RE: redhat comment about intel not taking patches?

RE: redhat comment about intel not taking patches?

[Cagle, John (ISS-Houston)]

Can you be more specific in your comments regarding Compaq hardware?  We
test our ProLiant servers with Linux and ACPI, and our BIOS is designed
for many different operating systems, including Linux, Unix and NetWare.
On the other hand, it is unreasonable to expect that our laptop and
desktop divisions test with Linux ACPI for two big reasons: first, the
Linux OS has a very small share of those markets, and second, Red Hat's
releases don't even have ACPI support.

Thanks,
John
--------------------------------
John Cagle     john.cagle-VXdhtT5mjnY@public.gmane.org
Principal Member Technical Staff
   Industry Standard Servers
    Hewlett-Packard Company
    http://www.hp.com/linux
       jcagle-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Darren Benham [mailto:dbenham-FG1iuTdj8bisTnJN9+BGXg@public.gmane.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 8:55 PM
> To: acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org
> Subject: RE: [ACPI] redhat comment about intel not taking patches?
> 
> 
> Is ACPI going to be able to go mainstream in any of the major 
> releases w/o making some effort to work in non-standard BIOS 
> (read, the BIOSes written directly for Windows)?  Is it ever 
> likely that pressure would work against those Bios 
> manufacturers that dont' follow spec?  I mean, Compaq is on 
> the list of partners for ACPI and their DSDT's are crap, with 
> asterisks in names and functions returning values that 
> shouldn't, etc. Grover, Andrew said:
> >> From: Kevin Fenzi [mailto:kevin-+bl/7iUgRMUAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org]
> >> RedHat is playing with enabling ACPI in their next 
> release. (At least 
> >> in the beta for the next release: phoebe).
> >>
> >> Noticed this changelog comment in the phoebe kernel:
> >>
> >> * Thu Nov 07 2002 Arjan van de Ven <arjanv-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> >> - - remove ACPI again because Intel is unwilling to take patches
> >>
> >> What patches are they talking about?
> >>
> >> Is there any way we could fix up the communication 
> breakdown between 
> >> RedHat/Intel?
> >>
> >> It would be great if ACPI would work out of the box on my 
> laptop with 
> >> a RedHat kernel. At a minimum I guess it would require acpi to be 
> >> able to detect the compaq *PNP stuff and remove the * so the table 
> >> works.
> >
> > I have been in contact with a number of distributions concerning 
> > inclusion of ACPI support. I think the new licensing and 
> some recent 
> > source improvements helped a lot to make people feel better about 
> > ACPI, but there still are a number of critical bugs that 
> are affecting 
> > a significant percentage of systems. These need to be fixed. These 
> > have to do with *any* ACPI-related oopses, failure to boot 
> using ACPI, 
> > and failure to shutdown cleanly.
> >
> > ACPI is not going to be in the next RH release but we are really 
> > pushing to get it in subsequent releases, but we need to fix those 
> > critical bugs.
> >
> > Regards -- Andy
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Darren


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf

RE: redhat comment about intel not taking patches?

[Darren Benham]

