On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 06:08:11PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Freitag 03 August 2007 schrieb Matthew Garrett:
> > > Which is why I didn't suggest doing that, of course. The only
> > > one making that kind of straw man argument seems to be you.
> >
> > But however you phrase it, that's effectively what it is. "Does your
> > device work?" just makes users wonder why the damn computer doesn't know
> > already. "This option may prevent your device from working. Click here
> > to switch it off" results in them wondering why it was switched on in
> > the first place. Many of our users aren't technical - they don't care
> > about saving 200mW, they just care about their printer working when they
> > plug it in.
>
> Devices rarely simply crash. Although Windows doesn't do runtime power
> management, it certainly will suspend all devices when the system goes
> into suspension. Buggy devices typically disconnect and reconnect when
> resumed. This is testable for in software without user intervention.
The printer I mentioned earlier this thread wouldn't work again
until I physically unplugged and replugged the usb cable.
It spewed descriptor read errors every time I tried to talk to it.
Even unloading and reloading the usb modules didn't bring it back
to life.
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
