lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1997]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectGraphical Boot Display - Relevance. (is there)

Andrew: First of all, please consider the following not a critism of
yourself, nor your views, only that I suggest one "learns before they
leap".

Secondly, please pardon this post to the mailing list, I feel, personally
do not have the patience to teach someone that you dont make a square peg fit
into into a circular hole with a hammer, dor because it has a keyboard and
is called a computer, is a vic-20 comparable to a cray. (Apparrently clues
have the same noted hammer effect).

On Thu, 27 Mar 1997, Andrew Vanderstock wrote:

> NT doesn't have a blue screen dos mode. It's hard to program for that
> blue
> screen mode (I know because I've done it).

Yes, it switched your hardware as a default into ega 43/50 mode, then
chains to the vga/etc driver The text mode is hardware, not software, so
the software is laching if it does not allow you to use what is a part of
your hardwarer, but then again, this is NT we are talking about so this
continues to be a moot point.

> OS/2 boots almost immediately
> into graphical mode.

Again, Different operating systems, different applications for each. Unix
is based around being able to use the machine's CPU first, and any
secondary graphical functions next. X is a protocol, it is graphical. That
still eludes to unix is not based graphical and to be so blind as to out
some VGA proprietary code in a kernel not limited to the x86 shows
stupidity, of course if we add the Sun/Alpha code for a similar thing to
add a pretty 10 second flashy screen, and increase the kernel by more
than 10k, we have lost.


> MacOS has never had a textual mode.

The apple macintosh was not created with a text mode. The PC was, as was
almost all unix systems. We are not dealing with Macintosh here.

> NextStep has a
> graphical boot, and no one complains about that being single user.

This was the design of the NeXT System. See above.

> For many
> of us, we boot straight into X. I don't because I sometimes have a very
> unstable X as I program the bugger, and the bugs are generally my fault.
> But I used to. Why not speed the process up and hide the crap (most of
> which I'm not interested in)?

Then why not just comment every printk() out of your kernel code? If thats
what you want, go ahead. I personally find the status useful, especically
considering I use more than one machine and do pay attention to the
hardware within, rather than attempting to hide all technical knowledge
and specifications for the related device, unix is not designed like mac
"never see, never do" interface. It is very touchy and very picky. I want
too see how its enabling my hardware. Why should a pretty splash screen to
mesmorise one to not see what the actual level is used, while just adding
bloat to the actual kernel?

> > ftp://ftp.cdrom.com/pub/demos. (I hear 95 is graphical - why dont you
> just
> > make your own "patches" to display a couple gifs at bootup? Oh, thats
> > right - your not a progammer)
>
> I wont bother to tell you how long I've been programming, nor that I
> program in several languages, although primarily C++ these days, nor that
> I've got two large commercial applications on the Mac out there and in use
> that in the first case I wrote by myself and the second case helped with
> (doing threads, synchronization, modem hsking, user interface development
> and SQA)

Ok, you are a programmer, if you notice, this was a generally stated
comment, Andy, and was not directed at you personally. This message here
is. You have progammed commercially. Congratulations. So have I for both
the PC and Morotola platforms, mainly proproetary inline OS-on-a-chip
programs, not hypercard&c hacks of database systems or whatever. You do
seem to know about the Macontosh, please study on the systems linux is
designed for before making a statement that it should be "just like mac".

>, or that I helped organise and get off the ground the Matrox
> XFree86 drivers (and implemented lines and a few other things in the
> Millennium, and now integrating and writing the Mystique side.

Congratulations. I have not worked with X much, as I use ot for what I
need it for, but no more. graphics are nice, and a necessity for some,
but as the original thread was stated... what good is a cpu and task
wasting ugly bloody splash screen? What does it contribute to the kernel
other than "our boot loader looks cooler"? Nothing? Oh. Then stipulate why
it "needs to be part of the kernel", although it has no function.

> Because you
> don't care. Tackle the person, not what they've done. Don't go for the
> issue, that's too hard. Your congress critters have taught you well.

Irony. I dont remember tackling you personally, but it seems that you are
tackling me here and below. Perhaps you should remember also that europe
used to send prisioners to australia. If you care to attack someone,
attack them on their merits, not on what their non-choice on government
happens to me.

> I've heard of Linus' dislike of the concept of GGI. Well, Unix is
> approaching 30 years old, and being a mature operating system, can handle
> graphical tasks. One of the beauties of unix is that you have a wealth of
> textual and graphical tools to work with. Why restrict yourself?

You want NeXTStep, my friend. UNIX is still based around "30 year old"
hardware limitations (text is a limitation?). If you want something which
is not this way, and is graphical by design, you want another kernel.

> But maybe conservativetism has crept in and stifled
> debate on useful technologies because of a crap limitation of Linux. It's
> crap that the kernel is stuck at < 1 MB in size due to real mode
> limitations. They should be using a second stage bootstrap to allow any
> size kernels, although if modularization was done properly, the kernel size
> issue will die down.

