Re: [arch-general] peaceful suggestion to clarify the arch way to avoid this to happen AGAIN
2009/12/3 Arvid Picciani a...@exys.org: Allan McRae wrote: I personally think your mis-reading the Arch Way. So another person who mistakes the use of simplicity for minimalism. I thought we had been through that many, many times. Can we, independently of the technical details of dbus, agree all, that I and some other people have been interpreting the arch way wrong? If yes, can we please change the wiki to reflect that? i suggest removing the words minimalistic and unix like from http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way also possibly A freshly installed Arch Linux system contains only basic core components as the definition of basic is unclear. additionaly i propose that a conclusion to this whole thing is noted on the page, that says something like: Archlinux is optimized, to work well with all desktops, not just one, including that it will not sacrifice commonly available desktop software for the sake of simplicity. It's very fuzzy, as i try not to offend anyone again. maybe more concrete: As an example: there have been ongoing discussions to sacrifice feature X,Y for the advantage of commandline or antidesktop users, and to the disadvantage of desktop users. This is not what archlinux is about, as we want to provide a good user experience for the largest possible user base I prefer a clear this distro is not for you, go away over we share your mindset. maybe. or maybe not.. and this would have helped to avoid this situation alltogether. Thank you. -- Arvid Asgaard Technologies Holy *beep*, why are you doing that?! Stop filling my inbox with useless crap! Why don't you make your own distribution? I'd be glad to annoy you all the day with pointless nitpicking. I wish I could filter your e-mails. Life would be so much easier than… Damn, it's so difficult to ignore trolls.
Re: [arch-general] peaceful suggestion to clarify the arch way to avoid this to happen AGAIN
Arvid: Linux from scratch.
Re: [arch-general] How to change some setting of gdm under xfce4
2009/12/3 ndlarsen use...@ionline.dk: 大熊 wrote: I use xfce4+gdm, and want to have a auto-login Google result show I can directly modify the /etc/gdm/custom.conf Is there a xfce's GUI App achieve the same work? AFAIK there's no configuration gui available for the current version of GDM. Edit /etc/gdm/custom.conf to contain this: [daemon] AutomaticLogin=your_username_here AutomaticLoginEnable=true /ndlarsen I know how to set, and want to know how to set with a gui, :) Thanks for your replies !
Re: [arch-general] How to change some setting of gdm under xfce4
2009/12/3 Ng Oon-Ee ngoo...@gmail.com: On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 16:59 +0800, 大熊 wrote: Haven't used gdm in a while. Couldn't you use slim? Figure that would be easier. Does Slim support I18N, I want to a Chinses Translation. If so, I will throw away GDM :)
Re: [arch-general] How to change some setting of gdm under xfce4
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 17:57 +0800, 大熊 wrote: 2009/12/3 Ng Oon-Ee ngoo...@gmail.com: On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 16:59 +0800, 大熊 wrote: Haven't used gdm in a while. Couldn't you use slim? Figure that would be easier. Does Slim support I18N, I want to a Chinses Translation. If so, I will throw away GDM :) Doubt it, you can browse their website at http://slim.berlios.de/ to see if I missed anything.
Re: [arch-general] 2.6.29 config
2009/12/4 Ng Oon-Ee ngoo...@gmail.com: On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 00:31 -0200, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto wrote: On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Caleb Cushing xenoterrac...@gmail.com wrote: where can I get find the configs for older kernels? specifically 2.6.29? http://repos.archlinux.org/wsvn/packages/kernel26/repos/core-i686/ If you click in View Log you can see all changes of the file. That is for the 32 bits repository. Maybe you'll need to find the 64 bits version, but I think it is not different in this specific case. The config for a 64-bit kernel does have a few very important differences right at the top, as I recall. Been a while since I looked at the config files though. I believe that's right. But I recently switched from 32bit to 64bit, and I simply used my 32bit config on 64bit and it looks like the conversion was made automatically when I ran make menuconfig or oldconfig. And I think everything is fine.
Re: [arch-general] [OT] What is wrong with DBus anyway?
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 03:38 +0100, Arvid Picciani wrote: Ng Oon-Ee wrote: What does upstream have to say about this dependency? Does not seem 'necessary' to me http://blogs.igalia.com/itoral/2006/03/30/adding-dbus-support-to-gedit/ priceless finding. let me sum up: - There is feature X which works very well - He discovered it doesn't use dbus. - He starts work on a very complicated patch that makes it use dbus. Let's sum up: - there's a feature using a deprecated library (bacon uses the bonobo-activation framework) - he discovered the new way to do these things is by replacing it by dbus - he starts work on something that replaces bacon/bonobo and uses dbus Really, you're just having a 100% anti-dbus attitude, but somehow you're fine with Bonobo. Maybe you didn't know, but Bonobo is worse than dbus. It's a complicated slow framework with a lot of design mistakes. The problem with dbus here is that Bonobo was matured, dbus is quite young. Dbus was lacking some features in the beginning, causing nasty regressions. One example was the lack of possibility to pass environment variables to a dbus-launched application. I don't know if this is possible already, but I think they worked around the limitation by not using environment variables for such stuff anymore. Note that a lot of work has been duplicated in applications when they were ported to single-instance applications using dbus. This has been fixed by using the libunique library. At this moment anjuta, brasero, devhelp, gnome-bluetooth, gnome-control-center, gnome-disk-utility, gnome-power-manager, nautilus and totem use this library for their single-instance functionality. Gedit uses its own complicated way and should switch to this library also if possible.
Re: [arch-general] Help - Sound Disappeared -- Really! All modules - Gone?? (kernel bug?)
2009/12/3 Raghavendra Prabhu raghu.prabh...@gmail.com haha... I think we may soon see RTFM replacing DTFG(Do the F* Googling) or something better It is not Do that Friendly Google ? : ) -- Cordialement, Coues Ludovic 06 148 743 42 -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
Re: [arch-general] [OT] What is wrong with DBus anyway?
On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 19:14 +0100, Arvid Picciani wrote: Mechanisms have existed for like 20 years before dbus to communicate with other programs. and those don't require a user space daemon. You're talking crap. Examples of other IPC frameworks are bonobo and dcop. Both launched the daemon on initial usage. On a modern GNOME desktop you still have a bonobo-activation-server running because evolution still uses it. Dbus also launches a sesion bus when it's needed, but for the system bus, things are different. You can't run a system bus as normal user, unless you install dbus as setuid root and make some code to launch the system bus on request. One thing I hate about dbus is the fact that a lot of applications crash together with shutdown of dbus. gnome-session and xfce terminal come to mind. I think gnome-session has been fixed for this, xfce terminal has a patch in our svn for it. I don't mind if xfce terminal can't open new tabs or windows when dbus goes down, but please don't kill the ones that are open. This is not actually a bug in dbus, but an issue with applications using it.
Re: [arch-general] [OT] What is wrong with DBus anyway?
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 00:52 +0100, Arvid Picciani wrote: Pierre Chapuis wrote: Take gedit for example. It is a text editor, and: [23:44 TA|catwell] ldd $(which gedit) | grep dbus libdbus-glib-1.so.2 = /usr/lib/libdbus-glib-1.so.2 (0x7f5df48bb000) libdbus-1.so.3 = /usr/lib/libdbus-1.so.3 (0x7f5df467c000) AFAIK it uses dbus only to communicate with itself (between its instances). There is no iteroperability problem, so D-Bus is not that useful to me. But then again, maybe I don't know how gedit works well enough to judge... funny thing: gedit is the first time i noticed the problem. then i went emacs, and now emacs depends on dbus. I think that is because emacs decided to be an operating system instead of a text editor. Seriously, when I read the last release notes, I though: WTF does a text editor need dns-sd for?. Seems they implemented that functionality through dbus, which is the only way to communicate with Avahi (actually the avahi client libs do it for you). I always thought GNU was about one tool - one job, but then they violated that by building emacs.
