Slashdot Mirror


Nailing the Cause of Recent Linux Power Issues

An anonymous reader writes "For the Linux kernel power regressions that were found a few months ago, and hit in Ubuntu 11.04, Phoronix has found the regression that's still present in the Linux 3.0 kernel. The power regression is caused by a change in ASPM, the Active-State Power Management, for PCI Express support."

156 comments

  1. Carpentry and computer power failures by mpoulton · · Score: 3, Funny

    Interesting headline. I was trying to figure out how old-school manual construction work would be responsible for tricky power supply problems on Linux machines only.

    --
    I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
    1. Re:Carpentry and computer power failures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tsk, tsk.

      Nailing doesn't necessarily mean "old-school manual construction work" -- among the delights that are power tools, a MAPP nail gun is perhaps the most heavenly.

      And using one to shoot a half-dozen nails into a PSU would cause problems, though I too fail to see the Linux connection.

    2. Re:Carpentry and computer power failures by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Funny

      The headline demonstrates a skill that the Linux community seems to lack: the modern corporate marketing mindset. What the Linux community should have done is used this extra power consumption to their advantage: Linux, now more powerful than ever!*



      * more powerful based on the amount of energy used to perform the same tasks

    3. Re:Carpentry and computer power failures by crontabminusell · · Score: 1

      My first thought was that I missed the launch of some new "Linux Power" magazine (something akin to Nintendo Power). I didn't quite understand the "Nailing the Cause" part of the headline in that context though. =)

    4. Re:Carpentry and computer power failures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is always the recourse of Nailing Palin.

      With the ASPM state S1 there is the increased risk of deadlock. This could be avoided by disabling the state at the cost of increased power comsuption. I don't know if the problems have been solved for the PCIe version 3.

    5. Re:Carpentry and computer power failures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, as a blacksmith I would propose the generic solution 'if it doesn't work, hit it with a hammer'

    6. Re:Carpentry and computer power failures by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Interesting headline. I was trying to figure out how old-school manual construction work would be responsible for tricky power supply problems on Linux machines only.

      Do you have trouble using contractions, too?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    7. Re:Carpentry and computer power failures by laurelraven · · Score: 1

      And, shockingly, there are times when this actually works. Not to mention, it just feels good.

      --
      RTFA is Known to the State of California to cause cancer.
    8. Re:Carpentry and computer power failures by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Yes, in this case, 'nailing' refers to the ass-rape of the developer who submitted this buggy code.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    9. Re:Carpentry and computer power failures by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

      Percussive Maintenance is an art and a science...

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    10. Re:Carpentry and computer power failures by Mogusha · · Score: 1

      Nailing, even by hand, isn't old-school manual construction.

      Nailguns are mostly only useable in certain circumstances, like when doing framing, or woodwork finishing. When it comes to things like putting metal siding, spiking concrete, or putting in drywall beads nail guns don't have the accuracy, nor the light touch required.

      Also, if you're meaning screws are the wave of the future, they don't have the type of give that are needed in many situations. For instance, if a building was put up with only screws in an earthquake the screws would tend to break whereas the nails would allow for some room to move and maintain their hold. Either way, nailing is still new school.

    11. Re:Carpentry and computer power failures by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Sarah or Bristol? Can I get a sportsman's double?

    12. Re:Carpentry and computer power failures by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Interesting tidbit: some theater stage surfaces are black linoleum. You can nail things into the floor to secure them, and the nail holes will heal completely (for small nails) or almost completely for larger ones (except for quite large nails, which still leave a neat hole). A screw will tear the shit out of the surface. I learned that from a professional tech director when I was helping build some sets.

    13. Re:Carpentry and computer power failures by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I once read a book on management by a German philosopher called Rudolf Hoess.

      Ever since then I've done this with computers.

      If they are misbehaving line them all up outside in the hot sun. Take out one randomly and beat it into pieces in front of the others.

      After that I've noticed that the other machines seem to be a lot more reliable.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  2. Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS problem by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 5, Informative
    To sum up the article in 3 sentences:

    It's due to some buggy BIOSes not properly advertising power-saving features of PCIE cards. Older kernels didn't honor those BIOS hints, and disabled power to unused PCIE cards anyways (causing hangs in rare cases), whereas new kernels do the right thing (causing power wastage in lots of cases). The workaround is to specify pcie_aspm=force on the boot (Grub) command line, to tell the kernel to forge ahead, and just use power management on these cards regardless of the BIOS advice.

  3. Re:No more Moronix, please! by qinjuehang · · Score: 5, Informative

    As bad as some of the Phoronix articles can be, they have contributed a lot to the community. After all, they played a pivotal role in setting up openbenchmarking.org, and are pretty much the only source of Linux hardware reviews.

  4. "serious bug" my ass by KiloByte · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The article is full of sensationalism like "serious bug", "major regression" to promote Phoronix and its "wonderful test suite". If you read it closely, you'll see they have seen a 10% increase in power consumption on just one of their test laptops that depends on BIOS settings. That particular laptop has a bug in its BIOS where it claims it wants to manage configuration of a particular piece of hardware, and new kernels obey that request. You can even tell the kernel to disregard BIOS and force power settings anyway.

    For me, improving power efficiency everywhere but that particular laptop is a major win. If you feel nice, you can even detect this particular buggy BIOS and ignore its request. But then, even after throrough fiddling, Phoronix guys weren't able to improve power usage by more than 15% even on this laptop, so it's not a big issue anyway.

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    1. Re:"serious bug" my ass by gbjbaanb · · Score: 2

      I think you've being a little harsh, there isn't much in the way of hardware reviews for Linux so these guys doing them provides some service to the community.

      And if they'd detected 10% decrease in power consumption, the article would be just as sensationalist, only this time considered good. I never knew about the kernel option, now I do.

    2. Re:"serious bug" my ass by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While this article is a touch overblown, stories like this make me profoundly pessimistic about the advent of EFI...

      Yeah, the BIOS pretty much sucks, and its horrible backwards-compatibility hackery makes purists cry; but the very fact that it sucks so much has had the basically positive effect of keeping vendors from trying to get too clever it. Given the results of their trying to do so(like everybody's favorite problem child, ACPI) this is probably a good thing.

      EFI, especially in conjunction with CPUs that have hardware level virtualization support, is pretty much an entire second OS, moonlighting as a bootloader, that you either have to perform coreboot-platform-port level black magic to replace(if the board even allows you, you might also have to defeat some sort of firmware integrity check) or lament unto your motherboard vendor in hope of getting fixed. If buggy BIOSes are an issue now, buggy EFI will be a fucking nightmare. The last thing we want is more and more stuff going on under the surface, with development handled by motherboard OEMs with, to put it charitably, no OS-development experience worth putting on a CV...

      At least the suckitude of the classic BIOS created a de-facto pressure toward "let the bootloader bootload and then GTFO so that the OS can handle things". Ideally, we could have just had a modern, lessons-learned, minimal bootloader, that could skip the brief sojourn to the 80s; but still bugger off as fast as possible. Instead, we are facing the looming advent of having every computer running two OSes with hardware access, even after the bootloading is done, the resultant messy(but model/firmware-revision specific) infighting of which are going to make ACPI look like an architecturally elegant story of idyllic peaceful cooperation...

    3. Re:"serious bug" my ass by dnaumov · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The user is not going to give a shit. The user will see that Windows doesn't suffer from this increase in power consumption and will decide that Linux is inferior.

    4. Re:"serious bug" my ass by David+Gerard · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are entirely correct. See Matthew Garrett's blog for the icky details of EFI on Linux. He makes this hideous piece of shit work for a living.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    5. Re:"serious bug" my ass by nzac · · Score: 1

      Do you own a laptop that you use the full battery life on?
      How is not a serious bug where all of a sudden your computer looses 10 percent battery life for no good reason due to core software. Since its not universal I guess you could argue its not a regression, if you want. I remember higher percentages being thrown around, certainly if it goes past 20 percent it becomes the kind of thing people stop using Linux over, Linux is already pretty terrible on some laptops due to having to use generic drivers.

      I have not herd of anyone who actually uses or recommends the test suite so money can't be rolling in the door. Finding and solving a significant kernel issue that was not being looked is a good chance to promote that they have some expertise in their company.

    6. Re:"serious bug" my ass by hitmark · · Score: 2

      Heh, i think it was Torvalds that decried ACPI as insanity. Not helped by Microsoft having a test suite that deviate at various places from the Intel equivalent. But what will the OEMs use? Why, the Microsoft one...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    7. Re:"serious bug" my ass by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This behavior is by design:

      "One thing I find myself wondering about is whether we shouldn’t try and make the "ACPI" extensions somehow Windows specific.
      It seems unfortunate if we do this work and get our partners to do the work and the result is that Linux works great without having to do the work.
      Maybe there is no way Io avoid this problem but it does bother me. Maybe we couid define the APIs so that they work well with NT and not the others even if they are open."

      William H. Gates III

    8. Re:"serious bug" my ass by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Phoronix guys weren't able to improve power usage by more than 15% even on this laptop, so it's not a big issue anyway.

      15% from 6hours make it roughly one hour so I cannot say this issue is really minor. I'd even dare to say that every such detail does count since most hardware vendors tailor their products exclusively for Windows and the fact that Linux even works is a wonder.

      And please don't judge Phoronix harshly. It's one of a very few websites which actually drive Linux development. Yes, Michael likes sensational style, but then again he wants to eat, buy hardware to test Linux on, pay for other people's work.

    9. Re:"serious bug" my ass by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Chances are, the average user isn't even going to notice.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    10. Re:"serious bug" my ass by hitmark · · Score: 1

      the old Microsoft mantra: embrace, extend, extinguish...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    11. Re:"serious bug" my ass by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Chances are, the average user isn't even going to notice.

      I'm sorry, but the average user knows how a clock works. Whether it's their computer clock, the wall clock, the wrist watch or their cell phone, they'll notice that their laptop runs out of battery faster under Linux.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    12. Re:"serious bug" my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Heh, that reminds me of when I did some work for a hard drive manufacturer. I got to see a lot of their firmware source and other software they wrote. Total. Complete. Shit. All of it. The whole reason they needed me was to fix their poorly written software that they couldn't even figure out how to debug.

      Engineers should never be allowed to write software, ever.

    13. Re:"serious bug" my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, the "average" user doesn't even know what Linux is and won't ever have the opportunity to compare it to Windows.

      That's just the way it is.

    14. Re:"serious bug" my ass by inglorion_on_the_net · · Score: 1

      While we're on the subject, could someone explain what the whole point of EFI is? To me, it has always seemed like Intel's NIH answer to Open Firmware. Why would we prefer EFI over Open Firmware?

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    15. Re:"serious bug" my ass by David+Gerard · · Score: 1

      Yes, NIH, apparently.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    16. Re:"serious bug" my ass by marnues · · Score: 1

      The average user is never going to compare them on equivalent hardware.

    17. Re:"serious bug" my ass by rtaylor · · Score: 1

      Why do you think this would matter to a typical user?

      They will simply notice that Solution A allows X usage and Solution B allows Y usage; either way they're not buying the machine with Linux pre-loaded.

      --
      Rod Taylor
  5. tl;dr by OliWarner · · Score: 3, Informative

    Add pcie_aspm=force to your boot options.

    Test it by editing grub (which is a temporary edit that will be lost next boot) first and test out suspend, hibernate, etc.

    If that works, edit your grub configuration files. For ubuntu users this means editing /etc/default/grub and editing the GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT variable. Then call sudo update-grub.

    1. Re:tl;dr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... but only if you have that particular laptop model with that particular version of BIOS.

    2. Re:tl;dr by AlexiaDeath · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It cant be a quick test either. Some machines start randomly hard locking with ASPM managed by the kernel. I have one of those. Uptime can vary from 5 minutes to 3 hours.

    3. Re:tl;dr by nagnamer · · Score: 1

      In my case, this did not lead to perceived improvement power saving. Battery indicator still reports 1.5hr, and the batter is 66% drained in about a hour, so I'm guessing the prediction would be accurate. On the same system, I used to be able to squeeze out more than 3 hours under Windows 7. However, it has to be noted that performance was dramatically lower on Windows 7, too.

      --
      Every harsh word you utter has the right address. It only sounds harsh because the one on the envelope is the wrong one.
    4. Re:tl;dr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try running "cpu-freq -g powersave" or "cpu-freq -g conservative" these help with battery but lower performance

    5. Re:tl;dr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your problem didn't appears with version 2.6.38 of the kernel, it's not related to this. Since you only see a difference with Windows and its slower it might just be that you need to activate cpu frequency scaling in Linux.

    6. Re:tl;dr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds pretty complicated...looks like you still have some things to straighten out. /me goes on using him mac and/or windows computer.

  6. Sigh... by AlexiaDeath · · Score: 1

    Machines like mine are probably the cause of the offending commit. Since maverick I had to force ASPM off on it or use lucid kernel because it caused frequent hard locks.

    1. Re:Sigh... by AlexiaDeath · · Score: 1

      And IMHO... Some power wastage on some systems is less of an issue than random crashes on others. If people force ASPM and machine starts crashing, they will know what went wrong...

    2. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or a black/whitelist system

    3. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Some power wastage on some systems is less of an issue" ... yes of course, until users start jumping ship because "their laptop lasts longer/runs cooler with windows".
      I've seen it happen, and issues like this don't help at all.

    4. Re:Sigh... by AlexiaDeath · · Score: 2

      The machine crashing randomly is CERTAIN to drive them away while power issue may or may not.

    5. Re:Sigh... by AlexiaDeath · · Score: 2

      Trouble with this is that there is no defined list of BIOS-es that will crash or BIOS-es that work and no automated way to gather it, plus it would require maintenance. That can not happen in kernel. The distro's installer is perfect place to detect and configure grub accordingly but I doubt the maintainers are willing to shoulder the burden this brings.

    6. Re:Sigh... by Grave · · Score: 1

      The machine crashing randomly is CERTAIN to drive them away while power issue may or may not.

      That's why everyone abandoned Windows in the 90s and fled to Apple.

      Wait... that's not right.

    7. Re:Sigh... by AlexiaDeath · · Score: 1

      Windows didn't crash randomly after 5 minutes to 2 hours uptime. It crashed on user interaction. you could almost tiptoe around most of the unstable stuff if you were good.

  7. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by nagnamer · · Score: 2

    Is it possible that unused PCIE cards waste that much power? On Linux I drain my laptop's batter in under 2 hours, sometimes 1.5. On Win7 it used to take 3+ hours with brightness at 100% (because I was outdoors).

    DISCLAIMER: Author of this post is currently using Linux because of superior performance and availability of tools not available on Windows platform.

    --
    Every harsh word you utter has the right address. It only sounds harsh because the one on the envelope is the wrong one.
  8. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by Manip · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That is an accurate summation of the article; but calling things "right" and "wrong" is a little nieve. Windows treats this information very differently to Linux, and BIOS manufacturers are caught between the two. Simply advertising ASPM sounds good, unless it causes Windows to treat card without ASPM support as if they have it just because the bios advertised that the system supported it. Now current versions of Windows might act rationally in this regard, but XP and older are still highly prevalent particularly amongst corporate clients and governments.

    So I guess my point is - it isn't a simple right or wrong/black or white scenario. It is a messy, ugly, undocumented hack, that ultimately leaves nobody happy. Linux will likely wind up having to implement a hack too to fix this, which makes them no better or no worse than the bios manufacturers who did exactly the same thing.

  9. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by daid303 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The article points out that there is also a power regression in the scheduler. Which is the next thing that the writer will look at.

  10. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hard to say without the exact specs of the machine, and probably a bunch of test-probes clipped in awkward places inside the laptop; but the overall trend in hardware does seem to have been toward ever higher theoretical maximum-if-we-felt-like-burning-that-much power draw(remember back when a ~50-80 watt CPU was considered a howling-mad-danger-to-self-and-others overclock/overvolt insanity demandng nerves of steel and custom cooling? Now boring retail CPUs have TDPs in the ~130 watt range); but a corresponding increase in the ability of hardware to throttle various clocks(CPU, GPU, high sped busses), sometimes cut Vcore as well, and turn off(or very nearly so) unused peripherals.

    Exactly where the delta exists vs. Windows seems to be a matter of some confusion; but unless Linux is just plain burning more CPU time for housekeeping purposes(which, one assumes, is the sort of things that the Big Serious Corporate users of 1000+ node commodity server/compute setups would have noticed by now), it likely rests largely in the hands of a (no doubt alarmingly large and ever changing) set of hardware-specific power throttling stuff whose responsibilities were designed to be divided between the buggy BIOS and the vendor's Windows drivers. If it were Just One Mistake, it'd likely have been quashed by now...

  11. Why not us a database? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2

    Would it work to have the kernel default to using whatever the BIOS indicated, but also have a database of overrides based on the exact card model?

    1. Re:Why not us a database? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Because the makers of cards might decline to contribute to such a database of overrides.

    2. Re:Why not us a database? by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Because the makers of cards might decline to contribute to such a database of overrides.

      But users and commercial distributions can. And makers could be compelled to as well assuming there was a Linux specific certification they were after which included it as a compliance requirement.

    3. Re:Why not us a database? by tepples · · Score: 1

      And makers could be compelled to as well assuming there was a Linux specific certification they were after which included it as a compliance requirement.

      Makers of PCs and peripherals for the home and small-business markets don't care about any sort of Linux-specific certifications.

    4. Re:Why not us a database? by greed · · Score: 1

      ...and the kernel is full of such tables already, so it's not like it's a new idea.

      So, for example, there's ide_acpi_blacklist in drivers/ide/ide-acpi.c; there's traps throughout the FireWire stack to disable features (like isochronous) on known-flawed chipsets (almost all of them), and so on.

      Sometimes this is driven by vendor errata sheets; like when there's a flaw in a TI 1394 chip, if it can be identified, the errata workaround can be applied to all cards with it.

      Most of the time, it seems to be driven by user bug reports.

    5. Re:Why not us a database? by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Makers of PCs and peripherals for the home and small-business markets don't care about any sort of Linux-specific certifications.

      Well they would care if people vocally told them why they favoured some rival's hardware over their own. At the end of the day it's the same as food getting certified as kosher / vegetarian. Companies would rather not do it but if they earn more sales than they lose in obtaining certification then it's worth it.

    6. Re:Why not us a database? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Companies would rather not do it but if they earn more sales than they lose in obtaining certification then it's worth it.

      My point is that companies often don't think they'll "earn more sales than they lose" by supporting GNU/Linux. Some companies have used the excuse that obtaining certification would require disclosing specifications that include know-how licensed from a third party under a non-disclosure agreement.

    7. Re:Why not us a database? by tokul · · Score: 1

      Would it work to have the kernel default to using whatever the BIOS indicated, but also have a database of overrides based on the exact card model?

      Do you want the database of every fsckup hardware manufacturers make stored in kernel?

  12. Never upgrade your Linux... by Compaqt · · Score: 1, Informative

    Never upgrade your Linux distribution in place.

    Have 2 (or more) OS partitions of about 20GB each.

    Install your OS's to partition 1.

    Install your upgraded version to partition 2.

    Easily switch back and forth.

    Oh, and keep a separate /home partition.

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    1. Re:Never upgrade your Linux... by bryan1945 · · Score: 0

      And people wonder why Linux is not catching on as a desktop OS? "Problem X? Easy fix..... " 15 steps later "See? Easy!" Even MS, which I can't stand, does it easier. Note I said 'easier,' not 'better.'
      In here are tech folk. Out there are "Ooh, shiny" and "I push this button?" folk.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    2. Re:Never upgrade your Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take it you don't use a distro with a rolling upgrade policy then?
      It might be worth a try. You never know, you might be pleasantly surprised.

      Personally, I've been arond Unix/Linx for 30+ years and separate out 'my stuff' etc in such a way as to not be unduly bothered which version on my Distro I'm running which is eithe CentOS or ScientificLinux. About 3 years ago I create a kickstart that works on any RHEL based distro that does a whole load of stuff in post install that saves me a shed load of time. I can install & provision a new system in less than 30mins. Your experience may well be different but choice is what Linux is about ain't it?

    3. Re:Never upgrade your Linux... by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes. 30 years of Microsoft sabotaging competitors great and small does make it hard for anyone else to get a toe hold.

      As always, this situation depends on how demanding your expectations are and whether or not you can put up with crap you're forced to put up with.

      Microsoft thinks it needs dirty tricks and that it's product can't survive on it's own merit.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:Never upgrade your Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please stop talking complete bollocks.

      The problem here is in the release by the Linux folks. The testing of which is done by Linux folks. Blaming 'windows' is the simple card pulled by idiots. If its a widespread problem, then its one that will have to be faced down by the people putting stuff together. And I'm relatively sure that given info and feedback, they will progress this in the right way.

      And brutally, its a regression failing, so its an introduced problem. Again, don't blame a complete other left field thing for fundamental flaws in your own systems.

    5. Re:Never upgrade your Linux... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Always upgrade your Linux distribution in place.

      Apt-get dist-upgrade.

      Works every time.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:Never upgrade your Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Distribution upgrades?

      You guys still haven't installed something on rolling release?

    7. Re:Never upgrade your Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And people wonder why Linux is not catching on as a desktop OS? "Problem X? Easy fix..... " 15 steps later "See? Easy!" Even MS, which I can't stand, does it easier. Note I said 'easier,' not 'better.'

      What makes MS' approach easier is that they say, "Problem X? Too bad, you may not do anything about it." Seriously, is there a way to try-out Windows updates, other than using a separate machine?

      If people want that kind of easiness, Linux lets them have it too. Just change the answer to "Problem X? You could do something about it, but it would be complicated so maybe you should just live with Problem X instead." How can that be any worse/harder than "Too bad, you have to live with Problem X"?

