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.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.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature