Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 06:33:46 +0100 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: "Edwin L. Culp W." <edwinlculp@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HAL's demise Message-ID: <20110226063346.18ce73a0.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim8K0PrDCG4oVVHY3z3teZt5aQ7b7t4Bj7OJni-@mail.gmail.com> References: <20110225073814.57dcdd68@scorpio> <201102251832.p1PIWmTW004839@mail.r-bonomi.com> <AANLkTim8K0PrDCG4oVVHY3z3teZt5aQ7b7t4Bj7OJni-@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 14:10:33 -0600, "Edwin L. Culp W." <edwinlculp@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... -- 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?20110226063346.18ce73a0.freebsd>