I'll send this one reply to the list as a sort of apology to HP (Compaq). 
My last two laptops where HP, my current laptop is Compaq and the next
laptop I've been thinking of buying is Compaq.  HP/Compaq is my laptop of
choice and I recommend them to people who ask my opinion as well as
purchase them for my users where I work.
The point of the email Mr. Cagle replied to was not so much to be about
Compaq's DSDTs as it was about whether or not ACPI would be feasable in
mainstream distros as standard while it still had the "bios blacklisted"
with no attempts to work around them in the code.  I don't have figures of
how many systems are affected but as Linux distros try to go mainstream,
they're going to have to push for the broadest compatability group and "go
complain to your bios mfg" isn't going to be a successful business model.
I certainly don't want to start any unpleasantness so I'm more than
willing to discuss the rest of my comments with HP off-list.  HP/Compaq
makes great laptops and I don't want it to appear otherwise.
Darren
ISS-Houston said:
> Can you be more specific in your comments regarding Compaq hardware?
> We test our ProLiant servers with Linux and ACPI, and our BIOS is
> designed for many different operating systems, including Linux, Unix
> and NetWare. On the other hand, it is unreasonable to expect that our
> laptop and desktop divisions test with Linux ACPI for two big reasons:
> first, the Linux OS has a very small share of those markets, and
> second, Red Hat's releases don't even have ACPI support.
>
> Thanks,
> John
> --------------------------------
> John Cagle     john.cagle-VXdhtT5mjnY@public.gmane.org
> Principal Member Technical Staff
>   Industry Standard Servers
>    Hewlett-Packard Company
>    http://www.hp.com/linux
>       jcagle-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Darren Benham [mailto:dbenham-FG1iuTdj8bisTnJN9+BGXg@public.gmane.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 8:55 PM
>> To: acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org
>> Subject: RE: [ACPI] redhat comment about intel not taking patches?
>>
>>
>> Is ACPI going to be able to go mainstream in any of the major
>> releases w/o making some effort to work in non-standard BIOS
>> (read, the BIOSes written directly for Windows)?  Is it ever
>> likely that pressure would work against those Bios
>> manufacturers that dont' follow spec?  I mean, Compaq is on
>> the list of partners for ACPI and their DSDT's are crap, with
>> asterisks in names and functions returning values that
>> shouldn't, etc. Grover, Andrew said:
>> >> From: Kevin Fenzi [mailto:kevin-+bl/7iUgRMUAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org]
>> >> RedHat is playing with enabling ACPI in their next
>> release. (At least
>> >> in the beta for the next release: phoebe).
>> >>
>> >> Noticed this changelog comment in the phoebe kernel:
>> >>
>> >> * Thu Nov 07 2002 Arjan van de Ven <arjanv-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
>> >> - - remove ACPI again because Intel is unwilling to take patches
>> >>
>> >> What patches are they talking about?
>> >>
>> >> Is there any way we could fix up the communication
>> breakdown between
>> >> RedHat/Intel?
>> >>
>> >> It would be great if ACPI would work out of the box on my
>> laptop with
>> >> a RedHat kernel. At a minimum I guess it would require acpi to be
>> >> able to detect the compaq *PNP stuff and remove the * so the table
>> >> works.
>> >
>> > I have been in contact with a number of distributions concerning
>> > inclusion of ACPI support. I think the new licensing and
>> some recent
>> > source improvements helped a lot to make people feel better about
>> > ACPI, but there still are a number of critical bugs that
>> are affecting
>> > a significant percentage of systems. These need to be fixed. These
>> > have to do with *any* ACPI-related oopses, failure to boot
>> using ACPI,
>> > and failure to shutdown cleanly.
>> >
>> > ACPI is not going to be in the next RH release but we are really
>> > pushing to get it in subsequent releases, but we need to fix those
>> > critical bugs.
>> >
>> > Regards -- Andy
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Darren


-- 
Darren




-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf

Re: redhat comment about intel not taking patches?

[Dave Jones]

On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 10:11:26PM -0600, Cagle, John (ISS-Houston) wrote:
 > Can you be more specific in your comments regarding Compaq hardware?  We
 > test our ProLiant servers with Linux and ACPI, and our BIOS is designed
 > for many different operating systems, including Linux, Unix and NetWare.
 > On the other hand, it is unreasonable to expect that our laptop and
 > desktop divisions test with Linux ACPI for two big reasons: first, the
 > Linux OS has a very small share of those markets, and second, Red Hat's
 > releases don't even have ACPI support.

So, Red Hat doesn't include ACPI because it doesn't work on Compaq
laptops[1], and Compaq won't test it because Red Hat don't ship it ?
Nice catch 22 8-)

        Dave

[1] Among others..

