Re: Basic linux network questions (long)
On Sat, 9 Mar 2002 22:41, Heather wrote:
> > If you want to try ACPI, though, beware that kernel support for it is
> > not as mature as for APM, and it may not work as well.
>
> To clarify re ACPI:
>
> Kernel support seems to be much further along than it was several months
> ago... but that's just allowing the core to "speak ACPI". Numerous kernel
> drivers need to be updated to match it, in order for those respective
> devices to do the right thing when a given ACPI level is triggered. This
> is somewhat more complicated than the simple yea/nay of APM and so it's
> going a bit slowly.
ACPI is very complex, there is some sort of programming language needed for
communication with the BIOS, and to make things even more challenging many
laptops get it wrong in subtle ways because there wasn't much OS support to
test it with at the time they were designed!
ACPI is still quite experimental, and I recommend not using it unless you
want to help in testing or development. So if you want to just use a laptop
to get things done (as the original question was about) then APM is really
the only option.
> So you have a tradeoff, excellent software in the APM space but a
> brain-dmgd suspend-APM signal will (and often does) result in spurious
> crashes on suspend/resume.
Also many other funny things happen. Sometimes on Thinkpads after a resume
from APM sleep they do funny things such as beeping repeatedly until you do a
hardware reset. I'm not sure whether other laptops have similar problems,
but suspect that they do.
ACPI is powerful enough that hopefully when it's implemented fully and
debugged it will allow enough control over the hardware to resolve such
problems.
It's been a while since I tried ACPI (last time it failed totally but there's
been a lot of progress since).
> As opposed to excellent hardware but minimal
> software in the ACPI space, means some devices may not get on the clue
> wagon, and not be quite right after resumes. aaaagh ;P
Yes, hope and pray that your hard drive is not one of those devices that is
not quite right...
> In the 2.4 kernel series Linus has a competing tree of pcmcia support,
> and trying to use both may have... odd effects. Me, I'm grumpy because
> that stuff doesn't support some odd bits around my lab, so I stick with
I'm grumpy that Linus merged broken PCMCIA code into the kernel at a time
when Dave's tree of PCMCIA code was working very well, and that then this
mistake was not fixed for a long time (has it been fixed yet?).
> > Look at resolv.conf. That's where your DNS servers should go.
> > (man resolve.conf)
>
> ^^
>
> There was an "e" eating monster roaming around during the early days of
> UNIX. It nailed the creat() system call too.
I've read that one of the Unix creators once declared that his only regret in
life was not calling it create() instead of creat().
> No wait, the SAGE
> (sysadmin's guild) claims responsibility for that last one :)
Shouldn't it be "SAG" then? ;)
--
If you send email to me or to a mailing list that I use which has >4 lines
of legalistic junk at the end then you are specifically authorizing me to do
whatever I wish with the message and all other messages from your domain, by
posting the message you agree that your long legalistic sig is void.
Reply to: