hmacht at suse.de
Fri Mar 30 06:56:02 PDT 2007
On Fri 30. Mar - 15:52:48, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 13:34 +0200, Holger Macht wrote:
> > On Fri 30. Mar - 13:21:24, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 23:30 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 00:25 +0200, Holger Macht wrote:
> > > > > People want to disable gnome power manager on usual desktop systems.
> > > >
> > > > I would disagree with this quite strongly. g-p-m on a desktop loads
> > > > hardly any modules at runtime (less CPU and memory use) but still
> > > > controls DPMS and Inhibit control.
> > > >
> > > > Lots of desktops suspend and hibernate. I've never told anyone to
> > > > disable g-p-m on a desktop on a desktop...
> > > >
> > > yeah, and in those that don't suspend or hibernate, you don't realise
> > > it's there, since it hardly takes any resources and doesn't show any
> > > icon on the screen.
> > >
> > > So, apart from machines with very low resources, I can't think of a good
> > > reason to want to uninstall g-p-m for a GNOME desktop. And the same goes
> > > for kpowersave.
> > In this regard, g-p-m currently has a big advantage. It's very well
> > integrated. I'm currently arguing for the KDE people.
> we still need to know KDE needs, so, what is not that well integrated in
> kpowersave that might make people want to uninstall it while using kde?
For example there's not something like "the icon is disappearing if
there's no need for it". The application itself gets only started if it is
helpful. And in terms of memory, I think there shouldn't be any unneeded
services. For instance, you don't want to run a pm applications in the
background on devices with limited memory (embedded?).
And one should not forget that KDE currently has no default power
management application. I really would like to see kpowersave going in,
but it hasn't happen yet.
So I understand that from a GNOME perspective, where this interface is
already in use quite some time and seems usable, it's the best
solution. KDE is looking at it in a more unbiasedly way AFAICT.
I think it's not the point here what KDE's needs are. We are currently
looking for a common specification across desktops, no matter if GNOME,
KDE, or something new. And therefore we should design so that it is right
and not only usable.
More information about the xdg