-- 
| Dave Jones.        http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf

RE: redhat comment about intel not taking patches? - Compaq Hardware

[Troy Schultz]

Last year (January 2002) I purchased a Compaq Presario 2710CA notebook,
before the Compaq/HP deal went through.  After looking at the various
notebooks I was able to find in Toronto, ON, Canada I settled for this
one.  I knew is was "Designed for Windows XP" but I had every intention
of running Linux as my main OS.  I was not even able to buy this
notebook without XP if I wanted to!

I was forced to use the ACPI patches as the notebook has no APM support
and would not even power-off without it.  I also had to "correct" the
DSDT to fix several errors which were easily found.  All of this I was
quite happy to do since I knew I was in unsupported territory.

My biggest disappointment came when I called Compaq Tech support to
inform them of the errors in the DSDT/BIOS.  I was very quickly told
that system was only intended to run Windows XP, they had no intention
of looking at the DSDT to fix it unless there were problems under XP,
and also that my warranty would be void for running an untested OS.  

I found this rather strange, to treat Linux as a detriment to the
computer!  With my configuration the system runs much cooler under Linux
and also gives me almost 30 minutes more battery life as compared to
Windows XP on the same system.  I use my notebook an a daily basis, as a
production box, an average of 10 hours per day.

The thing is that I run several packages that will not run under Windows
XP, and never will.  As a developer of embedded systems and industrial
hardware I still have to run several legacy packages, some only
available for DOS.  For these reasons I run Linux as my primary OS and
run VMware to support the other OS's that I have to run periodically.  I
also have the system set up to dual-boot into Windows XP natively but
have only done so less than 10 times since I purchased the system.  I
had tried VMware under Windows XP, but the Linux host gives me more
control over things and behaves better with a couple of the legacy
packages in the guest OS's.  Linux is also my OS of choice.

I feel one of the biggest stumbling blocks for Linux, especially on the
desktop, is the computer manufacturers themselves.  I realize that Linux
does not represent a large share of the marketplace (at this time), but
it is most certainly a viable OS and much more than just a toy.  On a
daily basis I am able to perform approx. 90% of everything I want to
directly under Linux and the remaining 10% is normally very specific
software that I would normally not be able to run under XP anyhow.

I would hope that now with the Compaq/HP deal finalized the consumer
should see a more harmonized approach to everything.  I am also hopeful
that as one of the major players that a bit more emphasis may be placed
on so called alternate OS's.  Linux has its place on the desktop as
well!


On Wed, 2003-02-12 at 23:11, Cagle, John (ISS-Houston) wrote: 
> Can you be more specific in your comments regarding Compaq hardware?  We
> test our ProLiant servers with Linux and ACPI, and our BIOS is designed
> for many different operating systems, including Linux, Unix and NetWare.
> On the other hand, it is unreasonable to expect that our laptop and
> desktop divisions test with Linux ACPI for two big reasons: first, the
> Linux OS has a very small share of those markets, and second, Red Hat's
> releases don't even have ACPI support.
> 
> Thanks,
> John
> --
> John Cagle     john.cagle-VXdhtT5mjnY@public.gmane.org
> Principal Member Technical Staff
>    Industry Standard Servers
>     Hewlett-Packard Company
>     http://www.hp.com/linux
>        jcagle-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org

The newer ACPI patches do allow me to run with the native DSDT, but
there are still a few problems with the DSDT.

As for the Red Hat concern, I run a Red Hat distribution but do not run
their kernel or XFree.  My current configuration runs a stock 2.4.20
kernel with ACPI 20021212.  Prior configurations that worked best were;
kernel 2.4.19 with ACPI 20020821, and kernel 2.418 with kernel 

The only other change I have had to make is to disable the CPU idle
handler in ACPI since there are some problems with VMware and some guest
OS's.  The problem seems to be in VMware itself but so far they have not
fixed it.

