[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Graphical boot isn't so graphical

On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 16:44, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 July 2003 08:16, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > Moving rhgb doesn't make one bit of difference if the X server
> > is still on /usr. :)
> Why not make the graphical boot a framebuffer thing, so that users don't 
> have to wait for X to start up?  Has this thought been brought up?  
> what are the reasons for not doing it (mostly curious, I've no clue 
> what it would take to actually do it in framebuffer)

Well the code from bootsplash.org  works with Shrike (still another 12
hours for severn to download), it didn't take much to get working, a few
patches to the kernel, add the images and config to the initrd.img, add
vga=XXX to the kernel paramteres- and it works as advertised. 

I can't comment on how it compares with what's in severn just yet.

The bootsplash.org is what SuSE use for their graphical boot-up. I'm
guessing at this point that RedHat have committed to serverns way of
doing things (at least for the near future.)

Adam Allen.

adam dynamicinteraction co uk
pgp http://search.keyserver.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=adam%40dynamicinteraction.co.uk

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]