    8. Re:Never upgrade your Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? After this comment it's hard to argue who stable Linux is.)

    9. Re:Never upgrade your Linux... by uniquegeek · · Score: 1

      Unless you hit a key in the middle of a previous upgrade, and can't hunt down what component is causing the complaining about only being able to do a partial upgrade.

    10. Re:Never upgrade your Linux... by arth1 · · Score: 2

      Obligatory quote:

      <@insomnia> it only takes three commands to install Gentoo
      <@insomnia> cfdisk /dev/hda && mkfs.xfs /dev/hda1 && mount /dev/hda1 /mnt/gentoo/ && chroot /mnt/gentoo/ && env-update && . /etc/profile && emerge sync && cd /usr/portage && scripts/bootsrap.sh && emerge system && emerge vim && vi /etc/fstab && emerge gentoo-dev-sources && cd /usr/src/linux && make menuconfig && make install modules_install && emerge gnome mozilla-firefox openoffice && emerge grub && cp /boot/grub/grub.conf.sample /boot/grub/grub.conf && vi /boot/grub/grub.conf && grub && init 6
      <@insomnia> that's the first one

    11. Re:Never upgrade your Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please.. this sabotage conspiracy theory is so worn out. As long as you're going to lie can't you anti-ms trolls come up with something a bit more entertaining?

    12. Re:Never upgrade your Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or just use grub and add a second boot line to test the new kernel before defaulting to it.......

    13. Re:Never upgrade your Linux... by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

      Even with rolling upgrades, you're still at risk. For me, both Ubuntu and Fedora have failed to boot after some random update. Sure, it only happened after, say, 200 update processes or so, but it can still randomly happen, especially with more cutting-edge distros like Fedora. Which is why it can be nice to have an extra partition with a permanently functioning, if outdated, version of the distro.

      By the way, I don't do that. I'm all risk and if it really fails majorly I use the terminal or reinstall the distro. Having /home on a separate partition is always a good idea, though.

      --
      I am not devoid of humor.
    14. Re:Never upgrade your Linux... by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I was not clear enough. At least for what I was talking about, for common problems Windows will flash something at you saying "Push button to fix." As opposed to here on /. where someone will post a 15 step to fixing whatever it is.
      I'm not talking about the hard stuff, but the stuff where my wife asks me "Is it OK to push 'Yes'?"

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  13. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by hitmark · · Score: 1

    Not sure, but is Windows using BIOS or drivers as a first reference for power saving support? As such, could this be yet a case of hardware shipped as known buggy and "cleaned up" via driver code?

    --
    comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
  14. Why is it now assumed everyone uses grub? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    I can't stand it and immediately dump it for lilo as soon as I've done an install. I just want the boot loader to load the OS and get the hell out of town. End of. I don't need a boot "enviroment" thanks.

    1. Re:Why is it now assumed everyone uses grub? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you will be smart enough to figure out how to pass flags to the kernel via lilo. Nobody is stopping you from using lilo. What's the problem?

    2. Re:Why is it now assumed everyone uses grub? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably because there are only a handful of throwback losers like you out there.

    3. Re:Why is it now assumed everyone uses grub? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the eyes of the Aperger, the world revolves around ME!

    4. Re:Why is it now assumed everyone uses grub? by swalve · · Score: 2

      Who are these pansies that use a boot loader at all? I enter in the machine code by hand, that's the only way to be sure.

    5. Re:Why is it now assumed everyone uses grub? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Some of us also run headless machines (these things called "servers"), and grub is by default head-oriented.
      Making it work correctly for headless systems where there may or may not be a serial console connected at boot time is an exercise in patience, as the examples given assume that either (a) you have a network and VNC, or (b) serial is always connected and there will always be a person present to press keys when needed.

      Yet, LILO isn't well supported anymore, so when you need to boot specific file systems or do "advanced" boots, there's not a lot of choice: grub or uboot in firmware.

    6. Re:Why is it now assumed everyone uses grub? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty handy if you've misconfigured something and get into a state where you can't boot. Having your bootloader understand the entire filesystem is a pretty good deal. I remember the days of lilo where I'd have to re-run the thing every time I switch kernels, that was a pain.

    7. Re:Why is it now assumed everyone uses grub? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're savvy enough to install another bootloader, you'll now how to reconfigure it.

      And btw lilo is to fat, you should use sysliunx :)

    8. Re:Why is it now assumed everyone uses grub? by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      bah. loadlin. ;-)

    9. Re:Why is it now assumed everyone uses grub? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      WTF are you talking about? If you can't get LILO to work with headless servers perhaps you should pick another career. How do you think it was done before GRUB came along, magic??

      FFS.

    10. Re:Why is it now assumed everyone uses grub? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      WTF are you reading?
      The post you replied to was complaining about Grub and how it is far from trivial to work on headless systems. not LILO.

    11. Re:Why is it now assumed everyone uses grub? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      Yes, my mistake. I shouldn't skim read.

  15. Easy answer by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

    Hippies. They fight the power.

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  16. ACPI has ALWAYS favoured Windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ACPI: RSDT 00000000bf780000 0003C (v01 7593MS A7593300 20100210 MSFT 00000097)
    ACPI: FACP 00000000bf780200 00084 (v01 7593MS A7593300 20100210 MSFT 00000097)
    ACPI: DSDT 00000000bf780480 06E90 (v01 A7593 A7593300 00000300 INTL 20051117)
    ACPI: APIC 00000000bf780390 000AC (v01 7593MS A7593300 20100210 MSFT 00000097)
    ACPI: MCFG 00000000bf780440 0003C (v01 7593MS OEMMCFG 20100210 MSFT 00000097)
    ACPI: OEMB 00000000bf78e040 0007A (v01 7593MS A7593300 20100210 MSFT 00000097)
    ACPI: HPET 00000000bf78a480 00038 (v01 7593MS OEMHPET 20100210 MSFT 00000097)

    Every frigging machine I've owned is the same way. Microsoft-built ACPI, filled with bugs that I have to manually fix.

    1. Re:ACPI has ALWAYS favoured Windows... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      ACPI vendors always favored windows, because that is just what most of the users will run. With the exception of server boards, non-windows users are a vanishingly tiny percentage, and scarcely worth the time to test for even briefly. It's a self-sustaining business advantage, as is seen so often in the technology sector: The dominant platform is the most widely supported, which helps to ensure it's continuing dominance.

    2. Re:ACPI has ALWAYS favoured Windows... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      ACPI implementors (what is an ACPI vendor? can I buy it by the pound, or is it sold by the unit?) favored Windows, because Microsoft built a tool for creating ACPI tables that intentionally craps on all other operating systems, INTENTIONALLY building an invalid table for use with non-Windows operating systems. Linux now claims to be Windows in order to get a table that works. Bill Gates proposed this "feature" personally.

      The dominant platform is the one supported by fraud and deceit, which helps to ensure its continuing dominance, and the proper use of apostrophes. No wait, that was me.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:ACPI has ALWAYS favoured Windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what is preventing Linux users from creating more open standards for the hardware companies to start using? Surely there are some niche companies who would enjoy working with the community to make hardware that works properly and more efficiently for non-Windows users. Is And why haven't Secret Tuxedo Agents infiltrated companies and fixed these issues? (Disclosure: I studied something in humanities and really have no idea about anything hardware or how complex this problems are. But I'm curious and want to learn.)

    4. Re:ACPI has ALWAYS favoured Windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ACPI *is& an open standard, and a proper implementation of the actual spec works great with Linux. The issue is with MS handing out tools to *break* the standard.

    5. Re:ACPI has ALWAYS favoured Windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because Microsoft built a tool for creating ACPI tables that intentionally craps on all other operating systems, INTENTIONALLY building an invalid table for use with non-Windows operating systems

      Actually ACPI related bluescreens/crashes/ are & were a problem on Windows too. For e.g. http://www.google.com/search?&q=windows+xp+ACPI+bsod

      In fact I faced this exact same problem on my toshiba laptop. I guess Microsoft intentionally designed the tool so that it would bluescreen Windows and create a positive customer impression.

    6. Re:ACPI has ALWAYS favoured Windows... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I guess Microsoft intentionally designed the tool so that it would bluescreen Windows and create a positive customer impression.

      Windows has ACPI-related problems because Microsoft is technically incompetent as an organization, possibly because of culture and/or processes; and because of drivers which are out of Microsoft's control. Linux has ACPI-related problems because Microsoft is unscrupulous as an entity, and illegally abused its monopoly position. The drivers are [mostly] in the kernel and can be and are improved when it becomes possible to wring the proper information out of vendors. There's a pretty big difference there.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:ACPI has ALWAYS favoured Windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. You trolls just cant swallow the bitter pill. Oh well.. can't hope for objectivity in a rabid troll zoo like slashdot.

  17. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That is an accurate summation of the article; but calling things "right" and "wrong" is a little nieve. Windows treats this information very differently to Linux, and BIOS manufacturers are caught between the two.

    In other cases this has been because microsoft wrote the tools and designed them to be hostile to Linux, e.g. ACPI. is there any of that here?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  18. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by jonamous++ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm using a Vaio S that gets 7+hr battery life in Windows, and under 2hr battery life in Fedora. The big problem that I see with this laptop is that Fedora is not utilizing the "hybrid" graphics system, and it is constantly running off of the graphics card instead of the integrated graphics (in windows, this brings the battery life to under 2 hours, as well). It would be nice to be able to switch that permanently to integrated to get the battery life.

  19. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Informative

    Linux does thing the way they should be done according to standard. Windows does things they way they actually are done in the real world. The reason is simple: BIOS vendors noticed Windows doesn't follow the standard well, and made the reasonable assumption that the vast majority of users would run windows. Thus they deviated from the standard in order to better support it.

  20. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by drolli · · Score: 2

    That has happened before so many times you cant count.

  21. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by nagnamer · · Score: 1

    Under Ubuntu, I'm using the integrated only, and offload to the real GPU using bumblebee, but the battery still drains too quickly.

    --
    Every harsh word you utter has the right address. It only sounds harsh because the one on the envelope is the wrong one.
  22. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by Runaway1956 · · Score: 0

    Make up your mind. Scum or "weazels". If you weren't a retard, you would understand that scum is around the bottom of the food chain, while weasels occupy a niche at the higher end of the food chain. Nothing in common, whatsoever. Things that eat scum, in turn feed other things, which weasels prey upon. I know the concept is difficult to grasp, for one of your limited mental capacities - but please, try to make the effort. You'll be so proud of yourself, and your mommy and daddy will be proud too! Go ahead, put on your big boy pants, along with your thinking cap, and work hard to figure this stuff out, alright?

    BTW, I think Linux bashers are closer to the pond scum than they are to the weasels. But, that's just an opinion, with no scientific proof to back it up.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  23. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    One nice example is the problem with some laptops that you have to close the lid twice to make a machine suspend under Linux. This is due to an ACPI bug where the lid status remains in state "closed" on resume. Linux power management wants the transition to be exactly "open" -> "closed" for suspend, in Windows simply a lid event with state "closed" is enough.

    If you are skilled, you can also hack the ACPI DSDT and inject the new one on boot. :)

  24. Um.. Why cant it be something simple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does it have to be that they are hostile to Linux? It could just be that they don't give a fuck and never tested their products with Linux. Or maybe some developers on the Linux kernel project are incompetent and stupid? Why do you tin foil nuts always make it out to be some conspiracy against Linux? Or to look at it from another point of view, why should any OEM give a fuck whether their desktop products (which are going to require good suspend/resume/battery support etc) work with OS that is an economically insignificant portion of the market? Linux users are going to format the PC and install Linux anyway. They aren't going to drive any new customers for the trialware shit that ships with the PCs. Something which some (retarded) windows users are likely to do.

    1. Re:Um.. Why cant it be something simple? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Why does it have to be that they are hostile to Linux?

      it doesn't have to be, that's why I'm asking the question. It COULD be, and it HAS BEEN IN THE PAST, specifically in the case of ACPI Microsoft DELIBERATELY created a tool that would make an invalid ACPI table for use with non-Windows operating systems.

      Why do you tin foil nuts always make it out to be some conspiracy against Linux?

      Because it so often is. BTW, tin foil hats concentrate radio signals at the center of the skull, I guess you aren't keeping up though. There was a test at MIT.

      why should any OEM give a fuck whether their desktop products (which are going to require good suspend/resume/battery support etc) work with OS that is an economically insignificant portion of the market?

      Because Linux is continually gaining market share. And in any case, again in the case of ACPI, Microsoft did it deliberately. It's stuff that would have worked fine without their influence. I want to know if the same thing is happening all over again.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Um.. Why cant it be something simple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      First, you seem to confuse OEMs and MS. OEMs don't care about Linux one way or the other, but MS obviously does.

      Second, as to why we blame MS's antipathy to Linux for ACPI cruft...
      Because Billy G said so. {pdf}

    3. Re:Um.. Why cant it be something simple? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      I probably shouldn't chime in, but what the fuck. The problem is perfectly illustrated by the poster above that is getting better battery life on Linux on his 7 year plus old laptop and it is THAT, that right there, that is the problem.

      Thanks to Torvalds refusal to allow an ABI, which makes companies either jump through flaming hoops to support Linux or leave their companies rep in the hands of some kernel dev they have no control over, the support for old crap in Linux? Very very good, as it has been out so long it has been reverse engineered. The new stuff? frankly sucks the big wet titty when it comes to support as most companies aren't gonna "pull an Nvidia" and keep a room full of devs just to keep up with Torvalds and his kernel fucking.

      The sad part is ultimately it comes down to religion and the belief that the community is too stupid to think for itself. You see all the arguments against having an easy to use stable ABI to write to (like everyone else on the planet has) is "ZOMG teh evil corps might give us binary blobs, ZOMG!" which of course ignores the fact that companies like Nvidia already do and that Linux users by and large do have this thing known as a brain and can decide for themselves if they wish to take the chance on an unsupported device down the road or not.

