On 5 July 2020 16:27:07 CEST, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 at 11:34, Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 11:20 AM Lennart Poettering <mzerqung@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > On Mi, 01.07.20 21:06, Neal Gompa (ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: >> > >> > > The user-interactive portion of sd-boot is *awful*. I know our GRUB >> > > looks ugly by default these days too, but it doesn't have to be, and >> > > most distros actually do make it look semi-decent. >> > >> > BTW, the current look of systemd-boot was proposed by some GNOME >> > designers back in the day. We just implemented what they wanted. >> > >> >> Now I'm even less surprised. It was probably designed with the idea >> that it would never be seen. If any designer people actually wanted to >> make a good boot manager experience, they should take cues from >> Windows, macOS, or even rEFInd. >> >> > >It was probably designed on that idea by people who don't spend as >much time staring at bootloaders as they do operating systems. For the >overwhelming majority of people using computers they are not going to >spend a lot of time making choices in a bootloader or things like >that. For system administrators and operating system developers.. that >is not the case. For most of the computers I manage, I never actually >log onto them UNLESS I am going to be dealing with the boot loader. So >of course the UI is going to be very important to me and I want it to >do a lot of things it probably shouldn't. Mainly because if I have >been called to deal with said computer, something has gone very wrong >and I am going to be trying to make it right. I have no problem with GRUB2 or sd-boot. I have much more problems with refind and their ilk. While things can look pretty, that's fine, as soon as it gets in my way when I try to get things done it stops being fine. > >There is a very different car from what a gear head will design from a >person who wants to enjoy driving their car. A gear head will want an >easy to fix car with very few things hard to get to. The problem is >that usually makes the vehicle noisy, uncomfortable and ugly. The >majority of car drivers want something where all those parts are >nicely hidden because they like a quiet smooth ride. The same is with >computers.. If we want to be able to work on the computers we want a >lot of places we can get into the deep internals and mess around. If >we want to use the computer day to day without needing to spend 10 >years learning how to take it apart and put it together.. We want >something completely different. In the end, the vast majority of >people want things which are hidden away and just do the thing they >are supposed to do.. we computer grease monkeys just need to charge >more to work on them. There's no reason there can't be a glossy front hiding what techs really wants. Just look at the bootsplash. Looks pretty but just push a button and you will get actual useful data instead, everybody wins. That said, I don't think you are wrong per se. I just think there can we can coexist with the help of smart solutions. As I said earlier, I have no problems with sd-boot or the looks of it (it seems that is what we are discussing now). I see no real problems with using it as default for EFI systems. That's just an opinion though. It does what it does and shows what is needed. As for keeping BIOS, yes of course but that seems settled 100 mails ago :) I generally argue that I want Fedora to run on as much different things as possible and devices and motherboards with defective UEFI or no UEFI will be here for a while. M > > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
