My preference as well.
Originally Posted by Remco
Having just text flying by is no option if you want to appeal to mainstream users. This is "techie stuff" that is of zero use for non-experts and even (harmless) warning messages (oh, this southbridge has a bug, resetting device and enabling workaround) may confuse users to the point of feeling unsecure about "that whole Linux thing".
If the goal really is to boot within 10 seconds the text scrolling by wouldn't be easily readable anyway (too fast) if the amount of "info spam" is to be kept at the current level.
XSplash in its current form fails, I'm sorry. But adding something this useless at this stage, right before the feature freeze is a no-no.
For the NVIDIA binary drivers, the biggest problem for booting with those seems to be the ~4 second wait while the drivers initialise. (Plus their stupid insistence to show their logo).
so, the XPlash will show only after 4 more seconds of blank screen, by that time, the rest of the OS might be loaded, hence XSplash has no place with the binary blob drivers.
The fglrx module loads in ~1 second
"One advantage though by using the X Server is that this Ubuntu splash screen is now compatible with all display drivers and just not those that provide KMS support."
Thank you, rational developers!
Right from the readme.
Originally Posted by grigi
Option "NoLogo" "boolean" Disable drawing of the NVIDIA logo splash screen at X startup. Default: the logo is drawn for screens with depth 24.
(Plus their stupid insistence to show their logo by default).
I think that is the first thing that I tuned away, btw.
Still I really hate the concept of 2 bootsplashes, plus then the optional login splash (Like what vista does). It really makes the bootup feel longer.
This seems like a good plan. Making existing X drivers faster seems a lot easier than rewriting all of them from scratch.
Then again, think it over a while before making such comments. Plymouth comes from Fedora. Fedora doesn't support closed drivers. Open drivers are all heading for KMS. What's unrational about going for a KMS-only approach?
Originally Posted by Vadi
What is unrational about it is pushing it before there really is a clear equal performing opensource solution.
Originally Posted by nanonyme
Think about it, would you move a production server to a OS that is in development and that does not have complete functionality yet?
"For fools rush in where angels fear to tread"
Edmund Burke - 1790
Last edited by deanjo; 08-29-2009 at 12:37 PM.