On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 8:19:24 PM MST Chris Murphy wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:16 PM John Harris <joh...@splentity.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 7:45:15 PM MST Chris Murphy wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 6:38 PM Solomon Peachy <pi...@shaftnet.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 03:34:03AM +0300, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why wouldn't it be appropriate for a system running on battery > > > > > power? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've personally had this happen to me several times, where (far more > > > > improtantly than the battery) a laptop tucked into a confined sleeve > > > > got > > > > inadvertantly powered on and essentially baked itself while sitting > > > > at > > > > that password prompt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, yes, powering off is a completely sensible thing to do. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an interesting example. It's such a significant liability > > > (home fires and airplane fires are particularly bad), I wonder if > > > manufacturers have heat and lid sensors feeding back to the firmware > > > to force a poweroff in such a situation. And perhaps they do and no > > > one is willing to test it (for all I know it's a temperature range > > > that can cause hardware damage). From the limited examples so far, > > > clearly manufacturers cannot trust that the operating system will > > > ensure proper behavior, for any number of reasons. Or maybe they > > > design the case to "reasonably" contain the smoldering left overs of > > > what was your laptop. > > > > > > > > There is no significant fire risk from this. It's just not good for the > > laptop. There's not exactly a temperature range that can cause damage, > > but > > there is a nominal range for each individual chip, and a nominal range for > > the entire system based on that. Anything over isn't guaranteed to do > > damage, but will definitely degrade performance, and anything > > significantly outside of that range, in either extreme, could do > > permanent damage. > > > And this nice response is a very strong argument against the current > behavior, and can't be construed as supportive of it. > > > -- > Chris Murphy > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List > Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List > Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
It simply negates your claim, nothing more. We're not considering fire risks here. Once a system reaches the upper, and sometimes lower, extreme of that system's rated range (which will be different per system, and not something we can throw in the OS), the EC, the PMC, the MC or similar system will shut down the system on most consumer hardware, unless the user has explicitly disabled it, which isn't possible without flashing your own firmware on many systems. -- John M. Harris, Jr. <joh...@splentity.com> Splentity https://splentity.com/ _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
