>>> Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> schrieb am 27.04.2022 um 18:04 in Nachricht <Ymlpe2sXpNELVKjC@gardel-login>: > On Mi, 27.04.22 11:10, Neal Gompa (ngomp...@gmail.com) wrote: > >> > Rebooting from the DE has advantages: nice UI without much work, l10n, >> > accessibility, help, integration with normal auth mechanisms (e.g. polkit >> > auth for non‑default boot entries or firmware setup), no need to >> > fiddle with pressing keys at the exactly right time. >> >> It also has a major downside that in the event the OS doesn't boot, >> you don't have a friendly way to do recovery. > > What does "recovery" precisely mean for you? I mean, on Linux this > usually means you'll be dumped at a login prompt/shell in one way or > another. How does it matter whether you first showed a graphical icon > in that case? > >> Nowadays both Windows and macOS provide graphical boot managers and >> graphical tools/environments for recovery. These are both things I >> want in Fedora as well. > > Well, it sounds backwards to focus on the boot loader UI side of > "recovery" so much if you don't even have any reasonably thing you > could do in case of recovery better than a login prompt/shell...
Well, not the shell, the tools are important: Before systemd I could easily recover as system that failed booting (at some init stage), because I could easily mount the root filesystem and the tools were there. With systemd I have a crippled minimum emergency environment where almost all required tools are absent (just es the real fstab is). That's one of the first and biggest frustrations with systemd. > > Quite frankly, I think we should actually focus on real improvements > to recovery stuff, i.e. boot counting/automatic fallback on failed > boots. which sd‑boot all implements btw, in conjunction with systemd At the current state of AI, I'd prefer manual recovery over any "automatic". Last time I had permitted Windows to try automatic recovery, it messed up the system so severely that I had to restore from backup. (Only the AHCI mode was lost after a drained BIOS battery). > userspace. That kind of stuff makes whole sets of problems go away > entirely, and is *actually* helpful. Whether we first show a graphical > icon or just a text before we dump you in a shell prompt once all is > lost anyway is kinda a pointless discussion if you ask me. fsck, only tring to fix obvious non-controversial issues automatically, but require manual mode otherwise proved to be a very successful approach over the years. Sill users could run with the "-y" option to get "something" that might work, but still probably loosing some data that could be recovered otherwise. > > For me recovery means something very different than graphical icons I > must say. Sadly, today many users judge from the look of the icons, not from the tools behind. (If you ever followed Android's syslog, you know what I mean... ;-) Regards, Ulrich