Best Regards
- 
Troy Schultz <tschultz-zzOxFVvAfJPQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by: FREE  SSL Guide from Thawte
are you planning your Web Server Security? Click here to get a FREE
Thawte SSL guide and find the answers to all your  SSL security issues.
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0026en

Re: redhat comment about intel not taking patches? - Compaq Hardware

[Chris Howells]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

On Thursday 13 February 2003 12:45, Troy Schultz wrote:
> of looking at the DSDT to fix it unless there were problems under XP,
> and also that my warranty would be void for running an untested OS.  

Dell told me that running Linux on an Inspiron laptop caused the memory to 
become faulty. See top of http://developer.kde.org/~howells/inspiron.

It's a load of bollocks really, and I'm sure it wouldn't stand up in court, 
under UK law at least.

- -- 
Cheers, Chris Howells -- chris-NvB7AskkBIqIudiWw5vspbVCufUGDwFn@public.gmane.org, howells@kde.org
Web: http://chrishowells.co.uk, PGP key: http://chrishowells.co.uk/pgp.txt
KDE: http://www.koffice.org, http://printing.kde.org, http://usability.kde.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+S8YyF8Iu1zN5WiwRApvQAJoChHDx1A8WQGqyUJ78v3dt/MTBdQCfc7gj
c874xv7KjjiRa9aZ58MMup0=
=q+jx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by: FREE  SSL Guide from Thawte
are you planning your Web Server Security? Click here to get a FREE
Thawte SSL guide and find the answers to all your  SSL security issues.
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0026en

HP-Compaq laptops and Linux ACPI (was RE: redhat comment about intel not taking patches?)

[Duncan Gibb]

On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 04:11, Cagle, John (ISS-Houston) wrote:

JC> it is unreasonable to expect that our laptop and
JC> desktop divisions test with Linux ACPI for two
JC> big reasons: first, the Linux OS has a very small
JC> share of those markets, and second, Red Hat's
JC> releases don't even have ACPI support.

Can I throw in my twopenneth at this point?  Sorry if I repeat anything
that's been said earlier in this thread - I've been busy ;-)

Back in November I had an exchange of emails on this list and with
Richard Black at HP, during which we established that the main thing
that stops Linux ACPI working out-of-the-box on HP notebooks like my Evo
N800c is that the DSDT written into the BIOS on these boxes does not
comply with the ACPI spec.  I sent details of some of the most obvious
violations - with references - to Richard, who said he's pass them on,
but I've heard nothing back.

Which OSes you chose to test/certify on which of your hardware is
entirely a business decision for you.

However, I, as your customer, think that if HP advertises a product as
ACPI-compliant - which you do - and is (through Compaq) a co-author of
the specification with which you're claiming compliance - which you are
- then it's not too much to ask that this claim be true - which
unfortunately, it isn't.

While you might not feel inclined to go out of your way to support Linux
on your notebooks, I don't see that it's advantageous to your business
to go out of your way to obstruct those of us who want/need to use it.

Cheers


Duncan



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by: FREE  SSL Guide from Thawte
are you planning your Web Server Security? Click here to get a FREE
Thawte SSL guide and find the answers to all your  SSL security issues.
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0026en

Re: HP-Compaq laptops and Linux ACPI (was RE: redhat comment about intel not taking patches?)

[Faye Pearson]

Duncan Gibb [duncangibb-zbhw9Kw21rH/AQmYMRTMl1aTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org] wrote:
> However, I, as your customer, think that if HP advertises a product as
> ACPI-compliant - which you do - and is (through Compaq) a co-author of
> the specification with which you're claiming compliance - which you are
> - then it's not too much to ask that this claim be true - which
> unfortunately, it isn't.

And the way to communicate that is to change your supplier.  My last
laptop was a Compaq.  My current laptop is a Sony.  I'm not saying that
the sony has a perfect ACPI implementation but I haven't had to override
the BIOS DSDT to get working battery/ac status.

Hopefully John will take some of this feedback back to HP/Compaq.


