The future of Power Management - together with Activities

[Dario Freddi]

2011/10/2 todd rme <toddrme2178 at gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Dario Freddi <drf54321 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday 02 October 2011 21:03:45 todd rme wrote:
>>> Thinking over the conversation a bit, I think the disagreement stems
>>> not from the activities vs. profiles issue, but rather different
>>> expectations about what power management is and what it should do.
>>> People seem to be talking past each other, and I don't think the
>>> conversation is going to go anywhere unless people realize they are
>>> discussing two entirely different things.
>>>
>>> People seem to fall into roughly 2 camps.  The first seems to
>>> represent the solid developers (amongst others), who seem to be taking
>>> a fairly strict definition of "power management", which basically
>>> encompasses controlling screen brightness (and some other things
>>> handled by the kernel so there is no UI for them).  Other people,
>>> including me, seem to be using a looser definition of "power
>>> management", which includes disabling things that are not necessary to
>>> save power such as wifi, strigi, screen savers (this is also the
>>> definition used in Windows 7 at least, not that this automatically
>>> makes it right -- or wrong).
>>
>> No, sorry to say that again. There are two categories of people: those who
>> know what they are talking about and those who don't. Your understanding of
>> this categorization is coming from the fact that you didn't understand what I
>> am trying to advocate, and my argument about brightness was towards the need
>> of having a separate power profile.
>
> I am well aware of what you are trying to advocate, what I was trying
> to do was explain to you what other people were trying to advocate
> (and explain to other people what you are trying to advocate).  I
> obviously failed, since you still don't understand.
>
>>> For people using the stricter definition, things like wifi and
>>> screensavers are separate tasks and should be handled in their own UI.
>>
>> Absolutely not. In fact, those things (not wifi atm) are handled inside the
>> power manager. Wifi has hardware switches.
>
> First, the only thing that is currently handled in my version of the
> power applet is: brightness, screen energy saving, suspend, and
> buttons (and desktop effects, but you say that is going to be
> removed).  There is nothing about screensavers, wifi, bluetooth, or
> strigi.

Because configuration is not exposed.

>
> Second, not every computer has a wifi toggle switch, and even if it
> did that doesn't change the fact that people in the other category
> from you think that is something that should be handled by power
> management.  You disagree.  That is my whole point!
>
>>>  For people using the looser definition, they are all related to the
>>> same sort of practical issues independent of the underlying technology
>>> so it should be possible to manipulate them together.
>>
>> Absolutely not. The point of this conversation is: "why do I need to change
>> the pm settings, whatever their definition might be, through a profile
>> change?"
>
> You have already been given use-cases, but you reject those use-cases
> because the options the use cases call for aren't currently available.

They are available, instead. If you disable networking from
networkmanager, it should shut down the hardware if possible. If you
do the same from Bluedevil, it should shut down the hardware. Is the
issue then related to the fact you want to see such things inside the
battery? I guess the user would expect them to be otherwise.

>  That is my whole point.  The people who propose those use-cases think
> those options should be available.  If the options were available, the
> use-cases would be valid and profiles would be necessary.  At least
> you have not given any reason to think otherwise.  So the key point of
> disagreement isn't the profiles, it is the options that would require
> the use of profiles.

I am about to cry. I tackled this argument at least 5 times now.

>
>>> The current power management UI reflects the stricter definition, and
>>> activities being sufficeint makes sense in light of that definition.
>>> The problem arrises with people who are using the looser definition.
>>> In this case the current UI is deficient, it lacks options nessary for
>>> what we consider to be necessary power management settings, and
>>> activities are not sufficient.
>>
>> I am referring you to last Martin's mail for a proper answer.
>
> I didn't say anything about managing the kernel or the processor or
> any other low-level tasks like that.  I was specifically talking about
> disabling a few high-level, fairly straightforward things.  Or am I
> too stupid to know when I should turn off Wifi or bluetooth?

You have had a way for doing that way before powerdevil1 existed.

>
>>> So the queston, then, is where this leaves us.  One of the good things
>>> about plasma is that people can make their own UI for things.
>>> Therefore, anyone who wants to can make an alternative power
>>> management widget implementation that gives them all the settings they
>>> want.
>>
>> Ok, this is where I get really angry, so I'm already feeling sorry for what I
>> am going to write in advance.
>>
>> Since you're advocating W7, let's play this kind of game. List me at least 1
>> system which allows you to create a power profile for each corner case on
>> earth which could be solved by pressing a button just to enrich the user's
>> geek ego: none. Find me, at the same time, a system which lets you fine-grain
>> the choices as KDE's Power manager is doing and will do: there are none.
>> Question: does this ring a bell to your head?
>
> Have you looked at the windows 7 power management interface?  I gather
> you haven't.  The degree of control there is, frankly, absurd, and far
> beyond anything anyone here has asked for.   I was not advocating
> using their interface, I was simply pointing out that your view of the
> role of power management is not the only view out there.

Yes, and I was talking about policy options here. We provide the same
and more than them. In addition, they allow you to go ¨advanced¨ and
fine tune everything. For some things it´s crazy, for some things,
their system allows them to be more flexible than linux.

...but they don´t let you create profiles and handle that during
runtime,but just on AC and Battery. But I doubt this is relevant to
the conversation, isn´t it? How would you achieve something like the
use-cases you are advocating with W7?

>
>> Seriously, what would you add to a separate applet? Do you even KNOW what you
>> are talking about, what are the implementation details, the responsability you
>> are giving to the user? I am waiting to see an implementation of a battery
>> applet which maps every hardware switch to a software switch which will be
>> buggy in 50% of the cases, handling governors the wrong way, just to allow
>> choices over choices: don't forget to add a "Burn my laptop!!1!!1!one!" and a
>> "TURN OFF CPU!!!" button, because who are we to prevent the users from doing
>> that? Freedom before anything else!
>
> Once again, I don't think you actually understand what I am talking
> about.  Where have I said one word about being able to turn off every
> hardware switch?

I thought at least I didn´t have to explain I was being ironic. Oh my...

>  Where has anyone in this thread?  I have never said
> one word about even thinking about touching any low-level components
> or functions.

My friend,we have been reading two very different threads then

>  The fact that you keep going on and on about this just
> shows you haven't been reading what I have been writing.
>
> You seem to have gotten this idea stuck in your head that people are
> obssessed with changing the CPU governor

I wish you could live my life as the power management maintainer for
the last 2 years. Or maybe you want to count how many times the topic
has been brought up since we removed the option in mailing lists,
forums, blogs, bugs,etc... and even in this thread.

> when practically no one in
> this thread has mentioned anything related to that (I count two
> mentions of that, only one after you explained it was handled by the
> kernel now).
>
> Everything I am talking about can already be turned off, but I think
> it would be nice not to have to go through a half dozen different
> interfaces to do it since I really only use the computer for a few
> things so I don't need that many combinations.  What is so insane
> about that?

Nothing. What is so insane in pushing two buttons instead of creating
a config profile and pushing one? Do you really think the average user
is going to look for the network applet to shut down wifi or to the
battery one to change profile, which is something only KDE has these
days?

>
>> The idea of forking powerdevil because your geek ego needs to be filled by
>> configuring random settings is mindless to say the least.
>
> Yes, of course, only geeks deisable wifi or screensavers.  How silly of me.

Only geeks do that through power profiles, yes.

>
> -Todd
> _______________________________________________
> Plasma-devel mailing list
> Plasma-devel at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
>