Re: usplash in desktop task?
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 02:30:31AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 8 May 2007 16:25:37 -0700, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> said:
> >> Why should the default be an option with less value?
> > Because there's a difference between data and information, and 99% of
> > the *information* in the boot sequence can be conveyed much more
> > efficiently using color codes, with the remaining 1% retrievable as
> > desired.
> If this can be demonstrated, then it would be good. But I note
> that no one has shown (even as a mockup) an output for a reguilar boot
> vs one with usplash, and demonstrated that only 1% of the information
> is being suppressed.
> Far too many figures are being pulled out of where the sun don't
> shine.
Sorry, I'll try to rephrase without the use of arbitrary figures:
Nobody in their right mind wants to read verbose success messages from 91[1]
distinct startup scripts on every boot. Saying that novice users need to be
exposed to this detail to learn about their systems is akin to saying that
users should read build logs for the software they run in order to learn
about software development. I don't know where you got the Gentoo crack
pipe, but please put it down.
Users who have better things to do with their time than pore over boot
messages, including me, don't care about boot-time output unless something
fails; and if anything the current default verbosity of our boot scripts
makes it *harder* to see failures through the noise. Changes that make it
easier to distinguish, at a glance, between a fully successful boot and a
boot failure are a *good thing*; they decrease the irrelevant data and
increase the accessibility of information.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
[1] number taken from a laptop system installed with the etch desktop task,
on which, forsooth, the sun does not shine at 1am local time.
Reply to: