> I had a similar experience:
> X crashed , hosing the console , so I could not initiate
> a proper shutdown.
>
> Here I must note that the response you got on linux-kernel is
> shameful.
>
Thanks, but I expected it a little bit. All around Linux is centered
around getting the highest performance out of it and very low (to low
IMHO) is done to have a save system. The attitude "It doesn't matter
making mistakes, they get fix anyhow" annoys me most, especially if it
were easy to prevent them.
> What I did was to write a kernel/apmd patch , that performed a
> proper shutdown when I press the power button ( which luckily
> works as long as the kernel works ).
>
Not with a AT power supply but certainly nice to have. See that it gets
included into the kernel. I didn't lost anything important since it was
just a testing machine. I was just shocked what fsck complained on a
machine which hadn't done almost anything at all. If I'd run into this
on a productive system I'd get immediately a serial keyboard or have at
least a usable network connection. Besides USB-only is not ready yet.
> > Don't we tell children never go close to any abyss or doesn't have
> > alpinist a saying "never go to the limits"? So why is this simple rule
> > always broken with computers?
> >
Is there a similar expression which could be hammered into any
developers mind, i.e. "Don't make errors, others already do them for you".
O. Wyss
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 23 2001 - 21:00:21 EST