On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 06:24:31PM +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 09:47:48AM +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Alan Shutko wrote:
>> >> > Derek Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > Perhaps a bit irellevant, but if you really want suspend to disk
>> > and your kernel/machine combination doesn't support it, there is
>> > always software-matic s. to disk. Don't know how smooth it works
>> > tough
[...]
> Are there any reasons to prefer software suspend to disk above
> bios-controlled, or backwards?
There are *very* good reasons to prefer the bios-based suspend-to-disk
over the software suspend one. There are regular problems with the
software suspend code.
It often software failure, including failure to resume correctly (oops),
data corruption or generally poor operation.
It's a great idea, just not mature enough to use yet. Of course, if you
have some time and a scratch machine it would be great for you to help
out developing it. If you don't want to do that, though, stay away. :)
Daniel
--
We went too far, we can't turn back
We built to high, we can't get down
We are the slaves of our servants
in the shadow of our ambitions
-- Covenant, _Hardware Requiem_
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
