Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
On Mon 10. Apr - 09:53:04, Shaun McCance wrote: On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 14:47 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 21:29 +0800, Davyd Madeley wrote: On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 01:47:12PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: Since the original announcement mail about gnome-power-manager, we have moved the mailing list to gnome.org, are now hosted on gnome.org, and am starting to integrate with other parts of the GNOME application stack. Lots of new functionality has been added, and lots of polish has been applied. See the screenshots area of my website[5] for some cool screenshots of the latest stuff in the 2-15 branch. I would like to see g-p-m fragmented into three parts. * A daemon with no GTK+ dependance that would be suitable for cross-desktop use * A capplet (this exists today) * A notification area icon (libnotify dependance goes here) Umm, no. The IPC between these components would be horrific and over-complicated for no actual gain. KDE are quite happy with their own power management applications, and no KDE developer has ever mentioned to me that they would want such a cross-desktop daemon. Does their power management thing use DBus, and if so, do we share a common interface? I care much less about shared code than about shared interfaces. No, KDE people are definitely not pleased with their current implementation. They still use klaptop by default which is nearly completely unmaintained. Maybe Richard never heard KDE guys saiing that they want a cross desktop daemon, but some of them do. For me personally, it's simply a some kind of good software design to share common code and interfaces. And I repeated myswlf already too often. Hal is an '_H_ardware _A_bstraction _L_ayer' and _no_ power management daemon. Hal should provide device information like battery information and nothing more. And yes, the powersave daemon [1][2] uses a DBus interface. And our aim is exactly what was proposed here. To have one desktop independent daemon and several frontends for each desktop. There are already several of them: - KPowersave for KDE - wmpowersave for WindowMaker - gkrellm-powersave The only real problem we have currently is that we have no gnome frontend. So we are looking for someone who can write such a frontend. And considering other distributions. The powersave daemon is already widely used. KUbuntu people currently evaluate both the daemon and kpowersave as default laptop solution. And chances are good that they will take it. Ubuntu guys would also take it IMHO if there would be a gnome client for it. There are packages out there for about 10 different distributions, including Fedora Core 5, Mandriva or Debian to mention only a few. And power management is something real complex. It's not just popping up some notifications. It's definitely worth to reside in an own daemon like NetworkManager which has root privileges and can do CPU frequency scaling, throttling, harddisk adjustments, runtime device power management, battery management, proper suspend implementation, CPU hotplugging and a lot more. Furthermore, we support all kind of systems, not only laptops. It's even very useful on servers. The daemon also cares about shutting down or suspend the system if battery runs low, even if no client is running. We have a notification architecture that just works in every environment: - Client running: Daemon notifies user through client - No client running but KDE installed: Daemon notifies user through kdialog - No client running but GNOME installed: Daemon notifies user through zenityugly - No client running and any other desktop: Ugly xmessage - No X-Server: Daemon does a wall message and beeps to inform the admin And this interface is completely transparent to user. He does not have to bother about which system he is currently using. And we do definitely want to stick to our existing implementation or interface. We are highly willing to adapt and change things to find one good solution everyone likes to use and which is helpfull. So please understand that it is needful to have a seperate daemon for power management tasks and try to reuse an existing solution that works great. Thus, bringing linux another step forward in regard to power management. Richard, please think about your current opinion and maybe try to help to get a good solution for the GNOME desktop which usees one common backend. Regards, Holger [1] http://en.opensuse.org/Projects_Powersave [2] http://powersave.sourceforge.net/ Any time we're providing hooks for interacting with the desktop, we should see if we can share those hooks with other free desktops. With DBus, this is relatively easy, and we can still provide whatever additional functionality over the shared interface we need by providing a Gnome-specific interface as well.
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
On tis, 2006-04-11 at 11:47 -0400, ext David Zeuthen wrote: [snip] I think it's just crazy talk to propose yet another daemon running as root just to solve the not-so-interesting edge case of enforcing policy when no one is logged in. Btw, I've suggested to some NetworkManager developers to behave more like gnome-power-manager (so we don't need a NetworkManager daemon running as root and an ugly split into system and session daemon) and they liked it. I've been wanting to propose this on the NM list but I've been very busy with other stuff. [snip] Not all GNOME users are regular desktop systems. Some systems (like the Nokia 770, for instance), run power management solutions that are completely customised at the moment because they need to have working power management even when there's no user session running. IMHO, all hardware specific power management features (suspend/hibernate/cpufreq/voltage scaling, etc) should be abstracted to HAL; that's what it's for -- Hardware Abstraction. A power management policy daemon (running even when there's no X), that communicates with the kernel through HAL, and with user applications through DBus, can then make appropriate policy based decisions, based on configuration values (read from a conf-file, gconf, a plugin-system, whatever). The only thing needed in GNOME/KDE would be a graphical frontend that shows notifications/status (the UI-part of gnome-power-manager), and a configuration interface (for changing the policies used by the daemon). Regards: David Weinehall ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
On Tuesday 11 April 2006 18:05, David Zeuthen wrote: On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 14:33 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote: On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 13:29 +0200, Jeroen Zwartepoorte wrote: I'm curious: what role does the powersave daemon fulfill? I'm running FC5 and afaik, HAL/g-p-m gets it information directly from the OS (ACPI)? HAL scripts (in $prefix/libexec/hal iirc) use the underlying daemon's commands to suspend/hibernate/set power save profile. In other words, the powersave daemon isn't really that useful for GNOME on SUSE. I guess that once we get g-p-m to run when no one is logged in, you guys can remove it completely on GNOME installations :-) Sorry, that must say this: This is bulls***. There is no powermanagement on SUSE without powersave daemon. The powersave daemon provide much more functionality than g-p-m make available for the user at the moment. Powersave will never be removed from any SUSE/Novell products, because you can't use all the features powersave provide atm, as e.g. trigger suspend or change cpufrq policy, in this case. If you uninstall powersave from your SUSE Gnome installation also g-p-m can't e.g. suspend, also not via HAL. Yes, powersave handle powermanagement if there is no user and also if there is no X running. And this work perfect for SUSE with KDE, GNOME and every other windowmanager. But this is not the only reason to run powersave. The primary intention to develop powersave was not to have powermanagement if no user logged in - it was to allow powermanagement. IMO the idea to start g-p-m in gdm is not really a good solution if you use more than one desktop environment - a cross desktop solution would be much more better. Btw. I don't understand: What's the problem with a system daemon (with a well defined DBUS-Interface, with a well defined default policy, without need a session daemon) specialized to powermanagement. You can use provided functions, but you don't need to use all available if you don't need them in g-p-m. The daemon is _complete_ desktop _independent_, I think this was the whish of Davyd Madeley (* A daemon with no GTK+ dependance that would be suitable for cross-desktop use). This kind of discussion is not really helpful for anyone. I would like to see a discussion about a cross desktop solution (if not about a special daemon about a well defined, fullfeatured, cross desktop dbus interface which could be provided by different daemons (e.g. pbbuttonsd, powersaved or what ever you prefer)). This would be a win-win situation for all desktops. Regards, Danny ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 19:13 +0200, Danny Kukawka wrote: snip other stuff IMO the idea to start g-p-m in gdm is not really a good solution if you use more than one desktop environment - a cross desktop solution would be much more better. Generic freedesktop-type DBUS API calls for stuff like the inhibit interface (like has been suggested recently on d-d-l) is a very good idea and something I wish to work towards. Coding anything else other than a simple API specification to be cross-desktop is not something that I think is viable, but this is only my opinion. Btw. I don't understand: What's the problem with a system daemon (with a well defined DBUS-Interface, with a well defined default policy, without need a session daemon) specialized to powermanagement. You can use provided functions, but you don't need to use all available if you don't need them in g-p-m. The daemon is _complete_ desktop _independent_, I think this was the whish of Davyd Madeley (* A daemon with no GTK+ dependance that would be suitable for cross-desktop use). What if you want to interact with the user in the session? Like getting the idle time for that session, or interacting with that instance of the screensaver? Or notifying the user or displaying status? Or interacting with other applications so that a complete integrated system is possible? Then you need a session daemon also. This kind of discussion is not really helpful for anyone. I would like to see a discussion about a cross desktop solution (if not about a special daemon about a well defined, fullfeatured, cross desktop dbus interface which could be provided by different daemons (e.g. pbbuttonsd, powersaved or what ever you prefer)). This would be a win-win situation for all desktops. Then please set up a list, get people to subscribe and stop this discussion about random stuff on d-d-l and gnome-power-manager-list. Many thanks. Richard. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 11:47 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote: I agree it's worthwhile renaming g-p-m's session bus interface from org.gnome.PowerManager to org.freedesktop.PowerManager after discussion and review on xdg-list. Richard, you should raise this on [EMAIL PROTECTED] describing what the interface does (just write a small spec) and whether everyone is OK with this interface. Sounds like a good idea, I'll do that. Thanks. p.s. : I'm on PTO right now so it will take a while for me to respond to replies No probs, enjoy! Richard. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Notification icons hell (was Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager)
