Sun 10 Aug 2008
You know what I dislike about emotional arguments? They are backed up by specious logic and anicdotal evidence which is often so out there it verges on being part of a fantasy land people build up to feel that they are right. Lets examine the argument:
It seems that a “feature” that Microsoft implemented in the Windows 9.x days has appeared in Plymouth. Yes that’s right, that “feature” the I.T. world grew to hate, holding down the Ctrl or F8 keys to get into Windows Safe Mode (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/180902/en-us) has invaded Fedora. Ouch!
Now, if I take a step back, I can completely claim the following:
- Plymouth takes away my freedom of choice (a freedom that has become a basic Human Right
- Fedora has taken three steps back to gain one step in the name of ‘usability’
The funny thing is Mac has this feature also (hold c to boot from cdrom etc). Let’s repeat after me, “having to hold down one key after boot does not take away my freedom of choice”. And while we are at it, why do people fling around phrases like “freedom of choice” so cavalierly? It gets to the point where those once powerful words become watered down and an instantly marks ones argument as suspect. I know, let’s give more freedom of choice by bringing up the bios every time they boot. There is a lot of choices in there.
If there is an argument to be had here it is about continuity and discoverability. On the continuity side, if someone is used to seeing grub every time they boot it might be nice to keep that feature or something equivalent on upgrade but not on a fresh install. On discoverability of the feature, I would agree this is where the fustration comes from. However for the small number of (potential) users who actually like grub it would be wrong to add another option to the install. It would be much better as part of system-config-boot and if possible as an option in grub itself so that people who need to switch often can set it the first time and never have to hold down a key again. Hell, if I dual booted a lot I would like to have a key assigned to each OS I boot into but then again with virtualization being pretty good, there are better ways to run a separate OS.
Put it this way. Users may have kicked and screamed when Windows integrated DOS but Windows usage still grew. When MS decided not to show the text boot menu, again usage still grew. The way I see it is polish opened up the world of computing to more and more people. By not polishing Linux and staying in a mindset that change is bad we will be stuck in the past while the rest of the world moves on. That is not to say every change is good but good reasoning went into this particular change and so far I haven’t seen any legitimate argument for not having it. Let’s repeat again, “having to hold down one key after boot does not take away my freedom of choice”.
[read this post in: ar de es fr it ja ko pt ru zh-CN ]
August 10th, 2008 at 9:58 am
You are perhaps right but the choice of seeing GRUB or being able to choose between OS’ on disk and different Kernels should be preserved for those who use it - that is the choice. We need sane defaults for the majority of users and geared towards the novice users of course. However, that choice of certain users needs to be preserved even if it is not the default action.
A system-config-boot utility would be fine. It should be in the System configuration somewhere.
August 10th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Agree. People go through SO MUCH work in order to shave 1 or 2 seconds off bootup time. Killing the Grub timeout is the lowest of all low-hanging fruits.
August 10th, 2008 at 11:03 am
John and Plymouth hackers,
I just wanted to say, stick to it! Don’t give in to a few loud complainers.
Keep making the free desktop experience even more beautiful.
August 10th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Kudos for making a design decision and sticking to it.
August 10th, 2008 at 11:28 am
I don’t even understand why this is controversial. Freedom of choice? Huh?
August 10th, 2008 at 11:28 am
I very much doubt that fedora patched grub it no longer have the config options that setup this (very very old and even in lilo feature). They just changed the defaults.
I personally would say a good default would have been show it if dual boot is configured and hide it otherwise. But really that’s a soo tiny detail. Nothing worse any kind of emotional reaction.
And generally people should learn to do some basic research before starting to scream, that would help us all a lot.
August 10th, 2008 at 11:39 am
“A system-config-boot utility would be fine. It should be in the System configuration somewhere.”
We already have it for many many years
–
# yum search system-config-boot
Loaded plugins: refresh-packagekit
========================= Matched: system-config-boot ==========================
system-config-boot.i386 : A graphical interface for configuring the boot loader
August 10th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Just ignore the whole freedom stuff and read my comment here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458576#c1
I think that those are valid points.
Again: we loose more than we gain with doing this.
It should be “I don’t want to see a grub screen” in system-config-boot to opt *in* not *out*.
The default should be show the grub screen.
The “if any other os is installed” won’t work see my comment in bugzilla regarding the 2 kernel situation.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
2 kernels is easily distinguishable from the “any other os installed” situation. Grub should be automatically shown if two or more boot options *boot off of different partitions or disks.*
August 10th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
I failed to mention: we have some huge customers who have requested this as a feature.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Randall:
The point is that after the first kernel update everybody (who does not remove a kernel by hand) will have two kernels installed.
So whats the point in hidding it between install and first kernel update?
August 10th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Rahul, in that case I as a novice user knew nothing about it. I change my mind, regarding the configuration utility. Hopefully Fedora will be smart enough to detect and label other OS’ partitions in GRUB and if they exist can default to the current setup.
I don’t see what’s wrong with having an easy option in Anaconda to define the timeout length in GRUB effectively making it a non issue (?) or to resort to the current behaviour.
Either way please don’t deny/lookover the fact that there are people who want to dual-boot, some of those being Windows users looking to switch, and accomodate their usage case. That’s all I’m asking. I don’t know the whole situation I just hope that I’m not going to suddenly get very frustrated when trying out Fedora 10.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
You still get dual boot but you need to hold down a key. So I don’t buy this argument that grub should be the default. As far as an option being in Anaconda it has been long ago figured out that adding too many options to an install confuses users and does not help. Those who want a 2 second grub boot will know how to enable it and I have a feeling that upgrades will not change behaviour but the desktop team has the last say there.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:50 am
J5:
“You just need to hold down a key” is not a solution see:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458576#c8
August 11th, 2008 at 4:15 am
I like to not have grub shown (I previously set it to wait for only 1 seconds, which is enough for me to act in case I want to start a non-default OS). But I’m a “power user”.
For the average user, this might indeed be a problem - especially to those who normally use Windows and now try Linux/Fedora for the first time. They won’t like to not know how to get back to their Windows, if they don’t like Linux. And because they don’t know anything about Linux, they might have a really tough time to find out about pressing a certain key at a certain time. Tough times make you hate whatever made them occur - Fedora/Linux in this case.
Even if it makes installation a bit more complicated, I’d add this as an option. Or search for another way to got - but the current approach won’t be wise. I already see the people at all those linux events coming to us and complaining about that…
August 11th, 2008 at 7:17 am
Well Ubuntu have had a quicker booting grub for single OS installs for a few releases and their users aren’t screaming. Their reasoning seems to be if you are the only OS then don’t show grub by default but instead have a short countdown. A menu is only shown (with a longer countdown) if any other OS is also installed.
I see no problem with having users hold down ctrl to show grub in the single OS case (other than it would have been nice to have trained people to press ctrl instead of escape to see the menu several releases ago). However in the Windows and OSX cases their installs are not designed to go on second and thus having to show a menu is not a problem they need be concerned with. Fedora is not in thier position.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Fantasy mate
not fantacy!