lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [May]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Boot Logo Thoughts (LONG)
On Wed, 13 May 1998, Phil's Kernel Account wrote:

>On Wed, 13 May 1998, Riley Williams wrote:
>
>#Hi Rik.
>
>Hi Riley! :)
>
Hi Rik and Riley.

># > We probably should convert it to gzip()ed pixmap, or something even
># > simpler. The gzip part already is inside the kernel-loader, so it
># > should be easy to do.
>#Is that the so-called X-Bitmap format? If so, gzipping it is probably
>#the ONLY way to sensibly handlke it - it makes WinBMP files look slim
>#by comparison, but is of course much easier to work with...
>
>Not necessarily. You could always gzip a JPEG or PNG or GIF. :)
>
How about the newer Bzip compression on a JPEG, GIF or BMP. It might make
the smaller ones bigger (not really sure), but for really detailed
pictures, it would crush it down quite well.

On another note, why do we build gzip into kernel images when something
like bzip2 has come along?

>#However, one point has been brought up that needs answering first: Is
>#the boot mangler supposed to know how to handle EVERY possible video
>#card out there and switch it into the relevant graphics mode, or what?
>
>Hell no! (We'll let the GGI guys mess with that stuff;)
>
>#I can see the following reasonable answers to this:
># 1. Boot screen uses the Standard VGA mode, with its standard access
># means. This is OK providing all video cards have the standard VGA
># mode, but I can foresee a time in the near future where the base
># graphics mode is higher than that...
>
>I can see that time with ease. However, I'll outline how I want to handle
>the situation as a whole a little later on.
>
># 2. Screen type is detected at compile time, and the relevant driver
># gets included based on the card installed. This would not be of
># any use for the installation disks supplied with the various
># distributions, but would be OK on an installed system.
>
>This is a Bad Idea(tm). I've changed video cards without changing kernels.

This would also make it harder for distributed pre-compiled kernels and
such if they were pre-compiled to work on a specific video card.

>
># 3. Boot screen assumes that VESA support is present. This is OK if
># the assumption is valid, but if not...
>#Comments?
>
>Here they are..
>
>I'd like to handle it this way;
>
>Similar to lilo's "vga=ask," the kernel will probe the card for supported
>modes. It will then use the 'best looking' (which is a relative term;)
>mode to display the logo and text. If VESA support is not present, it just
>doesn't display the logo. Not too hard to implement, I shouldn't think. :)
>
>Further comments?
>
>-Phil R. Jaenke (kernel@nls.net / prj@nls.net)
>TheGuyInCharge(tm), Ketyra Designs - We get paid to break stuff :)
>Linux pkrea.ketyra.INT 2.0.33 #15 Sat Apr 18 00:40:21 EDT 1998 i586
>Linux eiterra.nls.net 2.0.33 #15 Fri Apr 17 00:22:13 EDT 1998 i586
>- Linus says for 'brave people only.' I say 'keep a backup.' - :)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean M. Kelly | Bill Gates must truly be a genius to successfully
smkelly@zombie.org | market so many programming failures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:42    [W:0.041 / U:0.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site