
> > > >  to be done on a phone. However, the scenario of compiling, 
> > > > checking
> > > >  mails and browsing in parallel (as in overlapping windowed mode) 
> > > > is
> > > >  not something
> > > >  very typically carried out in a mobile device usage scenario. The 
> > > > key
> > > >  point is: compiling would require uninterrupted execution in the
> > > >  background while
> > > >  switching from terminal to browser to mail client. Mail and 
> > > > browsing
> > > >  would still work, no problem with that. But: the full-blown 
> > > > scenario
> > > >  mentioned before is
> > > >  more of a desktop-ish use-case, which can happily be powered by 
> > > > the
> > > >  phone in docked mode. It's just a difference usage scenario.
> > > --
> > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone
> > > Post to     : ubuntu-phone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone
> > > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp