On 2.7.2020 01:42, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 9:23 PM Jóhann B. Guðmundsson <johan...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2.7.2020 01:06, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 9:03 PM Jóhann B. Guðmundsson <johan...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1.7.2020 23:28, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 7:19 PM Björn Persson <Bjorn@rombobjörn.se> wrote:
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
More user friendly than Grub ( has lilo like interface easier to change
kernel entry, which goes nicely with the default editor change )
This made me go "What?!". I used Lilo back in the day. Its user
interface was nothing but a prompt. You had to know what to type or
you'd be stuck.

Information for others like me who haven't seen Lilo since Grub came
along: Apparently development of Lilo continued until just five years
ago, and it grew a menu at some point. I guess that menu is the image
of user-friendliness that Johann was trying to invoke.

If I ever wanted to switch to another boot manager, I'd seriously like
us to consider rEFInd: https://www.rodsbooks.com/refind/

It's a very nice boot manager that looks good and doesn't suck. And
purportedly is somewhat (if not fully) compatible with bls.

sd-boot is too barebones and unfriendly to use, which makes sense
since it was designed for non-interactive machines and not humans to
If there is this general feel that sd-boots configuration syntax is much
harder to read and the ability of not having to run additional command
once the file has been edited or the ability to be able to easily
maintain and manage multiple kernels or multiple operating systems due
those being a drop-in configuration text files, is considered being too
bare bone and *less* user-friendly than grub, then obviously me creating
a change proposal based on what Javier suggested along with other
cleanups to provide as best user experience as can be had with sd-boot
would be doing the distribution a great disservice would it not?

Oh, I don't care about the configuration syntax. That part would be
the same across grub, refind, and sd-boot anyway.

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.

But alas, nobody cares about making that part look nice, because they
hope people don't have to go there at all. But even Windows makes
their boot manager not look ugly and relatively easy to navigate. And
obviously Apple has done this forever with macOS.

I honestly don't get why everyone is okay with butt-ugly and user-unfriendly UX.
Because the end user should never find himself in the boot manager to
begin with that's why no boot manager invest any time in being "pretty".

The end user should find himself ending up in some form of shiny nice
user friendly rescue environment that helps him troubleshoot his problem
would you agree?

I would, except, we can't have that either, because nobody cares to
make that either.

Well if anything I would have expected atleast the Gnome community to care deeply about that and build a a rescue environment consistent with the overall Gnome experience.

If we implement sd-boot in conjunction with the automatic boot assessment we should be able to boot into such environment if the end users boot fails but if people oppose sd-boot and see that as unusable root of all evil or there is no interest within the Workstation WG and or Gnome community ( Team Anaconda might be the right place for such work? )  working on to provide such an rescue environment then obviously nothing will change.


devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 

Reply via email to