Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:53:59 -0500 From: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> To: Freminlins <freminlins@gmail.com> Cc: Neil Short <neshort@yahoo.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Effing HAL Message-ID: <6201873e0910301053s77147e9dlfcd631f3385fa58a@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <eeef1a4c0910301034o67cdc99cje2d50872768c9a9e@mail.gmail.com> References: <370279.86430.qm@web56502.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0910300906270.49648@wonkity.com> <eeef1a4c0910300858t2ff00009xbe8d82babfea3a8c@mail.gmail.com> <6201873e0910300904v5767894bkec0e7543e28aa951@mail.gmail.com> <eeef1a4c0910301034o67cdc99cje2d50872768c9a9e@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Freminlins <freminlins@gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/10/30 Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> > > >> No my point was top is not accurate measure of HAL's memory usage. HAL >> has shared library's just like many other applications. >> > > Yep, I know all about that. But it is indicative. And indeed born out by > the fact that when HAL is not running I get 18MB more memory free. > I am unable to replicate this. > > This is only because of your misinterpretation of data and failure to RTFM. >> > > Not entirely true. I didn't misinterpret the data - it was accurate. I > didn't read the FM, but then again if HAL worked as it is meant to, I > shouldn't need to. Isn't that the whole point of HAL? Starting X and finding > no keyboard or mouse working is hardly what I would call success. > Nowhere have you demonstrated HAL is not working as it's meant to. This is pointless to argue about since it's so easy to debug. Simply post the X log from your original state, and the reason it didn't work will be clearly shown. -- Adam Vande More
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6201873e0910301053s77147e9dlfcd631f3385fa58a>