begin Preston Crawford's quote: | That's kind of the point. Like all Linux companies and | organizations (including the actual development teams) they work | with what they're given, which often isn't much. I don't think you | can blame them for trying, especially when they generally come so | close these days. Were you were around for the "don't even bother | with sound, good luck setting up X-Windows via the Motif-based | application" days of like Red Hat 4? If you were, like I was, you | might have an appreciation of how humorous it is to complain about | something like this, considering how far Linux has come. i agree with you. my complaint is not that suse should have written a good or better or all-encompassing acpi implementation. nor is it that suse is responsible for every line of code in five cds of software. instead it is that this is not an unknown problem, and where suse *does* have control -- yast, documentation, and making it easy for users who encounter problems to troubleshoot -- it has fallen short so far. and that it would be *easy* to make it so that would-be users who hit a snag can quickly and fairly painlessly overcome it. the acpi implementation situation is a problem. how yast deals with it is a problem. the former problem cannot quickly be solved. the latter can be quickly solved. -- dep http://www.linuxandmain.com -- outside the box, barely within the envelope, and no animated paperclip anywhere.