Found this old mail between avg@ and myself and just had to laugh
The boot loader is so much more levels of awesome now, but I had forgotten how
much thought I had put into it.
Awesome sauce! ;D
> On Mar 1, 2012, at 9:06 AM, Andriy Gapon <a...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> on 01/03/2012 18:52 Devin Teske said the following:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Andriy Gapon [mailto:a...@freebsd.org]
>>> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 12:39 AM
>>> To: Devin Teske
>>> Cc: John Baldwin; freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org; Scott Long; Devin Teske
>>> Subject: Re: revisiting tunables under Safe Mode menu option
>>> on 01/03/2012 03:34 Devin Teske said the following:
>>>> +1 on keeping the menu items loosely entwined (ACPI stands alone, but Safe
>>>> Mode knows about ACPI but only acts on it when being enabled).
>>> Can you explain why?
>>> +1 for having both menu items and each doing its own thing without any
>>> entanglement :-)
>> First, I realize that this may sound entirely *dumb*, but here-goes:
>> In transitioning from an old release (sans-menu; 4.11 for example) to a newer
>> release (with menu; 6.x for example), one of the first thing that is noticed
>> "Safe Mode".
>> I know that when I first saw this, I scratched my head and wondered what it
>> and what it might be useful for. To this day, I still have never used it.
>> When I created the new menu for 9.x/higher, I had to rewrite that portion of
>> code and eventually learned what Safe Mode does when used. Still can't say
>> I've ever used it, however, at the point that I saw that it disabled ACPI
>> other things, that it is more of a blanket option for anything and everything
>> that might be useful if/when you're having problems (*cough* still can't say
>> that I've ever used it, as when I have problems I'm usually slogging through
>> kernel code, not relying on safe mode to fix some problem).
>> That being said, I felt that it was a huge improvement to the UI to have the
>> Safe Mode option divulge a little bit of its secret by visibly diddling the
>> menu item (giving a clue to people that *haven't* read the code that this
>> is indeed not independent but instead conglomerate in-nature).
>> Indeed, I've watched field engineers when exploring the menu options and
>> eyes light-up when they see that "Safe Mode" toggles ACPI off when enabled.
>> Extrapolating on their surprise, they appear to have an "Aha!"-moment as
>> previously... this field engineer had no idea what on God's green Earth what
>> "Safe Mode" did (or didn't) as he didn't know about "kenv" and certainly
>> couldn't read "Forth". At that point, he may not have had a full
>> of all the options that Safe Mode diddled, but at that point he at least
>> that Safe Mode is a multi-option that does many things -- which is more than
>> 6.x, 7.x, or 8.x ever offered which simply boots immediately the Safe Mode
>> option is selected and does nothing to explain what it is that Safe Mode is
>> doing (which would in-turn properly calibrate the user's expectations).
>> Making the menu items completely independent would be take away the (however
>> slight) above value-add that was brought in by entwining these two
>> I'm not saying that this would be a grave travesty, but would in-fact be a
> you did a great job with boot menu enhancement in general and in this area in
> particular. You greatly improved usability while preserving the historic
> and put a lot of work and creativity into that. Thank you!
> But the argument is that the historic behavior is no longer useful. I see
> removing the historic behavior also kills a little bit of your code (and a
> bit of magic). That's true, that's a loss in the code.
> But I still believe that it would be an improvement from the point of view of
> usability end-users.
> Having a whole sub-menu where multiple parameters could be tweaked
> would be even greater improvement. But that's not as easy to do.
> Andriy Gapon
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"