Talk:Fan control scripts
Wyrfel, are you sure the recent (19:54, 27 Oct 2005) cosmetic change was a good idea? The extensive chunks of code make it hard to grok the structure of the article in the absense of separator lines (which "===" doesn't have). --Thinker 22:10, 27 Oct 2005 (CEST)
We can discuss this. From my point of view, the chunks of code distinguish themselves from each other quite well, because they are each in one code block.
I do not like the = section level - and so far we avoided them on all pages - because
- it generates H1 headings, which is the same as the page heading,
- having more than one level with the hbars is confusing/less readable, because they are not very well distinguishable. This way i.e. the "Other" section looked like a separate empty secion.
I think the way it's now, the separator lines make it possible to easily distinguish the different main sections, while when you have both levels with separator lines, an additional task of distinguishing H1 and H2 separators is necessary.
However, i see your point as well and would like to hear more opinions/arguments.
Wyrfel 22:31, 27 Oct 2005 (CEST)
bash script with fine control over fan speed (for unpatched kernels)
Here's an alternative variable speed control script that doesn't need the patch for controlling fan speed. It requires only ibm-acpi 0.11 or higher (e.g., as found in kernel 2.6.14 and higher) with the experimental=1 module parameter.
Alas, at the moment I don't have a suitable to test it on. Can someone give it a try and report?
(fixed and moved to article)
--Thinker 15:07, 3 Nov 2005 (CET)
IBM_ACPI was defined twice by accident I guess (changed above), but otherwise it seems to work fine, went from level 0 (cold machine) to 7 while compiling the kernel and now back to level 2 now at about 53 degrees Celsius.
--spiney 10:31, 5 Nov 2005 (CET)
Oops, yes. The IBM_ACPI=/tmp was just for testing (in the temporary absense of a ThinkPad, I wrote stuff to /tmp/thermal manually to test the script...). Fixed and moved to the article. Thanks!
--Thinker 12:58, 5 Nov 2005 (CET)
