On Wed, 26 May 2010 14:01:49 +0200 Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Florian Mickler <florian@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > This is not "protection". This is functioning properly in a real world > > scenario. Why would the user change the kernel, if the device would be > > buggy after that? (Except maybe he is a geek) > > Hmm... Why would the user continue to use the program if it slows down > his device and sucks the battery as a vampire (Except maybe he's a > moron)? ;) > > ~Vitaly Because he is using a robust kernel that provides suspend blockers and is preventing the vampire from sucking power? Most users don't even grasp the simple concept of different "programs". They just have a device and click here and there and are happy. Really, what are you getting at? Do you deny that there are programs, that prevent a device from sleeping? (Just think of the bouncing cows app) And if you have two kernels, one with which your device is dead after 1 hour and one with which your device is dead after 10 hours. Which would you prefer? I mean really... this is ridiculous. Cheers, Flo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
