Re: [gpm] ACPI S1 - Standby

["kapetr" <kapetr mizera cz>]

I don't understand, what this has to do with adding possibility of
S1 to S3, S4. All of them ACPI states. The link is talking +- about
combining of APM and ACPI, what would be really not good idea.

I am sorry that the gnome is directed towards autocratic and I can
only hope that in your team will be also find more democracy
approach.

BTW - I see that you again did not find any answer to my logical
arguments about usefulness of S1 . Maybe you can't. Congratulations
- autocracy.


And - as you wrote at beginning ... "Why do you want to use S1? It
saves practically no power.":

I had modify pm-utils to add pm-standby as separate action, not as
just fallback of "mem".
And my system, normally consuming +- 76W takes in S1 only 29W.

- you are "right" - it saves no power :-D 

--kapetr


----- PŮVODNÍ ZPRÁVA -----
Od: "Richard Hughes" <hughsient gmail com>
Komu: "kapetr" <kapetr mizera cz>
Předmět: Re: [gpm] ACPI S1 - Standby
Datum: 20.2.2011 - 20:51:47

> 2011/2/20 kapetr <kapetr mizera cz>:
> > Does it mean, that you are from [gpm] developer
> > team ?
> > 
> I'm the maintainer and the lead developer.
> 
> See
> http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html
> > > for details about why choice for choice's sake is
> a bad thing.
> 
> Richard.
>