MX Linux Forum

Posted: **Mon Jul 14, 2014 3:17 pm**

I wish I knew.

Is it preventing some people from using MX? If so, what percentage? Was it a factor in that very negative review we got? If it is turning some people away, are we benefiting from this filter?

If we decide we want to have a live bootsplash then AFAIK there are two main options: Plymouth and Fbcondecor (formally called bootsplash). Plymouth works best with KMS (modeset) video drivers. Fbcondecor works best with KMS (modeset) disabled. For antiX-14 we went with Fbcondecor because antiX is aimed at older systems and we wanted to use verbose mode. I don't think any (other) major distro uses it anymore. It is still used in Gentoo but everyone there compiles their own kernel.

If we decide it is very important then maybe we could add the splash boot parameter to the first entry on the main bootloader menu but leave it off of the "Frugal Install" and Persistence entries. That way it wouldn't interfere with the early text dialogs that can appear when those entries are selected.

Posted: **Mon Jul 14, 2014 3:31 pm**

SolydX uses Plymouth and it causes headaches. Just info Bitjam.

http://forums.solydxk.com/search.php?ke ... mit=Search

Some debate also on removing it. It is a DVD iso also.

Posted: **Mon Jul 14, 2014 3:34 pm**

Is there a way to show a simple static image, even b/w?

Failing that, a black screen with a simple text such as "Wait for it..." The Live run blacks out everything for a while.

Posted: **Mon Jul 14, 2014 3:40 pm**

It may be a first impressions thing. But for real users, do we boot that often?
My last MX session had up-time of 59 days, so I saw the boot screen not very much?

That session lasted until I booted into Mepis12 beta2, now up and stable for 10 days now.

-Jay

Posted: **Mon Jul 14, 2014 3:42 pm**

I boot everyday. sometimes multiple times. Its faster than hibernate restore and my laptop battery is shot so suspend isn't a great option.

Posted: **Mon Jul 14, 2014 3:44 pm**

Jerry3904 wrote:Is there a way to show a simple static image, even b/w?

It is pretty much the same deal even without animation. It is the same work and has the same problems.

If we make our own kernel then it is trivial to add a boot logo but IIRC even that requires use of a frame buffer (vga=xxx boot parameter) so it has some of the downsides of fbcondecor.

@entropyfoe, AFAIK, people can install Plymouth on their installed systems. My question is about bootsplash on the Live system.

Posted: **Mon Jul 14, 2014 3:48 pm**

What about a black screen with a simple text such as "Wait for it..."? The Live run blacks out everything for a while.

Posted: **Mon Jul 14, 2014 3:50 pm**

entropyfoe wrote:It may be a first impressions thing. But for real users, do we boot that often?
My last MX session had up-time of 59 days, so I saw the boot screen not very much?

That session lasted until I booted into Mepis12 beta2, now up and stable for 10 days now.

-Jay

I think what we're talking about here is booting the MX14 Live session (LiveDVD, LiveCD, LiveUSB, etc.) for the first time. A cli-mode screen of scrolling boot text might give a potential new MX14 user a bad first impression, or scare them away.

Posted: **Mon Jul 14, 2014 3:54 pm**

I boot daily and am happy without a boot-splash.

Posted: **Mon Jul 14, 2014 4:04 pm**

Jerry3904 wrote:What about a black screen with a simple text such as "Wait for it..."? The Live run blacks out everything for a while.

I mentioned something like this in the MX14 Review by LinuxHelpGuy thread. I'm not certain how easy (or difficult) this would be technically. And as I said before, I don't know if it will mollify people who are turned off by text. I'd *like* to know if this would be an acceptable alternative. If this is feasible and desirable we could even throw in some ASCII art.

Posted: **Mon Jul 14, 2014 4:10 pm**

I would like to see something if a simple ESC would bring up the booting text.

I wonder if we could get our name-logo done in ASCII by somebody?

Posted: **Mon Jul 14, 2014 4:29 pm**

Jerry3904 wrote:I would like to see something if a simple ESC would bring up the booting text.

Alas, I don't know how to do this with a text only solution. My thought was to wait and see if there was great interest before trying to implement something like this.

Posted: **Mon Jul 14, 2014 4:32 pm**

Make it boot faster and there is no need for Plymouth. The more stuff we add, the longer we have to wait. Isn't there anything that can be removed instead?
Henry

Posted: **Mon Jul 14, 2014 4:37 pm**

Utopia wrote:Make it boot faster and there is no need for Plymouth. The more stuff we add, the longer we have to wait. Isn't there anything that can be removed instead?
Henry

If we talk about the next big release (based on Jessie) it will most likely have systemd and boot even faster, that's a valid point.

Posted: **Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:17 pm**

BitJam wrote:Is it preventing some people from using MX? If so, what percentage?

The number of users who would be interested in MX and who would be turned off simply because of the lack of a bootsplash screen has to be quite tiny, I'm thinking. Probably could count them on one hand.

Posted: **Mon Jul 14, 2014 9:20 pm**

I have no other empirical evidence except that one newbie. My gut feel is that the text wouldn't have been a problem if ultimately, the MX text had booted into a desktop that aesthetically matched the polish and looks of Mint. She was alarmed more because she didn't know what the text was, than because it was unsightly.

