----- Original Message ----- > On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 7:38 PM, <mcatanzaro@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 3:51 PM, Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > >> > >> Anyway, I don't see how either "boot loader" or "boot splash" theming are > >> related to GNOME. Plymouth is unrelated to the DE. > > > > > > It's simply not true. Upstream's designs call for a well-integrated user > > experience where the noise background begins on the bootloader theme, > > continues through plymouth, and arrives at the login screen. > > Which part is not true? I'm about to laugh at the idea of upstream > GNOME having an opinion over a metric butttonne of work they've not > put any effort into building, and have no real claim over. See the part about owning the experience earlier in the thread. Also feel free to install KDE and remove all the parts that come from self-identified GNOME contributors to see if this is an overreach. > My god > there are a bunch of examples where this kind of overreach is > summarily rejected. How fantastic it would be if this kind of claim > were applied to dnf and PackageKit teams and inform them to cooperate > better so we could, you know, solve a real problem rather than this > cosmetic one. I would love that. I must be missing some context here, can you explain? > >I assume there > > must be technical problems that have prevented the bootloader theme from > > panning out, but we already have the login screen in Fedora, and the > > spinner > > plymouth theme is available just waiting to be enabled should we fail to > > design a quality Fedora-branded replacement for charge. > > > There's no technical problem other than the usual obtuseness of GRUB. > The issue is one of resources. The openSUSE and Ubuntu folks put in > the effort to make and support their fancy pants bootloader screens > and Fedora hasn't done that. I do remember an attempt and it caused a > lot of problems varying from unreadable screens on some systems, to > impossibly slow navigation when trying to manually edit bootloader > entries (in text) on other systems. *shrug* > > This was in the early GRUB2 days, I don't remember if it was as far > back as version 1.98 or if it was a final release but it wouldn't > surprise me if there are a bunch of fixed bugs. However, Fedora has > always used a fairly up to date and more upstream GRUB than other > distros who heavily patch theirs. This seems to suggest that Fedora doesn't heavily patch grub, however: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/grub2.git/tree/ _______________________________________________ desktop mailing list -- desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
