Arch Linux

wolk

Member

From: Poland

Registered: 2006-02-16

Posts: 36

udev vs hal

Hi

it maybe silly question but i did not find answer on internet. What is the difference between hal and udev.
It seems to me that those two demons do same things.

jmad980

Member

From: Califonia

Registered: 2010-03-11

Posts: 54

Re: udev vs hal

Well my main reason, although I might get into more detail later is that [wiki]Hal[/wiki] takes a while to start (read the wiki for some more information), to the same point some programs still need it for certain functions, don't remeber if [wiki]udev[/wiki] counts as a demon

Last edited by jmad980 (2010-07-18 22:53:48)

---

Someone call a doctor, my awesome configuration broke again! || To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so.

SoleSoul

Member

From: Israel

Registered: 2009-06-29

Posts: 319

Re: udev vs hal

from the wiki: (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/HAL)

HAL functions largely overlap with udev and kernelspace functionality. Therefore, HAL is rapidly becoming obsolete in favor of udev. Currently, a small number of programs still rely on and use HAL, though development is heading toward utilizing udev as a replacement in the near future.

Mannex

Member

From: Sweden

Registered: 2010-02-26

Posts: 12

Re: udev vs hal

So is it safe to boot Hal as a Background process these days when xorg-server 1.8.1rc is installed?
only two things depending on HAL: KDElibs and gnome-vfs.

Inxsible

Forum Fellow

From: Chicago

Registered: 2008-06-09

Posts: 9,183

Re: udev vs hal

So is it safe to boot Hal as a Background process these days when xorg-server 1.8.1rc is installed?
only two things depending on HAL: KDElibs and gnome-vfs.

yes it is safe. Although, HAL is deprecated, it doesn't mean that it is not useful.Existing applications will take some time to move away from hal dependencies. So if you are using an application that requires HAL, well, use it.

---

Forum Rules

There's no such thing as a stupid question, but there sure are a lot of inquisitive idiots !

ngoonee

Forum Fellow

From: Between Thailand and Singapore

Registered: 2009-03-17

Posts: 7,355

Re: udev vs hal

Of course its safe, won't kill your computer. The question is whether its necessary. That depends on what you're doing.

Edit: Dammit Inxsible, stop answering faster than me with better information!

---

Allan-Volunteer on the (topic being discussed) mailn lists. You never get the people who matters attention on the forums.
jasonwryan-Installing Arch is a measure of your literacy. Maintaining Arch is a measure of your diligence. Contributing to Arch is a measure of your competence.
Griemak-Bleeding edge, not bleeding flat. Edge denotes falls will occur from time to time. Bring your own parachute.

Mannex

Member

From: Sweden

Registered: 2010-02-26

Posts: 12

Re: udev vs hal

So is it safe to boot Hal as a Background process these days when xorg-server 1.8.1rc is installed?
only two things depending on HAL: KDElibs and gnome-vfs.

yes it is safe. Although, HAL is deprecated, it doesn't mean that it is not useful.Existing applications will take some time to move away from hal dependencies. So if you are using an application that requires HAL, well, use it.

Just asking because you never know
But thanks for the answer Inxsible, and thanks for playing ngoonee

bananaoomarang

Member

Registered: 2009-10-29

Posts: 180

Re: udev vs hal

I always had HAL back grounded anyway and it started in time, 99% of the time.

alexandrite

Member

Registered: 2009-03-27

Posts: 326

Re: udev vs hal

Hi

it maybe silly question but i did not find answer on internet. What is the difference between hal and udev.
It seems to me that those two demons do same things.

More-or-less yeah.   The Freedesktop people just wanted their own device manager I guess.  But that's why hal is deprecated nowadays.