Effing HAL

[Adam Vande More]

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Freminlins <freminlins at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

No my point was top is not accurate measure of HAL's memory usage.  HAL has
shared library's just like many other applications.


>
> 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.
>

This is only because of your misinterpretation of data and failure to RTFM.


>
> Life is a calm blue ocean once again.
>
> MF.
>
>


-- 
Adam Vande More