Hi. On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 03:16, Alan Stern wrote: > On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > I like the per-instance idea better. If I have, for example, two > > harddrives on the same bus, I might have very different usage patterns > > for them. I might want one to spend most of it's time powered down, and > > the other to be always on. > > I don't object to this in principle, and I can see how it might be useful. > > But at the price of being heretical, consider one of the existing > precedents. As far as I know, the central device power management > interface in Windows only lets users specify how long to wait before > suspending the display and how long to wait before spinning down disks. > That's all, just two settings. No per-device stuff, no nothing. > > This isn't to say that we should copy Windows. However it does show that > a very complex set of controls might not be needed. It's true that they might not be needed, but I would still argue that people should be given the flexibility if we can do so without too much pain - and we can, it seems at the moment. If we follow the line I'm promoting of pushing the policy setting out to userspace, then it can become userspace's problem as to whether they provide two settings ala M$, the ability to fine tune settings ala traditional Linux or some combination. Personally, I would think they'd want a combination - predefined macro settings but with an expert most that allows fine tuning and defining new macro settings - more like the theming of user interfaces. Regards, Nigel -- Nigel Cunningham Software Engineer, Canberra, Australia http://www.cyclades.com Bus: +61 (2) 6291 9554; Hme: +61 (2) 6292 8028; Mob: +61 (417) 100 574 Maintainer of Suspend2 Kernel Patches http://suspend2.net
