Jon Masters wrote:
> As a technical user, it's another thing I immediately have to "fix"
> post-install,
Yeah, this is one of the first things I change after installing Fedora,
(along with disabling SELinux and switching KDE to the classic menu instead
of Kickoff).
Kevin Kofler
--
dev
This patch, that is.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
diff -ur grub-0.97.clean/stage2/asm.S grub-0.97/stage2/asm.S
--- grub-0.97.clean/stage2/asm.S2010-05-19 13:18:50.638314187 -0400
+++ grub-0.97/stage2/asm.S 2010-05-19 13:23:39.273210663 -0400
@@ -90,6 +90,8 @@
/* This var
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:25:21PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> We have this for SaveDefault. It ought to be possible to extend it and
> then provide an application that resets the flag at the end of boot.
So something like this (entirely untested) patch - it sets a flag to 1
on boot, and th
tis 2010-05-18 klockan 12:11 -0400 skrev Bill Nottingham:
> If you're really concerned about needing the timeouts when 'normal' bootup
> doesn't work, then why not write a patch that simply checks the time since
> last bootup (via mtime on grub.conf, or wahtever), and shows the menu if it's
> less
Matthew Garrett writes:
> [...]
>> [...] But still, the sensible path is to make
>> reasonable accommodations for this sort of thing. Let's face it, if
>> we're waiting on Sony or HP to fix this, we'll be waiting a while.
> Or, alternatively, we can actually look into the problem and determine
In article you
wrote:
> Wait a sec, when the timeout is zero, don't you get access to the grub
> menu if you hold down the shift key?
>
> I always thought that was grub's behaviour, not my PC's behaviour...
With an old Compaq machine, the BIOS errors with a 'Stuck key' message
if I mash any of
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 23:27 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Another +1 for Bill's suggestion, that seems like a nice elegant way of
> trying to catch the broken cases.
Some distros take this a stage further with the failure "safe mode" boot
option, and that's also not a hugely wrong idea.
Jon.
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:27:17PM +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
> We can only take this Fedora principle so far. There are many bits of
> code in the kernel which work around broken ACPI / BIOS behaviour (as
> you well know, sorry for the egg-sucking lesson). If we were being
> really annoying li
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 15:43 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:34:22AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
>
> > Of course it shouldn't be zero. This is what I was saying yesterday. Now
> > if Fedora is really targeting end users who are non-technical (can we
> > decide this finally,
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 22:25 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 02:14:45PM -0700, Robert Relyea wrote:
> > I like the 2 boot time out options. If you clear the 'successful boot'
> > flag every time you start grub (after remembering what it said so you
> > can set the appropriate
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 02:14:45PM -0700, Robert Relyea wrote:
> On 05/18/2010 07:43 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > The logic here is unclear. Technical users are surely the ones most able
> > to deal with this situation? I'll point out here that Windows gives no
> > visible prompt to obtain boot
On 05/18/2010 07:43 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:34:22AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
>
>
>> Of course it shouldn't be zero. This is what I was saying yesterday. Now
>> if Fedora is really targeting end users who are non-technical (can we
>> decide this finally, sometime,
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 12:05:30PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> I am in love with having a system that boots. And experience shows that
> I'm in the grub prompt quite often. Now admittedly, I'm doing kernel
> builds and the like, but even when I'm not, I'll often need to stick a
> parameter on a ke
Wait a sec, when the timeout is zero, don't you get access to the grub
menu if you hold down the shift key?
I always thought that was grub's behaviour, not my PC's behaviour...
--
Mat Booth
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/deve
On 05/18/2010 12:18 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 12:11 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>> Jon Masters (jonat...@jonmasters.org) said:
If we put a bit more trust into our kernel updates, and can start making
people a bit angry and filing bugs when there are regressions, ma
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 12:11 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Jon Masters (jonat...@jonmasters.org) said:
> > > If we put a bit more trust into our kernel updates, and can start making
> > > people a bit angry and filing bugs when there are regressions, maybe we
> > > can do away with that crappy cr
Jon Masters (jonat...@jonmasters.org) said:
> > If we put a bit more trust into our kernel updates, and can start making
> > people a bit angry and filing bugs when there are regressions, maybe we
> > can do away with that crappy crutch.
>
> User anger really isn't a good motivator.
If you're re
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 16:49 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> If we put a bit more trust into our kernel updates, and can start making
> people a bit angry and filing bugs when there are regressions, maybe we
> can do away with that crappy crutch.
User anger really isn't a good motivator.
