You'll have to do a manual depclean (very carefully) and
revdep-rebuild, but it's worth the effort to purify your Gentoo
system.
Simpler than that, just add -hal to xorg stuff in package.use and then
run emerge -uvDNa world.
I'm not saying your way won't work but I think mine is easier.
His way is also *way* more Luddite than yours. Note the 'pam' and
'dbus', two things basically standard (and very stable) on modern Linux
desktop systems.
--K
I don't agree with the term Luddite here. It's not being against new
things and new ways of doing things. He just doesn't need those things
for his hardware to work properly. Me, I don't need hal for my mouse
and keyboard to work. As a matter of fact, mine doesn't work WITH hal.
I have to remove hal to get mine to work.
So, hal may be progress to you but it is a step backward for me. It's
the opposite of progress.
Dale
:-) :-)
I think, that hal was a lot harder for a lot of us, than the good old
xorg.conf. This may because we (linux user in general) are used to
xorg.conf. For my personal experience, I hadn't been using linux for about
4 years, so I'd completely forgotten the xorg syntax, but that was still a
more simple process to relearn the xorg.conf syntax, than understanding
the hal configuration files.
A project such as hal necessarily has contact with the user with an
"unusual" (read: at least a non-us keyboard) setup. Therefore the syntax
in which it is configured has to be "easily" (read: a quick google
search/documentation search away) accessed by the users to whom it may be
necessary. And I believe that this is the point where hal truly fails,
other than cases like Dale's.
The xorg.conf is simply a more simple, and easier configuration file than
the various hal policies.
You'll have to do a manual depclean (very carefully) and
revdep-rebuild, but it's worth the effort to purify your Gentoo
system.
Simpler than that, just add -hal to xorg stuff in package.use and then
run emerge -uvDNa world.
I'm not saying your way won't work but I think mine is easier.
His way is also *way* more Luddite than yours. Note the 'pam' and
'dbus', two things basically standard (and very stable) on modern
Linux desktop systems.
--K
I don't agree with the term Luddite here. It's not being against new
things and new ways of doing things. He just doesn't need those
things for his hardware to work properly. Me, I don't need hal for
my mouse and keyboard to work. As a matter of fact, mine doesn't
work WITH hal. I have to remove hal to get mine to work.
So, hal may be progress to you but it is a step backward for me.
It's the opposite of progress.
Dale
:-) :-)
I think, that hal was a lot harder for a lot of us, than the good old
xorg.conf. This may because we (linux user in general) are used to
xorg.conf. For my personal experience, I hadn't been using linux for
about 4 years, so I'd completely forgotten the xorg syntax, but that
was still a more simple process to relearn the xorg.conf syntax, than
understanding the hal configuration files.
A project such as hal necessarily has contact with the user with an
"unusual" (read: at least a non-us keyboard) setup. Therefore the
syntax in which it is configured has to be "easily" (read: a quick
google search/documentation search away) accessed by the users to whom
it may be necessary. And I believe that this is the point where hal
truly fails, other than cases like Dale's.
The xorg.conf is simply a more simple, and easier configuration file
than the various hal policies.
Well, actually, if hal would have worked I wouldn't have cared if it
uses xorg.conf at all. That was the point of using hal. Thing is, I
followed the howto and it didn't work. The fact that the config files
are in xml only became a problem after hal locked me out of my GUI and
required a hard shutdown.
So, hal failed on my system not just because of the config files being
in xml but because it just didn't work at all. Bad things is, this
system is a 5 year old rig. Heaven forbid I had something new that had
"iffy" support.
Dale
:-) :-)
02-10-2010, 06:12 AM
Alan McKinnon
How the HAL are you supposed to use these files?
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 03:29:50 Dale wrote:
> Well, actually, if hal would have worked I wouldn't have cared if it
> uses xorg.conf at all. That was the point of using hal. Thing is, I
> followed the howto and it didn't work. The fact that the config files
> are in xml only became a problem after hal locked me out of my GUI and
> required a hard shutdown.
>
hal is a classic "Second System Effect" case
But I thought we thrashed this to death a while ago and all agreed to never
speak of this abomination again, while we await the Third System Effect aka
DeviceKit?
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 03:29:50 Dale wrote:
Well, actually, if hal would have worked I wouldn't have cared if it
uses xorg.conf at all. That was the point of using hal. Thing is, I
followed the howto and it didn't work. The fact that the config files
are in xml only became a problem after hal locked me out of my GUI and
required a hard shutdown.
hal is a classic "Second System Effect" case
But I thought we thrashed this to death a while ago and all agreed to never
speak of this abomination again, while we await the Third System Effect aka
DeviceKit?
From what I read it appears to be the same guy doing both. Maybe, just
maybe, some lessons were learned and it will be a lot better. I'm
hoping it will be anyway. I don't care what the config files are if it
works. If my hardware doesn't work, then I need to be able to edit that
without a rocket science degree. I like watching things shoot into
space but I don't want to design or build the darn thing. lol
Dale
:-) :-)
02-10-2010, 08:38 AM
Neil Bothwick
How the HAL are you supposed to use these files?
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 02:24:36 -0600, Dale wrote:
> > hal is a classic "Second System Effect" case
> > But I thought we thrashed this to death a while ago and all agreed to
> > never speak of this abomination again, while we await the Third
> > System Effect aka DeviceKit?
> From what I read it appears to be the same guy doing both. Maybe,
> just maybe, some lessons were learned and it will be a lot better.
Isn't that the point of redoing it? It's when someone else comes along
with brand new way of doing things that we get a whole load of brand new
problems?
--
Neil Bothwick
If you cannot fix it, feature it.
02-10-2010, 09:04 AM
Alan McKinnon
How the HAL are you supposed to use these files?
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 11:38:52 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 02:24:36 -0600, Dale wrote:
> > > hal is a classic "Second System Effect" case
> > >
> > > But I thought we thrashed this to death a while ago and all agreed to
> > > never speak of this abomination again, while we await the Third
> > > System Effect aka DeviceKit?
> >
> > From what I read it appears to be the same guy doing both. Maybe,
> >
> > just maybe, some lessons were learned and it will be a lot better.
>
> Isn't that the point of redoing it? It's when someone else comes along
> with brand new way of doing things that we get a whole load of brand new
> problems?
It really is the same guy. His blog said something to the effect of:
"hal is a load of crap. I knew it long ago, the other devs knew it slightly
less longer ago and the users now know it too. We were trying to do too much
and shoehorn too many things into the same boxes that belonged in different
boxes. I'm fed up trying to maintain this steaming mess, will not be adding
new features, and wash my hands of it. I'll be doing a rewrite called
DeviceKit."
So kudos to the man for recognizing the real problem, admitting it, and moving
onto a real solution. Nothing wrong with making a mistake and fixing it -
that's how we learn.
Personally, my mistakes teach me MUCH more than my successes - I then know
what not to do :-)
But I thought we thrashed this to death a while ago and all agreed to
never speak of this abomination again, while we await the Third
System Effect aka DeviceKit?
From what I read it appears to be the same guy doing both. Maybe,
just maybe, some lessons were learned and it will be a lot better.
Isn't that the point of redoing it? It's when someone else comes along
with brand new way of doing things that we get a whole load of brand new
problems?
That was my point. I'm hoping he sees the "weaknesses" of hal and
doesn't put those in devicekit. I'm hopeful it will be better not just
the same old thing with a new name.
Speaking of improvements, I'll be glad when Seamonkey sorts out that top
line up there. It appears that Seamonkey 2 still has a bug up its
butt. lol
How the HAL are you supposed to use these files?