Faye

-- 
Faye Pearson,
Covert Development
ClaraNET Ltd.       Tel 020 7903 3000


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by: FREE  SSL Guide from Thawte
are you planning your Web Server Security? Click here to get a FREE
Thawte SSL guide and find the answers to all your  SSL security issues.
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0026en

Re: HP-Compaq laptops and Linux ACPI (was RE: redhat comment about intel not taking patches?)

[Richard Black]

Duncan Gibb wrote:

>Back in November I had an exchange of emails on this list and with
>Richard Black at HP, during which we established that the main thing
>that stops Linux ACPI working out-of-the-box on HP notebooks like my Evo
>N800c is that the DSDT written into the BIOS on these boxes does not
>comply with the ACPI spec.  I sent details of some of the most obvious
>violations - with references - to Richard, who said he's pass them on,
>but I've heard nothing back.
>  
>
I still have the web page which lists some of the DSDT fixes needed 
based on previous
communications on the mailing list:

http://www.cpqlinux.com/acpi-howto.html

I haven't been able to work on ACPI lately and my laptop (Pres 2701) 
with its current
ACPI patches is able to autopoweroff on shutdown, and gives me battery 
status (my two
main needs from ACPI).  Again, I haven't had the time to be able to keep 
on top of the
ACPI scene and to push for any DSDT fixes.

I will see what I can do.

-- 
Sincerely,
Richard Black
http://www.cpqlinux.com
http://www.compaq.com/linux





-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by: FREE  SSL Guide from Thawte
are you planning your Web Server Security? Click here to get a FREE
Thawte SSL guide and find the answers to all your  SSL security issues.
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0026en

RE: redhat comment about intel not taking patches? - Compaq Hardware

[Alan Cox]

On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 12:45, Troy Schultz wrote:
> My biggest disappointment came when I called Compaq Tech support to
> inform them of the errors in the DSDT/BIOS.  I was very quickly told
> that system was only intended to run Windows XP, they had no intention
> of looking at the DSDT to fix it unless there were problems under XP,
> and also that my warranty would be void for running an untested OS.  

I don't know how this works in the USA/Canada but you may want to go
over the advertising for said laptop and see if it claims to

	Support ACPI
	States on the visible warranty that only XP is allowed (and if 
		remember you cant even then run windows .net on it)

If the ACPI tables are wrong (v the specification) then its very much
fraudulent advertising on the part of the company to claim it supports 
ACPI IMHO. Similarly unless their visible paperwork for the warranty
says "XP only" they wouldnt get very far.

Thankfully the dealings I've had with vendors have been a bit saner
and not gone beyond "if you send it back in make a backup we will
reinstall windows on it because thats how we test stuff" (which didnt
bother me since they werent going to get far trying that when the
LCD had gone ;))




-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by: FREE  SSL Guide from Thawte
are you planning your Web Server Security? Click here to get a FREE
Thawte SSL guide and find the answers to all your  SSL security issues.
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0026en

Re: HP-Compaq laptops and Linux ACPI (was RE: redhat comment about intel not taking patches?)

[Luming]

> Back in November I had an exchange of emails on this
> list and with
> Richard Black at HP, during which we established
> that the main thing
> that stops Linux ACPI working out-of-the-box on HP
> notebooks like my Evo
> N800c is that the DSDT written into the BIOS on
> these boxes does not
> comply with the ACPI spec.  I sent details of some
> of the most obvious
> violations - with references - to Richard, who said
> he's pass them on,
> but I've heard nothing back.
> 

Does HP notebooks (your Evo N800c) support ACPI well
when running Windows? If so, linux should do it like
windiows, despite those boxes does not comply with the
ACPI spec. Am I right?

thanks,
micyu

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by: FREE  SSL Guide from Thawte
are you planning your Web Server Security? Click here to get a FREE
Thawte SSL guide and find the answers to all your  SSL security issues.
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0026en

Re: HP-Compaq laptops and Linux ACPI (was RE: redhat comment about intel not taking patches?)

