HAL's demise

Polytropon freebsd at edvax.de
Sat Feb 26 05:33:48 UTC 2011

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 14:10:33 -0600, "Edwin L. Culp W." <edwinlculp at gmail.com> wrote:
> So
> it appears that there isn't a major window manager that doesn't
> require hal, one way or the other.

To be precise: There isn't a major DESKTOP ENVIRONMENT (as
there are just the "big three" KDE, Gnome, Xfce - that
doesn't require HAL. Window managers usually do not require
HAL, until they are equipped with auxilliary programs that
depend on it (kinds of notifiers and automatic hardware
handlers, automounters), or it's X depending on it (which
can be removed at compile time if you don't need it).

The basic thing I don't get is why - in the neverending
world of abstracted abstraction layers - there is no
universal interface for what various contradicting
implementations do exist: the "new" u* components and
the "old" devfs/devd combination in FreeBSD. Basically,
from a user's point, those functionalities are used
for hardware detection and immediate reaction of the
system (not always wanted, intended, or even allowed
due to security reasons), such as digital camera
downloads, burning media, or any kind of automounter,
as well as communication device configuration.

Can't it be easier, or can't "we" suddenly do better
than "Windows"? I know "we" could in the past...

Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list