I would love to hear what your laundry list of items are with an indication of priority. From I'm hearing, the highest priority has got to be external display/projector support on Laptops. It seems this can be substantially solved outside of X. (Or at least limited to the driver.) Len Brown's ACPI hotkey work and write-up at OLS last summer sets up the framework.
--Charles Johnson Intel Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] >-----Original Message----- >From: Robert Love [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:46 AM >To: Johnson, Charles F >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Gnome Volume Mgr ==> Gnome Hardware Mgr ?? > >On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 11:36 -0700, Johnson, Charles F wrote: > >> Here at Intel, we've been looking at Linux client device management >> support and specifically with the X server. (hotplug input devices, >> auto-detection of support for external displays, etc.) > >This is great. There is a lot of work yet to do. > >Particularly, after attending a conference this weekend, I can point out >the dire situation with respect to external displays! > >> Anyway I read your Utopia article in Linux Journal and after reading >> your blog I definitely think the idea of expanding the scope of the >> volume manager to be hardware manager makes a lot of sense. It already >> is integrated into the Linux hotplug system along with HAL & DBUS. Has >> there been more thoughts along these lines ?? > >I think that the change to gnome-hardware-manager is an issue of naming >only, because we /already/ made the change technically: g-v-m now >manages mice, keyboards, scanners, printers, and iPods, in addition to >media and removable drives. > >I would be happy to add more. > >What reason is there, for example, to make gnome-power-manager separate? > >> I'm now wondering if any changes to the X server really should be done >> within the context of Gnome Volume Mgr instead of something indpendent. >> So I guess my real question here is if you think this is the current >> trend in the community ?? (I also CC'd this to the Utopia list.) > >The line between the two layers is sometimes vague. It is hard to >define here and now and more of a case-by-case issue. But I think >"making X dumber" is something that most people, the X developers >included, agree with. > >I had lunch with Jim Gettys a year or so ago and we talked about just >this: X should not have to understand hardware or configure itself. HAL >and other layers could happily do the job. > > Robert Love > _______________________________________________ utopia-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/utopia-list
