Re: [gpm] Re: [Utopia] Device detection, and firmware request.

[Richard Hughes <hughsient gmail com>]

On 03/10/05, Jaap Haitsma <jaap haitsma org> 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.