Graphical boot isn't so graphical

[Mark Mielke]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 01:29:52PM -0400, Thomas Corriher wrote:
> > Those that would most like the pretty boot up, are also the type
> > that usually don't like to have to touch any config 
> > files, especially files that can render their RHL unbootable.  
> > Graphical Boot should remain an opt-out of thing, rather than an 
> > opt-in.
> Benjamin Vander was correct.  It is the graphical booting which is 
> more likely to cause boot problems, or allow serious problems to go 
> unnoticed during the boot process.  It is a bad design decision 
> from a technical perspective.  However, it is good marketing and 
> seems more welcoming to newbies.  I guess it is all a matter of 
> priorities.  I suppose as long as RH makes reconfiguring it 
> reasonably easy, then this is not a major problem for anyone.

If we consider how successful desktop systems have been, without the
detailed startup messages (WIN, MACOS, ...) it isn't that odd of a
decision.

What would be nice is a sort of compromise between the two. Perhaps
the text should be written to both the console and managed by the
graphical boot manager, and if any of the startup scripts fail, the GUI
should drop away?

One more vote for a frame buffer implementation from this corner as well...

mark

-- 
mark at mielke.cc/markm at ncf.ca/markm at nortelnetworks.com __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/