      But the kernel devs and the RMS zealots will NEVER allow you to have a stable ABI, which will just cause Linux to get further and further behind. You see nobody cares about old crap, especially now that the world is switching to laptops. Nobody cares if that 7 year old laptop you picked up at Goodwill works in Linux, because frankly the replacement battery will cost more than the laptop is worth. No what Linux needs is supported for the latest and greatest and with the incredibly fast pace of laptops support will only get worse. It is a shame that you can't have a modern ABI like BSD, Solaris, OSX, and Windows, but as with most things I've found religious zealotry never helps, only hurts.But hey, at least your "purity of essence" remains intact, right?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    4. Re:Um.. Why cant it be something simple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That just proves he wrote that email twelve years go. And the email describes that hes thinking about it. So what? I wonder if you think that every single weird thought that gates ever had became official company policy. Looks like common sense.. isn't so common. I wish I was as stupid as you. Life would be so simple. :(

    5. Re:Um.. Why cant it be something simple? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The sad part is ultimately

      ...that you took the opportunity to make an anti-Linux rant when the problem is that Microsoft released tools designed to break Linux compatibility. This is not a case where Linux failed to follow a standard, but one where Linux followed the standard to its detriment, and only by breaking the standard (pretending to be Windows) can it work properly as a result of this deliberate sabotage for which Microsoft really ought to be sued given that Bill Gates himself asked for it to be done this way and the proof was leaked to the world. But then, Microsoft or perhaps Gates himself is obviously part of "them" given that Ashcroft under Bush personally let him/them off after the DoJ found that Microsoft illegally abused its monopoly position.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Um.. Why cant it be something simple? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That just proves he wrote that email twelve years go. And the email describes that hes thinking about it. So what? I wonder if you think that every single weird thought that gates ever had became official company policy.

      The tool that Microsoft wrote spits out multiple ACPI tables. The one for Windows is correct. The one that Linux is supposed to use per the spec is incorrect. There's no reason for it to spit out an incorrect table; if it must have a separate table for Windows, then put the same data in the other-os table. I wonder if you think that when Bill Gates was running Microsoft it was fashionable to ignore his suggestions and directives.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Um.. Why cant it be something simple? by geert · · Score: 1

      You see nobody cares about old crap

      Indeed, that's why there's no stable ABI: the old crap is removed if new and improved code enters the build(ing).

    8. Re:Um.. Why cant it be something simple? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Riiiight. Hows that FLOSS koolaid Drinkypoo? Is it cherry flavored? WTF does MSFT have to do with the fact that Linux has and always will have shitty driver support thanks to being 15 years behind everyone else on OS design? Are you REALLY so arrogant to think that Linus fricking Torvalds is smarter than the entire OS industry because if so you might want to cut down on that koolaid. BSD? Hardware ABI. Solaris? Hardware ABI. OSX? Hardware ABI. Windows? Hardware ABI. OS/2? Hardware ABI. Notice a pattern here buddy?

      The sad part is it all comes down to RELIGION, no different than flat earthers or young creationists. look up the rant against ABIs and you will see it is a religious rant, with the author going so far as to call those who don't hand EVERY scrap of code to the blessed hand of ye kernel devs "leeches" and then hopes that the blessed Torvalds does smiteth their drivers even though that is fucking Linux users.

      You see like all religion it comes down to your leaders deciding you aren't smart enough to think for yourself. The argument is that "Gasp!" if there is a device with FOSS drivers and one with a binary blob you will be too dumb to pick by yourself, therefor they need to discourage binary blobs to protect your "purity of essence". this of course ignores the facts. Like Nvidia, or the fact that most companies ATM won't jump through your flaming hoops that is the current model, or that the current model causes driver breakage pretty much constantly, or that all it would take is a manufacturer burning Linux users by dropping support for them to do this thing we call "vote with your dollars" and finally it ignores the fact that Linux users that care about graphics buy Nvidia and use binary blobs because the much vaunted FOSS graphics code is...well it is kinda shit.

      But hey, feel free to ignore me. Feel free to ignore that after 20 years Linux is STILL lower than the margin for error, feel free to ignore that you can't simply walk into a store and buy a device by looking for "a penguin on the box" but instead have to hunt through outdated hardware lists and ultimately play hardware roulette, and finally ignore the fact that every B&M in the USA won't touch your OS because we have all been burnt trying to support an OS with a broken driver model. Or do you expect us to tell our customers "RTFM noob or go back to Windblowz LOL!".

      Frankly between Torvalds kernel fucking, RMS's "purity of essence" and the general "go back to Windblowz" bad attitude of the frankly teeny tiny niche that is the Linux community? Honestly you really need to change the mascot from Tux to Trollface. It would fit the current clusterfuck better.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    9. Re:Um.. Why cant it be something simple? by flex941 · · Score: 1

      wtf? Separate wtf for every paragraph (and even every sentence) you wrote. WTF??? -- your 02c is pretty cheap then

    10. Re:Um.. Why cant it be something simple? by The+Psyko · · Score: 1

      ++ to all of that.

    11. Re:Um.. Why cant it be something simple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you have become the apk who so vigilantly chased you previously..

  25. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by dc29A · · Score: 1

    causing hangs in rare cases

    - On new Sandy Bridge laptops, booting always caused hangs. I couldn't boot Linux (Arch or Ubuntu) if I had the power brick connected. Hanging is just one issue, another one is that the network card is unable to connect to the network. Also, if you dual boot, Windows might tweak with cards settings and when you reboot into Linux, it still hangs or simply can't connect to network. Solution is complete power off and rebooting without power brick being on. I even tried de-activating ASPM and didn't work (pcie_aspm=off). Only thing working as you mentionned is pcie_aspm=off, at least for me!

  26. HDs won't sleep in Linux by dargaud · · Score: 1

    Unrelated to the problems mentioned here, there's still a lot of work to do to allow us to manage our power more efficiently in Linux. See what I posted in the previous discussion.

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
    1. Re:HDs won't sleep in Linux by m0t1v4t3 · · Score: 1

      This continues to be a problem even in "our" linux dev lab. I'm conducting tests on an ASPM implementation for a future platform. I can say candidly that we are having continued problems waking drives from their slumber. The problem is believed to be a circuit/board design problem, but nonetheless ASPM is tough stuff to get working correctly without introducing disparity.

  27. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by jonescb · · Score: 1

    Support for Hybrid GPU setups in the kernel has been supported for the last few releases. If you google for something like "linux gpu switcheroo" you should be able to find what I'm talking about. Yes, it was called "Switcheroo" by the original author of the code. The primary way of switching GPUs is through the /sys filesystem unless there are some GUI programs that do that for you.

  28. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by AlterEager · · Score: 1

    On Linux I drain my laptop's batter in under 2 hours, sometimes 1.5. On Win7 it used to take 3+ hours with brightness at 100% .

    How long ago was that? Maybe your battery is nearing end of life.

  29. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

    Is it possible that unused PCIE cards waste that much power? On Linux I drain my laptop's batter in under 2 hours, sometimes 1.5. On Win7 it used to take 3+ hours with brightness at 100% (because I was outdoors).

    DISCLAIMER: Author of this post is currently using Linux because of superior performance and availability of tools not available on Windows platform.

    Probably depends strongly on the laptop and the drivers available for its hardware.

    On my 7½-year-old laptop (Sony VAIO VGN-A117S[*]) with original battery, the battery typically lasts slightly less than 2 hours, but even with intensive use it lasts more than 1½ hours. It runs Lubuntu 10.04 and it's years since any version of Windows dirtied its disk, so I can't do a direct comparison right now. As far as I recall, it lasted about 2½ hours on Windows XP when it was new (early 2004), and somewhat less when running Warty or Breezy. With subsequent Linux kernels the battery life became almost the same as it had been with Windows, and Windows was ditched completely with Dapper. Considering the age of the battery, I expect most of the shortened life since 2004 is simply age-related degradation of the battery.

