Re: Bootscreen

Stefan Reinauer
2003-01-28T14:52:34Z

* Robert Morris <rob@r-morris.co.uk> [030128 15:29]:
> I've been using Linux since 1.0.9 - and I've *never* *ever* thought of the
> idea of covering up the output from either kernel or other startup stuff
> with a graphic.
That is exactly the point. If you are so long with Linux, you can
consider yourself a technical person. For you, different that probably
more than 98% of the people on this planet, these messages are useful,
because it's your job.

> Sure some of the kernel's output could be cleaned up a
> little, but for the most part its not "geeky" - its useful and
> informative.
They are geeky, but useful - If you got a system that causes trouble.
Otherwise, if your system works right, they are just some more bits
flickering on your screen.

> And, I think that assuming that non-"geeky" users prefer to see something
> "cute" when their OS boots up, rather than output which is useful to
> someone else if not themselves, is rather insulting to them.
If I go to the doctor and get an X-Ray, while the machine fails, I have
no whatsoever advantage if I see the error log, simply because I could not
interpret it even if I wanted to. All I understand is "it worked" or "it
did not work" and if someone tells me that it does not insult me that I
lack some details that are important to the doctor.

> > Can we get rid of the "stupid guy who's trying to clone Windows" dogma,
> > please?
>
> I didn't say you were a stupid guy. I did say cloning Windows is a stupid
> idea. There is a difference.

Why oh why do we always need to compare ourselfes to Windows. "Windows
does this, windows does that" Whatever.. that is of no relevance. And if
it was QNX or RTOS we are cloning and the thing we cloned is a good
idea, what shalls...? It seems to me that everything that lacks the
status quo in kernel message visability is a windows clone?

> *sigh*

Stefan

--
The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be
regarded as a criminal offense. -- E. W. Dijkstra