Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
On Thu,16.Jul.09, 17:30:00, Dirk wrote: I start to wonder how much words and effort the actual package maintainers would use to avoid turning a dependency back into a recommendation when the users already have such a mindset. Do you volunteer on triaging bugs like: ,[ fictious bug report ] | Help, my keyboard and mouse are not working!!! | | You don't have 'hal' installed. | | 'hal' what is that? | | Did you disable 'recommends'? | | Recommends? Of course!!! I read on some forum that I can save some | space if I disable recommends ` In fact, you could start helping with bug triage anyway. Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
On Thu,16.Jul.09, 18:29:31, Dirk wrote: I can imagine making Linux safer to use for beginners by having a daemon in the background running that overwrites changed config files with default values to prevent clueless people from trashing their system. That daemon could be enforced as a dependency of the Linux Standard Base to ensure less questions like Help! My Linux doesn't work anymore. in this mailing list. Please read again what you are proposing. Your ideea is *much worse* than hal. Debian considers it a serious (as in release critical) bug to change configuration files without user's approval, and for good reasons. Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
On Thu,16.Jul.09, 07:13:08, Nate Bargmann wrote: * Andrei Popescu andreimpope...@gmail.com [2009 Jul 16 06:05 -0500]: does seem as though there is a strong sentiment against HAL from several users. You might contact the Xorg developers and ask nicely for them to remove the dependency. I don't think this is such a good idea. The Debian X Strike Force (Xorg maintainers) already received a lot of heat over this. Providing an alternative would be better. Anyway, see #515214. Note, I specifically mentioned the Xorg developers--Free Desktop Project--not the X Strike Force folks. So, yes, my suggestion of who to discuss this with *is* a good idea. Sorry, I misread what you wrote. Contacting the Xorg devs could be useful, but I'd understand if the answer would be the same: provide an alternative. Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
On Thu,16.Jul.09, 18:19:54, Dirk wrote: You suggest that everyone compiles X11 him-/herself now? To downgrade or to even switch whole distributions because of a single stubborn package maintainer? How about that package maintainer just turns a dependency back into a recommendation to make /everyone/ happy? (Did I suggest that before?) The default mutt uses gdbm for the header cache, but I prefer tokyocabinet: # apt-get build-dep mutt # aptitude install libtokyocabinet-dev build-essential $ cd ~/src $ apt-get source mutt $ cd mutt-1.5.20 $ patch -p0 ../patches/mutt_enable_tokyocabinet.diff $ dch -l +tokyocabinet (write my changelog entry) $ dpkg-buildpackage -b # dpkg -i ~amp/src/mutt_1.5.20-2+tokyocabinet1_amd64.deb Doesn't seem too difficult to me. Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
* Andrei Popescu andreimpope...@gmail.com [2009 Jul 18 03:22 -0500]: On Thu,16.Jul.09, 07:13:08, Nate Bargmann wrote: * Andrei Popescu andreimpope...@gmail.com [2009 Jul 16 06:05 -0500]: does seem as though there is a strong sentiment against HAL from several users. You might contact the Xorg developers and ask nicely for them to remove the dependency. I don't think this is such a good idea. The Debian X Strike Force (Xorg maintainers) already received a lot of heat over this. Providing an alternative would be better. Anyway, see #515214. Note, I specifically mentioned the Xorg developers--Free Desktop Project--not the X Strike Force folks. So, yes, my suggestion of who to discuss this with *is* a good idea. Sorry, I misread what you wrote. Contacting the Xorg devs could be useful, but I'd understand if the answer would be the same: provide an alternative. Indeed, and it puts the discussion in the correct place. Here and/or the Debian developers lists(s) are not the correct places, IMHO. - Nate -- The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true. Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://n0nb.us/index.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
On 2009-07-18_06:54:21, Nate Bargmann wrote: * Andrei Popescu andreimpope...@gmail.com [2009 Jul 18 03:22 -0500]: On Thu,16.Jul.09, 07:13:08, Nate Bargmann wrote: * Andrei Popescu andreimpope...@gmail.com [2009 Jul 16 06:05 -0500]: does seem as though there is a strong sentiment against HAL from several users. You might contact the Xorg developers and ask nicely for them to remove the dependency. I don't think this is such a good idea. The Debian X Strike Force (Xorg maintainers) already received a lot of heat over this. Providing an alternative would be better. Anyway, see #515214. Note, I specifically mentioned the Xorg developers--Free Desktop Project--not the X Strike Force folks. So, yes, my suggestion of who to discuss this with *is* a good idea. Sorry, I misread what you wrote. Contacting the Xorg devs could be useful, but I'd understand if the answer would be the same: provide an alternative. Indeed, and it puts the discussion in the correct place. Here and/or the Debian developers lists(s) are not the correct places, IMHO. It seems to me that Debian already provides a way to deal with this. OP can download and install various Debian packaging tools and repackage the offending official packages to his liking, and use them locally without all this traffic on this list. IMO, there is no problem with the experts here offering technical suggestions in support of really misguided personal projects. I wonder how many other issues with Debian by how many other users with special concerns are already being handled this way. Perhaps some of these other users with their other concerns might contribute thoughts on their experience going this route. -- Paul E Condon pecon...@mesanetworks.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
On Qui, 16 Jul 2009, Alex Samad wrote: I am all for convenience, but I am also for the right to choose, sounds like HAL is not really needed for X, so it should be a recommends and not a depends. I've read in this thread that X can work without HAL, but is it a run-time choice or a compile-time choice? If it must be compiled with/without HAL than it's not possible to make HAL a recommends. Only if X was compiled without (in this case the Recommends is pointless), but then whose who would like the features would not be able to use them. -- Eduardo M KALINOWSKI edua...@kalinowski.com.br -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
Alex Samad a...@samad.com.au writes: I don't understand what you mean about mono. I don't think that I have any mono stuff on my system, and IIUC, Debian won't install it unless isn't the new gnome package going to bring in mono as a default The gnome meta-package has depends: tomboy | gnote, where gnote is the C++ port of tomboy. Since tomboy is listed first, I guess that's what it will drag in unless you specifically choose gnote. -Miles -- Consult, v.i. To seek another's disapproval of a course already decided on. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
Alex Samad: On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 06:38:06PM -0400, Celejar wrote: I don't understand what you mean about mono. I don't think that I have any mono stuff on my system, and IIUC, Debian won't install it unless isn't the new gnome package going to bring in mono as a default Only if you select to install Gnome on installation. And that's not exactly an option for people who prefer nuts and bolts approaches anyway. J. -- The houses of parliament make me think of school bullies. [Agree] [Disagree] http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
On 15 Jul 2009, Asumu Takikawa wrote: I had this same problem and using the following (in an .xsession in my case) solved the problem: setxkbmap -option terminate:ctrl_alt_bksp Cheers, Asumu Takikawa I'm using this as well and it works. I have it in .xinitrc. The only thing is that I also have some xmodmap commands and the sequence seems to be important for everything to work together. My .xinitrc: setxkbmap -option terminate:ctrl_alt_bksp /usr/bin/xmodmap -e clear Lock /usr/bin/xmodmap -e keycode 108 = Alt_L /usr/bin/xmodmap -e keycode 66 = Insert xset s 1200 xset -b xsetroot -solid darkorchid exec icewm-session-experimental Anthony -- Anthony Campbell - a...@acampbell.org.uk Microsoft-free zone - Using Debian GNU/Linux http://www.acampbell.org.uk (blog, book reviews, and sceptical articles) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
On Wed,15.Jul.09, 17:55:49, Nate Bargmann wrote: I actually like HAL as it has relieved me of a great deal of tedium. That said, I'm sure there are corner cases where it can be a pain. http://wiki.debian.org/XStrikeForce/InputHotplugGuide has some explanation of why hal is needed. It does seem as though there is a strong sentiment against HAL from several users. You might contact the Xorg developers and ask nicely for them to remove the dependency. I don't think this is such a good idea. The Debian X Strike Force (Xorg maintainers) already received a lot of heat over this. Providing an alternative would be better. Anyway, see #515214. Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
Andrei Popescu wrote: On Wed,15.Jul.09, 17:55:49, Nate Bargmann wrote: I actually like HAL as it has relieved me of a great deal of tedium. That said, I'm sure there are corner cases where it can be a pain. http://wiki.debian.org/XStrikeForce/InputHotplugGuide has some explanation of why hal is needed. Until now, HAL wasn't and will never be needed by me and many others. It is enforced per dependency now, but not needed. The absence of stuff like HAL was what made me switch from Windows to Linux in the first place. Why don't people, who like it, use the real Windows instead of turning Linux into it and forcing advanced users down to their level? It does seem as though there is a strong sentiment against HAL from several users. You might contact the Xorg developers and ask nicely for them to remove the dependency. I don't think this is such a good idea. The Debian X Strike Force (Xorg maintainers) already received a lot of heat over this. Providing an alternative would be better. Anyway, see #515214. Regards, Andrei Yes, an alternative would be to remove the dependency and make the HAL package optional again. Dirk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
On Thursday 16 July 2009 12:50:22 Dirk wrote: Why don't people, who like it, use the real Windows instead of turning Linux into it and forcing advanced users down to their level? Dirk What level are you taking about? This will look quiet insulting to many people not only using debian to the best of their knowlegde, but also to Windows users, who dont need to be treated as such, they already suffer of having to use it. Thierry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
Thierry Chatelet wrote: On Thursday 16 July 2009 12:50:22 Dirk wrote: Why don't people, who like it, use the real Windows instead of turning Linux into it and forcing advanced users down to their level? Dirk What level are you taking about? This will look quiet insulting to many people not only using debian to the best of their knowlegde, but also to Windows users, who dont need to be treated as such, they already suffer of having to use it. Thierry Awww... what about the feelings of people who, since months now, want HAL to be reduced to a option again and who get ignored for no reason? Dirk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
* Andrei Popescu andreimpope...@gmail.com [2009 Jul 16 06:05 -0500]: does seem as though there is a strong sentiment against HAL from several users. You might contact the Xorg developers and ask nicely for them to remove the dependency. I don't think this is such a good idea. The Debian X Strike Force (Xorg maintainers) already received a lot of heat over this. Providing an alternative would be better. Anyway, see #515214. Note, I specifically mentioned the Xorg developers--Free Desktop Project--not the X Strike Force folks. So, yes, my suggestion of who to discuss this with *is* a good idea. - Nate -- Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB | Successfully Microsoft Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @ | free since January 1998. http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/ | Debian, the choice of My Kawasaki KZ-650 SR @| a GNU generation! http://www.networksplus.net/n0nb/ | http://www.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
* Dirk noi...@gmx.net [2009 Jul 16 07:07 -0500]: Thierry Chatelet wrote: On Thursday 16 July 2009 12:50:22 Dirk wrote: Why don't people, who like it, use the real Windows instead of turning Linux into it and forcing advanced users down to their level? Dirk What level are you taking about? This will look quiet insulting to many people not only using debian to the best of their knowlegde, but also to Windows users, who dont need to be treated as such, they already suffer of having to use it. Thierry Awww... what about the feelings of people who, since months now, want HAL to be reduced to a option again and who get ignored for no reason? Since you're so advanced, it should be little trouble for you to roll an alternative package that doesn't have the HAL dependency. This little rant of yours seems to have little basis in logic. As near as I can tell the Linux HAL is much different and far more useful than whatever MS Windows does. You would have much more credibility in this thread if you provided solid technical reasons why HAL is bad rather than stomping your feet while saying I don't like it! Please provide a technical reason why HAL is unacceptable. - Nate -- Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB | Successfully Microsoft Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @ | free since January 1998. http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/ | Debian, the choice of My Kawasaki KZ-650 SR @| a GNU generation! http://www.networksplus.net/n0nb/ | http://www.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
You would have much more credibility in this thread if you provided solid technical reasons why HAL is bad rather than stomping your feet while saying I don't like it! Please provide a technical reason why HAL is unacceptable. HAL causes enough technical problems and negative side-effects. Just Google for that. But don't shift the focus away to Is there a technical problem? while the real problem is the /whole idea/ of HAL. Long time Linux users require choice, transparency, and CONTROL. HAL is the complete opposite and now it is needlessly enforced per dependency in Debian. One Hardware Abstraction Layer (the Linux Kernel) should be enough. People who want more than one can install Ubuntu which is a good distribution. Dirk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
Dirk schreef: You would have much more credibility in this thread if you provided solid technical reasons why HAL is bad rather than stomping your feet while saying I don't like it! Please provide a technical reason why HAL is unacceptable. HAL causes enough technical problems and negative side-effects. Just Google for that. But don't shift the focus away to Is there a technical problem? while the real problem is the /whole idea/ of HAL. Long time Linux users require choice, transparency, and CONTROL. HAL is the complete opposite and now it is needlessly enforced per dependency in Debian. One Hardware Abstraction Layer (the Linux Kernel) should be enough. People who want more than one can install Ubuntu which is a good distribution. I think the point Nate is making is that you can just configure X as not to use HAL (see the link in one of the previous mails). If you also not want hal installed, just make a nohal dummy package with a provides:hal attribute set. Yet, the X.org dev's (not the debian devs) are moving to using hal for xorg (at least, that's my understanding). So that's why debian is too. Discussing there makes more sense. And, finally, you haven't answered the question on what's wrong with hal. I'm using it without problems, and even still feel in control when needed by altering the .fdi files in /usr/share/hal. So no, I don't see the problem, please explain. Sjoerd Dirk signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
Sjoerd Hardeman wrote: Dirk schreef: You would have much more credibility in this thread if you provided solid technical reasons why HAL is bad rather than stomping your feet while saying I don't like it! Please provide a technical reason why HAL is unacceptable. HAL causes enough technical problems and negative side-effects. Just Google for that. But don't shift the focus away to Is there a technical problem? while the real problem is the /whole idea/ of HAL. Long time Linux users require choice, transparency, and CONTROL. HAL is the complete opposite and now it is needlessly enforced per dependency in Debian. One Hardware Abstraction Layer (the Linux Kernel) should be enough. People who want more than one can install Ubuntu which is a good distribution. I think the point Nate is making is that you can just configure X as not to use HAL (see the link in one of the previous mails). If you also not want hal installed, just make a nohal dummy package with a provides:hal attribute set. This is very convenient to say, right? Of course, one can make a dummy package and spend his time searching Google and this mailing list for hints to make X11 work again without HAL. But it turns out to be a moving target and a waste of time with every update of the distribution. I've done so. More than once. And that is that. Yet, the X.org dev's (not the debian devs) are moving to using hal for xorg (at least, that's my understanding). So that's why debian is too. Discussing there makes more sense. I did. According to them DeviceKit is going to replace HAL. http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/DeviceKit Why do they, /themself/, see a need to replace HAL? And will devicekit be more acceptable to people who care more than even I do? Will it be a choice? And, finally, you haven't answered the question on what's wrong with hal. I'm using it without problems, and even still feel in control when needed by altering the .fdi files in /usr/share/hal. So no, I don't see the problem, please explain. Geeez... the problem is that it was promoted to a requirement for running a Debian Desktop while there was no need for it in the first place with alternatives like Ubuntu or Windows(!) at hand. Another problem are the people who think they need to turn Linux into something like a Windows to appeal to people who don't even care/know enough about which OS they use. By this HAL is neglecting the best part of Linux for the sake of Linux, ready for the desktop? headlines on Slashdot. Dirk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
Dirk wrote: Geeez... the problem is that it was promoted to a requirement for running a Debian Desktop while there was no need for it in the first place with alternatives like Ubuntu or Windows(!) at hand. Another problem are the people who think they need to turn Linux into something like a Windows to appeal to people who don't even care/know enough about which OS they use. By this HAL is neglecting the best part of Linux for the sake of Linux, ready for the desktop? headlines on Slashdot. What is the 'best part of Linux' that HAL neglects? You keep coming back to this thing of being like Windows. That, in and of itself, is not a bad thing (there are at least a few things that Windows got right). It is a bad thing if other things are negatively affected by being like Windows. You've not yet explained what these negative effects are. Could you please do so without reference to Windows or Ubuntu? -- Avi Greenbury http://aviswebsite.co.uk ;) http://aviswebsite.co.uk/asking-questions -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
