Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Improving the Fedora Boot Experience

timothy posted about a year ago | from the sir-the-cats-have-three-non-overlapping-ideas dept.

GUI 109

An anonymous reader writes with a link to a recent post on Red Hat senior interaction designer Máirín Duffy's blog with an illuminating look at Red Hat's design process, and how things like graphic elements, widget behavior, and bootup time are taken into account. It starts: "So I have this thing on my desk at Red Hat that basically defines a simple design process. (Yes, it also uses the word 'ideate' and yes, it sounds funny but it is a real word apparently!) While the mailing list thread on the topic at this point is high-volume and a bit chaotic, there is a lot of useful information and suggestions in there that I think could be pulled into a design process and sorted out. So I took 3 hours (yes, 3 hours) this morning to wade through the thread and attempt to do this."

cancel ×

109 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43508415)

I boot my system maybe twice a year.
What annoys me is not the graphical appearance during the boot, but the lengthy checks of the filesystems on my 6 disks that are run sequentially instead of parallel.
That is a better thing to work on than nice pictures, IMHO.

Re:Why? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43508471)

Sure buddy; sounds like you're running XP. Fedora has well documented average time between kernel panics of 3.4 days.

Re:Why? (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year ago | (#43508531)

app server:
Linux .... 2.6.29.6-213.fc11.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Jul 7 21:02:57 EDT 2009 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

14:16:03 up 63 days, 21:19, 1 user, load average: 0.15, 0.10, 0.03

db server:
Linux .... 2.6.29.6-213.fc11.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Jul 7 21:02:57 EDT 2009 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

  14:16:37 up 63 days, 21:20, 1 user, load average: 1.86, 1.51, 1.65

forced a reboot a couple of months ago due to power outage, before that couple stayed up for 184 days.

Re: Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43508581)

Based on TFA you'll hear the whoosh during your next reboot.

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

davydagger (2566757) | about a year ago | (#43511965)

long uptimes...

I saw this argument in another thread. If you have a modern machine with long uptimes, it means your probably not up ot the latest patch.

I generally reboot my server only when systemd(init), or the kernel is upgraded

Thats about once every two weeks to a month TOPS. I wouldn't brag about having an unpatched machine.

Re:Why? (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year ago | (#43512031)

Yeah, those machines are not patched with 'latest patches', correct, so what is your point? I wouldn't want to upgrade kernel or anything on those machines at all.

Re:Why? (2)

wjh31 (1372867) | about a year ago | (#43508473)

If you are so keen on uptime to reboot only twice a year then you should be particularly interested in boot time, shortening the boot time could push you from 3 nines to 4!

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43508513)

I am not "keen on uptime". I have a machine that I use for several purposes and I have no urge to shut it down between activities.
But *when* it needs a reboot, it takes 2 hours. That is a bit longish, you know.

Re:Why? (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year ago | (#43508725)

But *when* it needs a reboot, it takes 2 hours. That is a bit longish, you know.

Are you serious? Might be time to use one of those new-fangled drives that don't run on clockwork. If your drives are taking that long to fsck, I think you must have something wrong. And it also shouldn't need to be done every time you boot.

Or if you really are somehow flogging your filesystem that hard it might be worth considering a different one. Ext2 can take a long time to fsck, of course, but nowadays there's not much advantage to using a non-journaling filesystem except when mounted read-only (e.g. for my /boot partition).

Alternatively, you could take individual drives down on an occasional basis to fsck them when they're not needed.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43508749)

Maybe my diskspace is a bit more than yours?
And maybe you could just read what I suggest?
I only ask why it checks my 6 disks in sequence instead of in parallel. That would speed up things a lot.
I agree it should not need a check on every boot, but the hard facts are that with the default settings, they do. That is because every time more than 180 days have gone since the last check, and apparently the coders of ext4 think that a check should be forced then.
Of course I have now removed that silly parameter, but still I think that things like this are more important to my "boot experience" than some lousy graphic.

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about a year ago | (#43509061)

You can adjust that check frequency setting, 180 days is merely the default. But unless you can schedule to take the file-systems off-line, or put them in read-only mode and run an appropriate "fsck" on them before re-establishing write permission, this is actually a very good idea. There's nothing like the beginning of a disk problem being missed, or a file system corruption tied to a particular bad kernel, to leave a critical system in an unrecoverable state.

For whatever group I work with, whether my own colleages or a business partner, I do try to schedule a reboot of *everything*, and a reboot at least once a year, to make sure that backups are done and tested and all the hardware will reboot successfully when the experts are _not_ available. You might be _amazed_ at the numer of servers described as "it just works" which failed on reboot, and failover systems and redundant connections that were _not_ failing over properly and were _not_ redundant.

Re:Why? (1)

nabsltd (1313397) | about a year ago | (#43509565)

Maybe my diskspace is a bit more than yours?

I've got a Fedora install with over 10TB of space in ext4 and I reboot about as often as you do.

Despite that, fsck adds only about 30 seconds to my boot.

Re:Why? (1)

smash (1351) | about a year ago | (#43512855)

Sounds like you want ZFS, so there is no FSCK.

I'm at 5 nines on my home server (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43508521)

I don't get all the hype about uptime.

My multi-media server easily gets five nines of uptime.

In fact, over 2012 it was way better than 9.9999% !

Re:Why? (1)

pipatron (966506) | about a year ago | (#43508483)

That's been taken care of by modern file systems.

Also, do you apply security patches to your kernel on-the-fly somehow, or how come you don't have to reboot?

Re:Why? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43508517)

I don't need security patches, I have McAfee.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43508523)

The problem wasn't there when I used ReiserFS. But then we al needed to move to the "modern" ext4 fs, and the checks are unbearably slow and occur every 180 days.

I don't apply kernel security patches. I review the patch reasons and usually they don't apply to me.

Re:Why? (2)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#43508525)

That's been taken care of by modern file systems.

Also, do you apply security patches to your kernel on-the-fly somehow, or how come you don't have to reboot?

What is this bait? I mean, really? Every damn time someone mentions uptime?
Fine. I'll bite. [ksplice.com]

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43508637)

That's been taken care of by modern file systems.

Also, do you apply security patches to your kernel on-the-fly somehow, or how come you don't have to reboot?

What is this bait? I mean, really? Every damn time someone mentions uptime? Fine. I'll bite. [ksplice.com]

Does ksplice ensure that libraries already loaded by running processes get updated to so you don't have vulnerable code active in memory? And the need to update drivers that require reboot?

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43509857)

Drivers do not require reboots, unless they're kernel drivers in which case we're looking at ksplice again. I don't know how much you know about linux, but it's pretty trivial to update a package while it is running. The process keeps on doing its thing. You can restart the process if you're paranoid.

Re:Why? (3, Informative)

Kwpolska (2026252) | about a year ago | (#43508605)

If 1 disk = 1 partition, then it would be possible. But if your 6 disks contain more than one partition, you will find out that your time savings per disks will be minimum, none or even negative.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43508827)

Why?
Do you suggest that an implementation of parallel checking of disks would be coded so stupidly that it would start to check partitions on the same disk in parallel?

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43508839)

If you are using ext4, you CAN set the fsck frequency to "never".

Thank YOU, for wasting energy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43508889)

Here I was wondering how we confined on Earth could burn through our precious and limited natural resources even quicker, then I read your post. My faith in mankind has been restored.

Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job.

Re:Why? (2)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about a year ago | (#43510247)

Not everyone boots their systems "maybe twice a year." Hell, I leave my system running 24/7 and even I reboot a fair number of times more than that. Even if someone reboots for nothing more than kernel updates and otherwise never shuts down, they'll probably still reboot more than twice.

That said... while I see why they might want to "polish" the boot process and speed it up, I'm still not really sure it's worth it. Whenever I hear about "improving" the boot screen, I fear removing all the information displayed with a pretty picture. Many distributions have already done that... the next step is disabling F2/ESC. But hey, who cares as long as it looks pretty and its animation is smooth as liquid? And Fedora is just the kind of distro that I would expect do something like that, due to their attempts to be "user friendly" as a top priority.

Re:Why? (1)

daveime (1253762) | about a year ago | (#43510299)

Unless you had 6 independent disk controllers for those 6 disks, what exactly would be the point ?

You remind me of the old adage about a PHB who discovers the *nix* priority command, and decides to make everything priority 1, so that "everything will run faster".

Re:Why? (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#43513009)

That's what thing like ZFS are for and not trying to get the boot sequence to mark a marginal improvement to a necessary function with the file systems you are using.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43516567)

I boot my system maybe twice a year.

How many brown people were killed to allow you to waste a dollars' worth of electrical power?

Was it worth it? Do you feel like a big white man now?

It doesn't matter how pretty it looks (2)

blydro (2844535) | about a year ago | (#43508427)

It just needs to be fast IMHO. Anyone else agree?

Re:It doesn't matter how pretty it looks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43508499)

That's what SHE said!

Booyahhh!!

Re:It doesn't matter how pretty it looks (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43508539)

It just needs to be fast IMHO.

Anyone else agree?

'Pretty' itself is largely pointless(and tends to be used to obscure actually useful boot-spew); but the ability to achieve it can be a symptom of good things.

For instance, if you are on a system where kernel mode setting Isn't Quite There Yet, it is fairly likely that 'pretty' won't even be possible, just because of the amount of flailing between the BIOS and early boot mucking around in some legacy VGA mode, and then a bunch of flickering when things eventually get handed to X. It's not so much that anything terribly useful is directly made possible by being able to turn on the fancy a few seconds earlier; but signs of togetherness in the graphics drivers are generally a good thing.

Re: It doesn't matter how pretty it looks (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43508591)

'Pretty' itself is largely pointless(and tends to be used to obscure actually useful boot-spew); but the ability to achieve it can be a symptom of good things.

But 'pretty' is important when trying not to scare new users (aka 'non-professional' users) away.

Re: It doesn't matter how pretty it looks (2)

Cenan (1892902) | about a year ago | (#43508743)

This

To bad it's AC or I would have spent a mod point on it. There is nothing more scary to a non techie than the boot/kernel puking garbage on the screen. And there is no end to the [what's-it-telling-me-now? | should-I-worry? | what-is-it-counting-up/down-for?] support [calls | yells | screams | cries | sobbing].
Pretty is step 2 of making it onto the everyday consumer's PC. Step 1 would be "just works".

Don't scare regular users of GNU/Linux. (3, Insightful)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year ago | (#43508797)

re: There is nothing more scary to a non techie than the boot/kernel puking garbage on the screen.
.
You are exactly right. The original Mac OSX boot-up experience is a nice clean boot up screen with a few simple small icons flying by. The original Mac OS7 OS8 and OS9 bootups have a happy mac icon centered on the screen and the small icons for the addons on the bottom of the screen.
.
Linux boot-ups should have a simple graphical or text based boot up that says just a very few simple things:
booting up
checking drives
starting network
starting graphics
tada!

and allow for the user to hit one of the function keys or a space bar or something to allow for viewing of the detailed boot-up log. Most people don't really need to see all of the details and would certainly be scared by all of the words and labels that they might not understand. This is one area where OSX actually does a better job.

Re:Don't scare regular users of GNU/Linux. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43508843)

Why would they be scared?
Judged by my experience (somewhat limited, I admit) of other people they aren't even scared of error messages if they recur often enough to be considered standard behaviour.

Re:Don't scare regular users of GNU/Linux. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43508899)

Why would they be scared?
Judged by my experience (somewhat limited, I admit) of other people they aren't even scared of error messages if they recur often enough to be considered standard behaviour.

Error messages that occur "often enough" are not a good user experience. In fact they are an indicator of a problem.

When I work on someone's Windows computer and they see the spew of text when booting into 'Safe Mode' they are almost always alarmed.

The boot process is the "first impression" and the Linux boot process should not trigger a state of user awareness that other OSs don't.

Re:Don't scare regular users of GNU/Linux. (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about a year ago | (#43510167)

Why would they be scared?
Judged by my experience (somewhat limited, I admit) of other people they aren't even scared of error messages if they recur often enough to be considered standard behaviour.

And that's part of the problem. Better to display important information when it's needed - particularly when these are users who may not easily differentiate issues from normal behaviour. It's like having a warning light that flashes red every three seconds to indicate that everything is fine, but will flash red every second when there's an issue.* That's how this crap appears to users, and one reason why users so often click through important dialogue boxes.

* I absolutely fucking hate flashing LEDs on laptops and flash drives. The lowest circle of hell is dedicated to people who obsess with covering devices in flashing lights.

Re:Don't scare regular users of GNU/Linux. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43514153)

That's how this crap appears to users

You might be some kind of God, speaking for all users.

Re:Don't scare regular users of GNU/Linux. (1)

armanox (826486) | about a year ago | (#43509141)

Do you remember Red Hat Graphical Boot? That kinda did that.

Re:Don't scare regular users of GNU/Linux. (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#43513031)

Progress bars with no information just replace "is this thing on?" with "WTF is taking it so long, something must be broken."
Apart from being useful for debugging when there is a problem (and you can tell somebody where it got to or google it), the scrolling text gives feedback that the hamsters are pedalling as fast as they can and there is some actual progress.

Re:Don't scare regular users of GNU/Linux. (1)

cthulhu11 (842924) | about a year ago | (#43516797)

So in other words, it should do what Solaris 10 did years ago?

it should do what Solaris 10 did years ago? Yes!! (1)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year ago | (#43517493)

re: So in other words, it should do what Solaris 10 did years ago?
.
Yes!!!

Sure, why not? That's the sad part with too much software. Sometimes, developers add change for the sake of change (or for power trips), rather than for expressly improving the software or its usability. If solaris did it back then that way, then it did it right. Someone else pointed out that for a while redhat bootup did that too. Too bad redhat went away from there. IMHO, a nice clean boot with the option to see details as needed (and of course the ability to redirect bootup messages to a serial console for serious debugging issues when something really screws up) is the right way to do it.

Re: It doesn't matter how pretty it looks (1)

fnj (64210) | about a year ago | (#43508883)

But 'pretty' is important when trying not to scare new users (aka 'non-professional' users) away.

Bullshit. Yoiu probably think owners want their cars to play chords, massage their shoulders and emit perfume when they are started. Newsflash: they DON'T CARE.

Re: It doesn't matter how pretty it looks (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year ago | (#43509259)

I prefer my car to play music and a shoulder massage would be great. Not sure of the last one, but lots of people have air fresheners in their cars.

Re: It doesn't matter how pretty it looks (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43514745)

'Pretty' itself is largely pointless(and tends to be used to obscure actually useful boot-spew); but the ability to achieve it can be a symptom of good things.

But 'pretty' is important when trying not to scare new users (aka 'non-professional' users) away.

Arguably, with contemporary hardware, every second between hitting the power button and seeing the login prompt is 'ugly' no matter how attractive the loading animation.

I certainly won't deny that throwing the results of a confused OpenBSD system, in some ghastly VGA legacy text mode, at the user on every boot is a good strategy; but if the hardware that a normal user is trying to boot(ie. no massive disk arrays or other things that Just Take Time to spin up and check) gives them long enough to start worrying, you have bigger problems.

Re:It doesn't matter how pretty it looks (1)

fnj (64210) | about a year ago | (#43508873)

I don't give a shit what it looks like, and short of extremes I don't care how long it takes, but I care how informative it is. I have the kernel options set to a text mode boot display anyway, which is actually (gasp) useful.

dump silly start up graphics (5, Interesting)

Nivag064 (904744) | about a year ago | (#43508463)

The start up graphics is pointless, it is not interesting, nor does it tell you anything useful, and it just makes the boot process seem very slow.

One of the first things I do with a new fedora system is to disable the start up graphics, and display the boot up messages. So the boot process appears faster (may take exactly the same wall clock time, never measured it), and there is something at least vaguely interesting to look at. Plus, if it freezes for some reason, I've got some hint as to where the problem occurred.

Re:dump silly start up graphics (1)

pipatron (966506) | about a year ago | (#43508487)

Scrolling all that text without 2D accelerated hardware (not likely to be in place that early) likely adds more to the startup time than loading and displaying a graphical progress bar, especially considering how any drive will read far more than necessary for booting in one go, so the extra load time will be virtually zero.

Re:dump silly start up graphics (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about a year ago | (#43508799)

What kind of acceleration do you think you need for non-antialiased, fixed-width text? A bitblt might speed it up in a framebuffer console, but these days memcpy on the CPU is faster, which is why X11 won't use hardware bitblt anymore. On x86, however, the hardware / BIOS provides a text console, and the GPU is free to accelerate it however it wishes. Given that the XT could scroll text faster than the kernel boot messages appear, I doubt this is a bottleneck on any vaguely modern system. You'll get more slowdown from lock contention around the kernel's version of printf than you will from outputting the result to the screen.

Re:dump silly start up graphics (1)

nabsltd (1313397) | about a year ago | (#43509609)

Scrolling all that text without 2D accelerated hardware (not likely to be in place that early) likely adds more to the startup time than loading and displaying a graphical progress bar.

