On Wednesday 23 May 2007 21:09:49 Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > Which would be another ten seconds uselessly wasted. Why can't we set > the timeout be as short as possible while still allowing it to be > interrupted in the case of something truly terribly bad, and let the > code that runs after grub is done accept input and perhaps reboot to > grub with a longer timeout if necessary. It certainly has plenty of > time while the rest of the boot process runs. If we no longer do a modeswitch at the point where we start the countdown, a timeout of 3 may be good. On many machines it just takes too long for the modeswitch to finish or for screenreaders to kick in. > (We already do this in reverse when laptops hibernate; the grub > timeout is awfully short then. In fact, it kind of makes me wonder > why grub bothers to display the splash image in this case since it's > only there long enough to make it look like the hardware is crapping > out.) We do it in hibernate to protect you from data corruption. If we allowed you to boot something else the risk of modifying a file system you had mounted in your Linux session that wasn't quite umounted cleanly can lead to nasty data corruption which is a bad bad thing. Again here, if we stop doing the countdown in a graphical mode it will get even shorter. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora
Attachment:
pgp7QugVPAznX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