Sjoerd writes: And, finally, you haven't answered the question on what's wrong with hal. I'm using it without problems, and even still feel in control when needed by altering the .fdi files in /usr/share/hal. So no, I don't see the problem, please explain. Some of us simply don't need it. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
Avi Greenbury wrote: Dirk wrote: Geeez... the problem is that it was promoted to a requirement for running a Debian Desktop while there was no need for it in the first place with alternatives like Ubuntu or Windows(!) at hand. Another problem are the people who think they need to turn Linux into something like a Windows to appeal to people who don't even care/know enough about which OS they use. By this HAL is neglecting the best part of Linux for the sake of Linux, ready for the desktop? headlines on Slashdot. What is the 'best part of Linux' that HAL neglects? The complete absence of automation if I choose not to want/need it. The ability to mount devices myself, or not. The ability to do what I want. You keep coming back to this thing of being like Windows. That, in and of itself, is not a bad thing (there are at least a few things that Windows got right). It is a bad thing if other things are negatively affected by being like Windows. You've not yet explained what these negative effects are. Could you please do so without reference to Windows or Ubuntu? Ok, let us assume I wouldn't be able to remove HAL from a installed Debian without breaking X11 permanently and I have a random problem (pick one from this list: http://www.google.com/search?q=HAL+problem+linux). So I turn here and ask how to solve the problem. The answers will very likely force(!) me(!) to learn to understand how to alter the HAL configuration while it should be possible not to install HAL in the first place if it wasn't made a needlessly requirement(!) for running a Debian desktop. Is that enough of an answer or is there any HAL fanboy left who want's to battle choice? Dirk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
Is that enough of an answer or is there any HAL fanboy left who want's to battle choice? I'm not a HAL fanboy. In fact, I couldn't care less. From the descriptions, it sounds like HAL (like every other piece of software ever written) solves some problems while potentially creating others. Such is life. But your argument against HAL is: Ok, let us assume I wouldn't be able to remove HAL from a installed Debian without breaking X11 permanently and I have a random problem [...snip...] The answers will very likely force(!) me(!) to learn to understand how to alter the HAL configuration Or basically: What if I have to use HAL, and then what if HAL breaks? I might have to learn how to fix it! ...so? Technology moves forward. You do have a choice; I mean, if you liked you could even just run XFree86 on a Potato box, or something. But did you start using Debian because you dislike learning new things? It's unpleasant to have your old tools taken away, but surely you have more concrete objections than what you've voiced so far? I'd love to agree with you. I don't have a dog in this fight; I'm ready to be convinced. But I'm afraid that right now you're coming across as yelling at HAL to get off your lawn, and that's probably not the strongest case you could make. On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Dirknoi...@gmx.net wrote: What is the 'best part of Linux' that HAL neglects? The complete absence of automation if I choose not to want/need it. The ability to mount devices myself, or not. The ability to do what I want. You've not yet explained what these negative effects are. Could you please do so without reference to Windows or Ubuntu? Ok, let us assume I wouldn't be able to remove HAL from a installed Debian without breaking X11 permanently and I have a random problem (pick one from this list: http://www.google.com/search?q=HAL+problem+linux). So I turn here and ask how to solve the problem. The answers will very likely force(!) me(!) to learn to understand how to alter the HAL configuration while it should be possible not to install HAL in the first place if it wasn't made a needlessly requirement(!) for running a Debian desktop. Is that enough of an answer or is there any HAL fanboy left who want's to battle choice? Dirk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
Jeff Soules wrote: Is that enough of an answer or is there any HAL fanboy left who want's to battle choice? I'm not a HAL fanboy. In fact, I couldn't care less. From the descriptions, it sounds like HAL (like every other piece of software ever written) solves some problems while potentially creating others. Such is life. But your argument against HAL is: Ok, let us assume I wouldn't be able to remove HAL from a installed Debian without breaking X11 permanently and I have a random problem [...snip...] The answers will very likely force(!) me(!) to learn to understand how to alter the HAL configuration Or basically: What if I have to use HAL, and then what if HAL breaks? I might have to learn how to fix it! ...so? Technology moves forward. You do have a choice; I mean, if you liked you could even just run XFree86 on a Potato box, or something. But did you start using Debian because you dislike learning new things? It's unpleasant to have your old tools taken away, but surely you have more concrete objections than what you've voiced so far? I'd love to agree with you. I don't have a dog in this fight; I'm ready to be convinced. But I'm afraid that right now you're coming across as yelling at HAL to get off your lawn, and that's probably not the strongest case you could make. On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Dirknoi...@gmx.net wrote: What is the 'best part of Linux' that HAL neglects? The complete absence of automation if I choose not to want/need it. The ability to mount devices myself, or not. The ability to do what I want. You've not yet explained what these negative effects are. Could you please do so without reference to Windows or Ubuntu? Ok, let us assume I wouldn't be able to remove HAL from a installed Debian without breaking X11 permanently and I have a random problem (pick one from this list: http://www.google.com/search?q=HAL+problem+linux). So I turn here and ask how to solve the problem. The answers will very likely force(!) me(!) to learn to understand how to alter the HAL configuration while it should be possible not to install HAL in the first place if it wasn't made a needlessly requirement(!) for running a Debian desktop. Is that enough of an answer or is there any HAL fanboy left who want's to battle choice? Dirk I start to wonder how much words and effort the actual package maintainers would use to avoid turning a dependency back into a recommendation when the users already have such a mindset. Poor Linux. Dirk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
Dirk: Ok, let us assume I wouldn't be able to remove HAL from a installed Debian without breaking X11 permanently and I have a random problem (pick one from this list: http://www.google.com/search?q=HAL+problem+linux). Previously, you said not only HAL itself is the problem, but the *idea* behind it. I have no reason to doubt that HAL isn't necessarily the best implementation of the idea but that doesn't mean the whole idea is bad. So I turn here and ask how to solve the problem. The answers will very likely force(!) me(!) Nobody forces you to do anything. You can compile patch X.org yourself, run oldstable, switch to another distribution or throw your computer out of the window. Or you could just accept HAL and go on with your life. to learn to understand how to alter the HAL configuration while it should be possible not to install HAL in the first place if it wasn't made a needlessly requirement(!) for running a Debian desktop. Previously, it was required to know how to edit xorg.conf and how to change (e.g.) the keyboard layout for virtual terminals. Now you don't need that anymore, but you are required to configure system wide defaults for both the console and X. I fail to see how the situation has become worse. Is that enough of an answer or is there any HAL fanboy left who want's to battle choice? Actually, I couldn't care less about HAL. I am just asking myself whether the X.org devs battle choice or whether you are battling progress. J. -- If all my friends had Playstations I would buy a Nintendo to prove my individuality. [Agree] [Disagree] http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