[I killed most of the mail addresses in the cc line] Le dimanche 09 avril 2006 à 22:08 +0100, Andrew Sobala a écrit : As a sidenote, I believe the windows slider was invented to leave some room for the task bar when you have 40 icons in your notification area, one for every application installed on the system. The GNOME notification area isn't intended to be (and for the most part, isn't) used in this way, so we don't need a way to hide icons that shouldn't be there in the first place. Just a sidenote about notification icons: right now, I have 5 of them: + the alarm of evolution (I kind of agree it should be here, although I didn't click on it and it's now sitting there since at least 24 hours...) + the gossip icon. It just sits there, while I have no message. It should be an applet. + the battery icon of gnome-power-manager. Because I like to know if my battery is fully charged or not, etc. Should be an applet. I should mention I'm insane since I also have the battstat applet :-) + the xchat-gnome notification plugin. The last version has a fix that make it only show an icon when there's a message for you. Much saner. + the reboot icon of ubuntu. I don't want to click on this, it will reboot! (well, it won't: it will just ask me if I want to reboot, but I already mentioned I'm insane) Well, I really should have 6, but I'm not listening music right now (rhythmbox). And it could be 7, but I'm not connected with ekiga right now. Or 8 with NetworkManager. And even 9 since I use the keyboard typing break feature, but the icon disappeared??? The notification area is already starting to be used in the very same way than it is on Windows. I'm pretty sure I could run some other useful programs that add icons there. There are some ways to fix this: + HIG HIG HIG + make it possible to dynamically add an applet from a program. I'd like to add the infrastructure for this during 2.16. Don't know if I'll have time, but maybe someone is interested in working on this? ;-) + try to make the notification area smart and force some icons to hide. This will be inherently broken. Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Notification icons hell (was Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager)
On 4/10/06, Vincent Untz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are some ways to fix this: + HIG HIG HIG + make it possible to dynamically add an applet from a program. I'd like to add the infrastructure for this during 2.16. Don't know if I'll have time, but maybe someone is interested in working on this? ;-) + try to make the notification area smart and force some icons to hide. This will be inherently broken. There are two different ways of looking at the icons + Icon is application and any windows created belong to the icon The program doesn't quit when you close windows. Gaim and Tomboy are examples + Icon is used for notification and is owned by the program. If the program window is closed, the icon never appears again. I think we need to accept that both of these are going to be used whether we like it or not, and handle them both. Currently we only allow the second way, and bitch about the first, but it is clear that applications want the first one, and there are many situations that the first is useful. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Notification icons hell (was Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager)
On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 08:37 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: Well, I really should have 6, but I'm not listening music right now (rhythmbox). And it could be 7, but I'm not connected with ekiga right now. Or 8 with NetworkManager. And even 9 since I use the keyboard typing break feature, but the icon disappeared??? oh, that's a bug, please file it :) -- Rodrigo Moya [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 22:08 +0100, Andrew Sobala wrote: Corey Burger wrote: On 4/9/06, Luis Villa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/9/06, Andrew Sobala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's worth pointing out that gnome-power-manager is very much a notifier rather than an interactive applet. If your power cable falls out, it pops up a message saying you've lost power. If you're working away from a power source, there's a battery indicator with how much power you've got left... that disappears when you're fully charged. (At least, that's how it's configured on my system.) This isn't the default, FWIW. I do agree that making this the default behavior would be the best approach- better, IMHO, than a regular panel applet. I only want to know about power when something bad is going wrong, which is exactly what the notification area is for. An applet is all the time, and so is the current default behavior in the notification area- both of which are broken. Luis I completely disagree. There are a few good reasons why an icon should be displayed all the time 1. What state the battery is in is always relevant. Power is the single most important thing on a laptop. Without it, you are going nowhere. Whether or not it is a notification icon or an applet is a detail I won't comment on. Nope. I'm working on a laptop at the moment, and I don't care that my battery is fully charged. I don't understand why you don't care. Usually, AFAIK, batteries have a longer life if you charge them completely and then discharge them completely, so at least from my experience, you really care when it's fully charged so that you can unplug it from AC and start discharging. -- Rodrigo Moya [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 11:59 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote: On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 01:28, Corey Burger wrote: On 4/9/06, Andrew Sobala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Elijah Newren wrote: On 4/9/06, Scott J. Harmon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am I the only one who mouses over the applet to see how much more time until the battery is fully charged? Definitely not; I rely on this frequently. I'd be heavily annoyed if the applet wasn't showing (and no other equally easy way of obtaining this information was available) when my laptop is plugged in and not fully charged. If it's both plugged in and fully charged then I'd be fine with it not being there, as long as that was the only case. Hmm. In this configuration, it is. The problem with hiding in this case is that the user must know that when they are plugged in and fully charged, the icon will vanish, rather than just looking and seeing that they are fully charged and plugged in. Ouch. Well, if once the battery reaches 100%, a short-lived notification bubble says so then the icon can disappear without harm. No need to pollute the notification area with a battery is full icon, OTOH on the road the fuel gauge is important. IMHO the best design is found in PocketPC2003: the battery icon starts to appear only when it's half-empty. While this debate about people's battery status preferences is extremely interesting and intellectually challenging I think its on a level of nitpickery that belongs on either some HIG related list or in bugzilla. The actual question at hand is, Is GPM ready to go into GNOME 2.16? That is a yes or no question, it is not a request for people to pipe up with marginal feature request of the day or state their vision for notification/applets in GNOME. If people want to design and code a new way for doing notification applets please do so and it will probably have a good chance to go in, but if you are only interested in sharing your feelings with the world on battery notification or applets in general please do so somewhere else. This is the desktop-devel list, not the desktop-feelings list. Personally my answer to the is GPM ready question is yes. A big thanks Richard for his work on GPM. Christian ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Notification icons hell (was Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager)
Vincent Untz writes: + HIG HIG HIG [Bug 99175] Need recommendations for notification area. HIG | General | Ver: unspecified http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99175 -- Best Regards / S pozdravem, Stanislav Brabec software developer - SuSE CR, s. r. o. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Drahobejlova 27 tel: +420 296 542 382 190 00 Praha 9fax: +420 296 542 374 Czech Republichttp://www.suse.cz/ ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Notification icons hell (was Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager)
