On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Freminlins <freminl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/10/30 Adam Vande More <amvandem...@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.
I am unable to replicate this.
> 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.
Nowhere have you demonstrated HAL is not working as it's meant to. This is
pointless to argue about since it's so easy to debug. Simply post the X log
from your original state, and the reason it didn't work will be clearly
Adam Vande More
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"