Re: [logcheck] I hear you...
>>>>> "Karl" == Karl M Hegbloom <karlheg@hegbloom.net> writes:
Alec> The whole [OK], [FAILED], etc thing that RedHat does with
Alec> colors is nice, but not really necessary. While some
Alec> additional things can be useful, others are mainly eye
Alec> candy. I believe adding the kind of success/failure system
Alec> RedHat uses is mainly eyecandy.
Karl> But that "eyecandy" gives it a "more finished", "polished",
Karl> "sexy", or "professional" look. Compare a Debian box
Karl> booting to a Red Hat one (prior to the inevitable upgrade to
Karl> Debian; ahmen brothers and seesters). Which one is more
Karl> estheticly appealing, to anyone besides it's mother or
Karl> maintainer fanatic association?
I think it is good to highlight actual error conditions, too, as
distinct from all of these messages that you normally get on startup.
One daemon, for instance (maybe postgres not sure) says on startup
after the computer crashed words to the affect "cannot start daemon;
already running". At this point I am thinking - oh no, my computer is
stuffed....
However, all it is the startup script has detected a lock file that
still exists from the previous crash, and it even tries to start it
despite the lock.
Further to my point, there are some messages I see on my screen which
I don't know if there are errors or what. For instance, I often see
the message in the earlier stages (near/after depmod step, IIRC) of
boot "SIGHUP received". Now, assume that this is normal because I have
seen on several different computers, and everything seems to function
OK, but still it makes me nervous.
I think it would be nice if *real* errors could get highlighted and
*logged*, so you can quickly tell at a glance if something went bad or
not.
So maybe this could be done with colour, or maybe just by eliminating
messages which don't add any extra meaning to the normal boot process,
or a combination of the two techniques.
--
Brian May <bam@debian.org>
Reply to: