Re: usplash in desktop task?
On Wed, 9 May 2007 01:14:55 -0700, Steve Langasek <email@example.com> said:
> 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 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.
Hmm. Does telling other people they have crack pipes make you
> 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
So, the actual bug that you guys seem to want to paper over
seems to be that the startup scripts are overly verbose -- and that
seems like a bug. The fix out to be to change the scripts, and perhaps
work on §9.4. "Console messages from `init.d' scripts" part of the
policy to give better guidance to packages.
Hiding away overly verbose messages by sweeping them under trhe
usplash carpet, even as you acknowledge that when bugs happen looking
under the carpet is not helpful, seems like a short sighted and
stunningly bad idea.
Seems like all the guidance given in §9.4 is information even us
poor dumb users would like to see, crack pipes or not.
"Take that, you hostile sons-of-bitches!" James Coburn, in the finale of
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C