this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2025
155 points (95.3% liked)

Linux

11938 readers
396 users here now

Welcome to c/linux!

Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!

Rules:

  1. Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.

  2. Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.

  3. Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.

  4. No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.

  5. No NSFW adult content

  6. Follow general lemmy guidelines.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

And it's crap across the OSes. On Linux laptops don't wake up from sleep, on Windows they keep waking up when nobody asks for it.

In our home office room there's three laptops. My private one running Fedora, my work PC that sadly runs Windows and my wife's laptop also running Windows.

My work laptop and my wife's laptop keep waking up wasting electricity, and my private laptop needs a hard reset to wake it up every second time.

That feature should be stupid simple, yet it doesn't work across the board.

Rant over.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] diffusive@lemmy.world 18 points 21 hours ago (4 children)

I researched this in (checking notes) 2009 or so… things may have slightly changed since (and my memory is fading away)

At the time there was a standard for sleeping. Microsoft was part of the standard… and then they decided to implement in a different way (classic Microsoft, of course).

Hardware producers then adjusted to windows because… well… we were dozens of us using Linux on laptops.

This created issues in Linux because there were some purist developers that wanted to follow the standards, others that were more pragmatic and wanted to implement the windows way. In the end nothing worked.

Fast forward to today, windows waking up constantly I guess it’s broken as expected because it wants to allow background processes to do stuff. Linux not waking up sounds still the issue from 2009: there are multiple levels of sleep and the deepest was the most problematic. If I have to guess your laptop wakes up just fine if the battery is full and you left closed for few minutes… while it doesn’t when the battery is low-ish and/or you left sleeping for a longer period

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 6 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

It's waking up because another device on the network (probably router) is pinging it

Disable "Wake on Magic Packet" and the Windows sleep issue goes away

[–] chunkystyles@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 hours ago

Yeah, but classic Windows move: it'll work for a while and then it will randomly stop working.

This was one of the big things that pushed me to Linux. Not feeling like I was the one in control of my PC.

[–] diffusive@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

This kind of stuff must happen at hardware level… wake on lan is in hardware.

Ethernet cards keep in getting packets (arp at very least) even if they are not directed for them. If the OS needs to check all packages it would be always on

That said… wake on lan is also a waste of energy if you don’t need (why powering the Ethernet cards?)

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago

The setting I am suggesting gets disabled keeps the card powered during sleep so Wake on LAN can work on a hardware level.

The OS isn't checking the packets. The NIC gets a packet and wakes up the OS.

I am not defending it, just explaining how to stop it from happening. A lot of people who know what Wake On LAN is don't know about Wake On Magic Packet

load more comments (1 replies)