Perhaps your programming skill would be better wasted for such a project,
rather an arguing why the kernel boot sequence should be "graphically
enhanced", not to mention not all systems are VGA, and X is STILL a
protocol. VGA just happens to be your adapter. You suggest we sense if
someone has a vga and just seize it for graphical use? This is exactly why
I made my previous post.

> > It will not be done, so please keep this rant of anti-intellectualism to
> > your own self, and out of my mailing box.
>
> Graphics == anti-intellectuallism? Get off your hobby horse. There is
> nothing you cannot do on a Mac that you cannot do under Linux.

I would like to see a Macintosh (*lets say LC class*) running MacOS host
my four vt220 terminals, NFS mount, web server, name server and a firewall
for my other box. What? it cant? Oh.

> There are
> many things you cannot do under Linux you can on a Mac due to it's mature
> graphical desktop, and there are simply that many more decent tools to get
> actual work done.

Indeed. you use what works. a Macintosh is based arounf the 68k and its
internal graphical design. Linux was not. (again)

> Right platform for the job. That's why I hack around
> under unix for my own _pleasure_, get paid to keep NT up and functional in
> a real 24x7 environment (where people die if I fuck up), and my real work
> done on a Mac.
>
> All I'm trying to do is move you guys to add an _optional_ graphical
> boot which would make Linux desktops more attractive (and thus pave the
> way to being paid to work with our favorite OS), and make our lives
> easier when we stuff up.

As stated, why? what purpose does it serve? if all you are doing is
booting into xdm, you can look at the dreaded text mode for the first 12
seconds or so. I promise it doesnt bite. Linux, as other unices is merely
a kernel, it can not help you when you "stuff up", for that one needs to
learn efficient system administration, or they could run NT.

> Do you really want to keep those boot disks
> around to repair and/or re-install when there is a better way?

Better way? I keep good backups, and when need be, I use them. if you
screw up your libraries, that is just the way of unix. I do think that you
are not comfortable with the design of unix, and feel that NT is an
operating system you will continue to find happiness in for many years to
come...

> Why isn't
> there an easily enterable single user mode under Linux when almost every
> other Unix (and unix look alikes) have one?

There is: I assume you are speaking of the PC linux here.. when you see
the LILO prompt, type single and press enter. Scarey shit, this
configuration sans pulldown menus. of course, when in multiuser mide, if
using SysVinit, type "init S" (the S means single). Crazy.

> I need my boot disks about
> once a week at the moment, even though I have a serial tty session to
> debug from. Repairing a few partitions with over 100,000 files is no
> walk in the woods. Why isn't there a single step mode for the rc
> scripts? Even DOS 6.0 has that!

Uhm.. there can be if you learn a minimal amount of programming in shell
scripting. or better yet, easy way that you should understand... mv. mv
the rc scripts and execute them manually, or execute each remark manually.
oh, doing that is a waste of time, you say? thats what is required to
properly initialize your machine for useage.

> > Shawn Holwegner
> >
> > P.S. On another note, I have generally discovered the general useage by
> > the said people above, also use X to run only xterms about 98% of the
> > time. Irony. Irony.
>
> I use X a lot harder than that. I bet you use serial 300 baud tty printers
> for your work as they do everything you need.

Actually I use a parallel line printer, Epson MX-100. I paid $5 for it 5
years ago, and it works wonderfully for most use, otherwise I flick on the
HP5 and print out text.

> I knew a lecturer like you
> once (who read e-mail and news on a serial tty printer). They pensioned him
> off after we complained that his teaching us IBM 370 assembly was
> irrelevant. It was (and is). Get with the program.

I am not preaching that you should learn some worthless knowledge that no
one gives a crap about, I am stating basically that rectal-cranial
inversion is cured by studying the design, and the useage of an operating
system. Let me suggest a book, which I have found most useful. "Operating
System Concepts (3rd edition)", By A. Silberschatz, J Peterson and P.
Galvin, ISBN 0-201-51379-X. Please read this before posting, defending
your "right" to a graphical pretty-boot feature, while not yet knowing the
basics of shell scripting.

> P.S I do know someone who had a 21" X-term who used a single xterm on the
> display, default font size, and waited for the backups to finish before
> issuing other commands, so your generalization is sometimes true. She was
> sacked when backups failed (twice!) and it was found she wasn't competent
> to do her job. Lots of people lost lots of work because of her.

Indeed. A sad thing. If she was properly trained, or tested in such, they
would have seen that she did not know what she professed to do - re. her
job.

> Thanks for your time, and letting me steam off

Indeed. Perhaps we have both learned something... or perhaps not.

> Andrew

- Shawn Holwegner
---
Call on God, but row away from the rocks - Indian proverb

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:39    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans