On Friday 26 March 2010 19:15:09 Etienne Goyer wrote: > 'Soren Hansen' wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 09:42:19AM +0100, Egbert Jan wrote: > >> But what heck, nobody asked to have fancy server bootspash screens on > >> servers. > > > > That's simply not true. /You/ may not have asked for it, but it's > > certainly been asked for. I myself, for instance, don't mind a pretty > > boot sequence (brief as it may be). > > I have not seen anybody complaining on the look of the Server Edition > boot process either. Was that discussed at a UDS, or something? If so, > I must have missed the blueprint. > > Just because of the potential for regressions and unforeseen problems, I > think it is a terrible idea to introduce that feature in an LTS cycle. > I hope it get backed out before release.
I haven't seen the Lucid boot process yet, and that is the sole reason for not having complained yet. Currently, we lack every form of boot logging. Some bugs on Launchpad have pictures of the boot process attached to them, taken by a digital camera. In Karmic, there were several bugs introduced by mountall/upstart/plymouth. See the latest comments of https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/470776 Error messages will be hidden by default. The specific error messages here can sometimes be correct, and sometimes be wrong. Most people will rather see the source of that problem fixed instead of covered up with a nice animation. As a server administrator, I'm not interested in fast boot times, nor in fancy graphics. I'm interested in reliable booting and knowing what is going on. I'd like to have upstart because it eliminates the need to set a specific order in the processes (no more rcX), but I'd never sacrifice reliability for that. -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