If you disable graphical boot, the console doesn't switch to "graphic" mode until fairly late in the boot sequence. It's pretty easy to see this happen as the font visibly changes.

So, it's all text mode during the most critical time, and only slow on pretty ancient hardware. Any video card even halfway decent (like less than 10 years old) will do just fine in either mode.

Re:dump silly start up graphics (1)

Kjella (173770) | about a year ago | (#43508569)

On any machine made this century the boot messages should fly past way, way faster than I can read them. If for some reason it hangs at some point during the boot process, then I guess there should be a button to hit or hold (or boot option if you're not doing this physically) to see it but otherwise its just nerd porn. The rest you can show me in a device manager or whatever after I've booted.

Re:dump silly start up graphics (2)

Nivag064 (904744) | about a year ago | (#43508657)

Well I have commissioned at least 3 machines this century, where I had time to read the messages...

But even whizzing past at speed, like my latest machine with SSD, still beats looking at the fedora logo being filled in - IMHO! :-)

Re:dump silly start up graphics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43509633)

On any machine made this century the boot messages should fly past way, way faster than I can read them.

They wont if the machine hangs for some reason

then I guess there should be a button to hit or hold

What is your definition of hang? AFAIK the common one includes not responding to input and it's not always possible to hit the button fast enough before it hangs.

to see it but otherwise its just nerd porn

When the system is configured wrong you get warnings, if it takes ages to start you see what takes that long and depending on the system just loading the image can add several seconds boot time and might even freeze the system. Source: Some years ago I tried to minimize an Ubuntu installation for a beagleboard*, the script loading the image had a nice warning to the previously stated problem and required a library nothing else in the package manager even referenced - one rm later nothing of value was lost and several warnings became unhidden.

*pro tip: don't try this at home it is a serious waste of time, of course it is also a good lesson in why you should not use a full blown desktop OS for anything less powerfull.

That used to be true with SysVinit. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43508609)

But with systemd you STILL don't know why it hangs.

systemd throws everything not explicitly serialized into running at the same time.

Unfortunately, even the explicitly serialized modules don't necessarily start properly.

Re:That used to be true with SysVinit. (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year ago | (#43508771)

Unfortunately, even the explicitly serialized modules don't necessarily start properly.

Systemd is one of the final reasons why I recently dumped Archlinux off my laptop and returned to Slackware after an interval of 3 years. (There are lots of other reasons, but suffice to say that the reason why I liked Arch in the first place was its similarities to Slackware. Those are now pretty much absent.)

The old BSD-style init scripts still rock after 20 years.

Re:That used to be true with SysVinit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43509007)

For what it's worth, I agree completely. I think that simply expanding the 'defaults' script that gets run by some/many process to include everything used by N or more processes (I can't decide what N should be), and perhaps having a single team rewrite all of them to use the same layout, syntax, etc; would have been better than systemd.
In my opinion, rc scripts are the wheel, and while you can paint it or electroplate it, it's still a wheel.

If systemd is the future, integration with yum (or other RH package mangers) should have been the deciding factor to allow the new version (with systemd integration) to be merged into the Kernel. When I run 'yum erase abrtd' I expected it to remove all traces, not to remove the application and leave the systemd entries...

Just my 2 cents.

Re:That used to be true with SysVinit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43512515)

I'm staying away from all things systemd... I was going to use Arch on my laptop but not after that decision. Sticking with Gentoo for most of my personal machines until they make it impossible.

As for work, with RHEL 7, I'm basically going to be fucked. For a couple of fedora 18 VMs, I think I will resurrect init.

Strangely enough, I managed to adapt to SMF on Solaris 10+ without any real trouble. The command line tools are just better, for one thing.

Re:That used to be true with SysVinit. (1)

x_t0ken_407 (2716535) | about a year ago | (#43513317)

Yup. I loved Arch for it's connection to the "Unix way" until they decided to force systemd on us and then basically silenced and/or censored all naysayers. Sure it's their distro, they can do what they like, however silencing dissenting opinions in that fashion just didn't sit right with me, even more so than the systemd decision imo. Rather than Slack, it's been FreeBSD for me, however. Always been a fan of it on servers, and these days it's been good enough for the desktop in my case. :)

Re:That used to be true with SysVinit. (1)

fnj (64210) | about a year ago | (#43508919)

But with systemd you STILL don't know why it hangs.