Dirk wrote: Jeff Soules wrote: Is that enough of an answer or is there any HAL fanboy left who want's to battle choice? I'm not a HAL fanboy. In fact, I couldn't care less. From the descriptions, it sounds like HAL (like every other piece of software ever written) solves some problems while potentially creating others. Such is life. But your argument against HAL is: Ok, let us assume I wouldn't be able to remove HAL from a installed Debian without breaking X11 permanently and I have a random problem [...snip...] The answers will very likely force(!) me(!) to learn to understand how to alter the HAL configuration Or basically: What if I have to use HAL, and then what if HAL breaks? I might have to learn how to fix it! ...so? Technology moves forward. You do have a choice; I mean, if you liked you could even just run XFree86 on a Potato box, or something. But did you start using Debian because you dislike learning new things? It's unpleasant to have your old tools taken away, but surely you have more concrete objections than what you've voiced so far? I'd love to agree with you. I don't have a dog in this fight; I'm ready to be convinced. But I'm afraid that right now you're coming across as yelling at HAL to get off your lawn, and that's probably not the strongest case you could make. HAL is not technology moving forward. It is a project dedicated to taking away the right to do what you want. And the persistance of not understanding this that I face here is just sad. You people don't seem to know what door you leave open here and how it could affect the future and usability of Linux in a negative way. Isn't one trainwreck of an operating system enough? Do we really need to turn Linux into another trainwreck at all costs to attract more users from trainwreck #1? Dirk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
HAL is not technology moving forward. It is a project dedicated to taking away the right to do what you want. I'm sorry, your argument is HAL hates freedom? Seriously? You believe there is an entire team of malicious devs who've devoted their weekends to oppressing your choice of mouse buttons? And the persistance of not understanding this that I face here is just sad. You people don't seem to know what door you leave open here and how it could affect the future and usability of Linux in a negative way. All right, I'll bite. How specifically could it affect the future and usability of Linux in a negative way? What disasters might happen, what door are we leaving open here? What does HAL do that you don't like? You can't be too upset with us for not understanding that when you've made very little effort to explain it (beyond I might have to learn how to fix it). On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Dirknoi...@gmx.net wrote: Dirk wrote: Jeff Soules wrote: Is that enough of an answer or is there any HAL fanboy left who want's to battle choice? I'm not a HAL fanboy. In fact, I couldn't care less. From the descriptions, it sounds like HAL (like every other piece of software ever written) solves some problems while potentially creating others. Such is life. But your argument against HAL is: Ok, let us assume I wouldn't be able to remove HAL from a installed Debian without breaking X11 permanently and I have a random problem [...snip...] The answers will very likely force(!) me(!) to learn to understand how to alter the HAL configuration Or basically: What if I have to use HAL, and then what if HAL breaks? I might have to learn how to fix it! ...so? Technology moves forward. You do have a choice; I mean, if you liked you could even just run XFree86 on a Potato box, or something. But did you start using Debian because you dislike learning new things? It's unpleasant to have your old tools taken away, but surely you have more concrete objections than what you've voiced so far? I'd love to agree with you. I don't have a dog in this fight; I'm ready to be convinced. But I'm afraid that right now you're coming across as yelling at HAL to get off your lawn, and that's probably not the strongest case you could make. HAL is not technology moving forward. It is a project dedicated to taking away the right to do what you want. And the persistance of not understanding this that I face here is just sad. You people don't seem to know what door you leave open here and how it could affect the future and usability of Linux in a negative way. Isn't one trainwreck of an operating system enough? Do we really need to turn Linux into another trainwreck at all costs to attract more users from trainwreck #1? Dirk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
Jochen Schulz wrote: Dirk: Ok, let us assume I wouldn't be able to remove HAL from a installed Debian without breaking X11 permanently and I have a random problem (pick one from this list: http://www.google.com/search?q=HAL+problem+linux). Previously, you said not only HAL itself is the problem, but the *idea* behind it. I have no reason to doubt that HAL isn't necessarily the best implementation of the idea but that doesn't mean the whole idea is bad. So I turn here and ask how to solve the problem. The answers will very likely force(!) me(!) Nobody forces you to do anything. You can compile patch X.org yourself, run oldstable, switch to another distribution or throw your computer out of the window. Or you could just accept HAL and go on with your life. You suggest that everyone compiles X11 him-/herself now? To downgrade or to even switch whole distributions because of a single stubborn package maintainer? How about that package maintainer just turns a dependency back into a recommendation to make /everyone/ happy? (Did I suggest that before?) to learn to understand how to alter the HAL configuration while it should be possible not to install HAL in the first place if it wasn't made a needlessly requirement(!) for running a Debian desktop. Previously, it was required to know how to edit xorg.conf and how to change (e.g.) the keyboard layout for virtual terminals. Now you don't need that anymore, but you are required to configure system wide defaults for both the console and X. I fail to see how the situation has become worse. Now you don't need that anymore ...because you're /forced/ to install HAL. Is that enough of an answer or is there any HAL fanboy left who want's to battle choice? Actually, I couldn't care less about HAL. I am just asking myself whether the X.org devs battle choice or whether you are battling progress. J. I don't care of the progress that comes with HAL. Because I don't want to be forced to install it. I DON'T WANT TO BE FORCED TO INSTALL HAL because Linux works fine without a 2nd Hardware Abstraction Layer. Dirk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
Jeff Soules wrote: HAL is not technology moving forward. It is a project dedicated to taking away the right to do what you want. I'm sorry, your argument is HAL hates freedom? Seriously? You believe there is an entire team of malicious devs who've devoted their weekends to oppressing your choice of mouse buttons? And the persistance of not understanding this that I face here is just sad. You people don't seem to know what door you leave open here and how it could affect the future and usability of Linux in a negative way. All right, I'll bite. How specifically could it affect the future and usability of Linux in a negative way? What disasters might happen, what door are we leaving open here? What does HAL do that you don't like? It takes away my right to do what I want. And it does so because its installation is enforced per dependency. I can imagine making Linux safer to use for beginners by having a daemon in the background running that overwrites changed config files with default values to prevent clueless people from trashing their system. That daemon could be enforced as a dependency of the Linux Standard Base to ensure less questions like Help! My Linux doesn't work anymore. in this mailing list. That would be very convenient and to hell with people who don't need it. You can't be too upset with us for not understanding that when you've made very little effort to explain it (beyond I might have to learn how to fix it). It is not: I might have to learn how to fix it It is: I can't deinstall it even though it could be possible Dirk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
In 4a5f532a.8000...@gmx.net, Dirk wrote: Jochen Schulz wrote: Dirk: Ok, let us assume I wouldn't be able to remove HAL from a installed Debian without breaking X11 permanently and I have a random problem (pick one from this list: http://www.google.com/search?q=HAL+problem+linux). Previously, you said not only HAL itself is the problem, but the *idea* behind it. I have no reason to doubt that HAL isn't necessarily the best implementation of the idea but that doesn't mean the whole idea is bad. So I turn here and ask how to solve the problem. The answers will very likely force(!) me(!) Nobody forces you to do anything. You can compile patch X.org yourself, run oldstable, switch to another distribution or throw your computer out of the window. Or you could just accept HAL and go on with your life. You suggest that everyone compiles X11 him-/herself now? No, just those that refuse to accept the package maintainers' decisions. That's always been true of every Debian package. How about that package maintainer just turns a dependency back into a recommendation to make /everyone/ happy? (Did I suggest that before?) From what I understand, X will run fine without HAL. In that case, I agree with you. Depends is for packages that are *technically* *required* to run; Recommends is for packages that add additional features (including advanced configuration or automation). Depends is *NOT* meant for strong recommendations. The package maintainer(s) is(are) in the wrong, but they are still the maintainer. I don't have the resources to maintain X.org packages for Debian, so I accept what is given for the cost I can bear. I would be willing to test X.org packages that don't Depend on HAL if someone is putting forth the resources to maintain them. If someone it willing to put forth the resources, but they don't have the technical skill or time, they can buy both from me. PM me for rates. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/\_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