Re: [arch-general] Unable to Install Arch on Server
Am Thu, 3 Dec 2009 20:09:36 +0100 schrieb Tobias Powalowski t.p...@gmx.de: You could try archboot isos linked here: ftp://ftp.archlinux.org/iso/archboot This iso boots fine. But this doesn't fix the problem with the other isos. ;-) And the previous core and netinstall LiveCDs (2009.02 and before) booted fine, too. So this is an issue with this LiveCD version. I assume the problem is either with the hooks, udev, the udev rules or the init scripts of the initrd. Heiko
[arch-general] coreutils 8.1 major problem
Hi everyone, I've just noticed coreutils 8.1 in [testing] repo and I think I should warn you. Unfortunatelly it has one quite bad regression which can break quite many scripts. There is a change in rm command (it's fixed in git repository) that when you try to remove it immediately exits without removing any other specified files. Unfortunately this breaks many scripts and Makefiles(IIRC there's problem with eg. libxt). I suggest NOT to upgrade to coreutils 8.1 before the old behavior is restored. more info: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2009-11/msg00348.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2009-12/msg4.html best, Lukas
Re: [arch-general] coreutils 8.1 major problem
Lukáš Jirkovský schrieb: Hi everyone, I've just noticed coreutils 8.1 in [testing] repo and I think I should warn you. Unfortunatelly it has one quite bad regression which can break quite many scripts. There is a change in rm command (it's fixed in git repository) that when you try to remove it immediately exits without removing any other specified files. Unfortunately this breaks many scripts and Makefiles(IIRC there's problem with eg. libxt). I suggest NOT to upgrade to coreutils 8.1 before the old behavior is restored. more info: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2009-11/msg00348.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2009-12/msg4.html You should get this to the bug tracker, an upstream fix is already available, so this should be corrected easily and quickly. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] coreutils 8.1 major problem
2009/12/4 Lukáš Jirkovský l.jirkov...@gmail.com: Hi everyone, I've just noticed coreutils 8.1 in [testing] repo and I think I should warn you. Unfortunatelly it has one quite bad regression which can break quite many scripts. You should file on our bug tracker too.
Re: [arch-general] Help - Sound Disappeared -- Really! All modules - Gone?? (kernel bug?)
It depends on what you put for F in RTFM,same thing in DTFG. On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 5:57 PM, ludovic coues cou...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/12/3 Raghavendra Prabhu raghu.prabh...@gmail.com haha... I think we may soon see RTFM replacing DTFG(Do the F* Googling) or something better It is not Do that Friendly Google ? : ) -- Cordialement, Coues Ludovic 06 148 743 42 -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
Re: [arch-general] [OT] What is wrong with DBus anyway?
Arvid Picciani wrote: Sounds like either this discussion is worth discussing again. i forgot to add: or you're a rare exception, Jan. thanks for at least trying to see the point here, much aprechiated. i hope others follow. -- Arvid Asgaard Technologies
Re: [arch-general] [OT] What is wrong with DBus anyway?
On 12/04/2009 07:24 AM, Jan de Groot wrote: On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 03:38 +0100, Arvid Picciani wrote: Ng Oon-Ee wrote: What does upstream have to say about this dependency? Does not seem 'necessary' to me http://blogs.igalia.com/itoral/2006/03/30/adding-dbus-support-to-gedit/ priceless finding. let me sum up: - There is feature X which works very well - He discovered it doesn't use dbus. - He starts work on a very complicated patch that makes it use dbus. Let's sum up: - there's a feature using a deprecated library (bacon uses the bonobo-activation framework) - he discovered the new way to do these things is by replacing it by dbus - he starts work on something that replaces bacon/bonobo and uses dbus Yup. I was just about to say the same thing. Replacing a non-standard messaging library with dbus - which is effectively now the new standard messaging library, used in numerous apps daemons - sounds sensible to me. In other words: this isn't a matter of why does gedit need dbus, but rather why does gedit need to use a messaging library at all? The answer to *that* question, as he wrote, is so that when you start a second Gedit process, it opens a new tab in your current Gedit window instead of creating a new one. Perhaps this feature didn't need to be implemented using a messaging library. But perhaps that did make the most sense for a number of reasons. I really don't know. And frankly, neither do you. As you're not a gedit developer, I really can't put much trust in your opinion on this issue. DR
Re: [arch-general] [OT] What is wrong with DBus anyway?
On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 20:07:24 +0100 Arvid Picciani a...@exys.org wrote: Arvid Picciani wrote: Sounds like either this discussion is worth discussing again. i forgot to add: or you're a rare exception, Jan. thanks for at least trying to see the point here, much aprechiated. i hope others follow. I can't believe this... Look, what do you hope to achieve here? To convince everyone that dbus is evil and should be purged from Arch? What will that accomplished? As Judd have said, Arch Linux is what you make it. You don't like dbus. Fine. We get it. Believe me we really do. Don't use it if you don't want to then. It's _your_ Arch after all, do whatever you like with it and let us do whatever we want to ours. You've already started your own project, that Arch Antidesktop or whatever. Wouldn't it be more productive to spend your time on that instead of here arguing around in circle? Sorry for being OT, won't happen again.
Re: [arch-general] [OT] What is wrong with DBus anyway?
On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 02:09:49PM -0500, David Rosenstrauch wrote: The answer to *that* question, as he wrote, is so that when you start a second Gedit process, it opens a new tab in your current Gedit window instead of creating a new one. And why should that happen at all ? If I wanted a new tab in the current Gedit window then I'd use whatever controls Gedit provides to get one. And to be able to do that Gedit doesn't need any IPC at all. If I start a new process that means I want I new window. Ciao, -- FA Wie der Mond heute Nacht aussieht ! Ist es nicht ein seltsames Bild ?
Re: [arch-general] [OT] What is wrong with DBus anyway?
On 12/04/2009 03:50 PM, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote: On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 02:09:49PM -0500, David Rosenstrauch wrote: The answer to *that* question, as he wrote, is so that when you start a second Gedit process, it opens a new tab in your current Gedit window instead of creating a new one. And why should that happen at all ? If I wanted a new tab in the current Gedit window then I'd use whatever controls Gedit provides to get one. And to be able to do that Gedit doesn't need any IPC at all. If I start a new process that means I want I new window. Ciao, Perhaps there's a configuration setting that lets you toggle this? I really don't know. Under KDE some editors have this behavior on by default (Kate) while others don't have it at all (Kedit/Kwrite). But this is besides the point. There's legitimate functionality here that requires the use of dbus (or something similar). Whether you personally *like* that functionality is a separate issue. DR
Re: [arch-general] coreutils 8.1 major problem
Lukáš Jirkovský wrote: 2009/12/4 Daenyth Blank daenyth+a...@gmail.com: 2009/12/4 Lukáš Jirkovský l.jirkov...@gmail.com: Hi everyone, I've just noticed coreutils 8.1 in [testing] repo and I think I should warn you. Unfortunatelly it has one quite bad regression which can break quite many scripts. You should file on our bug tracker too. So here we go – Flyspray bug number 17382. Has anyone actually run into this regression when building a package? I did most of the heimdal rebuild with this and never ran into it. A good make file uses rm -f anyway, which negates this bug... Allan
Re: [arch-general] [OT] What is wrong with DBus anyway?
Am Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:11:08 +0100 schrieb f...@kokkinizita.net: It is not beside the point. To create a new tab, just provide a 'New Tab' button. Or have tabs from the start and label the next free one '+'. It doesn't require IPC at all. You're not forced to using gedit. If you don't like gedit use mousepad. Oh, you can't do that. It's evil WIMP, it can be used with the mouse. Then just use nano. Ok, not really. Nano depends on glibc, ncurses and texinfo. So it's not enough minimalism. Your ultimate text editor: echo ... textfile But this also depends on glibc. So, sorry, I only now such bloated text editors. Heiko
Re: [arch-general] [OT] What is wrong with DBus anyway?