Yes, but there's nothing that says a distro HAS to use systemd. Maybe GNOME is getting too intertwined with it to allow kicking systemd to the shitter, but there are far batter DEs than GNOME 3 which couldn't care less HOW the system gets booted. Init scripts work as well as ever. The same goes for pulseaudio.

If Poettering and his ilk turns linux into a piece of shit, the community at large has nobody to blame except their collective selves.

Re:That used to be true with SysVinit. (2)

armanox (826486) | about a year ago | (#43509169)

Except nobody wants to listen to our complaints? I don't want systemd or wayland. But they're going to be forced on us. And I'll be expected to support them.

Pulseaudio (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43510227)

Nobody in their right mind wants Pulseaudio either, but guess what every distro uses?

All Douchebags Please Read This Important Message (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43508465)

Thank you.

You have been verified as a douchebag.

Re:All Douchebags Please Read This Important Messa (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43508597)

tl;dr

The last time I turned off my machine (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year ago | (#43508469)

was when I reinstalled windows after a hardware upgrade, 3 months ago

my work laptop gets suspended every night, its been over a year since its "booted"

and even if I boot a machine from the dead cold, screw it, I go get a cup of coffee and its done before I return

welcome to 2013, no one cares

Re:The last time I turned off my machine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43508495)

I sure hope you also remember to restart all the applications that otherwise will have old and potentially exploitable libraries loaded in their memory space. Not to mention having a newer kernel with, say, better memory allocation.

Re:The last time I turned off my machine (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43508707)

was when I reinstalled windows after a hardware upgrade, 3 months ago

Considering that any 'critical' Windows update requires a reboot, and every update cycle includes at least one critical update, you haven't been updating your system or you haven't rebooted after updating (which creates a rather unstable environment).

More "designer" bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43508479)

Oh ffs.

This is the same person responsible for the Fedora installer disaster... the result was harder to use and more confusing... but it did have pretty colours.

Don't let her near anything else important.

The secret to the book experience is simple: You shouldn't even know it happens. You switch on the PC and it just works in seconds. THAT'S PROPER BOOTING.

Re:More "designer" bullshit (4, Informative)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#43508553)

Yep, that's why I ditched UEFI. Flashed my /boot/ right into the BIOS with Coreboot. Just as secure as UEFI if I want it to be, and the system literally boots instantly.

Re:More "designer" bullshit (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43509653)

What motherboard are you using ?

fedorization (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43508509)

Getting rid of GNOME 3 and all its pundits would be a great start. Just look at what Red Hat did to iBus 1.5!!! It's so bad I'm currently not using an IME and probably going with UIM when I get the time to look at it properly. I'd call Red Hat bakayarotachi but I can't without a functioning IME, kuso.

I've got a print server .. (1)

dgharmon (2564621) | about a year ago | (#43508563)

I've got a print server that I've haven't to reboot in over a year .. it is running a SuSE version ...

I'll accept 'ideate' (1)

PingXao (153057) | about a year ago | (#43508621)

As long as 'performant' and 'documentate' are banished.

ideate ? ideation? suicidal? (0)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year ago | (#43508659)

Hmm... look up "ideate" on wikipedia... get a lot of "designer"-y bullshit. Look up "ideation" on wikipedia, I know I've heard that word somewhere before...
Ideation may refer to:

-- Ideation (idea generation), the process of creating new ideas

-- Suicidal ideation, a common medical term for thoughts about suicide

Suicidal? So is fedora boot going to automatically "kill -9" itself everytime it boots? Has sentience arrived along with french existential angst for the OS? I would have expected french existential angst for Mandriva [wikipedia.org] , not for Fedora. [And Nietzchean nihilism for Suse [wikipedia.org] ? ] Anyway, this is just designer BS, adding colorful shiny chrome on top of the useful bits, isn't it?

Re:ideate ? ideation? suicidal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43509047)

If you looked up "communication," and found

- Communication: conveying information
- Suicidal communication: conveying information about suicide

Would you conclude that all communication is about suicide?

Anyway, good design is very important. If someone comes up with a bad design, that doesn't mean all designers should be shot.

They should go back to early Fedora/RedHat Linux 9 (2, Funny)

guacamole (24270) | about a year ago | (#43508675)

Most of the boot improvements created since then have done nothing but irritate the experienced users. Honestly, I wish some of the "improvements" to GUIs were undone too.

Re:They should go back to early Fedora/RedHat Linu (1)

antdude (79039) | about a year ago | (#43511989)

Nah, go back to v5 with text based boot ups. ;)

Improving the [Linux] boot experience (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43508711)

Don't use Linux.

Experience? (2)

axedog (991609) | about a year ago | (#43508831)

Seriously, can we stop referring to booting a computer as an "experience"? It's not like it's a trip to the moon!

Re:Experience? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43508869)

I'm an experiended booter of Commodore 64s, Intel x86-based PCs running various versions of MS-DOS, MS Windows 95, -98 and -XP and several GNU/Linux distributions, and building from that it was easy to move on to rebooting a x86-64 based system running a 64-bit version of GNU/Linux.
I dare say someone with less experience in flipping a switch or pressing a button to start a computer would not have made that transition so seamlessly!

Re:Experience? (1)

sensei moreh (868829) | about a year ago | (#43508973)

I've got experience switch-flipping to boot an LSI-11 off of cassette tape. Trust me, as annoying as the Fedora boot process can be, switch-flipping is worse.

Re:Experience? (1)

doesnothingwell (945891) | about a year ago | (#43510839)

Is it time to invoke Bill Hicks' law of marketing?

The whole boot experience sucks. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43508887)

If you want to see how a system should boot, go check out Haiku or OS X. Hell, even Windows does it fairly well.

I can't stand Linux boot processes. Typically there is some over complicated piece of shit bootloader that wants to kick my display into graphical mode so it can puke up distro-themed garbage all over my display for 5 seconds... Then things go black, the kernel starts to vomit verbose crap all over my screen in text mode, then the early graphical boot progress thing fires up X.org for a bit until the startup is complete... Then that goes away, Things drop back to text mode so I can momentarily catch a glimpse of a text mode login screen before X starts AGAIN, finally bringing up my login manager of choice.

Compare this to any sane OS... You get a nice loading widget, maybe change graphical modes once, and your either at your desktop or the login screen. The Linux boot process is totally out of control because nothing is integrated at all. This will never go away until X is considered part of the operating system as a hole and not just another optional package. Linus needs to pull his head out of his ass and put an end to the whole distribution idea, solidify things into a single OS. Then maybe we'll start seeing boot screens as clean and fast a Windows, Haiku, or OS X.

Re:The whole boot experience sucks. (1)

Ignacio (1465) | about a year ago | (#43510063)

Wow, it's almost like you didn't read TFA at all...

experience? (4, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year ago | (#43508895)

Booting Fedora is an "experience"? Who knew?

Naw, that's not an experience. An experience is being high on some sticky purple bud and driving a Lamborghini Gallardo on the Pacific Coast Highway with CHP on your tail and $7.5million in stolen money in a backpack on the seat next to you and busting through a guard rail, getting thrown 70 feet from the car and watching the Gallardo burst into a fireball while you realize you were only scratched and you somehow grabbed the backpack when you were thrown from the car. And now the police and the guys you stole the money from and your wife all think you're dead.

Now THAT'S an experience. Booting Fedora is not an experience.

Re:experience? (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | about a year ago | (#43509043)

Sounds like a "Disney Experience". I can't wait until they make it into a Hookers'N'Blow theme park ride for the MILFs with toddlers, complete with animatronics blaring the "it's a small world" soundtrack.

Re:experience? (1)

Kjella (173770) | about a year ago | (#43511423)

I take it you speak from experience?

Re:experience? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43512989)

After reading that, I have a sudden urge to go play GTA: San Andreas.

Nicely assorted pile of "let's ignore the problems (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43509029)

I'm afraid I violated Slashdot rules. Mairin does a very nice job of showing that he's drunk the latest Fedora "electric kool-aid" and has entirely missed the most critical problems.

* Boot loaders *DO NOT NEED GRAPHICS*. Throwing out the graphics would get rid of most of the "oh, no, my screen resolution is changing and flashing, and I have to load half the graphics libraries to get the trademark image I want, I have the wrong icon, boo-hoo-hoo". Just don't use graphics. booting will be much faster and more stable. This is not going to happen because Fedora has also bought into the whole GNOME 3 toolkit and its direct interferenc with being able to actually use the rest of your computer.

