On Thu, 20 May 2010 11:57:40 +0300 Felipe Balbi <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 07:15:28AM +0200, Florian Mickler wrote: > > But with that, you still shift the burden of exchanging that app with > > an feature-equivalent non-broken version to the user. > > which is not user friendly and not necessary if you have a "smart" > > enough kernel. > > and _without that_, you shift the burden of having a working power > management completely into the kernel. Forcing the kernel to deal with > completely broken apps. What will happen is that apps developers won't > boder thinking about power consumption since the kernel is "smart" > enough to "fix" their mess. > > To me that's much bigger burden to the kernel than the other option is > to apps. > You said that already. For me this sounds like you want to take the users hostage in order to get nice (poweraware) apps. Robust system design can take crap and perform well. Users will most of the time prefer a robust system over a nicely designed system. (Just think of the ak-47) I think we just have to agree to disagree here? Cheers, Flo p.s.: don't take me seriously, i'm just a user _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
