On 03/10/05, Jaap Haitsma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Love wrote: > > On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 19:10 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: > > > > > >>Sure, I don't care what daemon handles it, all I was trying to do is > >>find a solution. I'll happily contribute patches to g-v-m if it is more > >>suitable. > >> > >>We really need a gnome-system-manager :-) > > > > > > I've been thinking we should rename g-v-m to gnome-hardware-manager, > > since it now handles input devices and scanners and iPods and such. > > > > But maybe we really want a g-s-m that does all of this, plus power. I > > don't know. > > > gnome-system-manager sounds too general to me. A system can be > interpreted as all the hardware and the software. Basically g-p-m and > g-v-m are applications on top of hal (hardware abstraction layer). So > gnome-hardware-manager seems more appropriate for an application which > has both the functionality of g-p-m and g-v-m
Nah, NAK :-) I think g-s-m would become too much of an uber-service, when we have the framework now for many daemons. It's not like g-p-m and g-v-m share a common purpose. One is for input hardware abstraction (but mainly for disks), and one is for power management. I think they are different enough in structure (!), to justify two daemons. Plus - the codebase would be *huge*. I don't think you should rename g-v-m either, as lots of people know the old name -- but that's just personal opinion with not much merit. Richard. _______________________________________________ utopia-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/utopia-list