In 4a5f556b.8090...@gmx.net, Dirk wrote: Jeff Soules wrote: HAL is not technology moving forward. It is a project dedicated to taking away the right to do what you want. I'm sorry, your argument is HAL hates freedom? Seriously? You believe there is an entire team of malicious devs who've devoted their weekends to oppressing your choice of mouse buttons? It takes away my right to do what I want. And it does so because its installation is enforced per dependency. HAL itself doesn't do that. The package maintainers for the X.org package in Debian do that. I don't think that they hate freedom, but rather that they may be making the wrong decision for the right reasons. (They would like Linux to be easy AND flexible.) -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/\_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
Dirk wrote: Jochen Schulz wrote: Dirk: Ok, let us assume I wouldn't be able to remove HAL from a installed Debian without breaking X11 permanently and I have a random problem (pick one from this list: http://www.google.com/search?q=HAL+problem+linux). Previously, you said not only HAL itself is the problem, but the *idea* behind it. I have no reason to doubt that HAL isn't necessarily the best implementation of the idea but that doesn't mean the whole idea is bad. So I turn here and ask how to solve the problem. The answers will very likely force(!) me(!) Nobody forces you to do anything. You can compile patch X.org yourself, run oldstable, switch to another distribution or throw your computer out of the window. Or you could just accept HAL and go on with your life. You suggest that everyone compiles X11 him-/herself now? To downgrade or to even switch whole distributions because of a single stubborn package maintainer? How about that package maintainer just turns a dependency back into a recommendation to make /everyone/ happy? (Did I suggest that before?) to learn to understand how to alter the HAL configuration while it should be possible not to install HAL in the first place if it wasn't made a needlessly requirement(!) for running a Debian desktop. Previously, it was required to know how to edit xorg.conf and how to change (e.g.) the keyboard layout for virtual terminals. Now you don't need that anymore, but you are required to configure system wide defaults for both the console and X. I fail to see how the situation has become worse. Now you don't need that anymore ...because you're /forced/ to install HAL. Is that enough of an answer or is there any HAL fanboy left who want's to battle choice? Actually, I couldn't care less about HAL. I am just asking myself whether the X.org devs battle choice or whether you are battling progress. J. I don't care of the progress that comes with HAL. Because I don't want to be forced to install it. I DON'T WANT TO BE FORCED TO INSTALL HAL because Linux works fine without a 2nd Hardware Abstraction Layer. Dirk dirk, i support you on this most principal point: your outcry for the persistence of the freedom of choice under debian (linux). without (of course well-meaning) patronizing developers. i have followed this intriguing thread with some surprise: allmost nobody seems to understand fully the impact of the word 'free' any more. regards, steef steef van duin publicist, research-journalist -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:58:12 +0200 Dirk noi...@gmx.net wrote: Avi Greenbury wrote: ... What is the 'best part of Linux' that HAL neglects? ... The ability to mount devices myself, or not. This is just wrong; HAL *doesn't automount anything* on its own. It merely passes information to a *volume manager*, which can be configured to do whatever you want. I run HAL, and I've never had devices automounted. When I tried once more, before firing off this message, lo and behold my USB key did indeed automount, but I investigated and realized that it was some component of xfce that was doing it. When I unchecked the box Settings / Removable Drives and Media / Storage / Mount removable drives when hot-plugged, the old behavior returned. The ability to do what I want. Again, *what* exactly do you want to do that HAL is confounding? I'm also not that crazy about dependency creep, I'd prefer to keep large, complex, poorly documented stuff off my system, and I haven't yet really wrapped my head around editing xml fdi files, but I haven't actually been hampered much in any tangible way yet. Well, except for this, which may somehow be HAL related: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=533863 Celejar -- mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
steef wrote: Dirk wrote: Jochen Schulz wrote: Dirk: Ok, let us assume I wouldn't be able to remove HAL from a installed Debian without breaking X11 permanently and I have a random problem (pick one from this list: http://www.google.com/search?q=HAL+problem+linux). Previously, you said not only HAL itself is the problem, but the *idea* behind it. I have no reason to doubt that HAL isn't necessarily the best implementation of the idea but that doesn't mean the whole idea is bad. So I turn here and ask how to solve the problem. The answers will very likely force(!) me(!) Nobody forces you to do anything. You can compile patch X.org yourself, run oldstable, switch to another distribution or throw your computer out of the window. Or you could just accept HAL and go on with your life. You suggest that everyone compiles X11 him-/herself now? To downgrade or to even switch whole distributions because of a single stubborn package maintainer? How about that package maintainer just turns a dependency back into a recommendation to make /everyone/ happy? (Did I suggest that before?) to learn to understand how to alter the HAL configuration while it should be possible not to install HAL in the first place if it wasn't made a needlessly requirement(!) for running a Debian desktop. Previously, it was required to know how to edit xorg.conf and how to change (e.g.) the keyboard layout for virtual terminals. Now you don't need that anymore, but you are required to configure system wide defaults for both the console and X. I fail to see how the situation has become worse. Now you don't need that anymore ...because you're /forced/ to install HAL. Is that enough of an answer or is there any HAL fanboy left who want's to battle choice? Actually, I couldn't care less about HAL. I am just asking myself whether the X.org devs battle choice or whether you are battling progress. J. I don't care of the progress that comes with HAL. Because I don't want to be forced to install it. I DON'T WANT TO BE FORCED TO INSTALL HAL because Linux works fine without a 2nd Hardware Abstraction Layer. Dirk dirk, i support you on this most principal point: your outcry for the persistence of the freedom of choice under debian (linux). without (of course well-meaning) patronizing developers. i have followed this intriguing thread with some surprise: allmost nobody seems to understand fully the impact of the word 'free' any more. regards, steef steef van duin publicist, research-journalist I guess we will have to stick it out until HAL has been replaced. Hopefully the trend of writing UI's and games (QuakeLive) that run in a browser will continue and some day X11, HAL and all that mindset ballast decending from what they know from other operating systems will become obsolete and in a paradigm shift a(ny) browser, itself, becomes a Desktop using simple, clean interfaces supplied by the 1st Hardware Abstraction Layer (the Kernel). Something like that. Then we won't have to deal with this short-sighted stuborness of cloning nanny-features anymore which we thought we left behind when we switched to Linux in the early nineties... Dirk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
Celejar wrote: On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:58:12 +0200 Dirk noi...@gmx.net wrote: Avi Greenbury wrote: ... What is the 'best part of Linux' that HAL neglects? ... The ability to mount devices myself, or not. This is just wrong; HAL *doesn't automount anything* on its own. It merely passes information to a *volume manager*, which can be configured to do whatever you want. I run HAL, and I've never had devices automounted. When I tried once more, before firing off this message, lo and behold my USB key did indeed automount, but I investigated and realized that it was some component of xfce that was doing it. When I unchecked the box Settings / Removable Drives and Media / Storage / Mount removable drives when hot-plugged, the old behavior returned. I am happy for you. But how does this prevent me from having to install HAL? The ability to do what I want. Again, *what* exactly do you want to do that HAL is confounding? I don't want to be forced to install and/or care about it. Because I never did need it. I don't need it. I will never need it. Dirk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:20:56 +0200 Dirk noi...@gmx.net wrote: Celejar wrote: On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:58:12 +0200 Dirk noi...@gmx.net wrote: Avi Greenbury wrote: ... What is the 'best part of Linux' that HAL neglects? ... The ability to mount devices myself, or not. This is just wrong; HAL *doesn't automount anything* on its own. It merely passes information to a *volume manager*, which can be configured to do whatever you want. I run HAL, and I've never had devices automounted. When I tried once more, before firing off this message, lo and behold my USB key did indeed automount, but I investigated and realized that it was some component of xfce that was doing it. When I unchecked the box Settings / Removable Drives and Media / Storage / Mount removable drives when hot-plugged, the old behavior returned. I am happy for you. But how does this prevent me from having to install HAL? I was merely correcting a demonstrably false implication of yours, that HAL somehow interferes with your control over device mounting. Celejar -- mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