> > If it
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 11:47 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> Several installation to choose from --> give the user time to make a
> choice
> Only one OS --> get it running as quickly as possible
>
> I am certainly an experienced user, and I am still not in love with
> staring a a grub screen for s
On Tuesday 18 May 2010, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 15:43 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:34:22AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> > > Of course it shouldn't be zero. This is what I was saying yesterday.
> > > Now if Fedora is really targeting end users who ar
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 10:52 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 15:43 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:34:22AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> >
> > > Of course it shouldn't be zero. This is what I was saying yesterday. Now
> > > if Fedora is really targeting
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 10:34 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 00:02 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > With an install _not_ of the kind described above, you currently get a 0
> > timeout, which is what's mostly under discussion now: whether we should
> > have a non-zero timeout f
On 2010/05/18 15:43 (GMT+0100) Matthew Garrett composed:
> I'll point out here that Windows gives no
> visible prompt to obtain bootup options and the world doesn't seem to
> have ended
I fix that insanity on first boot.
The last thing anyone needs is an unbootable system continuing to proceed
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 15:43 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:34:22AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
>
> > Of course it shouldn't be zero. This is what I was saying yesterday. Now
> > if Fedora is really targeting end users who are non-technical (can we
> > decide this finally,
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:34:22AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> Of course it shouldn't be zero. This is what I was saying yesterday. Now
> if Fedora is really targeting end users who are non-technical (can we
> decide this finally, sometime, please?) then this is valid. But if it's
> true that we f
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 00:02 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
> With an install _not_ of the kind described above, you currently get a 0
> timeout, which is what's mostly under discussion now: whether we should
> have a non-zero timeout for all installations, even single-boot.
Of course it shouldn't
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 10:31 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 00:02 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > (FWIW, I'd prefer a non-zero timeout in all cases, for reasons others
> > have already mentioned).
>
> And I'd want a zero timeout in most cases because my boot works, and I
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 00:02 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
> (FWIW, I'd prefer a non-zero timeout in all cases, for reasons others
> have already mentioned).
And I'd want a zero timeout in most cases because my boot works, and I
don't want to see more changes in panel resolution.
--
devel mailin
On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 10:40 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 08:23 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
> >What if a user puts in a timeout - after a successful boot will it
> > stay or be reset to 0. It should never change what the user desires ...
> > you may need a fancier sma
On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 13:46 -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> > In that case, why default to keeping around more than 1 kernel or installing
> > memtest86? (We do still install memtest86 by default, right?)
>
> The usual PC behavior of banging on the keyboard brings the boot menu
> even if there
On 05/15/2010 03:04 AM, Conrad Meyer wrote:
> On Friday 14 May 2010 11:05:13 pm Chris Jones wrote:
>> I was under the impression that a timeout is intentional/used only if
>> another operating system is detected upon installation. ie. Windows. If no
>> other operating system is detected, then there
On Mon, 17 May 2010 12:35:55 -0400
Jon Masters wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 16:05 +1000, Chris Jones wrote:
> > I was under the impression that a timeout is intentional/used only if
> > another operating system is detected upon installation. ie. Windows.
> > If no other operating system is dete
On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 16:05 +1000, Chris Jones wrote:
> I was under the impression that a timeout is intentional/used only if
> another operating system is detected upon installation. ie. Windows.
> If no other operating system is detected, then there's no point having
> a timeout.
I strongly disa
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 11:47:47AM -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 05/15/2010 11:40 AM, Mike Chambers wrote:
>
> > Also, I changed the timeout after the install and it stays that way and
> > doesn't change back. The setting is permanently until I change it
> > again.
> >
>
> Yes it is - I t
On 05/15/2010 12:23 PM, Mike Chambers wrote:
> Actually, I was answering your question, in regards to if it's changed,
> will it be changed back. Was thinking you were asking this as in after
> the install and you changed it, will it be changed back by an upgrade or
> something.
>
> Sorry for th
On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 11:47 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 05/15/2010 11:40 AM, Mike Chambers wrote:
>
> > Also, I changed the timeout after the install and it stays that way and
> > doesn't change back. The setting is permanently until I change it
> > again.
> >
>
> Yes it is - I think so
On 05/15/2010 11:40 AM, Mike Chambers wrote:
> Also, I changed the timeout after the install and it stays that way and
> doesn't change back. The setting is permanently until I change it
> again.
>
Yes it is - I think someone was suggesting it be changed ..
