Re: usplash in desktop task?
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 05:17:55PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 8 May 2007 18:39:28 +0200, Christian Perrier <email@example.com> said:
> > It is also perfectly obvious that nice boot environments tend to hide
> > information (this is indeed why they're nice).
> This is very subjective. I, for one, do not find hiding
> information "nice". The information produced is better than nothing;
> which is what pretty graphics usually are. If nothing else, it tells my
> how much crap I have installed, and has, in the past, induced me to
> clean up my machine.
> > However, who *really* uses that information in normal situations?
> Well, not all the world is exactly like you. I routinely "use"
> the information.
> > It is my understading that all such utilities offer a way to disable
> > the cute graphics/colors/whatever when needed (for instance when the
> > kernel crashes just like 2.6.20 crashes on my system as it seems).
> > So, why not offer them as easily as possible to our users? Which
> > means, yes, activate them by default. That is certainly more marketing
> > stuff than deeply useful stuff but marketing and appealing
> > presentation also counts.
> I find this strange. There is information presented to me durng
> boot, which has some (perhaps marginal) value. Pretty colors are
> mostly contentless, so have _less_ value, at the very least, they
> contribute nothing.
> 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.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.