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 PROTECTED]> > 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. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
