Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:34:59 +0000 From: Freminlins <freminlins@gmail.com> To: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> Cc: Neil Short <neshort@yahoo.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Effing HAL Message-ID: <eeef1a4c0910301034o67cdc99cje2d50872768c9a9e@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6201873e0910300904v5767894bkec0e7543e28aa951@mail.gmail.com> References: <370279.86430.qm@web56502.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0910300906270.49648@wonkity.com> <eeef1a4c0910300858t2ff00009xbe8d82babfea3a8c@mail.gmail.com> <6201873e0910300904v5767894bkec0e7543e28aa951@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2009/10/30 Adam Vande More <amvandemore@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. 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. > Adam Vande More > MF.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?eeef1a4c0910301034o67cdc99cje2d50872768c9a9e>