Hi Joseph,
I also found this kind of annoying. And as far as I can tell, APM
doesn't show everything. This is why I wrote a plugin for GKrellM
that, using PMUD, displays battery status in a window.
You are right. I have dropped my interest on apmd since I discovered
gkrellm-pmud. And I have been advertising it on (my) PB page too, as
you probably know.
Its almost as good as Batmon, but smaller.
I find gkrellm way better than Batmon. Why do you say ``almost''?
Why is Batmon still better than gkrellm-pmud? (it results to me that
the underlying code was written by Paul...)
It would be a good thing, however, to have a unified monitoring
system despite the hardware. I mean Intels are based on apm, PPCs are
based on pmu, but do applications need to know it?
Sergio
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
Sergio Brandano wrote:
quoted
Its almost as good as Batmon, but smaller.
I find gkrellm way better than Batmon. Why do you say ``almost''?
Why is Batmon still better than gkrellm-pmud? (it results to me that
the underlying code was written by Paul...)
testing, and a few features. as a battery monitor, gkrellm-pmu has the needed
features. Ohare-based systems seem to have a temperature sensor on the battery
though. One of those testing things. I only have access to my PDQ/300. :(
It would be a good thing, however, to have a unified monitoring
system despite the hardware. I mean Intels are based on apm, PPCs are
based on pmu, but do applications need to know it?
My 0.02 on the matter is that we don't really need to bow down to APM, just
support it. There may be a few programs out there that do stuff with APM that
we dont need to reinvent. example that may or may not exist, an dialog box that
pops up warning low battery. But since PMU has the ability to list additional
information (current, 2 batteries), why not use it? I prefer knowing more than
just batt/ac and charge. But others might not care. In the end, I suppose its
better to support APM than not to.
I plan on updating my plugin later today. RPMs and locales.. oooh.
--
Joseph P. Garcia jpgarcia@execpc.com jpgarcia@lidar.ssec.wisc.edu
CS Undergraduate Student Employee - Systems Programmer
University of Wisconsin - Madison UW Lidar Group
"Did you ever notice how the Chinese Abacus, with 2 '5' beads and 5 '1'
beads, is perfect for hexidecimal math?"
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
It would be a good thing, however, to have a unified monitoring
system despite the hardware. I mean Intels are based on apm, PPCs are
based on pmu, but do applications need to know it?
hopefully I am not rambling or overly much off topic here...
Agreed, common user space interfaqces so any tools in userspce can
access and use the features. Stephen Rothwell is the APM maintainer
(kernel space) and he works in the same office as Paul, I have asked
Stpehen in the past about any similarities between APM and power book
powersaving interfaces and he has said it is completely different, this
is undersatrandable. Paul of course has a verry good power management
system set up on his laptop (lombard ?) of course.
But if someone were to sit down and work out what power management is
all about and some way of displaying a common extensible interface from
kernel to user space it would be good. Thus we could have ACPI (or
whatever the new one is called) and APM and PMUD code in the kernel
providing interfaces any tools can work with. What they do in kernel
space is their business (the completely different parts Stpehen
mentioned)
It would need to be extensible and standardised, so say some new thing
becomes available in power management tools can support it easily and
not break etc etc. ie. be able to present all capabilites and new
capabilities as they appear etc etc. I am sure people understand the
ideas, anyway I agree a common user space interface would be a good
thing. I personally dont have a laptop (or currently spare time <g>,
then who has any of that?) and I dont even know if my 7220/200 has power
management hardware in it. Though my dual pII/350 I know has both APM
and ACPI support, though I have never used either, as APM is undefined
on SMP (well apart from the power off on shutdown trick, and even that
took a while to get working) and I have yet to see a need to try to use
ACPI on the dual box.
See You
Steve
--
sjh@wibble.net http://wibble.net/~sjh/
Look Up In The Sky
Is it a bird? No
Is it a plane? No
Is it a small blue banana?
YES
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/