Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:31:59 +0100 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists@tx.rr.com> Cc: questions@freebsd.org, Glen Barber <glen.j.barber@gmail.com>, mpd <mpd@jesters-court.net> Subject: Re: upgraded to 8, no mouse is broken Message-ID: <20091212173159.d36521fc.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <8E342D86408C0B77A05A484A@utd65257.utdallas.edu> References: <20091211025508.GA4357@jesters-court.net> <4ad871310912101919j6876f01cp3bd24629ca089fc5@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0912102130360.8253@wonkity.com> <4ad871310912110559w7a6fdce7s53359a6ceda64399@mail.gmail.com> <8E342D86408C0B77A05A484A@utd65257.utdallas.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:04:22 -0600, Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists@tx.rr.com> wrote: > --On Friday, December 11, 2009 07:59:00 -0600 Glen Barber > <glen.j.barber@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I suppose this falls under the "works for me" category - I haven't > > ever used HAL on FreeBSD. > > > > I have, and I would say that it's not quite ready for primetime. So I'm back > to manual configuration and happy about it. Paul, you're mentioning an important choice the developer of an OS or the distributor of a specific software compilation has to make: (a) No configuration (equals user configuration) This choice makes sure that the user can set all parameters to fit his particular needs. He isn't hindered to do so. (b) Pre-configuration With this choice, the one who set the defaults has a very high responsibility. In most cases, a certain target group is assumed, and so the parameters are defined. This may lead to the problem that the result doesn't fit in other settings. (c) Auto-configuration This often works, but involves a certain overhead that does the automatic detection. Furthermore, not everything gets detected correctly, or detected at all. The result can be an only partially configured system, even being unusable. This is the case especially with hardware that is not up to date, or just too new. Hardware that doesn't conform to existing and assumed standards leads to the same results. In the past, X was defaulting to (a), giving you the choice of (c) by command, and you could modify its result in case of errors. I would say this was the case with XFree86 and early X.org (when e. g. I could run my screen by xorg.conf at 1400x1050, now I need xrandr in .xinitrc to do so because X only allows 1152x864). Overall speed is another topic, of course. The FreeBSD OS, on the other hand, follows approach (a) and aids the user with (b) - the defaults are intendedly and wisely chosen, so they usually don't cause problems, because they don't assume something stupid, like "The user will want to have a web server included, and enabled by default." :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20091212173159.d36521fc.freebsd>