> I agree that it may be less inappropriate for certain specialised
> applications, such as the one you suggested, but Raphael made specific
> reference to Windows and Mac OS, which implies desktop use.
Indeed, I'm looking at desktop usage.
> I am totally fed up with the quest to make Linux into as close to a copy
> of Windows as possible.
See, if there was no Windows, and no MacOS, and I'd see Linux boot...
...don't you think I'd still say -at some point- "Gee, these text messages
are so geeky. I'd like to have a cute picture shown while booting"? I mean,
really. Can we get rid of the "stupid guy who's trying to clone Windows"
dogma, please?
> OK, but in this case you would have problems with BIOS output etc. If you
> left Linux alone, but fixed the BIOS to output at the required
> frequencies, it would work - and using the quiet option, together with
> appropriate output from the init scripts (which would presuambly be
> heavily customised, in such an application) would yield a similar result.
I don't know about any TV applications. In my very case, the BIOS doesn't
do anything wrong. (Besides: there's also LinuxBIOS, which can also display
a cute picture, iirc). I have a bootloader, which puts a nice picture on
the screen. And I want that picture to remain there until X is running.
That's all. In actual fact, I'm really frugal.
> Wait screen, then just hangs", which would then require an engineer visit,
> as opposed to, for example, "it says Obtaining IP Address... then hangs"
I do have a solution for that. Just make the image 640x440 instead 640x480,
and have the initscripts output on one of the lower lines only, always over-
writing the previous message. That way, the support engineer would know
what's
going wrong and you'd still have a cute picture.
> > Wait screen, then just hangs", which would then require an
> > engineer visit, as opposed to, for example, "it says Obtaining IP
> > Address... then hangs"
> I do have a solution for that. Just make the image 640x440 instead
> 640x480, and have the initscripts output on one of the lower lines
> only, always over-writing the previous message. That way, the
> support engineer would know what's going wrong and you'd still have
> a cute picture.
At the moment, the framebuffer reserves a few lines for the Tux icons,
and uses the rest for text. Why not just modify that code to achieve
what you want, (a large logo, and a text window).
You could do that on the Atari 65XE, have a text mode window at the
bottom of a graphics screen :-)
John
Hello there,
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Raphael Schmid wrote:
> See, if there was no Windows, and no MacOS, and I'd see Linux boot...
> ...don't you think I'd still say -at some point- "Gee, these text messages
> are so geeky. I'd like to have a cute picture shown while booting"? I mean,
> really.
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. 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.
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.
> 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.
> I do have a solution for that. Just make the image 640x440 instead
> 640x480, and have the initscripts output on one of the lower lines only,
> always over- writing the previous message. That way, the support
> engineer would know what's going wrong and you'd still have a cute
> picture.
*sigh*
Robert Morris
08707 458710
http://www.r-morris.co.uk/
* John Bradford <[email protected]> [030128 15:26]:
> At the moment, the framebuffer reserves a few lines for the Tux icons,
> and uses the rest for text. Why not just modify that code to achieve
> what you want, (a large logo, and a text window).
Ack, besides:
You have to attach the huge logo to your kernel image. Using my
bootsplash patch allows you to use a plain and small jpg picture for
that (jpg because the decoder and the picture are smaller than a raw
picture gzipped)
ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/people/stepan/bootsplash/
Stefan
--
The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be
regarded as a criminal offense. -- E. W. Dijkstra
* Robert Morris <[email protected]> [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