Re: Bug 1742953 - No Screensaver/Powerdown after Inactivity at LUKS Password Prompt [FutureFeature]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:16 PM John Harris <johnmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 <pizza@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux