2008/1/13, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > As for hal, you guys seem to have it working, so I suppose it isn't > a problem. I still can't figure out why anybody would *want* it, > maybe that just shows a lack of imagination, or excessive suspicion > about automation tools which try to guess what I want to do (e.g. > I've seen it when I was trying gnomebaker under debian: put in an > audio cd, get a dialog asking silly questions - the application I > wanted was already open).
Haha my thoughts exactly. With a lot of work I got HAL finally working and yes it sucks. I can imagine I plug in my mp3 player, to charge it, and HAL decides to automount it. Then I unplug it, thinking I didn't mount it and the kernel complains about a device suddenly missing. HAL just adds an extra step. Instead of thinking "should I mount this?" you should think "What the hell did HAL did this time? Is it mounted somewhere?" Besides that, who needs half a dozen processes eating (some) CPU cycles. Just my two cents... -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