    [*] This is actually a beautiful laptop, made when Sony had not yet slid into the abyss of evil. Its 17" 1920x1200 LCD was the main reason I bought it, and the main reason it's still in service. It also runs quite nicely with Lubuntu, despite being limited in RAM. We upgraded the disk a month ago (the original was still working, but 80GB seems small nowadays), while the rest of the hardware is original and working perfectly - still no dead/hot/wonky pixels in the display.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  30. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

    Many moons ago there was some deep bitterness from some of the devs at the Ottawa Linux Symposium about the fact that hardware developers weren't actually following the specs but instead implementing their own, then just writing Windows drivers to work around their tweaks.

    Since Linux doesn't typically support pluggable hardware drivers from manufacturers (and they often don't care to write them), Linux was trying to communicate using the actual specifications, and failing. This has been a problem for years now, and I have no reason to believe the hardware manufacturers are any less to blame now than they were before.

    --
    - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  31. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by nagnamer · · Score: 1

    It used to like a few months ago. The laptop is practically brand new. I had Win7 as a temporary solution while I was figuring out how to get hybrid graphics working on Linux.

    --
    Every harsh word you utter has the right address. It only sounds harsh because the one on the envelope is the wrong one.
  32. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by nagnamer · · Score: 1

    As far as I recall, it lasted about 2½ hours on Windows XP when it was new (early 2004), and somewhat less when running Warty or Breezy.

    I'm sure WinXP cannot compare in terms of power consumption to Win7 + latest drivers from hardware vendors. Sadly, in all other aspects, they don't differ by much. I might switch one day if the actual performance becomes on par with Linux. On the other hand, if Linux becomes better in power management, the switch would probably never become an option. (Hm... this reminds of of those Linux vs Windows discussions, with roles slightly reversed.)

    --
    Every harsh word you utter has the right address. It only sounds harsh because the one on the envelope is the wrong one.
  33. In my day... by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

    Who are these pansies that use a boot loader at all? I enter in the machine code by hand, that's the only way to be sure.

    Youngsters today just don't appreciate how toggling in absolute addresses and machine instructions via front panel switches could build character. It especially expanded one's vocabulary of expletives and expressiveness in screaming them. The PDP-8 only had 12-bit words which saved a lot of toggling, so after a little practice it could be booted to having multiple teletype[*] terminals active in less than 10 minutes. Confession: the last minute or two were reading in from magnetic tape, whose drivers were loaded from a hard-coded[**] circuit board in an act of heinous cheating.

    Mind you, that's still faster than booting and logging into my dual core XP laptop at work, which is burdened by an awful lot of corporate cruft (policy enforcement, antivirus, spyware and antispyware, security & encryption craplets, etc.) which must be loaded before the desktop is responsive.

    [*] Teletype meant a typewriter sort of thing with fewer mechanical hammers than a real typewriter, but which still needed a roll of ink tape and a larger roll of paper for typing on. Any color ink you wanted, since the ink tapes were usually re-inked a few times by soaking them in suitable muck.
    [**] Hard-coded in this context meant a mess of thousands of wires sticking out from the board which were selectively snipped with a pliers to make a suitable array of binaries.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    1. Re:In my day... by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      I see you children haven't figured out the butterfly yet. First step: bang the rocks together guys.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  34. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

    In other cases this has been because microsoft wrote the tools and designed them to be hostile to Linux, e.g. ACPI. is there any of that here?

    This is what he's talking about. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to think that Microsoft could have deliberately made ACPI difficult for Linux to implement.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  35. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by GooberToo · · Score: 2

    I think you're spot on. Over the last decade I've constantly read articles about broken hardware whereby the manufacturer simply hides in their windows drivers. Chances are extremely high any power regression is actually a case of extremely broken hardware more dramatically exposed because of a bug fixes and/or compliance improvements in the Linux implementation.

    Based on what I've read over the last decade, I definitely get the impression hardware bugs, specifically in power management, are fairly common. As a whole, manufacturers just don't give a shit about pumping out broken, non-compliant hardware specifically because 1, they hide their shame in their drivers, and 2, non-windows systems likely represent a fraction of their overall sales. Which means, who cares because who's actually going to know they can't properly follow a specification.

    Unless someone has a smoking gun which proves Linux is doing the wrong thing, chances are the regressions are actually shit-poor hardware implementations with full knowledge of the manufacturers.

  36. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

    Linux does thing the way they should be done according to standard. Windows does things they way they actually are done in the real world. The reason is simple: BIOS vendors noticed Windows doesn't follow the standard well, and made the reasonable assumption that the vast majority of users would run windows. Thus they deviated from the standard in order to better support it.

    More like Windows used to do it as per the standard. Then Microsoft realized a good chunk of the crap people buy doesn't support it properly, so they have to add a bunch of hacks and tweaks in order to get it to work "properly".

    Honestly, hardware sucks. Between buggy BIOSes and hardware with buggy support for everything, it's amazing something like Windows could even work, or that you can use the same Linux kernel without recompiling for different PCs.

    You still find the odd USB devices with crappy descriptors in them these days because the manufacturer can't be half-assed to do it right. "Oh, it works in Windows? Great, ship it".

    Sometimes the old adage of "be liberal in what you accept, conservative in what you emit" causes more problems - people do the bare minimum to get stuff working.

    Hell, it's one of the reasons why the old Creative Soundblaster Live cards only worked well on Intel machines - they violated the PCI spec. It's just the Intel chipsets were more forgiving to violations, while other chipests that adhered more to the spec caused random lockups and crashes as the cards locked up the bus. (Only the Audigy line actually fixed the issue...)

  37. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by 0123456 · · Score: 1

    emember back when a ~50-80 watt CPU was considered a howling-mad-danger-to-self-and-others overclock/overvolt insanity demandng nerves of steel and custom cooling? Now boring retail CPUs have TDPs in the ~130 watt range

    Only if you're still using a Pentium-4. Most of the new i5s have 95W or less TDP and real-world measurements show they rarely go over 60W.

    The new i5 server/DVR I'm building should use less power than my old dual-core Atom when idle and only about 40W more under full load.

  38. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by 0123456 · · Score: 1

    The reason is simple: BIOS vendors noticed Windows doesn't follow the standard well, and made the reasonable assumption that the vast majority of users would run windows. Thus they deviated from the standard in order to better support it.

    I suspect it's more than there are people paid to clean up their turds in software, so companies don't care about crapping out defective hardware with a broken BIOS.

    When I was writing video drivers for Windows we'd often have to incorporate workarounds for broken host chipsets; I'm guessing all the other video card manufacturers were doing the same and the chipset manufacturers either didn't realise their AGP bus implementation was a heap of steaming monkey crap or didn't care.

  39. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by Lord_Naikon · · Score: 1

    One can only hope that this dirty "hybrid GPU" hack goes away rather sooner than later. I simply can't comprehend why it's inventor came up with the idea to _add more_ hardware to decrease power consumption, instead of just fixing the original problem.

  40. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

    Is there... more to that article? All it quotes from Microsoft is this:

    It seems unfortunate if we do this work and get our partners to do the work and the result is that Linux works great without having to do the work

    - Bill Gates, 1999

    Then it goes on to say:

    While we don't know if he actually managed to do just that (creating problems to other OSes to work well with ACPI), but if he did, it is a good explanation why ACPI has been flaky on the majority of x86 computers with anything else other than Windows (the older, APM standard, seemed more compatible with alternative OSes).

