HAL must die!

Michel Talon talon at lpthe.jussieu.fr
Fri Mar 18 21:51:06 UTC 2011

Chad wrote:

> Everybody who thinks it's a good idea (by way of analogy) to write
> command line utilities that default to not letting you specify any
> options at all, and if you use one option to do something non-default
> you
> have to specify *all* options even when the specification is exactly the
> same as the default -- raise your hands.

In fact i am just now writing something which does that:
either mostly automatic, or with full "expert" options if you
know what you are doing. There is no real middle ground, in my opinion,
and i just don't like the Unix style commands, with tons of options and
unscrutable man pages. I think this Unix approach has not led to
considerable adoption, generally. To come back to HAL, i have been
usually happy with HAL. You just have to know that if you want to
modify some simple X configuration (typically change the keyboard
language) you have to do it in a HAL config file, not in xorg.conf.
The only problem is that the HAL config files are in xml crap, not
in usual form. In fact the main HAL problem is a documentation problem,
like for many other softs. How many new features of FreeBSD are
correctly documented presently? 


Michel TALON

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list