-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Harijs Buss wrote: > > Do you really think it is good to have anything (un)markable on installation > package list that in fact cannot be unmarked (because it seems to be now > specifically tied to all graphical environment)? What is doing "bootsplash" > on this package list if it is now intended to be unmarkable? Keep it off the > list and there will be no questions like mine.
What about the case of a server with no X, where the admin *does* want bootsplash? What about the case of desktop machine that boots into a remote display manager? The admin may want a nice graphical boot even though no window manager is installed on the local machine. Bootsplash *can* be removed, and there are situations where you might want to select it or not select it. > > >>>You can always 'rpm -e --nodeps bootsplash' if you want. > > > Yes, thank you for advice (all of them). To be resistant to unwanted, imposed > changes is certainly good incentive to learn more about Linux beyond initial > users GUI experience :) > > >>How about the desktop backgrounds? > > > Wrong example. Bootsplash is in no way _necessary_ part of boot process. But it isn't (currently) required by any package used only in the boot process, it's only required by the desktop packages, so that the typical home machine gets it by default (even on upgrades from a machine which didn't have it). > There is IMHO no any clear aim to make it mandatory, except of course writing > Mandrake 9.2 on it (but it is written also during text boot). I don't know the answer to that, ask the Mandrake interface team (if they will give you an answer). > I have nothing against bootsplash if somebody likes it. But I have objection > to have bootsplash forcefully imposed on all possible Mandrake users > including me. The use of bootsplash isn't forced on you. Only the installation of it. > Even to get rid of it I now need to install it in the first > place (this "improvement" is true only starting with 9.2). Small step in the > same direction as so painfully known program called "IE". Mind you I left > Windows world partly because of such mandatory "features" imposed against my > own will. So, removing IE from Windows 98SE is a 30 second job? I don't think so. > And don't tell me that this long dependancy chain you presented > cannot be corrected ;-) Of course it can, but the question (as I said before) is whether Mandrake considers it a feature or not. Since it was *added* for 9.2, I would guess so. >>binary, maybe initscripts should depend on bootsplash instead? Then we can >>have it on servers too ;-). > > Actually you might be surprised how many Linux servers (including Mandrakes) > have full-scale graphical environment installed and in use nowadays. Memory > is cheap and CPU's are affordable. Admin's time and good perception of > overall situation is much more expensive. But many admins have bad habits (logging in to X as root for example, not securing X correctly when using it on a server). GUI administration can be done just as easily, and probably more securely, without X installed on the server, using X tunneled over SSH. And a lot of administration tasks can be done much more efficiently without a GUI environment (eg via scripting) than with one. About the only GUI tool we use on our servers is diskdrake, because it is convenient to use to resize LVM volumes. Regards, Buchan - -- |--------------Another happy Mandrake Club member--------------| Buchan Milne Mechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work +27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x202 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE/tJ2frJK6UGDSBKcRApv+AJ49cMCLJNpF25YtEV+80S65BPU47ACfTqBE qMU43fFsz4sylB+Y5zXSLm4= =NA3y -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
