On Mon 01. May - 20:06:44, David Zeuthen wrote: > On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 23:30 +0200, Holger Macht wrote: > > > > Do you mean an Uninteruptible Power Supply aka, an UPS? Yes, HAL and > > > > > > no, something like: > > > http://www.sps-ltd.com/product/external/max90/max90.htm > > > > Thanks, Stefan! I'm looking for such a link already for about 20 Minutes > > now ;-) > > Ah, that's a clever device. So, the issue is that with this one attached > in the laptop "thinks" it's plugged in while it really isn't, yes?
Exactly. > > > > > Sure, what's wrong with changing these settings in the power management > > > > daemons preference dialog? So, for g-p-m you could add these option to > > > > each of the "Running On Battery", "Running On AC" and "Running On UPS" > > > > > > > > [ ] Spin down disks when idle > > > > [ ] Suspend devices not in use > > > > [ ] ... > > > > > > Yes, it should IMO go there, not into some "lowpower" method of HAL. > > So, while the computer thinks it's on AC the functionality you want, > basically, is to tell the system to conserve battery power as much as > possible in order not to drain too much battery? Yes. > > I suppose the power management daemon in question would offer some > option that the user can toggle to always save as much power as possible > - even when on AC power. That's actually a good idea regardless, I think > it makes sense to have a "Sacrifice performance for energy savings" > option for all three profiles under which a system can operate (e.g. > battery, plugged in, on UPS). Richard, I've filed a bug for g-p-m > > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=340355 > > to implement this; what do you think? > > > I didn't want to say that the functionality should go to HAL, but only > > that there are situations where you have to set the policy manually > > because the > > system can't figure it out by itself. > > Sure, I don't see either why it's related to pm-utils :-). I don't see that too ;-) I just replied to Matthew's comments. > > But thanks for making me realize that the "Sacrifice performance for > quality" preference is actually useful since it really reflects the > users desires; e.g. the two users Alice and Bob are different as in > > 1. Alice might be OK watching a movie in low quality (using an > inexpensive codec) because she wants to conserve battery; and > > 2. Bob don't mind burning battery and he wants his movie in the > highest possible quality. > > Things like that... > > David Regards, Holger _______________________________________________ Pm-utils mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-utils
