[Utopia] RE: Gnome Volume Mgr ==> Gnome Hardware Mgr ??

["Johnson, Charles F" <charles f johnson intel com>]

I would love to hear what your laundry list of items are with an
indication of priority.   From I'm hearing, the highest priority has got
to be external display/projector support on Laptops.  It seems this can
be substantially solved outside of X. (Or at least limited to the
driver.)  Len Brown's ACPI hotkey work and write-up at OLS last summer
sets up the framework.  

--Charles Johnson
Intel Corp.
charles f johnson intel com

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert Love [mailto:rlove rlove org]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:46 AM
>To: Johnson, Charles F
>Cc: utopia-list gnome org
>Subject: Re: Gnome Volume Mgr ==> Gnome Hardware Mgr ??
>
>On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 11:36 -0700, Johnson, Charles F wrote:
>
>> Here at Intel, we've been looking at Linux client device management
>> support and specifically with the X server.  (hotplug input devices,
>> auto-detection of support for external displays, etc.)
>
>This is great.  There is a lot of work yet to do.
>
>Particularly, after attending a conference this weekend, I can point
out
>the dire situation with respect to external displays!
>
>> Anyway I read your Utopia article in Linux Journal and after reading
>> your blog I definitely think the idea of expanding the scope of the
>> volume manager to be hardware manager makes a lot of sense.  It
already
>> is integrated into the Linux hotplug system along with HAL & DBUS.
Has
>> there been more thoughts along these lines ??
>
>I think that the change to gnome-hardware-manager is an issue of naming
>only, because we /already/ made the change technically: g-v-m now
>manages mice, keyboards, scanners, printers, and iPods, in addition to
>media and removable drives.
>
>I would be happy to add more.
>
>What reason is there, for example, to make gnome-power-manager
separate?
>
>> I'm now wondering if any changes to the X server really should be
done
>> within the context of Gnome Volume Mgr instead of something
indpendent.
>> So I guess my real question here is if you think this is the current
>> trend in the community ??  (I also CC'd this to the Utopia list.)
>
>The line between the two layers is sometimes vague.  It is hard to
>define here and now and more of a case-by-case issue.  But I think
>"making X dumber" is something that most people, the X developers
>included, agree with.
>
>I had lunch with Jim Gettys a year or so ago and we talked about just
>this: X should not have to understand hardware or configure itself.
HAL
>and other layers could happily do the job.
>
>	Robert Love
>