Dirk noi...@gmx.net writes: Jochen Schulz wrote: Nobody forces you to do anything. You can compile patch X.org yourself, run oldstable, switch to another distribution or throw your computer out of the window. Or you could just accept HAL and go on with your life. You suggest that everyone compiles X11 him-/herself now? To downgrade or to even switch whole distributions because of a single stubborn package maintainer? X.org is maintained by a team of developers, and its usage of HAL has been discussed on the general developers' mailing list. There is no single maintainer acting alone, and if there were a consensus that X's dependency on HAL is as bad as you say (which there isn't), the technical committee could overrule them anyway. -- Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
Brian Nelson wrote: Dirk noi...@gmx.net writes: Jochen Schulz wrote: Nobody forces you to do anything. You can compile patch X.org yourself, run oldstable, switch to another distribution or throw your computer out of the window. Or you could just accept HAL and go on with your life. You suggest that everyone compiles X11 him-/herself now? To downgrade or to even switch whole distributions because of a single stubborn package maintainer? X.org is maintained by a team of developers, and its usage of HAL has been discussed on the general developers' mailing list. There is no single maintainer acting alone, and if there were a consensus that X's dependency on HAL is as bad as you say (which there isn't), the technical committee could overrule them anyway. I meant the package maintainer of the debian package and the refusal to reduce HAL to a recommendation instead of making it a requirement. In the X.org mailinglist I was told that the necessity for HAL can be enabled/disabled at compile time. So there should be no problem for the maintainer to do so. I guess the next reply will suggest, again, that everyone who doesn't want HAL should compile X11 himself. Dirk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:35:29AM -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: In 4a5f532a.8000...@gmx.net, Dirk wrote: Jochen Schulz wrote: Dirk: [snip] You suggest that everyone compiles X11 him-/herself now? No, just those that refuse to accept the package maintainers' decisions. That's always been true of every Debian package. How about that package maintainer just turns a dependency back into a recommendation to make /everyone/ happy? (Did I suggest that before?) From what I understand, X will run fine without HAL. In that case, I agree with you. Depends is for packages that are *technically* *required* to run; Recommends is for packages that add additional features (including advanced configuration or automation). Depends is *NOT* meant for strong recommendations. The package maintainer(s) is(are) in the wrong, but they are still the maintainer. I don't have the resources to maintain X.org packages for Debian, so I accept what is given for the cost I can bear. I would be willing to test X.org packages that don't Depend on HAL if someone is putting forth the resources to maintain them. Problem with this attitude is that back in the day, if linus had said that, sorry I can't maintain an entire distro, but microsoft can and therefor I should be happy with what i have, we would not be here today. Dirk has his right to object and as you have pointed out he might have some grounds to do it. HAL has been a pain for me, because of my laptop and my need to attach things to the laptop whilst its on, thus hal mount things all over the place and does things the system wasn't doing before. As for the efi structure its a pain. To me the depends: hal is the same as saying you need the intel gpu driver when you install X A If someone it willing to put forth the resources, but they don't have the technical skill or time, they can buy both from me. PM me for rates. -- bit, n: A unit of measure applied to color. Twenty-four-bit color refers to expensive $3 color as opposed to the cheaper 25 cent, or two-bit, color that use to be available a few years ago. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 03:22:03PM -0400, Celejar wrote: On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:20:56 +0200 Dirk noi...@gmx.net wrote: Celejar wrote: On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:58:12 +0200 Dirk noi...@gmx.net wrote: Avi Greenbury wrote: ... What is the 'best part of Linux' that HAL neglects? ... The ability to mount devices myself, or not. This is just wrong; HAL *doesn't automount anything* on its own. It merely passes information to a *volume manager*, which can be configured to do whatever you want. I run HAL, and I've never had devices automounted. When I tried once more, before firing off this message, lo and behold my USB key did indeed automount, but I investigated and realized that it was some component of xfce that was doing it. When I unchecked the box Settings / Removable Drives and Media / Storage / Mount removable drives when hot-plugged, the old behavior returned. isn't this because it writes out HAL efi files ? /etc/hal/fdi/policy/preferences.fdi I am happy for you. But how does this prevent me from having to install HAL? I was merely correcting a demonstrably false implication of yours, that HAL somehow interferes with your control over device mounting. Celejar -- I played lead guitar in a band called The Federal Duck, which is the kind of name that was popular in the '60s as a result of controlled substances being in widespread use. Back then, there were no restrictions, in terms of talent, on who could make an album, so we made one, and it sounds like a group of people who have been given powerful but unfamiliar instruments as a therapy for a degenerative nerve disease. -- Dave Barry, The Snake signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:39:16 +1000 Alex Samad a...@samad.com.au wrote: On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 03:22:03PM -0400, Celejar wrote: ... This is just wrong; HAL *doesn't automount anything* on its own. It merely passes information to a *volume manager*, which can be configured to do whatever you want. I run HAL, and I've never had devices automounted. When I tried once more, before firing off this message, lo and behold my USB key did indeed automount, but I investigated and realized that it was some component of xfce that was doing it. When I unchecked the box Settings / Removable Drives and Media / Storage / Mount removable drives when hot-plugged, the old behavior returned. isn't this because it writes out HAL efi files ? /etc/hal/fdi/policy/preferences.fdi Not sure what you mean; I currently have xfce's automounting enabled, and that file you mention is virtually empty (it contains a couple of commented out examples, and not much else. Celejar -- mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 04:57:44PM -0400, Celejar wrote: On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:39:16 +1000 Alex Samad a...@samad.com.au wrote: On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 03:22:03PM -0400, Celejar wrote: ... This is just wrong; HAL *doesn't automount anything* on its own. It merely passes information to a *volume manager*, which can be configured to do whatever you want. I run HAL, and I've never had devices automounted. When I tried once more, before firing off this message, lo and behold my USB key did indeed automount, but I investigated and realized that it was some component of xfce that was doing it. When I unchecked the box Settings / Removable Drives and Media / Storage / Mount removable drives when hot-plugged, the old behavior returned. isn't this because it writes out HAL efi files ? /etc/hal/fdi/policy/preferences.fdi Not sure what you mean; I currently have xfce's automounting enabled, and that file you mention is virtually empty (it contains a couple of commented out examples, and not much else. I also have the xfce4 automount options off and it looks to me like it has set them in this file ?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8? !-- -*- SGML -*- -- !-- Some examples how to use hal fdi files for system preferences You can either uncomment the examples here or put them in a seperate .fdi file. -- deviceinfo version=0.2 !-- The following shows how to hint gnome-volume-manager and other programs that honor the storage.automount_enabled_hint to not mount non-removable media. -- !-- device match key=storage.hotpluggable bool=false match key=storage.removable bool=false merge key=storage.automount_enabled_hint type=boolfalse/merge /match /match /device -- /deviceinfo What I was trying to suggest is that you were using hal even though you thought you were not. A Celejar -- It is time to set aside the old partisan bickering and finger-pointing and name-calling that comes from freeing parents to make different choices for their children. - George W. Bush 04/12/2001 on parental empowerment in education signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 14:02, Alex Samada...@samad.com.au wrote: On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 04:57:44PM -0400, Celejar wrote: On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:39:16 +1000 Alex Samad a...