On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 23:14 +0800, Davyd Madeley wrote: > I'm with Ryan on this. I think we should give vendors a choice for > the time being. > > He also raises excellent points about what gnome-power-manager is > (that is, it is very GNOME centric). When I first envisioned > something like this, I named it PowerManager and like its namesake > NetworkManager it was to be largely platform independant. Ideally it > would offer perhaps a capplet and some manner of system for > notifications, but other than that would not be intrusive on a GNOME > desktop. This is unfortunately not how it works.
So, looking again at http://live.gnome.org/PowerManager would you agree that the only difference to gnome-power-manager is that 1) everything is handled in a single process (so we don't need to pass preferences from the session to the system daemon); and 2) gconf is utilized for reading settings (so we don't have to invent yet another configuration system)? Because I really can't figure out exactly how one is more intrusive than the other in the context of a GNOME desktop. David _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
