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
shown.

-- 
Adam Vande More
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to