@samad.com.au wrote: On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 03:22:03PM -0400, Celejar wrote: ... This is just wrong; HAL *doesn't automount anything* on its own. It merely passes information to a *volume manager*, which can be configured to do whatever you want. I run HAL, and I've never had devices automounted. When I tried once more, before firing off this message, lo and behold my USB key did indeed automount, but I investigated and realized that it was some component of xfce that was doing it. When I unchecked the box Settings / Removable Drives and Media / Storage / Mount removable drives when hot-plugged, the old behavior returned. isn't this because it writes out HAL efi files ? /etc/hal/fdi/policy/preferences.fdi Not sure what you mean; I currently have xfce's automounting enabled, and that file you mention is virtually empty (it contains a couple of commented out examples, and not much else. I also have the xfce4 automount options off and it looks to me like it has set them in this file ?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8? !-- -*- SGML -*- -- !-- Some examples how to use hal fdi files for system preferences You can either uncomment the examples here or put them in a seperate .fdi file. -- deviceinfo version=0.2 !-- The following shows how to hint gnome-volume-manager and other programs that honor the storage.automount_enabled_hint to not mount non-removable media. -- !-- device match key=storage.hotpluggable bool=false match key=storage.removable bool=false merge key=storage.automount_enabled_hint type=boolfalse/merge /match /match /device -- /deviceinfo What I was trying to suggest is that you were using hal even though you thought you were not. Setting a volume manager/automounter not to automount may change that file, but hal still does not do the mounting. I run Awesome WM, and even with that value set to true, it does not automount - because there is no volume manager. And a volume manager could ignore that hint from hal if it coded that way. Cheers, Kelly Clowers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:02:19 +1000 Alex Samad a...@samad.com.au wrote: On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 04:57:44PM -0400, Celejar wrote: On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:39:16 +1000 Alex Samad a...@samad.com.au wrote: On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 03:22:03PM -0400, Celejar wrote: ... This is just wrong; HAL *doesn't automount anything* on its own. It merely passes information to a *volume manager*, which can be configured to do whatever you want. I run HAL, and I've never had devices automounted. When I tried once more, before firing off this message, lo and behold my USB key did indeed automount, but I investigated and realized that it was some component of xfce that was doing it. When I unchecked the box Settings / Removable Drives and Media / Storage / Mount removable drives when hot-plugged, the old behavior returned. isn't this because it writes out HAL efi files ? /etc/hal/fdi/policy/preferences.fdi Not sure what you mean; I currently have xfce's automounting enabled, and that file you mention is virtually empty (it contains a couple of commented out examples, and not much else. I also have the xfce4 automount options off and it looks to me like it has set them in this file ?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8? !-- -*- SGML -*- -- !-- Some examples how to use hal fdi files for system preferences You can either uncomment the examples here or put them in a seperate .fdi file. -- deviceinfo version=0.2 !-- The following shows how to hint gnome-volume-manager and other programs that honor the storage.automount_enabled_hint to not mount non-removable media. -- !-- device match key=storage.hotpluggable bool=false match key=storage.removable bool=false merge key=storage.automount_enabled_hint type=boolfalse/merge /match /match /device -- /deviceinfo What I was trying to suggest is that you were using hal even though you thought you were not. I have the same file. There's nothing in it, since those stanzas are commented out, and they seem to remain commented out, even when I enable automounting in xfce. Are you suggesting that xfce changes the file? I don't think that it does. In any event, those stanzas aren't to enable automounting, but to disable it for non-removable media, and besides, as Kelly points out, they're just hints to the automounter, which does any actual work, and is configured separately, so once again, Dirk's claim that HAL somehow hijacks his ability to mount as he sees fit is simply incorrect. Celejar -- mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
* Alex Samad a...@samad.com.au [2009 Jul 16 17:46 -0500]: HAL has been a pain for me, because of my laptop and my need to attach things to the laptop whilst its on, thus hal mount things all over the place and does things the system wasn't doing before. I'm puzzled by this and HAL does not mount *anything* on my machines until I tell it to. I am using KDE 3.5 and 4.2 and in neither case will a device be mounted automatically, I must initiate it on my own. It seems as though automounting of the type I understand you describing is a desktop environment issue? I did no special configuration of HAL to acheive this either. OTOH, HAL along with udev is invaulable to me for making a USB to serial adapter available without issue or a USB sound card I use for amateur radio work. It's just there once it's plugged in with no writing of arcane rules or trying to determine kernel device names by diggin through /var/log/syslog when some new device is plugged in for the first time. I'm no HAL fanboi as I really don't care if it's HAL, udev, or the kernel making my life easier and more convenient. - Nate -- Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB | Successfully Microsoft Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @ | free since January 1998. http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/ | Debian, the choice of My Kawasaki KZ-650 SR @| a GNU generation! http://www.networksplus.net/n0nb/ | http://www.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 06:16:51PM -0500, Nate Bargmann wrote: * Alex Samad a...@samad.com.au [2009 Jul 16 17:46 -0500]: HAL has been a pain for me, because of my laptop and my need to attach things to the laptop whilst its on, thus hal mount things all over the place and does things the system wasn't doing before. I'm puzzled by this and HAL does not mount *anything* on my machines until I tell it to. I am using KDE 3.5 and 4.2 and in neither case will a device be mounted automatically, I must initiate it on my own. It seems as though automounting of the type I understand you describing is a desktop environment issue? I did no special configuration of HAL to acheive this either. well, when I installed HAL, i noticed when I docked my laptop in its docking station I suddenly had the extra drive mounted on /medi/... and when I pluggde in usb keys they started to appear on the desktop as well I associated this with HAL - as it was the last package I installed before these things started to happen. I stopped them by placing a efi file to tell it to ignore these devices, I already have udev rules and fstab user rules to allow me to mount them as needed. OTOH, HAL along with udev is invaulable to me for making a USB to serial adapter available without issue or a USB sound card I use for amateur radio work. It's just there once it's plugged in with no writing of arcane rules or trying to determine kernel device names by diggin through /var/log/syslog when some new device is plugged in for the first time. I have written 1 line udev rules to handle my devices written once and thats all i need I'm no HAL fanboi as I really don't care if it's HAL, udev, or the kernel making my life easier and more convenient. I am all for convenience, but I am also for the right to choose, sounds like HAL is not really needed for X, so it should be a recommends and not a depends. Alex PS - upon looking at the preferences I posted earlier looks like I was wrong, its all commented out - Nate -- I'm so pleased to be able to say hello to Bill Scranton. He's one of the great Pennsylvania political families. - George W. Bush 09/15/2003 Drexel Hill, Penn. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
* Alex Samad a...@samad.com.au [2009 Jul 16 19:40 -0500]: I am all for convenience, but I am also for the right to choose, sounds like HAL is not really needed for X, so it should be a recommends and not a depends. I've played some with the new features of Xorg earlier this year, xrandr. The HAL capability is essential for plugging in an external monitor of unknown resolution and then being able use it seemlessly as a mutlihead system. Note that I played with it for a couple of days and the monitor was a Samsung LCD TV. I have no doubt that I would have spent days getting things to work the old way. This issue can be solved by identifying what HAL provides to Xorg. Evidently the Debian X Strike Force team has decided that HAL is a dependency that will enhance the distribution. Other users disagree, obviously. Perhaps this identifies an area of possible improvement in Debian where the users could provide input to the developers in a more direct fashion than via bug reports. I don't have a clue as to how this might be implemented, however. - Nate -- Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB | Successfully Microsoft Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @ | free since January 1998. http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/ | Debian, the choice of My Kawasaki KZ-650 SR @| a GNU generation! http://www.networksplus.net/n0nb/ | http://www.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 08:28:36PM -0500, Nate Bargmann wrote: * Alex Samad a...@samad.com.au [2009 Jul 16 19:40 -0500]: I am all for convenience, but I am also for the right to choose, sounds like HAL is not really needed for X, so it should be a recommends and not a depends. I've played some with the new features of Xorg earlier this year, xrandr. The HAL capability is essential for plugging in an external monitor of unknown resolution and then being able use it seemlessly as a mutlihead system. Note that I played with it for a couple of days and the monitor was a Samsung LCD TV. I have no doubt that I would have spent days getting things to work the old way. I seem to be able to do this with my nvidia driver and nvidia settings This issue can be solved by identifying what HAL provides to Xorg. Evidently the Debian X Strike Force team has decided that HAL is a dependency that will enhance the distribution. Other users disagree, obviously. Perhaps this identifies an area of possible improvement in Debian where the users could provide input to the developers in a more direct fashion than via bug reports. I don't have a clue as to how this might be implemented, however. but as has been pointed out it is going to be replaced - Nate signature.asc Description: Digital signature