On Mon, April 10, 2006 11:28, Iain * wrote: On 4/10/06, Vincent Untz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are some ways to fix this: + HIG HIG HIG + make it possible to dynamically add an applet from a program. I'd like to add the infrastructure for this during 2.16. Don't know if I'll have time, but maybe someone is interested in working on this? ;-) + try to make the notification area smart and force some icons to hide. This will be inherently broken. There are two different ways of looking at the icons + Icon is application and any windows created belong to the icon The program doesn't quit when you close windows. Gaim and Tomboy are examples + Icon is used for notification and is owned by the program. If the program window is closed, the icon never appears again. I think we need to accept that both of these are going to be used whether we like it or not, and handle them both. Currently we only allow the second way, and bitch about the first, but it is clear that applications want the first one, and there are many situations that the first is useful. You missed my second point. If the icon is the application, then we should provide an easy way for the application to use an applet instead of the notification area. And I don't think we need to accept things when we believe they're wrong :-) I understand applications need something like this. Let's provide it so the poor notification area can be a notification area and only a notification area. Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 12:25 +0200, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote: On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 11:59 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote: On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 01:28, Corey Burger wrote: On 4/9/06, Andrew Sobala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Elijah Newren wrote: On 4/9/06, Scott J. Harmon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am I the only one who mouses over the applet to see how much more time until the battery is fully charged? Definitely not; I rely on this frequently. I'd be heavily annoyed if the applet wasn't showing (and no other equally easy way of obtaining this information was available) when my laptop is plugged in and not fully charged. If it's both plugged in and fully charged then I'd be fine with it not being there, as long as that was the only case. Hmm. In this configuration, it is. The problem with hiding in this case is that the user must know that when they are plugged in and fully charged, the icon will vanish, rather than just looking and seeing that they are fully charged and plugged in. Ouch. Well, if once the battery reaches 100%, a short-lived notification bubble says so then the icon can disappear without harm. No need to pollute the notification area with a battery is full icon, OTOH on the road the fuel gauge is important. IMHO the best design is found in PocketPC2003: the battery icon starts to appear only when it's half-empty. While this debate about people's battery status preferences is extremely interesting and intellectually challenging I think its on a level of nitpickery that belongs on either some HIG related list or in bugzilla. The actual question at hand is, Is GPM ready to go into GNOME 2.16? one of the problems I've found while putting g-p-m for NLD 10 is that the power saving daemons (powersave in SuSE case) don't update the HAL properties in all cases (can_suspend, can_hibernate, etc). We need to make sure that is done (calling hal-set-property it's very easy) so that g-p-m can just use HAL reliably. Apart from that, I'd say g-p-m is ready. Some integration work might be needed (like inhibit thing Richard added), but nothing that can't be done in the 2.15/2.16 development process. -- Rodrigo Moya [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
I'm curious: what role does the powersave daemon fulfill? I'm running FC5 and afaik, HAL/g-p-m gets it information directly from the OS (ACPI)? Regards, Jeroen On 4/10/06, Rodrigo Moya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 12:25 +0200, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote: On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 11:59 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote: On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 01:28, Corey Burger wrote: On 4/9/06, Andrew Sobala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Elijah Newren wrote: On 4/9/06, Scott J. Harmon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am I the only one who mouses over the applet to see how much more time until the battery is fully charged? Definitely not; I rely on this frequently. I'd be heavily annoyed if the applet wasn't showing (and no other equally easy way of obtaining this information was available) when my laptop is plugged in and not fully charged. If it's both plugged in and fully charged then I'd be fine with it not being there, as long as that was the only case. Hmm. In this configuration, it is. The problem with hiding in this case is that the user must know that when they are plugged in and fully charged, the icon will vanish, rather than just looking and seeing that they are fully charged and plugged in. Ouch. Well, if once the battery reaches 100%, a short-lived notification bubble says so then the icon can disappear without harm. No need to pollute the notification area with a battery is full icon, OTOH on the road the fuel gauge is important. IMHO the best design is found in PocketPC2003: the battery icon starts to appear only when it's half-empty. While this debate about people's battery status preferences is extremely interesting and intellectually challenging I think its on a level of nitpickery that belongs on either some HIG related list or in bugzilla. The actual question at hand is, Is GPM ready to go into GNOME 2.16? one of the problems I've found while putting g-p-m for NLD 10 is that the power saving daemons (powersave in SuSE case) don't update the HAL properties in all cases (can_suspend, can_hibernate, etc). We need to make sure that is done (calling hal-set-property it's very easy) so that g-p-m can just use HAL reliably. Apart from that, I'd say g-p-m is ready. Some integration work might be needed (like inhibit thing Richard added), but nothing that can't be done in the 2.15/2.16 development process. -- Rodrigo Moya [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 11:50 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote: I don't understand why you don't care. Usually, AFAIK, batteries have a longer life if you charge them completely and then discharge them completely, so at least from my experience, you really care when it's fully charged so that you can unplug it from AC and start discharging. This is true of NiCd and NiMH batteries. It is not true of Li-ION and LiS batteries, which do not develop memory in the same way. I've seen it recommended that such batteries instead be used in smaller bursts. Completely discharging and then recharging Li-ION cells repeatedly can actually cause them to flip polarity and die. --d -- Davyd Madeley http://www.davyd.id.au/ 08B0 341A 0B9B 08BB 2118 C060 2EDD BB4F 5191 6CDA ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 13:29 +0200, Jeroen Zwartepoorte wrote: I'm curious: what role does the powersave daemon fulfill? I'm running FC5 and afaik, HAL/g-p-m gets it information directly from the OS (ACPI)? HAL scripts (in $prefix/libexec/hal iirc) use the underlying daemon's commands to suspend/hibernate/set power save profile. -- Rodrigo Moya [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Notification icons hell (was Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager)
On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 08:37 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: + the gossip icon. It just sits there, while I have no message. It should be an applet. Making it an applet doesn't solve the problem. It's still the same icon sitting on your panel, taking up space, doing absolutely nothing for you. In fact, making it an applet would be a regression, as it would no longer work under other desktops as well. There are some ways to fix this: + HIG HIG HIG The HIG is a set of guidelines, not a set of rules that must be abided for an application to use the tray. Putting something here doesn't really solve the problem outside the scope of the core GNOME apps. It just gives the people who will whine about the problem, someplace to point at, while they are whining. + try to make the notification area smart and force some icons to hide. This will be inherently broken. We should make it smart and allow expansion, and hide inactive and low priority icons, like on Windows. -- dobey ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Notification icons hell (was Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager)
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 12:21:58PM -0400, Rodney Dawes wrote: We should make it smart and allow expansion, and hide inactive and low priority icons, like on Windows. If we can hide icons without losing important information, why are we showing them in the first place? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 18:02 +0200, Holger Macht wrote: No, KDE people are definitely not pleased with their current implementation. They still use klaptop by default which is nearly completely unmaintained. Maybe Richard never heard KDE guys saiing that they want a cross desktop daemon, but some of them do. For me personally, it's simply a some kind of good software design to share common code and interfaces. And I repeated myswlf already too often. As too have I. I really don't see why we need to add *another* layer of abstraction just so desktops can standardise on 10% for a battery critical low notification. The differences between GNOME and KDE in configuration, language, politics, HIG and loads of other stuff makes cross platform API choices very difficult. Hal is an '_H_ardware _A_bstraction _L_ayer' and _no_ power management daemon. Hal should provide device information like battery information and nothing more. But that's what it does. It provides information such as battery.charge_level.percentage and methods such as Suspend() and Hibernate(), anything else is out of the scope of HAL. snip some other stuff Richard, please think about your current opinion and maybe try to help to get a good solution for the GNOME desktop which usees one common backend. gnome-power-manager is a 400k binary. It uses gconf to store a few daemon settings and preferences. HAL does all the heavy lifting doing all the quirks and talking to stuff in /proc and /sys. g-p-m is like the cherry on the cake, small and simple. It really doesn't do much more than: If battery charge 10% then notify the user If battery charge 5% then suspend if HAL thinks we can I really don't see what the big issue is. Richard. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 06:02:53PM +0200, Holger Macht wrote: Ubuntu guys would also take it IMHO if there would be a gnome client for it. We'll take it if there's a gnome client /and/ it provides the same degree of useful functionality as g-p-m currently does. But I think we'll have the opportunity to discuss that later this week :) And power management is something real complex. It's not just popping up some notifications. It's definitely worth to reside in an own daemon like NetworkManager which has root privileges and can do CPU frequency scaling, throttling, harddisk adjustments, runtime device power management, battery management, proper suspend implementation, CPU hotplugging and a lot more. Woah, hold on there. There's several issues involved here. Hal already provides mechanisms to trigger suspend, and it doesn't seem illogical to provide functionality like runtime device power management in there as well. If I select a wired network in NetworkManager, it makes sense for the device to be powered up. If it's going to be talking to hal to find out what capabilities the device has /anyway/, I think it makes sense for hal to be the basic interface for managing the power state. Otherwise NetworkManager has to start talking to the powersave daemon as well, which seems awkward. I'd much rather have a user-level powersave daemon that collates available information (such as asking Networkmanager whether any devices are up or not) and makes policy decisions that are enacted via hal than have policy management and enactment more tightly coupled. Furthermore, we support all kind of systems, not only laptops. It's even very useful on servers. The daemon also cares about shutting down or suspend the system if battery runs low, even if no client is running. We have a notification architecture that just works in every environment: Now, that's a slightly separate problem - that is, the fact that most DBus applications are focused on the User logged in case. David Zeuthen's been working on that, and I think there's a more elegant solution than Run as root, and fall back to a default policy if there's no client. - No client running but KDE installed: Daemon notifies user through kdialog - No client running but GNOME installed: Daemon notifies user through zenityugly And I'm really not sure that the No client case is one that needs to be concentrated on - if people disable chunks of their desktop, then they're going to lose functionality. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
Rodrigo Moya wrote: On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 22:08 +0100, Andrew Sobala wrote: Corey Burger wrote: On 4/9/06, Luis Villa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/9/06, Andrew Sobala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's worth pointing out that gnome-power-manager is very much a notifier rather than an interactive applet. If your power cable falls out, it pops up a message saying you've lost power. If you're working away from a power source, there's a battery indicator with how much power you've got left... that disappears when you're fully charged. (At least, that's how it's configured on my system.) This isn't the default, FWIW. I do agree that making this the default behavior would be the best approach- better, IMHO, than a regular panel applet. I only want to know about power when something bad is going wrong, which is exactly what the notification area is for. An applet is all the time, and so is the current default behavior in the notification area- both of which are broken. Luis I completely disagree. There are a few good reasons why an icon should be displayed all the time 1. What state the battery is in is always relevant. Power is the single most important thing on a laptop. Without it, you are going nowhere. Whether or not it is a notification icon or an applet is a detail I won't comment on. Nope. I'm working on a laptop at the moment, and I don't care that my battery is fully charged. I don't understand why you don't care. Usually, AFAIK, batteries have a longer life if you charge them completely and then discharge them completely, so at least from my experience, you really care when it's fully charged so that you can unplug it from AC and start discharging. Seriously, everybody, read the thread. This icon disappears when the battery is fully charged, *and* the laptop is running off mains. Whether this is a good thing or not we can discuss, but half the people in this thread are discussing whether the icon should disappear when the laptop is running off mains but is not fully charged - which is a completely different question. -- Andrew ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Notification icons hell (was Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager)
Rodney Dawes wrote: On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 08:37 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: + the gossip icon. It just sits there, while I have no message. It should be an applet. Making it an applet doesn't solve the problem. It's still the same icon sitting on your panel, taking up space, doing absolutely nothing for you. In fact, making it an applet would be a regression, as it would no longer work under other desktops as well. But it would allow me to put the icon wherever I want to put it, and not in the notification area. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Notification icons hell (was Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager)
You missed my second point. If the icon is the application, then we should provide an easy way for the application to use an applet instead of the notification area. Sort of like minimize to applet or something? That's not going to work well until applets and application use the same main loop. We really need to move towards merging those together so we can do a lot more interesting things with the desktop. sri ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 18:41 +0100, Andrew Sobala wrote: However, Bob being able to send out one DBus message (InhibitInactiveSleep) in BobsCrackLadenAndCPUIntensiveApp that is picked up by the power management daemon in GNOME and KDE, whichever the app is running under, may be a good thing. And if people really want to standardise this between desktops, this should be the point of standardisation. Agree, the DBus interface should most certainly be common (/me remembers CDIS and hides in a dark corner). Eg as a Gentoo user I don't want my system to suspend when I'm compiling something and leave my workstation. GPM got a call for this (indeed, InhibitInactiveSleep, although it's implementation as far as I saw might be flawed a little), but you can't expect every developer doing something like if(user_runs_gnome) do_dbus_call(org.gnome.PowerManager, fooargs,...); if(user_runs_kde) do_dbus_call(org.kde.KPowerDaemon, fooargs,...); if(user_runs_some_other_power_manager) do_something_else(); etc As mentioned before, a shared base interface is a must, extra implementation-specific calls can be added on top of that when appropriate. Just my .02, Ikke http://www.eikke.com ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Notification icons hell (was Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager)
Hi, On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 14:31 +0100, Iain * wrote: You missed my second point. If the icon is the application, then we should provide an easy way for the application to use an applet instead of the notification area. Except they want it so that they work in KDE as well. That was the original reason for the first offender (the redhat updater icon) to use the notification area instead of an applet. I feel like the importance of this is understated. Developers writing software for the Linux desktop will ignore desktop-specific interface guidelines if they have to to reach both desktops or achieve missing functionality. All the panel-dockable dealies I write (which have included Netapplet and now Beagle) are notification area icons and not panel applets for this reason. It's fine to debate the finer points of our UI guidelines with respect to the notification area, but no one outside of GNOME is going to follow them if it's the only means to put them on both desktops. Joe ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Notification icons hell (was Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager)
On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 17:35 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 12:21:58PM -0400, Rodney Dawes wrote: We should make it smart and allow expansion, and hide inactive and low priority icons, like on Windows. If we can hide icons without losing important information, why are we showing them in the first place? This is not the correct question to the problem. *WE* aren't showing them. However, *WE* also don't control all the win32 apps that one can run, that puts an icon in the tray, or other apps which are not part of GNOME itself, and need to show an icon on all desktops for some reason. Also, it's quite annoying to have icons appearing and disappearing constantly, because something happened, and then 3 seconds later the icon is gone. And doing so, shuffles the icons around, making the ones the user does care about, moving targets in some cases. -- dobey ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Notification icons hell (was Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager)
