Effing HAL
Adam Vande More
amvandemore at gmail.com
Fri Oct 30 17:54:00 UTC 2009
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Freminlins <freminlins at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/10/30 Adam Vande More <amvandemore at 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
More information about the freebsd-questions
mailing list