Quoting Louis RUPPERT (lrupp...@louruppert.com): > They are for me. In the rare instance of a hardware or boot failure, I > like to be able to watch the process happen, and to be able to have a > working console to login to. Anything that requires bootsplash and > upstart potentially interferes with that. I don't care if my server > looks pretty when it's booting. I do care that I can see at what point > in the boot process a catastrophic failure has occurred.
I do so much agree with this. I recently subscribed here to discuss exactly these concerns with Ubuntu's server edition. These things really, really bug me in my work with Ubuntu Server: * GRUB's default HIDDEN_TIMEOUT_QUIET=true * GRUB's default "graphical console" * Plymouth splashscreens (even textbased ones!) * Upstart hiding console-output I am fully aware of the fact that this is 'open source' and i can 'use the source, Luke!'. That's exactly what i do after installing a server: disable most of the above listed "features". What bugs me is the sheer illogical choices that have been made for Ubuntu Server. These things are perfect for Ubuntu Desktop installs as my mom doesn't need to see the kernel boot, but for a server, these messages are of essential value to debugging (boot)problems. A situation i face on a weekly basis hosting/maintaining >300 Ubuntu servers. As Louis so neatly wrote down: | "I like to be able to watch the process happen. [ .. ] I don't care if | my server looks pretty when it's booting. I do care that I can see at | what point in the boot process a catastrophic failure has occurred." +1 With regards, -Sander. -- | Don't hate yourself in the morning -- sleep till noon. | 4096R/20CC6CD2 - 6D40 1A20 B9AA 87D4 84C7 FBD6 F3A9 9442 20CC 6CD2 -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