On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 19:36 +0200, Steve Frécinaux wrote: Rodney Dawes wrote: On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 08:37 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: + the gossip icon. It just sits there, while I have no message. It should be an applet. Making it an applet doesn't solve the problem. It's still the same icon sitting on your panel, taking up space, doing absolutely nothing for you. In fact, making it an applet would be a regression, as it would no longer work under other desktops as well. But it would allow me to put the icon wherever I want to put it, and not in the notification area. This is a configuration problem, not a user interface problem. Just because you might want to do that, does not mean that all other users will want to as well. In fact, if you want to say that, we can talk about the majority of the Desktop market, and show how useful it is to have them in the tray, because all of the IM clients are there in the same area, so it makes it easy to use them all. And useful status information is there too. You don't have to rove all around your desktop looking for information, as it's all always in the same location. But that's just me (and another 85% of the market). -- dobey ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Notification icons hell (was Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager)
Rodney Dawes wrote: This is a configuration problem, not a user interface problem. Just because you might want to do that, does not mean that all other users will want to as well. In fact, if you want to say that, we can talk about the majority of the Desktop market, and show how useful it is to have them in the tray, because all of the IM clients are there in the same area, so it makes it easy to use them all. And useful status information is there too. You don't have to rove all around your desktop looking for information, as it's all always in the same location. But that's just me (and another 85% of the market). I really, really don't care about the market. I'm not a carpet salesman. About our current subject, I like my desktop being well organized. And as all my status monitors (I'm using a laptop, so I'm talking about network interfaces status and frequency monitor) sit on a part of my panel, I don't see any good reason why the battery monitor should be on a separate place, in the notification area, with no way for me to put it among the other ones. And what happen is just the opposite of what you describe : that status icon is not in the right place, so I have to look around my desktop to find it. Worse, it's messed up with app icons (which I'm quite ok they stay in the notification area) and other real notification icons... ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Notification icons hell (was Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager)
On 4/10/06, Rodney Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And doing so, shuffles the icons around, making the ones the user does care about, moving targets in some cases. See my proposal earlier. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Rodrigo Moya wrote: since there is already a daemon (HAL and underlying power save software, like pmu, powersave, etc), why do we need another daemon? I think the current g-p-m architecture, with the 'daemon' being also the notification icon makes a lot of sense. If adding the tray icon on startup is wrong, then I guess we can easily delay the addition of the icon, like we do with the typing break, for instance. I'd point out that (as mentioned on my blog) using `daemons' that are tasked with putting an icon in the panel cause extra memory usage. On my laptop, this is responsible for 3MB of private, dirty rss. My laptop is *plugged in* and it is using this. The task of `display an icon on the panel when battery is being used' should not require this amount of memory. -- Ben ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 21:29 +0800, Davyd Madeley wrote: On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 01:47:12PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: Since the original announcement mail about gnome-power-manager, we have moved the mailing list to gnome.org, are now hosted on gnome.org, and am starting to integrate with other parts of the GNOME application stack. Lots of new functionality has been added, and lots of polish has been applied. See the screenshots area of my website[5] for some cool screenshots of the latest stuff in the 2-15 branch. I would like to see g-p-m fragmented into three parts. * A daemon with no GTK+ dependance that would be suitable for cross-desktop use * A capplet (this exists today) * A notification area icon (libnotify dependance goes here) Umm, no. The IPC between these components would be horrific and over-complicated for no actual gain. KDE are quite happy with their own power management applications, and no KDE developer has ever mentioned to me that they would want such a cross-desktop daemon. This would allow us to more easily address integration issues with GNOME and other desktops and it means that we can aim at avoiding notification area pollution (because session initialised notification icons are a violation of all that is good and right). g-p-m can default to only displaying when the battery power is critical, if you are worried about notification area icons, or can be disabled if you really *want* to use battstat-applet. GNOME Power Manager is so much more that just an icon. Richard. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 14:47 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 21:29 +0800, Davyd Madeley wrote: On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 01:47:12PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: Since the original announcement mail about gnome-power-manager, we have moved the mailing list to gnome.org, are now hosted on gnome.org, and am starting to integrate with other parts of the GNOME application stack. Lots of new functionality has been added, and lots of polish has been applied. See the screenshots area of my website[5] for some cool screenshots of the latest stuff in the 2-15 branch. I would like to see g-p-m fragmented into three parts. * A daemon with no GTK+ dependance that would be suitable for cross-desktop use * A capplet (this exists today) * A notification area icon (libnotify dependance goes here) Umm, no. The IPC between these components would be horrific and over-complicated for no actual gain. KDE are quite happy with their own power management applications, and no KDE developer has ever mentioned to me that they would want such a cross-desktop daemon. Richard, As far as I understand the code of GPM splitting up GPM in a daemon and a notication area icon/applet would not be so hard. They are pretty independent from each other. The daemon just has to watch batteries, laptop lid, hardware keys and take appropriate actions etc. If people run the daemon then they get all the power management features. The applet/notification area icon just needs to watch the batteries (code of the daemon can be reused :-) )and show the status by changing it's icon and displaying notifications. The only message I see that the daemon might want to send to the applet is a message that the system is going to suspend/hibernate and that is already something we want to do to notify other apps that the system is going to suspend/sleep and that they need to take appropriate actions if necessary. So in my opinion it's not that difficult, or am I missing something? Jaap P.S. Also Network Manager uses this splitup between daemon and notification icon ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 19:56 +0200, Jaap Haitsma wrote: On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 14:47 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 21:29 +0800, Davyd Madeley wrote: On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 01:47:12PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: Since the original announcement mail about gnome-power-manager, we have moved the mailing list to gnome.org, are now hosted on gnome.org, and am starting to integrate with other parts of the GNOME application stack. Lots of new functionality has been added, and lots of polish has been applied. See the screenshots area of my website[5] for some cool screenshots of the latest stuff in the 2-15 branch. I would like to see g-p-m fragmented into three parts. * A daemon with no GTK+ dependance that would be suitable for cross-desktop use * A capplet (this exists today) * A notification area icon (libnotify dependance goes here) Umm, no. The IPC between these components would be horrific and over-complicated for no actual gain. KDE are quite happy with their own power management applications, and no KDE developer has ever mentioned to me that they would want such a cross-desktop daemon. Richard, As far as I understand the code of GPM splitting up GPM in a daemon and a notication area icon/applet would not be so hard. They are pretty independent from each other. The daemon just has to watch batteries, laptop lid, hardware keys and take appropriate actions etc. If people run the daemon then they get all the power management features. The applet/notification area icon just needs to watch the batteries (code of the daemon can be reused :-) )and show the status by changing it's icon and displaying notifications. The only message I see that the daemon might want to send to the applet is a message that the system is going to suspend/hibernate and that is already something we want to do to notify other apps that the system is going to suspend/sleep and that they need to take appropriate actions if necessary. So in my opinion it's not that difficult, or am I missing something? But what's the point? Richard. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 17:56:50 +, Jaap Haitsma wrote: On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 14:47 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 21:29 +0800, Davyd Madeley wrote: On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 01:47:12PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: [...] I would like to see g-p-m fragmented into three parts. * A daemon with no GTK+ dependance that would be suitable for cross-desktop use * A capplet (this exists today) * A notification area icon (libnotify dependance goes here) Umm, no. [...] So in my opinion it's not that difficult, or am I missing something? Well and there is something like this already in pbbuttons http://pbbuttons.berlios.de/ it has a daemon pbbuttonsd (watching apm/acpi/pmu), nice osd via gtkpbbuttons (look at these great screenshots http://pbbuttons.berlios.de/projects/gtkpbbuttons/screen.html), and configuration manager via powerprefs ... and oh well everything can even be controlled via cmdline. So it is doable and has been done... Soeren. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
Richard, As far as I understand the code of GPM splitting up GPM in a daemon and a notication area icon/applet would not be so hard. They are pretty independent from each other. The daemon just has to watch batteries, laptop lid, hardware keys and take appropriate actions etc. If people run the daemon then they get all the power management features. The applet/notification area icon just needs to watch the batteries (code of the daemon can be reused :-) )and show the status by changing it's icon and displaying notifications. The only message I see that the daemon might want to send to the applet is a message that the system is going to suspend/hibernate and that is already something we want to do to notify other apps that the system is going to suspend/sleep and that they need to take appropriate actions if necessary. So in my opinion it's not that difficult, or am I missing something? But what's the point? 1. It's good design to split up parts which are doing different things ( You can also put all your code in one source file, but that's not good design ) 2. An applet would be much more consistent with how GNOME works at the moment. If I want to add something to the panel I just add there by doing Add to panel and if I want to remove it I choose Remove from panel. GNOME unlike windows luckily doesn't put many stuff automagically in the panel :-) Jaap ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
Jaap Haitsma wrote: Richard, As far as I understand the code of GPM splitting up GPM in a daemon and a notication area icon/applet would not be so hard. They are pretty independent from each other. The daemon just has to watch batteries, laptop lid, hardware keys and take appropriate actions etc. If people run the daemon then they get all the power management features. The applet/notification area icon just needs to watch the batteries (code of the daemon can be reused :-) )and show the status by changing it's icon and displaying notifications. The only message I see that the daemon might want to send to the applet is a message that the system is going to suspend/hibernate and that is already something we want to do to notify other apps that the system is going to suspend/sleep and that they need to take appropriate actions if necessary. So in my opinion it's not that difficult, or am I missing something? But what's the point? 1. It's good design to split up parts which are doing different things ( You can also put all your code in one source file, but that's not good design ) 2. An applet would be much more consistent with how GNOME works at the moment. If I want to add something to the panel I just add there by doing Add to panel and if I want to remove it I choose Remove from panel. GNOME unlike windows luckily doesn't put many stuff automagically in the panel :-) It's worth pointing out that gnome-power-manager is very much a notifier rather than an interactive applet. If your power cable falls out, it pops up a message saying you've lost power. If you're working away from a power source, there's a battery indicator with how much power you've got left... that disappears when you're fully charged. (At least, that's how it's configured on my system.) So I don't think a notification-area applet is unreasonable. -- Andrew ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 20:52 +0200, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote: On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 17:56:50 +, Jaap Haitsma wrote: On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 14:47 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 21:29 +0800, Davyd Madeley wrote: On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 01:47:12PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: [...] I would like to see g-p-m fragmented into three parts. * A daemon with no GTK+ dependance that would be suitable for cross-desktop use * A capplet (this exists today) * A notification area icon (libnotify dependance goes here) Umm, no. [...] So in my opinion it's not that difficult, or am I missing something? Well and there is something like this already in pbbuttons http://pbbuttons.berlios.de/ it has a daemon pbbuttonsd (watching apm/acpi/pmu), nice osd via gtkpbbuttons (look at these great screenshots Erm... it supported /dev/pmu (only Apple hardware) only last time I looked, although I could be wrong if it's added lots of new stuff very quickly. http://pbbuttons.berlios.de/projects/gtkpbbuttons/screen.html), and configuration manager via powerprefs ... and oh well everything can even be controlled via cmdline. You can continue to use pbbuttonsd if you like it. We can discuss pbbuttonsd if it is proposed for inclusion. Richard. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 20:42 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 20:52 +0200, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote: On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 17:56:50 +, Jaap Haitsma wrote: On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 14:47 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 21:29 +0800, Davyd Madeley wrote: On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 01:47:12PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: [...] I would like to see g-p-m fragmented into three parts. * A daemon with no GTK+ dependance that would be suitable for cross-desktop use [...] Umm, no. [...] So in my opinion it's not that difficult, or am I missing something? Well and there is something like this already in pbbuttons [...] You can continue to use pbbuttonsd if you like it. We can discuss pbbuttonsd if it is proposed for inclusion. This is supposed to say it is nicely doable *if* necessary. I don't know whether doing it at this stage for g-p-m is necessary or not. But on the long run it is definitely beneficial to have a single daemon for all freedesktop's. Soeren. PS: FWIW, I would probably switch to g-p-m and add OSD support if I feel I like it. -- Sometimes, there's a moment as you're waking, when you become aware of the real world around you, but you're still dreaming. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
On 4/9/06, Andrew Sobala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jaap Haitsma wrote: Richard, As far as I understand the code of GPM splitting up GPM in a daemon and a notication area icon/applet would not be so hard. They are pretty independent from each other. The daemon just has to watch batteries, laptop lid, hardware keys and take appropriate actions etc. If people run the daemon then they get all the power management features. The applet/notification area icon just needs to watch the batteries (code of the daemon can be reused :-) )and show the status by changing it's icon and displaying notifications. The only message I see that the daemon might want to send to the applet is a message that the system is going to suspend/hibernate and that is already something we want to do to notify other apps that the system is going to suspend/sleep and that they need to take appropriate actions if necessary. So in my opinion it's not that difficult, or am I missing something? But what's the point? 1. It's good design to split up parts which are doing different things ( You can also put all your code in one source file, but that's not good design ) 2. An applet would be much more consistent with how GNOME works at the moment. If I want to add something to the panel I just add there by doing Add to panel and if I want to remove it I choose Remove from panel. GNOME unlike windows luckily doesn't put many stuff automagically in the panel :-) It's worth pointing out that gnome-power-manager is very much a notifier rather than an interactive applet. If your power cable falls out, it pops up a message saying you've lost power. If you're working away from a power source, there's a battery indicator with how much power you've got left... that disappears when you're fully charged. (At least, that's how it's configured on my system.) This isn't the default, FWIW. I do agree that making this the default behavior would be the best approach- better, IMHO, than a regular panel applet. I only want to know about power when something bad is going wrong, which is exactly what the notification area is for. An applet is all the time, and so is the current default behavior in the notification area- both of which are broken. Luis Luis ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
On 4/9/06, Luis Villa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/9/06, Andrew Sobala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jaap Haitsma wrote: Richard, As far as I understand the code of GPM splitting up GPM in a daemon and a notication area icon/applet would not be so hard. They are pretty independent from each other. The daemon just has to watch batteries, laptop lid, hardware keys and take appropriate actions etc. If people run the daemon then they get all the power management features. The applet/notification area icon just needs to watch the batteries (code of the daemon can be reused :-) )and show the status by changing it's icon and displaying notifications. The only message I see that the daemon might want to send to the applet is a message that the system is going to suspend/hibernate and that is already something we want to do to notify other apps that the system is going to suspend/sleep and that they need to take appropriate actions if necessary. So in my opinion it's not that difficult, or am I missing something? But what's the point? 1. It's good design to split up parts which are doing different things ( You can also put all your code in one source file, but that's not good design ) 2. An applet would be much more consistent with how GNOME works at the moment. If I want to add something to the panel I just add there by doing Add to panel and if I want to remove it I choose Remove from panel. GNOME unlike windows luckily doesn't put many stuff automagically in the panel :-) It's worth pointing out that gnome-power-manager is very much a notifier rather than an interactive applet. If your power cable falls out, it pops up a message saying you've lost power. If you're working away from a power source, there's a battery indicator with how much power you've got left... that disappears when you're fully charged. (At least, that's how it's configured on my system.) This isn't the default, FWIW. I do agree that making this the default behavior would be the best approach- better, IMHO, than a regular panel applet. I only want to know about power when something bad is going wrong, which is exactly what the notification area is for. An applet is all the time, and so is the current default behavior in the notification area- both of which are broken. Luis I completely disagree. There are a few good reasons why an icon should be displayed all the time 1. What state the battery is in is always relevant. Power is the single most important thing on a laptop. Without it, you are going nowhere. Whether or not it is a notification icon or an applet is a detail I won't comment on. 2. A hidden icon is impossible to view. Unlike Windows, you cannot expand a slider to see hidden icons. They are merely gone. Unless we fix this bug, icons like power and network state should not be hiding themselves. 