Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:44:07 +0000 From: Freminlins <freminlins@gmail.com> To: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> Cc: Neil Short <neshort@yahoo.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Effing HAL Message-ID: <eeef1a4c0910301144v2bd0fed3t8cec5a68eb77a5ea@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6201873e0910301053s77147e9dlfcd631f3385fa58a@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> <6201873e0910301053s77147e9dlfcd631f3385fa58a@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2009/10/30 Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> > > I am unable to replicate this. YMMV. But I did replicate it. I measured "before and after". Show us the output of top from your box with the hal processes, as I did for a start. > 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. > I disagree, and frankly I think you are ignoring facts. My old X worked fine, X with HAL did not. What can be plainer than that? Go and Google for hal problems - you will see that this is not an uncommon occurrence. It seems that the purpose of hal is to make things easier. Well it didn't for me - it made them harder. I dunno, perhaps I'm too stuck in my ways. But I've been configuring X for about 12+ years. I had the odd nightmare about 10 years ago, when I was still a noob, but not since. That is until last night, when I tried a new spoinky X+hal. Let's face it, a 3k config file which works perfectly shouldn't need to be replaced with 18MB of continuously running programs which still needs configuring. Instead of trying to say that hal works and I haven't demonstrated otherwise, actually go and look, as I did. Just Google "xorg hal" and you will see all kinds of probs. Google for "xorg without hal" for some other people's choice words on problems with hal. Reading up a little more on HAL today, it makes me laugh and cry. Here's a few bits with my take: 1. "HAL .fdi files--the new Xorg configure" 2. "Xorg/hal works but no mouse wheel" 3. "Reclaim your sanity from Xorg and HAL" 4. "Fed up with Xorg + hal mess" 5. "X.Org is well on its way to getting rid of lots of xorg.conf magic and moving it into obscure elements of HAL" My interpretation: 1. Great, Xorg doesn't need a config file, but to make it do what you want you will need config FILES. 2. HAL detection doesn't work properly. Wheel mice are very common. 3. HAL is insane. 4. It's not just me. 5. Why make something obscure? Is obscure better? Look, I appreciate the good intentions behind HAL, to make X setup very easy and automatic for as many people as possible. But when it doesn't work properly, it's no good saying that it does. If people still have problems with X/HAL/mice/keyboards/keymaps then it should not be called success. We haven't really gained anything. We have just from learning how to configure X in Xorg.conf to HAL in other places. Some people would call that re-inventing the wheel. -- > Adam Vande More > MF.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?eeef1a4c0910301144v2bd0fed3t8cec5a68eb77a5ea>