My two cents: If there's a fallback option, and if the user selects it, they shouldn't end up in an unambiguous state. Right now we're seeing systems hanging. I'd rather see a crash than a hang where the user can't get to a shell, and sees no useful information on the screen that tells them why they're hung up; or even generically that "by now you should see a login screen and if you don't we've faceplanted somewhere, sorry". Maybe split the criterion: Basic criterion: installation media must have a basic video boot entry that uses the accepted fallback boot parameter(s), e.g. nomodeset. The criterion just means the media must have the menu entry, and that it passes something intentional for this purpose as a boot parameter. Final criterion: installation media's basic video boot entry should either work (we get a successful graphical boot), or it should faceplant in some unambiguous way. If it's not possible to ensure basic video either works as intended or faceplants unambiguously; then I suggest dropping any beta or final criterion. And also I wonder if it's at all useful to include some kind of heads up description for the basic video boot entry? Like, "this may not work at all" or "wait 5 minutes for graphical boot, after 10 minutes assume it failed". Haha - I have no idea. Just something so they aren't waiting around going WTF? Now what? -- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ desktop mailing list -- desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
