On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 15:54 +0200, David Nielsen wrote: > > The reason I was for g-v-m back then, but support the g-d-m (uh-oh, > bad > > acronym!) change now is because the scope of g-v-m has changed from > just > > volumes to all devices. G-v-m is now, in fact, our general policy > > manager on top of HAL for all hardware. Toward that end, > > gnome-hardware-manager makes sense, too. > > Of the proposed names I would personally favor using the term > hardware, > it's much nicer for users as device has certain techie feel to it.
g-d-m should be avoided, we'll get bugreports saying gdm is broken, while they mean the device manager. Having one name for two things is a bad thing. I'd vote for gnome-hardware-manager, as it works on top of H(ardware)AL. _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