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.f
dora
Sent: Sat, May 15, 2010 10:06 am
Subject: Re: Increase grub timeout
On 05/15/2010 09:48 AM, Felix Miata wrote:
rior to first boot. I always change it to 12-15, depending on how many
> stanzas are proposed. 3 seconds doesn't give me time to reach for the
You dont really need to
On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 08:23 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
>What if a user puts in a timeout - after a successful boot will it
> stay or be reset to 0. It should never change what the user desires ...
> you may need a fancier smarter set of rules.
Ok, did a test install this morning on a dual
On 05/15/2010 09:48 AM, Felix Miata wrote:
rior to first boot. I always change it to 12-15, depending on how many
> stanzas are proposed. 3 seconds doesn't give me time to reach for the
You dont really need to 'react' and make a decision other than to
touch the kbd .. once you've touched the kb
openSUSE's Grub has defaulted to 8 seconds as long as openSUSE has existed,
same as SuSE before it as far back as I ever used it. The 8 is in a select
list in the installer's Grub configuration section, so it's easy to change
prior to first boot. I always change it to 12-15, depending on how many
s
On 15/05/10 07:05, Chris Jones wrote:
> I was under the impression that a timeout is intentional/used only if
> another operating system is detected upon installation. ie. Windows. If
> no other operating system is detected, then there's no point having a
> timeout.
>
It also has 0 when Windows
On 05/15/2010 05:01 AM, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 09:58:27AM +0200, Alexander Boström wrote:
>
>> Long story short: There are situations where a grub menu is vital, like
>> until you've successfully booted a new kernel.
>
> of course, and I do not think it is so hard to th
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 05:24:26AM -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 11:01 +0200, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
> > More elaborate solution, there could be two config values - quicktimeout
> > and
> > safetimout.
> > After kernel and config changes timeout would be changed to safeti
On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 11:01 +0200, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
> of course, and I do not think it is so hard to think of a sensible behaviour.
>
> After each (semi)automatic change to grub/kernel conf as well as for the very
> first
> boot there should be a timeout as well as visible menu.
> Once th
On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 12:19 +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 11:01 +0200, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
> > On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 09:58:27AM +0200, Alexander Boström wrote:
> >
> > > Long story short: There are situations where a grub menu is vital, like
> > > until you've successfu
On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 11:01 +0200, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 09:58:27AM +0200, Alexander Boström wrote:
>
> > Long story short: There are situations where a grub menu is vital, like
> > until you've successfully booted a new kernel.
>
> of course, and I do not think it is
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 09:58:27AM +0200, Alexander Boström wrote:
> Long story short: There are situations where a grub menu is vital, like
> until you've successfully booted a new kernel.
of course, and I do not think it is so hard to think of a sensible behaviour.
After each (semi)automatic c
My home server was running Fedora 10 and I tried to preupgrade it to
F12, however the F12 kernel wouldn't work at all on this machine (it
oopsed before even mounting the root) and no matter how frantically I
pressed the arrow keys during boot I could never get into the GRUB menu
and stop it from bo
res a rescue disk
when there is no access to the grub screen. Installations aren't always
seamless, a timeout of 1 to 3 seconds makes the recovery easier.
-Original Message-
From: Chris Jones
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
Sent: Sat, May 15, 2010 2:05 am
Subject: Re
On Friday 14 May 2010 11:05:13 pm Chris Jones wrote:
> I was under the impression that a timeout is intentional/used only if
> another operating system is detected upon installation. ie. Windows. If no
> other operating system is detected, then there's no point having a timeout.
In that case, why
I was under the impression that a timeout is intentional/used only if
another operating system is detected upon installation. ie. Windows. If no
other operating system is detected, then there's no point having a timeout.
--
Chris Jones
Photographic Imaging Professional and Graphic Designer
ABN: 9
On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 10:33 +1000, Chris Jones wrote:
> So what's the actual bug? I've read through the tracker list and I
> still can;t for the life of me detect an actual bug, but rather an
> annoyance for a select few. However, I do agree that there should be a
> delay increase for GRUB timeout.
So what's the actual bug? I've read through the tracker list and I still
can;t for the life of me detect an actual bug, but rather an annoyance for a
select few. However, I do agree that there should be a delay increase for
GRUB timeout. More so like that of Debian, Ubuntu etc.
--
Chris Jones
Ph
On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 15:31 -0400, goinea...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> I'm reaching my one year anniversary using fedora, so I guess it's
> time to stop lurking and start writing, so here goes.
>
>
> Back in November I added my two cents to the bugzilla report titled
> "Increase grub
55 matches
Mail list logo
