I wanted to update the case relative to the meeting I had with the case owner, submitter, and other's of the ON power management team after PSARC 30 Jan. As an aside, I'll not be present at 6 Feb PSARC and will be in and out on personal business the next couple weeks.
Sorry for the length. I'm trying to bring too many things together in too short a time. I have to take some personal time over the next few weeks. This whole thing is looking more and more to me like a train wreck. I'm still quite concerned that there is no coordinated big picture of how things fit together from PSARC/2005/339 Tamarack: Removable Media Enhancements (which I was lead to believe introduced libpolkit interpreted by hald) and now PSARC/2007/679 CPUFreq HAL and PSARC/2008/021 HAL Power Mgmt Support which seemingly add to the Tamarack hald/libpolkit and finally LSARC/2007/702 GNOME Power Manager which seemingly calls the Tamarack hald/libpolkit to effect system power management. PSARC/2008/034 Defining Workstation Owner also may come into play. Recent communications with the Tamarack team now lead me to believe libpolkit and it's associated daemon are not part of Solaris, so I don't know what to think here. I'm leaning on the derail lever for 2008/021 and 2007/702. However, I'm concerned that will prove non-productive. Including/porting stuff from the GNOME community is fine. When it comes to system defaults, security considerations/interfaces, administration, ... I believe it needs to be looked at as a whole with how it models and fits with Solaris. IMO, we're seeing cases of what separate groups are good at doing; created a bunch of nice shiny components that are not necessarily integrated into a meaningful user/admin experience. What I'm asking/looking for is the architectural vision/guidance for the ARCs to be able to review the components as meaningful in fitting into the big picture. I've pointed out to the various recent project teams, that an umbrella case seems to be missing and have given the example of the Sparks umbrella, PSARC/2006/247 NSS2 (Sparks,Reno,Winchester,Duckwater) Umbrella case. As an ARC member, I believe it's my job to ask for that information. Not getting it, to get far more information from the individual cases than would be necessary with an Umbrella. As an engineer, I believe it's my job to contribute to the solution, thus the meeting 30 Jan. I'm happy to be involved further where ever I may be able to add to a solution. So what transpired at the 30 Jan meeting: 1) to avoid name confusion between PSARC/2008/021 and LSARC/2007/207, PSARC/2008/021 is to be renamed HAL Power Management Support. (This seems to have taken place) 2) the case 2008/021 owner, submitter and power mgmt project are to submit a new case designed to outline/specify the user out of the box experience based on the recent PSARC and LSARC power related cases. 3) I'm to engage the DE sponsor for the site doing the GPM GUI and other desktop ports to get the desktop/administrative interface architect(s) involved to describe the overall Sun/Solaris architecture in which these components fit. (I've engaged the DE sponsor, who agreed it's something he should facilitate, and I've engaged others in the power management organization.) Perhaps everything is there and I've just missed it. The folk I've been conversing with haven't seemed to point to the overall architecture. I continue to get the feeling from the individual project teams that it's "not my problem/charter, that's another teams problem/charter." I believe without information from 2 and 3 relative to defaults on install, the user/admin model (an umbrella), there's not enough information to understand the overall architecture of where these components fit and how they will make up a usable user/admin experience. Thus, I believe, these cases are either dependent on other cases, or are incompletely specified, in either case, I believe, they are not yet ready for approval. Perhaps there are additional business areas also involved relative to various uses of Solaris for such environments as Individual Desktop/Laptop, Shared Desktop, Server, ... However, I believe, independent of such business decisions there's missing architecture (or architectural information). In an out of band conversation, Artem pointed to the "Authorizations" screenshot relative to Ubuntu's use of PolicyKit: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080202-first-look-ubuntu-8-04-hardy-heron-alpha-4.html Gosh, remember Viper/Seabreeze/AdminSuite3/SMC in one form or another since S7 ;-) Offline discussions with the power management group lead me to question the efficacy of the various stated default settings. It's my understanding that GPM (LSARC 2007/702) delivers the default settings. And that they are only for the logged in user. My original questions were about the "system" defaults, not the "user" defaults. If my understanding is correct when the user is not logged in, lid closure will do nothing, leaving a laptop up and running. This seems like it would discharge the battery far more quickly than desired. I can't say for sure how my MacBook came from the factory, but if I logout, and close the lid, it seems to "sleep". Perhaps I've misunderstood. And I'll ask again of all the related cases, what are the system defaults for power, especially lid? Out of the box, how does the user/admin modify them? How do they persist across logins and reboots? If committee (PSARC/LSARC) members believe I'm off in the ozone, I'll go back to my day other jobs and stand aside. Gary..