On 12/04/2009 04:11 PM, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote: On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 04:02:06PM -0500, David Rosenstrauch wrote: But this is besides the point. There's legitimate functionality here that requires the use of dbus (or something similar). Whether you personally *like* that functionality is a separate issue. It is not beside the point. To create a new tab, just provide a 'New Tab' button. Or have tabs from the start and label the next free one '+'. It doesn't require IPC at all. Ciao, Here's a common use case (and probably the reason why that feature got added in the first place): You're looking through your file manager at a directory full of text documents, and you double-click on whole a bunch of them to edit them in gedit. It would be nice if they all opened in the same editor instance (i.e., in a new tab), rather than having dozens of separate editor windows open up. (I use this functionality all the time, and find it very helpful.) Having a New Tab button doesn't solve this problem at all. The only thing that does solve it is the ability for an existing gedit window be able to get notified about the open another document request. And that requires dbus (or similar) to make it happen. So again, there's a legitimate feature here that requires the dbus dependency. If you don't need or want that feature, or don't use a GUI file manager, or feel that gedit is bloated because of this, yada yada, then by all means choose a different editor. There's loads of them - as I'm sure you're aware - and I'm sure there's at least one that doesn't have a dbus dependency. But frankly when you wrote that gedit shouldn't require IPC at all it seems to me that what you really mean is gedit isn't minimalist enough for me since it provides a bunch of features that you don't need/want. DR
Re: [arch-general] [OT] What is wrong with DBus anyway?
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:59 PM, David Rosenstrauch dar...@darose.net wrote: Here's a common use case (and probably the reason why that feature got added in the first place): You're looking through your file manager at a directory full of text documents, and you double-click on whole a bunch of them to edit them in gedit. It would be nice if they all opened in the same editor instance (i.e., in a new tab), rather than having dozens of separate editor windows open up. (I use this functionality all the time, and find it very helpful.) Having a New Tab button doesn't solve this problem at all. The only thing that does solve it is the ability for an existing gedit window be able to get notified about the open another document request. And that requires dbus (or similar) to make it happen. Oh, I did not realize that. I have always found that issue to be a big flaw of gui file managers. So that's the whole point of single instance application and libunique [1] that JGC just mentioned. Of course :) But so it actually means that every application that you can potentially launch on multiple files (from a file manager) would benefit from using libunique (which implies dbus)... or the equivalent functionality on top of dbus... or the equivalent functionality without using a standard interface which would be a big mess ? If I got that right, I find it quite funny and ironical that a clueless and endless ranting about dbus ended up making me understand the coolness of dbus. [1] http://live.gnome.org/LibUnique
Re: [arch-general] [OT] What is wrong with DBus anyway?
On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 10:55:32PM +0100, Heiko Baums wrote: Am Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:11:08 +0100 schrieb f...@kokkinizita.net: It is not beside the point. To create a new tab, just provide a 'New Tab' button. Or have tabs from the start and label the next free one '+'. It doesn't require IPC at all. You're not forced to using gedit. THAT is completely irrelevant. I never claimed to be forced to use it. The point is that you can allow a user to have multiple tabs by providing an interface to request a new tab. This still leaves the user the choice not to have new tab by starting a new instance instead of using the new tab option. Providing this does not require IPC. Instead of this, you prefer to limit the user's choice by creating a new tab even if the user starts a new instance. This removes a valuable choice. What is the rationale for doing this ? What is the rationale for forcing a single instance, apart from having a reason to use IPC ? Ciao, -- FA Wie der Mond heute Nacht aussieht ! Ist es nicht ein seltsames Bild ?
Re: [arch-general] [OT] What is wrong with DBus anyway?
Xavier wrote: On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:59 PM, David Rosenstrauch dar...@darose.net wrote: Here's a common use case (and probably the reason why that feature got added in the first place): You're looking through your file manager at a directory full of text documents, and you double-click on whole a bunch of them to edit them in gedit. It would be nice if they all opened in the same editor instance (i.e., in a new tab), rather than having dozens of separate editor windows open up. (I use this functionality all the time, and find it very helpful.) Having a New Tab button doesn't solve this problem at all. The only thing that does solve it is the ability for an existing gedit window be able to get notified about the open another document request. And that requires dbus (or similar) to make it happen. Oh, I did not realize that. I have always found that issue to be a big flaw of gui file managers. So that's the whole point of single instance application and libunique [1] that JGC just mentioned. Of course :) But so it actually means that every application that you can potentially launch on multiple files (from a file manager) would benefit from using libunique (which implies dbus)... or the equivalent functionality on top of dbus... or the equivalent functionality without using a standard interface which would be a big mess ? If I got that right, I find it quite funny and ironical that a clueless and endless ranting about dbus ended up making me understand the coolness of dbus. [1] http://live.gnome.org/LibUnique Well, at least something came out of this thread...
Re: [arch-general] [OT] What is wrong with DBus anyway?
gedit --help shows --new-window. I don't see what issue is Dwight On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Heiko Baums li...@baums-on-web.de wrote: Am Fri, 4 Dec 2009 23:38:02 +0100 schrieb f...@kokkinizita.net: THAT is completely irrelevant. I never claimed to be forced to use it. THAT is completely relevant. You don't want a text editor which uses IPC so don't use one. The point is that you can allow a user to have multiple tabs by providing an interface to request a new tab. This still leaves the user the choice not to have new tab by starting a new instance instead of using the new tab option. Providing this does not require IPC. And what? The gedit devs want to use IPC and they likely have reasons for this. If you don't like this don't use gedit or file a bug report to gedit upstream. Instead of this, you prefer to limit the user's choice by creating a new tab even if the user starts a new instance. This removes a valuable choice. This is indeed a valuable choice, choosing between opening a new instance which requires more resources than opening a new tab which requires less resources. I bet you can configure if a text file should be opened in a new instance or in a new tab. Otherwise don't click on the new tab but start a new instance. Other option: Use mousepad. It can only handle one file at a time. Every file is opened in a separate instance. Or use nano, also no multi-file editor. And there's still echo. Which choice is removed by gedit? Heiko
Re: [arch-general] [OT] What is wrong with DBus anyway?
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 19:49 +0100, Arvid Picciani wrote: and if you're really unlucky you get dbus to crash hal to crash your gfx driver, so your only option left is the power button. Please don't post things you haven't looked into. Hal has nothing to do with your gfx driver, as gfx drivers are probed by xorg itself using the libpciaccess library. The only things managed by hal/dbus in xorg are input devices.
Re: [arch-general] Unable to Install Arch on Server
Am Freitag 04 Dezember 2009 schrieb Heiko Baums: Am Thu, 3 Dec 2009 20:09:36 +0100 schrieb Tobias Powalowski t.p...@gmx.de: You could try archboot isos linked here: ftp://ftp.archlinux.org/iso/archboot This iso boots fine. But this doesn't fix the problem with the other isos. ;-) And the previous core and netinstall LiveCDs (2009.02 and before) booted fine, too. So this is an issue with this LiveCD version. I assume the problem is either with the hooks, udev, the udev rules or the init scripts of the initrd. Heiko Sure but at least you can install arch now :) greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tp...@archlinux.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [arch-general] [OT] What is wrong with DBus anyway?
Correct me if I am wrong here, but the objective of dbus/ipc is to vastly simplify programming -- suppose you need to write a program which opens document in gedit as one of the steps He doesn't need to know about the command line flags of gedit.By having a single interface like dbus, it simplifies his task. Also one more thing, ipc interface like dbus is preserved across versions, whereas the cli flags can change. It is more like interface in object technology where interface remains same but underlying implementation can change(and shouldn't matter to you). I think dbus brings all those OOPs to larger level. I largely think people here are also OOP vs normal procedural (or C vs C++). It is like C++ is slower than C(but there is some advantage also) On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 5:04 AM, Jan de Groot j...@jgc.homeip.net wrote: On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 19:49 +0100, Arvid Picciani wrote: and if you're really unlucky you get dbus to crash hal to crash your gfx driver, so your only option left is the power button. Please don't post things you haven't looked into. Hal has nothing to do with your gfx driver, as gfx drivers are probed by xorg itself using the libpciaccess library. The only things managed by hal/dbus in xorg are input devices.