3. Consistency. Now this is normally not an argument I think holds any weight, but in this instance I think it does. Without a compelling reason to break consistency with other operating systems/desktop environments, I don't see why we should. Corey ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 13:57 -0700, Corey Burger wrote: On 4/9/06, Luis Villa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/9/06, Andrew Sobala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jaap Haitsma wrote: Richard, As far as I understand the code of GPM splitting up GPM in a daemon and a notication area icon/applet would not be so hard. They are pretty independent from each other. The daemon just has to watch batteries, laptop lid, hardware keys and take appropriate actions etc. If people run the daemon then they get all the power management features. The applet/notification area icon just needs to watch the batteries (code of the daemon can be reused :-) )and show the status by changing it's icon and displaying notifications. The only message I see that the daemon might want to send to the applet is a message that the system is going to suspend/hibernate and that is already something we want to do to notify other apps that the system is going to suspend/sleep and that they need to take appropriate actions if necessary. So in my opinion it's not that difficult, or am I missing something? But what's the point? 1. It's good design to split up parts which are doing different things ( You can also put all your code in one source file, but that's not good design ) 2. An applet would be much more consistent with how GNOME works at the moment. If I want to add something to the panel I just add there by doing Add to panel and if I want to remove it I choose Remove from panel. GNOME unlike windows luckily doesn't put many stuff automagically in the panel :-) It's worth pointing out that gnome-power-manager is very much a notifier rather than an interactive applet. If your power cable falls out, it pops up a message saying you've lost power. If you're working away from a power source, there's a battery indicator with how much power you've got left... that disappears when you're fully charged. (At least, that's how it's configured on my system.) This isn't the default, FWIW. I do agree that making this the default behavior would be the best approach- better, IMHO, than a regular panel applet. I only want to know about power when something bad is going wrong, which is exactly what the notification area is for. An applet is all the time, and so is the current default behavior in the notification area- both of which are broken. Luis I completely disagree. There are a few good reasons why an icon should be displayed all the time 1. What state the battery is in is always relevant. Power is the single most important thing on a laptop. Without it, you are going nowhere. Whether or not it is a notification icon or an applet is a detail I won't comment on. Strongly agree. 2. A hidden icon is impossible to view. Unlike Windows, you cannot expand a slider to see hidden icons. They are merely gone. Unless we fix this bug, icons like power and network state should not be hiding themselves. Agreed. 3. Consistency. Now this is normally not an argument I think holds any weight, but in this instance I think it does. Without a compelling reason to break consistency with other operating systems/desktop environments, I don't see why we should. Agreed. Richard. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
Corey Burger wrote: On 4/9/06, Luis Villa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/9/06, Andrew Sobala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's worth pointing out that gnome-power-manager is very much a notifier rather than an interactive applet. If your power cable falls out, it pops up a message saying you've lost power. If you're working away from a power source, there's a battery indicator with how much power you've got left... that disappears when you're fully charged. (At least, that's how it's configured on my system.) This isn't the default, FWIW. I do agree that making this the default behavior would be the best approach- better, IMHO, than a regular panel applet. I only want to know about power when something bad is going wrong, which is exactly what the notification area is for. An applet is all the time, and so is the current default behavior in the notification area- both of which are broken. Luis I completely disagree. There are a few good reasons why an icon should be displayed all the time 1. What state the battery is in is always relevant. Power is the single most important thing on a laptop. Without it, you are going nowhere. Whether or not it is a notification icon or an applet is a detail I won't comment on. Nope. I'm working on a laptop at the moment, and I don't care that my battery is fully charged. This is because it's plugged into the wall. If I wasn't plugged into the wall, I'd start caring - but I'd also get a battery symbol. I'd suggest you actually try using g-p-m like this. 2. A hidden icon is impossible to view. Unlike Windows, you cannot expand a slider to see hidden icons. This is because when it disappears, it doesn't give you any information. As a sidenote, I believe the windows slider was invented to leave some room for the task bar when you have 40 icons in your notification area, one for every application installed on the system. The GNOME notification area isn't intended to be (and for the most part, isn't) used in this way, so we don't need a way to hide icons that shouldn't be there in the first place. 3. Consistency. Now this is normally not an argument I think holds any weight, but in this instance I think it does. Without a compelling reason to break consistency with other operating systems/desktop environments, I don't see why we should. I do. We're better :-P -- Andrew ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
On 4/9/06, Corey Burger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/9/06, Luis Villa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/9/06, Andrew Sobala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jaap Haitsma wrote: Richard, As far as I understand the code of GPM splitting up GPM in a daemon and a notication area icon/applet would not be so hard. They are pretty independent from each other. The daemon just has to watch batteries, laptop lid, hardware keys and take appropriate actions etc. If people run the daemon then they get all the power management features. The applet/notification area icon just needs to watch the batteries (code of the daemon can be reused :-) )and show the status by changing it's icon and displaying notifications. The only message I see that the daemon might want to send to the applet is a message that the system is going to suspend/hibernate and that is already something we want to do to notify other apps that the system is going to suspend/sleep and that they need to take appropriate actions if necessary. So in my opinion it's not that difficult, or am I missing something? But what's the point? 1. It's good design to split up parts which are doing different things ( You can also put all your code in one source file, but that's not good design ) 2. An applet would be much more consistent with how GNOME works at the moment. If I want to add something to the panel I just add there by doing Add to panel and if I want to remove it I choose Remove from panel. GNOME unlike windows luckily doesn't put many stuff automagically in the panel :-) It's worth pointing out that gnome-power-manager is very much a notifier rather than an interactive applet. If your power cable falls out, it pops up a message saying you've lost power. If you're working away from a power source, there's a battery indicator with how much power you've got left... that disappears when you're fully charged. (At least, that's how it's configured on my system.) This isn't the default, FWIW. I do agree that making this the default behavior would be the best approach- better, IMHO, than a regular panel applet. I only want to know about power when something bad is going wrong, which is exactly what the notification area is for. An applet is all the time, and so is the current default behavior in the notification area- both of which are broken. Luis I completely disagree. There are a few good reasons why an icon should be displayed all the time 1. What state the battery is in is always relevant. Power is the single most important thing on a laptop. Without it, you are going nowhere. Wrong. It only matters when you're getting so low you are in danger of losing work, or when the status changes, or in a couple other corner cases which can be designed for. It is *not* the most important thing- the most important thing is whatever work I'm actually *doing*. I strongly recommend reading 'Designing From Both Sides of the Screen', where one of the simple design heuristics is to make software that acts like a butler (or in this case, a chauffeur.) As you drive around town, does your chauffeur say 'by the way sir, the gas tank is now 59% full.' (minutes pass) 'oh, now 58% full sir.' No. If your chauffeur did that, you'd fire him for being an irritating idiot. A good chauffeur tells you 'Sir, the tank is very nearly empty- shall I find a station?', and a great chauffeur asks you once 'how early would you like me to warn you about the gas, sir?' and then remembers that in the future. When you pull the plug out of the wall, I mean, when you come upon the sign that says 'huge desert- no gas for a long way', a good chauffeur says 'Sir, we only have enough gas for 299 miles at current consumption- would you like me to turn around?' A good chauffeur, of course, does allow you to ask 'how much gas do we have?' whenever you get nervous, and admittedly we don't have a great way of doing that right now when the icon is purely in notification mode. It would be better to figure that out, though, than to needlessly put the information on the screen all the time. Relevant sections of the book, by the way, in google book search: http://tinyurl.com/qtuwn 2. A hidden icon is impossible to view. Unlike Windows, you cannot expand a slider to see hidden icons. They are merely gone. Unless we fix this bug, icons like power and network state should not be hiding themselves. As noted above, it should only hide itself when necessary. 3. Consistency. Now this is normally not an argument I think holds any weight, but in this instance I think it does. Without a compelling reason to break consistency with other operating systems/desktop environments, I don't see why we should. When discussing the design of notification icons and applets, there are few things more compelling than