[Duncan Gibb]

On Fri, 2003-02-14 at 02:30, Luming wrote:

L> Does HP notebooks (your Evo N800c) support ACPI well
L> when running Windows?

I presume so, but I don't know for certain as the pre-installed WinXP
was overwritten with Red Hat without ever getting the opportunity to
boot.


L> If so, linux should do it like windiows, despite those boxes
L> does not comply with the ACPI spec. Am I right?

No.  What would be the point of having an open specification if
manufacturers ignored it and left everyone playing blind catch-up with
the embrace-bend-and-extend gang?  Some might see that scenario as a
flagrant abuse of monopoly by Redmond...


Duncan



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by: FREE  SSL Guide from Thawte
are you planning your Web Server Security? Click here to get a FREE
Thawte SSL guide and find the answers to all your  SSL security issues.
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0026en

RE: redhat comment about intel not taking patches? - Compaq Hardware

[Duncan Gibb]

On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 20:36, Alan Cox wrote:

AC> you may want to go over the advertising for said
AC> laptop and see if it claims to

AC> 	Support ACPI

AC> If the ACPI tables are wrong (v the specification) then
AC> its very much fraudulent advertising {..} to claim it
AC> supports ACPI IMHO.

I agree, but I think HP should get a reasonable time to make amends
before we go waving the Trades Descriptions Act at them :-)  Perhaps one
of the HP employees here could let us know who's actually responsible
for this problem.

Woe betide the firmware manager who doesn't listen to you.


Duncan



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by: FREE  SSL Guide from Thawte
are you planning your Web Server Security? Click here to get a FREE
Thawte SSL guide and find the answers to all your  SSL security issues.
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0026en

Re: HP-Compaq laptops and Linux ACPI (was RE: redhat comment about intel not taking patches?)

[Luming]

--- Duncan Gibb <duncangibb-zbhw9Kw21rH/AQmYMRTMl1aTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-02-14 at 02:30, Luming wrote:
> 
> L> Does HP notebooks (your Evo N800c) support ACPI
> well
> L> when running Windows?
> 
> I presume so, but I don't know for certain as the
> pre-installed WinXP
> was overwritten with Red Hat without ever getting
> the opportunity to
> boot.
> 
> 
> L> If so, linux should do it like windiows, despite
> those boxes
> L> does not comply with the ACPI spec. Am I right?
> 
> No.  What would be the point of having an open
> specification if
> manufacturers ignored it and left everyone playing
> blind catch-up with
> the embrace-bend-and-extend gang?  Some might see
> that scenario as a
> flagrant abuse of monopoly by Redmond...
> 
Our goal is to enable ACPI on every system. To achieve
this goal, we have to resort to defact standard. 
> 
> Duncan
> 
> 
> 
>
-------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.NET email is sponsored by: FREE  SSL Guide
> from Thawte
> are you planning your Web Server Security? Click
> here to get a FREE
> Thawte SSL guide and find the answers to all your 
> SSL security issues.
>
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0026en
> _______________________________________________
> Acpi-devel mailing list
> Acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org
>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/acpi-devel


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf

Re: HP-Compaq laptops and Linux ACPI (was RE: redhat comment about intel not taking patches?)

[Duncan Gibb]

On Mon, 2003-02-17 at 02:07, Luming wrote:

DG> What would be the point of having an open
DG> specification if manufacturers ignored it

L> Our goal is to enable ACPI on every system.
L> To achieve this goal, we have to resort to
L> defact standard. 

The implementation and the policy governing it are not under my control
- I'm no more than an occasional tester hoping to get my particular
system working.

However, IMHO, one ought not to resort to a de facto 'standard' when
there is a perfectly good de jure one.

And besides, it's not as if it's a choice between "the standard way" and
"the Microsoft way" - it's a choice between "the standard way" and an
unknown number of potential deviations.  Plus the standard has
Microsoft's name to it as well.


Duncan




-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf