Olá MPR e a todos.
On Monday 25 January 2010 17:32:47 MPR wrote:
> I'm a highly-technical user and I like having no text during boot. My
> laptop goes from the HP logo to black screen and then the Ubuntu logo.
> It looks nice, clean, and professional. If something goes wrong, I can
> always hit es
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 20:08 +0100, Mario Vukelic wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 02:29 +0200, Amahdy wrote:
> > I'm wondering why starting from 9.10 the boot loader started to be an
> > infinite loop progressbar (like windows always does)??
>
> This was discussed at length during the last few days.
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 02:29 +0200, Amahdy wrote:
> I'm wondering why starting from 9.10 the boot loader started to be an
> infinite loop progressbar (like windows always does)??
This was discussed at length during the last few days. Check this thread
in the archives:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archi
I'm wondering why starting from 9.10 the boot loader started to be an
infinite loop progressbar (like windows always does)?? it was better in
previous versions that I'm able to track the percent of loaded and what's
remaining, or at least know that there is a progress (in slow computers)
instead of
>
> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 23:58:09 -0300
> From: Brian Vidal Castillo
> Subject: Re: The 9.10 boot loader progress bar
> To: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
> Message-ID: <4b5fabc1.7030...@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
&
We don't want text-based bootloaders... that's why Cannonical is orking
really hard with plymouth, xsplash and even usplash.
Having that set of indicators will help for sure. I have seen my laptop
stops after a kernel upgrade, so this way i could know what's the problem.
This will be even bette
On 25/01/2010 18:02, Vishnoo wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 19:03 +0200, Amahdy wrote:
>
>> Here is the middle of thing, have the splash splitted out into two
>> parts, the upper is the graphical splash and the lower part is the
>> traditional text-boot with [green(OK)] or [red(fail)]
>> Even m
I was just about to write about my experience with grup2 here:
I thought it's menu.lst that needs to be edited, but after googling I
figured that things got changed in grup2 so I opened /etc/default/grup
The first attempt was GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT="splash"
I waited to see the splitted splash-
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Charlie Kravetz
wrote:
> Indeed, the first indication should be when I see that the system
> stops. Unfortunately, I can not see that. There is no indicator to tell
> me the system stopped. My system takes a minute or two to start up.
> Without the indicator, I can
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:12:51 -0800
MPR wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Amahdy wrote:
> > How can you determine "If something goes wrong"?
>
> The first indication is when I see that the system stops working as
> expected. When that occurs then I will start to investigate.
>
> > For
"the system stops working as expected" is not that easy, at least for me
maybe, it's very hard to always notice that the system is working as
expected or not. and sometimes the system doesn't *start* as expected to be
from the beginning so it's not *stopping* here to notice it.
My previous story w
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Amahdy wrote:
> How can you determine "If something goes wrong"?
The first indication is when I see that the system stops working as
expected. When that occurs then I will start to investigate.
> For example couple of years ago, my previous laptop had "fedora 10
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 11:53 -0700, Charlie Kravetz wrote:
>
>
> I think the issue here is how old the machine is. On an older machine,
> a blank screen is difficult to deal with. When there is nothing there,
> for 5-?? seconds, how does anyone know if the system is stalled or
> working? Many of
>>If something goes wrong, I can always hit esc to make the GRUB menu come
up at boot and edit the entry to remove "quiet splash" to see the messages
for debugging.
How can you determine "If something goes wrong"? in many situations I can't
know if something getting wrong or not maybe everything i
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:46:26 +0200
Amahdy wrote:
> At least I said based on my observation with computer beginners (they don't
> [want to]* understand anything, they just wait the login-screen then the
> Firefox icon, their so WAW thing is the theme and desktop background; that's
> actually what
At least I said based on my observation with computer beginners (they don't
[want to]* understand anything, they just wait the login-screen then the
Firefox icon, their so WAW thing is the theme and desktop background; that's
actually what they wait for starting from pressing the power button), and
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 19:03 +0200, Amahdy wrote:
> Here is the middle of thing, have the splash splitted out into two
> parts, the upper is the graphical splash and the lower part is the
> traditional text-boot with [green(OK)] or [red(fail)]
> Even maybe with a scrollbar to scroll through the log
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Amahdy wrote:
> BTW: I believe 99% of users doesn't really care about the splached boot,
> they *have* to see text at some point after pressing the power button
I'm a highly-technical user and I like having no text during boot. My
laptop goes from the HP logo to b
2010/1/25 Amahdy :
> Here is the middle of thing, have the splash splitted out into two parts,
> the upper is the graphical splash and the lower part is the traditional
> text-boot with [green(OK)] or [red(fail)]
> Even maybe with a scrollbar to scroll through the log if needed...
>
We moved away
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Joe Zimmerman
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:41 AM, John Dong wrote:
>>
>> > It's familiar, and when something stalls it's suddenly not familiar.
>> > I don't have to care WHAT it's doing, just as long as it's doing
>> > something, and telling me what it's d
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 19:03 +0200, Amahdy wrote:
> Here is the middle of thing, have the splash splitted out into two
> parts, the upper is the graphical splash and the lower part is the
> traditional text-boot with [green(OK)] or [red(fail)]
> Even maybe with a scrollbar to scroll through the log
Here is the middle of thing, have the splash splitted out into two parts,
the upper is the graphical splash and the lower part is the traditional
text-boot with [green(OK)] or [red(fail)]
Even maybe with a scrollbar to scroll through the log if needed...
I'd love to contribute this idea, but as yo
On Jan 25, 2010, at 11:48 AM, Joe Zimmerman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:41 AM, John Dong wrote:
> > It's familiar, and when something stalls it's suddenly not familiar.
> > I don't have to care WHAT it's doing, just as long as it's doing
> > something, and telling me what it's doing. Ap
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:41 AM, John Dong wrote:
> > It's familiar, and when something stalls it's suddenly not familiar.
> > I don't have to care WHAT it's doing, just as long as it's doing
> > something, and telling me what it's doing. Apple used to do this in
> > System 7 and System 8 at l
On Jan 25, 2010, at 11:19 AM, John Moser wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:57 AM, John Dong wrote:
>> The Upstart event-driven bootup doesn't really have the notion of progress,
>> unlike the old SysV Init script bootup. It's hard to provide a linear
>> measure of progress...
>
> This is why
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:57 AM, John Dong wrote:
> The Upstart event-driven bootup doesn't really have the notion of progress,
> unlike the old SysV Init script bootup. It's hard to provide a linear
> measure of progress...
This is why I disable 'quiet' ... my boot screen is like
Loading kern
However, a certain number of events must happen - be it in parallel or not -
to the boot be considered more or less complete. I wouldn't find that hard
to increase a bar a given percentile according to the number of events
completed in relation to the total number of events required for a system to
The Upstart event-driven bootup doesn't really have the notion of progress,
unlike the old SysV Init script bootup. It's hard to provide a linear measure
of progress...
The same thing happened in OS X -- in 10.4 they introduced a parallelized init
daemon and the "progress" bar was just a simple
I'm wondering why starting from 9.10 the boot loader started to be an
infinite loop progressbar (like windows always does)?? it was better in
previous versions that I'm able to track the percent of loaded and what's
remaining, or at least know that there is a progress (in slow computers)
instead of
29 matches
Mail list logo
