Messages in this thread | | | From | (david parsons) | Subject | Re: Now, why didn't we think of this before? | Date | 25 Mar 1997 01:05:12 -0800 |
| |
In article <linux.kernel.199703250409.PAA06192@svhmfw01.svhm.org.au>, Andrew Vanderstock <ajv@greebo.svhm.org.au> wrote:
>I'd also like to see much better boot management. The idea of an OS booting >to a textual display in 1997 is ridiculous.
No, it isn't. It's not as pretty as booting to a no-icky-text-here graphical display, but it's perfectly usable. But be that as it may, are you working on such a thing? I'm doing research into a modification that will drop a boot picture onto the system (probably the NT login banner, so dimwitted managers won't run shrieking in terror at the thought of a usable OS in their hands) and would be happy to drop it like a hot potato if someone else was already doing the work.
>At this stage of the game, we should be laying down ideas for a 3.0 version >of Linux, and trying to stabilize 2.1 for final release, and definitely >maintenance mode 2.0 to encourage upgrades to the next stable release. As >far as I can tell, there are far too few reasons for any reasonable user to >upgrade to 2.1 at the moment if you have a recent 2.0 kernel - we need to >change that.
Eh? 2.0 is only about 5 months old, and it's just recently settled down to the point of production stability. I'm certainly not going to switch to the 2.1 development tree now (or for a long time if it breaks any of the interfaces again.) just because it's there, and I suspect I'm not the only fossil reading this mailing list.
____ david parsons \bi/ orc@pell.chi.il.us \/
| |