Helge Hafting wrote:
No problem with the remote server, it does not depend on the local boot process.
The mail program connects directly to the remote server, all you need is the
network and it comes up so fast, it will come up way before X in a parallel
boot.
Depends on the implementation and wha
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 12:56:25AM -0500, Jim Crilly wrote:
> Helge Hafting wrote:
> >
> >
> >Well, this will depend on your email server (pop? imap? other?)
> >being up. Is it local on your machine, or external? Either way,
> >being able to launch an email client (or some "new mail" notification
Helge Hafting wrote:
Well, this will depend on your email server (pop? imap? other?)
being up. Is it local on your machine, or external? Either way,
being able to launch an email client (or some "new mail" notification
app) shouldn't be a problem. It will simply not notice new mail until
the ma
Wouldn't it be sufficient to have an applet in your UI (or dialog,
depending on your preference), which communicates with init and displays
the final initialization steps? Don't check your email until it says it has
started the services for email.
So now instead of watching the boot messages or bo
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 01:37:09PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 08:17:25PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
>
> This is debatable. Windows does something like this. It really annoys
> me that I will get a windows desktop very quickly after logging in
> but that I can't do an
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 08:17:25PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
>
> > from user space to presenting a login prompt that's way too long. My
> > distro (Debian) runs all the init scripts one at a time, and GDM is the
> > last thing that gets run. There
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 08:17:25PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> from user space to presenting a login prompt that's way too long. My
> distro (Debian) runs all the init scripts one at a time, and GDM is the
> last thing that gets run. There is just no reason for this. We should
> start X and init
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
>>This would be a win (especially if the numbers are tweked to tune this)
>>with a relatively small effort.
>>However for real dependencies and parallelism you want the info similar
>>to creat a Make
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 01:15 -0500, Jim Crilly wrote:
> Another issue would be dual-booting, which a lot of people still do for some
> strange reason.
Um, to reverse engineer Windows drivers?
Lee
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message t
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 14:20 +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> >On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 09:55 +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
[...]
> >These are not dependencies but "only" the sequence of startup (and it is
> >not only Debian but also Fedora/RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake and probably all
Helge Hafting wrote:
Now that is a really good idea. Init could simply run "make -j init2" to
enter runlevel 2. A suitable makefile would list all dependencies, and
of course the targets needed for "init2", "init3" and so on.
It might not be that much work either. Parallel make exists already,
Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 09:55 +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
[...]
The init-script dependencies are specifies already - at least on debian.
These are not dependencies but "only" the sequence of startup (and it is
not only Debian but also Fedora/RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake and
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 09:55 +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
[...]
> The init-script dependencies are specifies already - at least on debian.
These are not dependencies but "only" the sequence of startup (and it is
not only Debian but also Fedora/RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake and probably all
except Gentoo).
Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Feb 14, 2005, at 20:17, Lee Revell wrote:
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 16:16 -0800, Tim Bird wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
But, I was referring more to things like GDM not being started
until all
the other init scripts are done. Why not start it first, and let the
network initialize wh
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 08:32:22 +0100, Gábor Lénárt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 08:45:39PM -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> > >last thing that gets run. There is just no reason for this. We should
> > >start X and initialize the display and get the login prompt up there
> > >ASA
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:45:20 -0500, Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 15:21 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > Lee> I don't see why so much effort goes into improving boot time
> > Lee> on the kernel side when the most obvious user space problem
> > Lee> is igno
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 08:45:39PM -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> >last thing that gets run. There is just no reason for this. We should
> >start X and initialize the display and get the login prompt up there
> >ASAP, and let the system acquire the DHCP lease and start sendmail and
> >apache and ge
Hi.
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 17:15, Jim Crilly wrote:
> Nigel Cunningham said the following:
> > You warmed my heart until...
>
> Good to know someone reads my email =)
>
> > Why not? :> I guess you mean to the problem of slow booting in the first
> > place - I would agree with you there, but is th
Nigel Cunningham said the following:
You warmed my heart until...
Good to know someone reads my email =)
Why not? :> I guess you mean to the problem of slow booting in the first
place - I would agree with you there, but is there are reason why we
should have booting being the norm instead of normal
Ah Jim.
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 14:38, Jim Crilly wrote:
> I agree boot up is too slow and that some things should be started in the
> background, but not things that are required for the main purpose of the box
> to
> work properly, what should be started sync and what should be async is a hard
Lee Revell said the following:
The reason I marked by response OT is that the time from power on to
userspace does not seem to be a big problem. It's the amount of time
from user space to presenting a login prompt that's way too long. My
distro (Debian) runs all the init scripts one at a time, an
On Feb 14, 2005, at 20:17, Lee Revell wrote:
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 16:16 -0800, Tim Bird wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
But, I was referring more to things like GDM not being started until
all
the other init scripts are done. Why not start it first, and let the
network initialize while the user is logg
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 16:16 -0800, Tim Bird wrote:
> Lee Revell wrote:
> > But, I was referring more to things like GDM not being started until all
> > the other init scripts are done. Why not start it first, and let the
> > network initialize while the user is logging in?
>
> There are a number
Lee Revell wrote:
> But, I was referring more to things like GDM not being started until all
> the other init scripts are done. Why not start it first, and let the
> network initialize while the user is logging in?
There are a number of techniques used by CE vendors to get fast bootup
time. Some
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 15:21 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
> Lee> I don't see why so much effort goes into improving boot time
> Lee> on the kernel side when the most obvious user space problem
> Lee> is ignored.
>
> How much of a win is it to run init scripts in parallel? I seem to
> re
25 matches
Mail list logo
