Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:58:24 +0000 From: Freminlins <freminlins@gmail.com> To: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> Cc: Neil Short <neshort@yahoo.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Effing HAL Message-ID: <eeef1a4c0910300858t2ff00009xbe8d82babfea3a8c@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0910300906270.49648@wonkity.com> References: <370279.86430.qm@web56502.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0910300906270.49648@wonkity.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I've read the responses and comments here, so don't think I'm ignoring anyone because I haven't responded directly. I rebuilt xorg-server without HAL. I killed hal stone dead and started up the new (i.e. old-skool) xorg. It all works fine. My mouse and keyboard work as specified in the xorg.conf file, rather than in the new-fangled xml way of doing things or adding setxkbmap to my xinitrc file. I am also 18MB of RAM better off. Specifically for Adam, who asks a rhetorical question about HAL, memory usage and top. The answer for me is 18MB too much. My advice to anyone who has problems with X and HAL - rebuild xorg-server without HAL (it doesn't take long), then start from that base. I have to say this HAL way of doing things is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Sure X can be a bit horrible to configure, but HAL itself is ugly, resource hungry and doesn't work 100%. It seems to be an example of supposedly making things easier, except when it doesn't work. Life is a calm blue ocean once again. MF.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?eeef1a4c0910300858t2ff00009xbe8d82babfea3a8c>