X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
Hello, the X11 in debian/unstable is very broken right now. It requires HAL which i replaced with a dummy package and now the DontZap option in /etc/X11/xorg.conf is also broken... I can't quit X11 with ctrl+alt+bs anymore... Is there a fix or a different option than DontZap for this? Is that HAL dependency supposed to make it into stable? I would like to know so because then I can move our machines to another distro soon enough before the shit hits the fan. Dirk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
Dirk: the X11 in debian/unstable is very broken right now. It requires HAL which i replaced with a dummy package and now the DontZap option in /etc/X11/xorg.conf is also broken... I can't quit X11 with ctrl+alt+bs anymore... I have that problem as well and I am using the real HAL package. Is that HAL dependency supposed to make it into stable? I suppose yes, but I don't know. And I think it has nothing to do with the DontZap problem. I would like to know so because then I can move our machines to another distro soon enough before the shit hits the fan. Dude, calm down. It's just a package. :) J. -- I want to keep my skin looking good but I believe all computers do the same job. [Agree] [Disagree] http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
Jochen Schulz wrote: Dirk: the X11 in debian/unstable is very broken right now. It requires HAL which i replaced with a dummy package and now the DontZap option in /etc/X11/xorg.conf is also broken... I can't quit X11 with ctrl+alt+bs anymore... I have that problem as well and I am using the real HAL package. Is that HAL dependency supposed to make it into stable? I suppose yes, but I don't know. And I think it has nothing to do with the DontZap problem. I would like to know so because then I can move our machines to another distro soon enough before the shit hits the fan. Dude, calm down. It's just a package. :) J. if i remember correctly DontZap was supposed to fix ctrl+alt+bs in X11 when no HAL was installed... now it seems i can't even change the X11 resolution anymore without HAL... it's not just a package... it's an indicator for debian losing touch with it's main user base: people who dont want all that stuff Ubuntu offers, especially annoyingly, interfering junk like HAL... i bet it wont even matter anymore if i compile X11 myself, huh? debian should really have waited until HAL was obsoleted by something better like devicekit... Dirk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
I had this same problem and using the following (in an .xsession in my case) solved the problem: setxkbmap -option terminate:ctrl_alt_bksp Cheers, Asumu Takikawa On 2009-07-15 16:28:27 +0200, Dirk wrote: Hello, the X11 in debian/unstable is very broken right now. It requires HAL which i replaced with a dummy package and now the DontZap option in /etc/X11/xorg.conf is also broken... I can't quit X11 with ctrl+alt+bs anymore... Is that HAL dependency supposed to make it into stable? I would like to know so because then I can move our machines to another distro soon enough before the shit hits the fan. Dirk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org -- GPG Public Key: http://cs.ubc.ca/~asumu/asumu.gpg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
On Jul 15, 2009, at 1:30 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote: I had this same problem and using the following (in an .xsession in my case) solved the problem: setxkbmap -option terminate:ctrl_alt_bksp Cheers, Asumu Takikawa This is good to know. How often does this have to be done? Can I do it once and have it survive past closing my X session? Past logging out? Past a reboot? There was some talk earlier of a Debian-Specific patch that would restore this functionality as the default option. What has happened to that? Thanks! Rick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 05:51:05PM +0200, Dirk wrote: Jochen Schulz wrote: Dirk: [snip] it's not just a package... it's an indicator for debian losing touch with it's main user base: people who dont want all that stuff Ubuntu seems that way, with selinux, hal and mono. I loved debian for its nuts + bolts basics approach with the ability to add the options you wanted. offers, especially annoyingly, interfering junk like HAL... i bet it wont even matter anymore if i compile X11 myself, huh? debian should really have waited until HAL was obsoleted by something better like devicekit... Dirk -- This is the theory that Jack built. This is the flaw that lay in the theory that Jack built. This is the palpable verbal haze that hid the flaw that lay in... signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 07:53:28 +1000 Alex Samad a...@samad.com.au wrote: On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 05:51:05PM +0200, Dirk wrote: Jochen Schulz wrote: Dirk: [snip] it's not just a package... it's an indicator for debian losing touch with it's main user base: people who dont want all that stuff Ubuntu seems that way, with selinux, hal and mono. I loved debian for its nuts + bolts basics approach with the ability to add the options you wanted. I don't understand what you mean about mono. I don't think that I have any mono stuff on my system, and IIUC, Debian won't install it unless you want something that requires it. One of the only things that I recall ever considering that required mono was Beagle, and I didn't install it, partly because I didn't want to bring in an entirely new environment just for that one application. But if I had, it certainly wouldn't have been Debian's fault. Celejar -- mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
* Dirk noi...@gmx.net [2009 Jul 15 17:41 -0500]: it's not just a package... it's an indicator for debian losing touch with it's main user base: people who dont want all that stuff Ubuntu offers, especially annoyingly, interfering junk like HAL... I didn't know that was the focus. I thought the focus is a universal operating system built around Free Software with a social contract to assure the computing freedom of its user base. HAL *is* Free Software, is it not? I actually like HAL as it has relieved me of a great deal of tedium. That said, I'm sure there are corner cases where it can be a pain. It does seem as though there is a strong sentiment against HAL from several users. You might contact the Xorg developers and ask nicely for them to remove the dependency. i bet it wont even matter anymore if i compile X11 myself, huh? I doubt it, as HAL is part of the Free Desktop Project, as I recall, that Xorg is also a part of so it makes sense that X11 would take advantage of HAL. debian should really have waited until HAL was obsoleted by something better like devicekit... OTOH, XFree86 is still out there which I'll bet doesn't use HAL. - Nate -- Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB | Successfully Microsoft Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @ | free since January 1998. http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/ | Debian, the choice of My Kawasaki KZ-650 SR @| a GNU generation! http://www.networksplus.net/n0nb/ | http://www.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
Rick Thomas wrote: On Jul 15, 2009, at 1:30 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote: setxkbmap -option terminate:ctrl_alt_bksp This is good to know. How often does this have to be done? Can I do it once and have it survive past closing my X session? Past logging out? Past a reboot? There was some talk earlier of a Debian-Specific patch that would restore this functionality as the default option. What has happened to that? dpkg-reconfigure console-setup Anser Yes to: | By default the combination Control+Alt+Backspace does nothing. If you │ │ want it can be used to terminate the X server. │ │ │ │ Use Control+Alt+Backspace to terminate the X server? (tested with 1.44) -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: X11 without HAL: DontZap in /etc/X11/xorg.conf doesn't work anymore
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 06:38:06PM -0400, Celejar wrote: On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 07:53:28 +1000 Alex Samad a...@samad.com.au wrote: On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 05:51:05PM +0200, Dirk wrote: Jochen Schulz wrote: Dirk: [snip] it's not just a package... it's an indicator for debian losing touch with it's main user base: people who dont want all that stuff Ubuntu seems that way, with selinux, hal and mono. I loved debian for its nuts + bolts basics approach with the ability to add the options you wanted. I don't understand what you mean about mono. I don't think that I have any mono stuff on my system, and IIUC, Debian won't install it unless isn't the new gnome package going to bring in mono as a default [snip] Celejar -- Clones are people two. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
