Chad wrote: > Everybody who thinks it's a good idea (by way of analogy) to write > command line utilities that default to not letting you specify any > options at all, and if you use one option to do something non-default > you > have to specify *all* options even when the specification is exactly the > same as the default -- raise your hands.
In fact i am just now writing something which does that: either mostly automatic, or with full "expert" options if you know what you are doing. There is no real middle ground, in my opinion, and i just don't like the Unix style commands, with tons of options and unscrutable man pages. I think this Unix approach has not led to considerable adoption, generally. To come back to HAL, i have been usually happy with HAL. You just have to know that if you want to modify some simple X configuration (typically change the keyboard language) you have to do it in a HAL config file, not in xorg.conf. The only problem is that the HAL config files are in xml crap, not in usual form. In fact the main HAL problem is a documentation problem, like for many other softs. How many new features of FreeBSD are correctly documented presently? -- Michel TALON _______________________________________________ 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"