    That's IT. That's the entire content of the link. How does that prove anything? At all?

    So yes, I'm sorry, but you have not lifted this thread above the "paranoid kook" level. How about some evidence instead of a quote (that could refer to anything, and has nothing to do with sabotaging Linux anyway) and some completely baseless speculation?

  41. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by inglorion_on_the_net · · Score: 1

    Linux will likely wind up having to implement a hack too to fix this, which makes them no better or no worse than the bios manufacturers who did exactly the same thing.

    As I understand it, the hack is already implemented (pcie_aspm=force). The good thing about it is that you can enable it when you need it, and not use it when you don't need it. If the same is true of the BIOS manufacturers, then I agree it is no better or worse. However, I suspect that the reason Linux needed to implement a workaround is because there is no way for end-users to make the BIOS do it right. In that case, it is more of an example of how two wrongs (BIOS breaking things to make it work with a broken OS) don't make a right.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  42. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Did you read the linked PDF at all? Here's what the rest of it said:

    From: Bill Gates
    Sent: Sunday, January 24, 1999 8:41 AM
    To: Jeff Westorinen; Ben Fathi
    Cc: Carl Stork (Exchange); Nathan Myhrvold; Eric Rudder
    Subject: ACPI extensions

    One thing I find myself wondering about is whether we shouldn’t try and make the “ACPI” extensions somehow Windows specific.

    It seems unfortunate if we do this work and get our partners to do the work and the results is that Linux works great without having to do the work.

    Maybe there is no way to avoid this problem but it does bother me.

    Maybe we could define the APIs so that they work well with NT and not the others even if they are open.

    Or maybe we could patent something related to this.

    In summary, Bill Gates explicitly wanted to break ACPI on Linux.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  43. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by suutar · · Score: 1

    Shame there's no way linux can use the pluggable windows drivers =(

  44. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    The average TDP and real world numbers have indeed fallen since the brief reign of the dual-die Prescott parts, those suckers were toasty. High end i7s(not the 95w Sandy Bridge ones, the original QPI-based LGA-1366 ones), though, still quote a 130 watt TDP(though they can also be had as low as 18watts, and I suspect that the market is vastly larger in the 18-60 range). Xeons are in the same boat. The Nehalem ones, still available, are up to 130 watts TDP, the Sandy Bridge ones up to 95.

    Your point is largely correct, in terms of CPUs that people generally buy, most of the 130s are either crazed enthusiast parts or painfully expensive Xeons; but the 130s do exist on the shelf, as do the utterly boring business desktops with cooling hardware that would have made those PIII overclockers mad with jealousy...

  45. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be nice to be able to switch that permanently to integrated to get the battery life.

    I had a similar issue on my ASUS U35JC. Its Gentoo system now uses the Intel based integrated graphics card exclusively. The additional NVIDIA card can be powered down by loading the acpi_call kernel module and then executing:

    echo '\_SB.PCI0.PEG1.GFX0._OFF' > /proc/acpi/call

    In my case this saves about 6 watts instantly. To avoid problems with suspend/sleep states, scripts automatically restore the NVIDIA card just before suspending and power it down after resuming.

  46. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just got a new Sandy Bridge laptop. HP Pavilion dv7t Quad. ($900, Intel-i7 (4/8) CPU, 6G-RAM, 750G-disk, Radeon HD 6770M graphics, bluetooth, etc.)

    I'm still testing it, but so far Fedora 15 has handled it just fine. No booting problems. No network card problems. No wireless problems. Slight difficulty with graphics card drivers, but it is a 6770M!

    The only real issue I've seen so far was the defective harddrive (with unreadable sectors / media errors). Linux spotted it immediately. Every tool I tried under Win7, including the SMART-check, insisted the drive was fine. (Under Linux, smartctl -a showed over 10,000 errors in the log.) Kudos to HP, who believed me, verified the drive was bad via BIOS tools, shipped me a new one (in just a day or two), and let me replace it myself!

  47. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

    We can for NDIS drivers, it'd be interesting to write another binary wrapper for the Windows drivers but it means trusting more non-open code in the kernel's memory space at run time.

    --
    - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  48. point of view from an 'average user' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am happy that this bug is finally getting attetion of the techie people.

    On any of my laptops, any linux distro makes noticeably more fan noise than on any windows version. I tested so far Win XP, Vista, 7, Ubunutu from 07.04 up to 11.04, Fedora 13-15. Tested on my laptops of various brands: Dell, HP, Lenovo. It's always the same and in any ubuntu forum or such, the users (especially the dual-booting ones) keep asking this question again and again since long time now. There's a noticeable difference. Most of the suggestions focus on correct (toshiba, hp, dell, [put your own here], etc..) driver. I read somewhere in all those discussions that it might relate to the multi-core processing technolog and how linux scales down all of the cores in sync whereas windows turns off all unnecessary cores (which may be better to prevent heating). There's a lot of guessing and misinformation. Anyway, the consequence for me is: I like linux, but this high noise and heat just scares me. I don't want my laptops to damage too soon, so I rather stay in windows until this gets solved.

  49. Kudos! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great work! I disabled ASPM on my Dell Laptop and my normal CPU temp has dropped 15C. Heat was killing it.

  50. Just this memo by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    in a just world driven by karma would be enough to make sure he never gets a Nobel Prize.

    What a Dick.

  51. thank god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thank god they fixed this....my laptop will actually be able to run for more than an hour now. thanks guys.

  52. Re:Troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People other than apk don't like you as well....

  53. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Note: Current processors may have TDPs of up to 130W but this is spread over 4 or more cores. While older processors, like Prescott, were using the same amount of power in just one physical processing core.

  54. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by garyebickford · · Score: 1

    IANA HW geek, but I learned this lesson vicariously a long time ago: "Never design to the spec." Chips (TTL in this case) vary in performance, and some of them do better than spec, others do worse. In the particular case, the TTL-based CPU had a stack that was implemented using four chips (IIRC FIFOs, but I don't recall). The timing was based on the spec. As a result, those four 'identical' chips had to be matched - if a slower one came after a faster one, the CPU would crash. The difference in timing was too small to reliably measure, so manufacturing or repairing these boards involved careful testing and trials until you got a set that worked through all the diagnostics.

    Of course, that was back in the day when a CPU came on one or more large circuit boards that always carried at least a few little red wires to fix hardware bugs. Even IBM CPUs. It was always gratifying to see the IBM techs at a tradeshow madly going at their server with duck tape and chisel like the rest of us. :)

    --
    It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
  55. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Under Ubuntu, I'm using the integrated only, and offload to the real GPU using bumblebee, but the battery still drains too quickly.

    if you didn't already had a look at this, you can check http://linux-hybrid-graphics.blogspot.com/
    I downloaded the code, compiled and installed the module...got a increase of 5 hrs on Fedora 15.

  56. Re:Summary: not a Linux problem, but a BIOS proble by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

    The will soon be fixed if you have an ATi and use the FLOSS drivers. There is no need for 'hybrid graphics'-bla bla bla as you can achieve this purely with software lol.

    Some guy from Red Hat is now working on GPU distribution-stuff. That means being able to also run both at the same time. Currently the status on this is that he can now only do it by restarting the X.org server and just one GPU at the time with 'vga-switcheroo'.

    Progress is on its way ;)

    --
    Here be signatures