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
Andrew Sobala wrote: Corey Burger wrote: On 4/9/06, Luis Villa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/9/06, Andrew Sobala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's worth pointing out that gnome-power-manager is very much a notifier rather than an interactive applet. If your power cable falls out, it pops up a message saying you've lost power. If you're working away from a power source, there's a battery indicator with how much power you've got left... that disappears when you're fully charged. (At least, that's how it's configured on my system.) This isn't the default, FWIW. I do agree that making this the default behavior would be the best approach- better, IMHO, than a regular panel applet. I only want to know about power when something bad is going wrong, which is exactly what the notification area is for. An applet is all the time, and so is the current default behavior in the notification area- both of which are broken. Luis I completely disagree. There are a few good reasons why an icon should be displayed all the time 1. What state the battery is in is always relevant. Power is the single most important thing on a laptop. Without it, you are going nowhere. Whether or not it is a notification icon or an applet is a detail I won't comment on. Nope. I'm working on a laptop at the moment, and I don't care that my battery is fully charged. This is because it's plugged into the wall. If I wasn't plugged into the wall, I'd start caring - but I'd also get a battery symbol. Am I the only one who mouses over the applet to see how much more time until the battery is fully charged? I'd suggest you actually try using g-p-m like this. 2. A hidden icon is impossible to view. Unlike Windows, you cannot expand a slider to see hidden icons. This is because when it disappears, it doesn't give you any information. As a sidenote, I believe the windows slider was invented to leave some room for the task bar when you have 40 icons in your notification area, one for every application installed on the system. The GNOME notification area isn't intended to be (and for the most part, isn't) used in this way, so we don't need a way to hide icons that shouldn't be there in the first place. In windows I have to set the option to always show the battery icon, even when plugged in. If I have the room, I like to see the status of my power on my laptop. Who here has a system monitor applet on their panel? Should this be switched to a simple notification (your cpu has been at 100% for 2 minutes). That would be insane, this is why your car has a gas gauge--you can look at it whenever you want to know how much gas you have, and an 'idiot light'(notification) for when gas/power gets low. 3. Consistency. Now this is normally not an argument I think holds any weight, but in this instance I think it does. Without a compelling reason to break consistency with other operating systems/desktop environments, I don't see why we should. I do. We're better :-P -- Andrew Scott ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
On 4/9/06, Scott J. Harmon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Sobala wrote: Nope. I'm working on a laptop at the moment, and I don't care that my battery is fully charged. This is because it's plugged into the wall. If I wasn't plugged into the wall, I'd start caring - but I'd also get a battery symbol. Am I the only one who mouses over the applet to see how much more time until the battery is fully charged? Definitely not; I rely on this frequently. I'd be heavily annoyed if the applet wasn't showing (and no other equally easy way of obtaining this information was available) when my laptop is plugged in and not fully charged. If it's both plugged in and fully charged then I'd be fine with it not being there, as long as that was the only case. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
On 4/9/06, Luis Villa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/9/06, Corey Burger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I completely disagree. There are a few good reasons why an icon should be displayed all the time 1. What state the battery is in is always relevant. Power is the single most important thing on a laptop. Without it, you are going nowhere. Wrong. It only matters when you're getting so low you are in danger of losing work, or when the status changes, or in a couple other corner cases which can be designed for. Wrong. ;-) It matters unless the battery is fully charged and the laptop is plugged in. IMNSHO anyway. It is *not* the most important thing- the most important thing is whatever work I'm actually *doing*. Agreed. I strongly recommend reading 'Designing From Both Sides of the Screen', where one of the simple design heuristics is to make software that acts like a butler (or in this case, a chauffeur.) As you drive around town, does your chauffeur say 'by the way sir, the gas tank is now 59% full.' (minutes pass) 'oh, now 58% full sir.' No. If your chauffeur did that, you'd fire him for being an irritating idiot. A good chauffeur tells you 'Sir, the tank is very nearly empty- shall I find a station?', and a great chauffeur asks you once 'how early would you like me to warn you about the gas, sir?' and then remembers that in the future. When you pull the plug out of the wall, I mean, when you come upon the sign that says 'huge desert- no gas for a long way', a good chauffeur says 'Sir, we only have enough gas for 299 miles at current consumption- would you like me to turn around?' The analogy is somewhat off -- having the icon showing is not the same as it constantly popping up dialog windows saying Your battery is down to 58% full, sir. The applet showing is more like the gas gauge on your car that you can check whenever you want but doesn't interrupt your normal driving. A good chauffeur, of course, does allow you to ask 'how much gas do we have?' whenever you get nervous, and admittedly we don't have a great way of doing that right now when the icon is purely in notification mode. It would be better to figure that out, though, than to needlessly put the information on the screen all the time. This part of the analogy seems more appropriate to me. I'd be fine with a compromise of some sort that didn't have it showing all the time but made it easily (and discoverably) queryable. Just my random $0.02, Elijah ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
Elijah Newren wrote: On 4/9/06, Scott J. Harmon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am I the only one who mouses over the applet to see how much more time until the battery is fully charged? Definitely not; I rely on this frequently. I'd be heavily annoyed if the applet wasn't showing (and no other equally easy way of obtaining this information was available) when my laptop is plugged in and not fully charged. If it's both plugged in and fully charged then I'd be fine with it not being there, as long as that was the only case. Hmm. In this configuration, it is. -- Andrew ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
On 4/9/06, Andrew Sobala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Elijah Newren wrote: On 4/9/06, Scott J. Harmon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am I the only one who mouses over the applet to see how much more time until the battery is fully charged? Definitely not; I rely on this frequently. I'd be heavily annoyed if the applet wasn't showing (and no other equally easy way of obtaining this information was available) when my laptop is plugged in and not fully charged. If it's both plugged in and fully charged then I'd be fine with it not being there, as long as that was the only case. Hmm. In this configuration, it is. The problem with hiding in this case is that the user must know that when they are plugged in and fully charged, the icon will vanish, rather than just looking and seeing that they are fully charged and plugged in. Ouch. Corey ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [gpm] Re: Gnome 2.16 Module Proposal: GNOME Power Manager
Nope. I'm working on a laptop at the moment, and I don't care that my battery is fully charged. This is because it's plugged into the wall. If I wasn't plugged into the wall, I'd start caring - but I'd also get a battery symbol. Am I the only one who mouses over the applet to see how much more time until the battery is fully charged? Certainly not. I'd be right miffed if this particular functionality wasn't available by default on a laptop anymore -- especially when you're at a conference, or some other 'on-AC-but-time-limited-by-other-commitments' event and you *need* to make sure you have enough battery life available to actually perform a demo. I also might care about the icon, if say -- i've got a problem with ACPI not detecting my battery -- yeah, the laptop's OK when you're plugged into the wall (which I am now), but *all your work goes boom!* when you disconnect the power. Using Luis' 'chauffeur scenario' -- the latter case is kind of like your driver turning around to you and saying, 'sir, we've left the gas tank on the road, about ten miles back.' Most Annoying. Paul ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
