Re: [gpm] =?iso-8859-2?q?ACPI_S1_-_Standby?=
- From: kapetr volny cz
- To: hughsient gmail com, kapetr mizera cz, gnome-power-manager-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: [gpm] ACPI S1 - Standby
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:58:15 +0100 (CET)
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
BTW - I see that you again did not find any answer to my logical
arguments about usefulness of S1 . Maybe you can't. Congratulations
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
----- 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.
> > for details about why choice for choice's sake is
> a bad thing.
] [Thread Prev