On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Freminlins <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2009/10/30 Adam Vande More <[email protected]> > > >> 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 _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
