Reordering this mail to put the important topic on top. On 9/28/07, Markus Hitter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > IIRC, in sleep-to-disk mode you can even pull the power plug without > enforcing booting.
Yep, sleep-to-disk is the best mode if you care about your environment, but if you want to suggest that we all use standby/sleep-to-disk to get around fsck checks then that's silly because it doesn't really solve the actual problem and it is no solution that works automatically for everyone. Also, both modes aren't stable enough, at least on laptops (but it would be great if sleep-to-disk were the default because it's much more comfortable for the end-user). If the HDD needs to be checked, regularly, then this needs to be done in background instead of at boot time. If it doesn't really need to be checked very frequently or at all then the check needs to be turned off, by default. What do the Ubuntu developers say (sorry, I don't know who of you is a dev)? Will this discussion lead to anything or are we discussing just for fun? > Am 28.09.2007 um 00:40 schrieb Caroline Ford: > > We are strongly being advised NOT to leave things on standby here as > > it's bad for the environment. > > I'm pretty sure it takes less energy to have a modern computer in > standby for a week or two than to boot the machine and to restore all > the applications running (think about 30 documents open on my average > desktop). Not to mention about an hour of work to do the latter. That's plain wrong. Permanent standby (e.g., 20h/day) needs many times more energy than booting your computer and opening your documents. You can easily calculate for yourself: 6W for standby when monitor turned off, 180W under medium load. FYI, in Germany, for example, we have multiple power plants running solely to keep electronic devices in standby mode! Regards, Waldemar Kornewald -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