* If you don't use graphics, the whole grub manipulations and "should we show the list of grub options" and "oh no, the britty graphics to text isn't available for Braille users" goes the futz away. So do the "This part is too fast!!!! This part is too slow!!!" kvetching, because you're able to present far fewer screens, with well defined behavior, and *far* less software needed for pre-loading all the graphical widgets. That leaves time to present a reasonable, legible text screeen saying "Here are the kernels" and "here is single user mode".

Fedora completely lost track of these simple principles with their last few installers, and keeps re-inventing the wheel, and keeps *breaking* the wheel in the process. It's a complete waste of time better spent cleaning up GUI tools that matter, such the snakepit that is NetworkManager or virtual-manager.

Better boot experience? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43509033)

I would like to be able to take the bootlog from a mid-1980's VAX/VMS system or Honeywell DPS8 and simply have it echoed to the screen instead of that 'how quickly can I fill in this icon' Fedora boot.

Does anyone know if this has been done?

doodness dracious, three whole hours (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43509225)

I've spent weeks sometimes working on a single thing. In the days before valgrind and purify I once spent three weeks tracking down a memory leak in popular open source, laboriously tracking every allocation and free, and figuring out which things that weren't being freed ought to have been. That was just figuring out the root cause, then more time figuring out the fix.

Ubuntu (1)

sunderland56 (621843) | about a year ago | (#43509329)

No research necessary here; just make it boot as quickly as Ubuntu. Not much need for fancy graphics when the boot is so fast.

And for the "I boot once a millenium" crowd: (a) kernel updates are considered a good thing, and (b) some people use laptops.

Re:Ubuntu (1)

rbprbp (2731083) | about a year ago | (#43509509)

Laptops should be using suspend/hibernation - which is still a problem in Linux, sadly.

ACPI, Next Generation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43510261)

I heard the new ACPI will even support biebernation!

Re:Ubuntu (1)

sunderland56 (621843) | about a year ago | (#43510325)

When you can cold boot in less than 10 seconds, why use hibernation??

Re:Ubuntu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43511629)

Why would the boot time matter? Is hibernation supposed to be faster than normal boot? From my experience, it is slower than normal boot. Still, I have used it a lot, as I like having the same windows open in the same locations. And an empty desktop looks unpleasant to my eyes. Hibernation is like suspend without the need to worry about power.

Just show boot messages (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43509583)

Stop covering up the boot messages with a picture. Just let the messages scroll. When I boot, something is usually wrong that I'm fixing, and having to hit ESC every time I boot to see messages is annoying.

Re:Just show boot messages (3, Informative)

Ignacio (1465) | about a year ago | (#43510097)

Remove "rhgb" and "quiet" from the kernel boot line. Fixed.

Typical Slashdot (1)

yathaid (2106468) | about a year ago | (#43510871)

I boot my system maybe twice a year. What annoys me is not the graphical appearance during the boot, but the lengthy checks of the filesystems on my 6 disks that are run sequentially instead of parallel. That is a better thing to work on than nice pictures, IMHO.

The start up graphics is pointless, it is not interesting, nor does it tell you anything useful, and it just makes the boot process seem very slow. One of the first things I do with a new fedora system is to disable the start up graphics, and display the boot up messages. So the boot process appears faster (may take exactly the same wall clock time, never measured it), and there is something at least vaguely interesting to look at. Plus, if it freezes for some reason, I've got some hint as to where the problem occurred.

All of this is useful to the average user, how?

"Crash Kernel" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43511873)

Every time I've seen a Fedora system boot, it's complained about "Memory for crash kernel" not being "within permissible range". I have no idea what a crash kernel is or why it's memory needs to be in a certain range, or (moreover) why this terrifying message is displayed as part of the normal, properly-working boot process.

Perhaps this will be fixed,

They already did this best thing they could (2)

davydagger (2566757) | about a year ago | (#43511977)

They already did the best thing they could....

systemd. I know many people don't like it, but its awesome. It makes reboots on servers that much faster, cutting the boot time around half from sysvinit, and making the shut off time under 3 seconds.

in addition, it replaces polkit, and intergrates with acpid, and udev, making it very very solid in keeping track of programs and hardware. None of the glitchyness or sluggesness of initscripts. No more relying on bash scripts to keep track of things like PIDs.

very eligant modern solution for replacing init with a v

also replacing consolekit was probably the best thing to happen to linux since HAL was obsoleted by added udev funcitonaility.

Its very un-UNIX like, but it gives the boot proccess and daemon handling a very very professional unfied method, and speed/agility that linux needs to compete with windows and mac.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>