But that's for newbies when there is someone else around to prepare them for the text, or explain what it is. For those who try Linux on their own, I have no idea if it scares them away or turns them off a particular distro. Or maybe they might find it cool. :-)

Posted: **Mon Jul 14, 2014 10:45 pm**

I thought it was great
compared to Win98
that I was using at the time.

Really enjoyed seeing what was happening.
Still do.

Do whatever you think will attract new users,
just leave a way to turn it off, in my instalation.
I am not a Plymouth fan.

Posted: **Mon Jul 14, 2014 11:48 pm**

Jerry wrote:

I wonder if we could get our name-logo done in ASCII by somebody?

You can do it easily in the GIMP. Just export an small image to ASCII art, and you have a choice of formats of txt. Remember that each pixel in the original will become one character in the ASCII.

Posted: **Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:07 am**

Back in the day when I started using Mepis for the first time I thought it was way cool to see all that text zoof by

I was scared to press that ESC key in the beginning (then I am easily scared I break things, and I break things, so..

).

Personally I think it is not important at all, but I could see an average transitioning from Windows person look at the text and go hrmm. However if booting only lasts short and the desktop is up in no time they will go "whoa that's fast" and forget about the non-looks.

Posted: **Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:55 am**

Eadwine Rose wrote:Back in the day when I started using Mepis for the first time I thought it was way cool to see all that text zoof by

When I started with Linux, seeing the text boot messages didn't bother me at all; I've always preferred that instead of a splash screen. So I guess I don't see why the lack of a "bootsplash" would be a turn-off. Maybe to the same type of people who would be turned off by the command line? I don't know.

While I don't think it should be added only for the sake of a few people who might be turned off by it and who might decide not to use MX because of it, I'm not opposed to having a bootsplash added; those who prefer to see the boot messages will do so anyway. MX will be fine with or without it.

Posted: **Tue Jul 15, 2014 4:54 am**

The scrolling text only lasts 22 seconds on my computer.
With Plymouth you can't hide it all, instead you get something like 10 seconds of boot messages and 12 seconds of Plymouth.
Besides, scrolling text is an endangered species and ought to be protected.
Henry

Posted: **Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:17 am**

Spin it; list it as an added value feature to help diagnose potential errors.

Chris

Posted: **Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:55 am**

Back to my earlier question: what about using a black screen with a simple text or text sequence? I could imagine, for instance, this newbie-friendly sequence:

Off we go...
Wait for it...
Here it comes...

If colors are possible, would be *fun* to go through a stoplight sequence (R-Y-G) or something. Just the middle one could be used if only a single screen were possible. Best would be the ability to escape it .

Posted: **Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:55 am**

That would be quite amusing - the first time. I would find it infuriating subsequently, so being able to escape it is essential - either ESC or modify the boot options.

Phil

Posted: **Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:56 am**

We're talking LIVE here, not installed. Unless I misunderstand something...

On an installed, if my wait-for-it is possible, there might be some options for the user:
--scrolling boot log
--simple black
--any text that s/he wanted to see

Posted: **Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:59 am**

OOps! I knew that, but forgot.

Posted: **Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:04 am**

BitJam wrote:Is it preventing some people from using MX? If so, what percentage? Was it a factor in that very negative review we got? If it is turning some people away, are we benefiting from this filter?

LOL. I just caught that last little bit.

In my business, sometimes we "fire" customers. They're the ones you can never make happy, no matter how hard you try.

Posted: **Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:10 am**

A faster boot of the livecd is (imho) probably more appreciated by users than some bootsplash.
Like said before by chrispop spin the verbose screen output as a feature; don't add more seconds to the bootcycle.

Note:
I have not seen any complaints about 'missing a bootsplash' in the limited number of reviews. Nor any user complaints.

Posted: **Tue Jul 15, 2014 11:44 am**

When I started with Mepis and Linux, it was around version 3.4 and the Mepis-based "Point & Click Linux" book by Robin Miller. I remember around that time running a live-cd of a version +/- 3.4 that had a light blue background graphic that at the center had a large Mepis logo, and the scrolling text was in white if I remember correctly. I recall thinking that was pretty cool and wondered how it was done. Anybody else recall something like that?

It was probably something like the verbose mode on this page:

http://distro.ibiblio.org/vectorlinux/v ... uction.htm

but looked a bit more like this:

using a background looking something like this:

Posted: **Tue Jul 15, 2014 12:52 pm**

I like the scrolling text, makes the machine look like it is doing something during start up.

You can add what ever pretty picture that you want but, it will take up space for the CD.

Then there is always someone that will not like it and say something about it(remember the upside down jelly fish?).

There is an old west saying; "There is those who will complain even if you hang them with a new rope".

Posted: **Tue Jul 15, 2014 1:10 pm**

ko wrote:A faster boot of the livecd is (imho) probably more appreciated by users than some bootsplash.
Like said before by chrispop spin the verbose screen output as a feature; don't add more seconds to the bootcycle.

Note:
I have not seen any complaints about 'missing a bootsplash' in the limited number of reviews. Nor any user complaints.

Maybe not a complaint, but it has come up before in other threads:
http://forum.mepiscommunity.org/viewtop ... 97&t=35816
http://forum.mepiscommunity.org/viewtop ... oot+splash

Posted: **Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:08 pm**

I think by next year it will be a moot point, I just used an oldish laptop (4 year old) to try to boot from USB. It took 30 seconds in total.
~ 5 seconds loading kernel
~ 15 seconds loading services
~ 10 seconds black screen while loading XFCE

A splash screen would cover only those 15 seconds while the services load, when we switch to systemd (Jesse will fully support it as far as I understand) those 15 seconds will be more like 5-7 seconds, I don't think the splashscreen will make much difference.

On the other hand I wonder why it takes so much to load XFCE (and possible Xorg -- it's black screen after loading the services), was it doing that before?

Posted: **Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:16 pm**

That is it, WIKI how to install or use the Megainstaller to do a boot picture or to un-install it.

Posted: **Wed Jul 16, 2014 7:47 am**

Adrian wrote:I think by next year it will be a moot point, I just used an oldish laptop (4 year old) to try to boot from USB. It took 30 seconds in total.
~ 5 seconds loading kernel
~ 15 seconds loading services
~ 10 seconds black screen while loading XFCE

A splash screen would cover only those 15 seconds while the services load, when we switch to systemd (Jesse will fully support it as far as I understand) those 15 seconds will be more like 5-7 seconds, I don't think the splashscreen will make much difference.

On the other hand I wonder why it takes so much to load XFCE (and possible Xorg -- it's black screen after loading the services), was it doing that before?

Those ten seconds of loading after the 15 actually still have processes starting behind the scenes. It is correct that a boot splash will not cover it up, but the continued starting of process after X starts is a factor in the slower X response. You can see this by quickly pressing control Alt f1 when x begins to start. If you would like to time X without the background events I think the best way is to wait till it fully boots and go to vt2, then make a little script to log system time, run startx, log system time and exit.

Edit anyway to tie this in with the boot splash Iirc in previous exploration this can be covered up by starting a small app at the beginning of the X start, logging the pid, and killing it once the desktop is stated. This reacts similar to the nvidia splash screen + xfce loading splash screen together.

Posted: **Wed Jul 16, 2014 11:02 am**

Text such as 'not found' or 'failed' or something in red font might make win users nervous if new to linux as anything like that in win often means a problem and a headache. I have learned not to flinch or worry now and just carry on, trusting linux in a way I never did with win. I do like to watch the text now and often hit Esc during a boot.

Posted: **Wed Jul 16, 2014 1:05 pm**

chrispop99 wrote:Spin it; list it as an added value feature to help diagnose potential errors.

That is not spin. That is the truth. It is one of the reasons we (antiX folks) have been reluctant to hide the text during the Live boot.

Utopia wrote:With Plymouth you can't hide it all, instead you get something like 10 seconds of boot messages and 12 seconds of Plymouth.

I didn't know this. I thought Plymouth could go into the initrd (initramfs) which would let it kick in sooner.

topcat wrote: I remember around that time running a live-cd of a version +/- 3.4 that had a light blue background graphic that at the center had a large Mepis logo, and the scrolling text was in white if I remember correctly. I recall thinking that was pretty cool and wondered how it was done. Anybody else recall something like that?

That's fbcondecor in verbose mode. As I said in my original post, we are using that in the antiX-14 LiveCD/USB. One of the downsides is that it requires a patch to the kernel. If we want to use a patched kernel in the LiveUSB/CD then would could do this in MX too. It is not without problems. For example, we need to use one of the bootloader Fn key menus to adjust the resolution and to disable it because there are a few old systems that won't boot unless it is disabled.

If you want to play with it, you can download the antiX-14R-alpha2 iso.

If we wanted to get fancy, perhaps we could leave it in verbose mode during the early part of the boot process and then switch to silent mode (no text) to hide some of the scrolling text before X starts. IM(biased)O the most important text for the LiveCD/USB is in the early boot process. For example, this is when users have to deal with the easy frugal install and easy persistence setup.

ko wrote:I have not seen any complaints about 'missing a bootsplash' in the limited number of reviews. Nor any user complaints.

I agree. My concern is that it contributes to an overall uncomfortableness or feelings that MX is ugly. In a different thread I had said:

I wonder if the text displayed during boot is a turn off to to some people. Someone recently reported that they showed a Linux newbie MX-14 and Mint. The newbie said they thought MX-14 was ugly. Maybe people immured in Windows subconsciously associate text with (the blue screen of) death.

Bold added. I should probably have repeated this when I started this new thread.

Personally, I am in favor of the text display (except from modem-manager). I also like having a background image behind the text like in fbcondecor verbose mode. It seems like the norm for many distros now is to hide all the text to make things as simple as possible. I must admit that when it works it looks pretty slick. I'd really like to know how much of a turnoff the text display is.

Another thing I find annoying and unappealing during the live boot (in addition to the silly boot-manager text) is the long time period (10 or 15 seconds?) the screen is blank when xfce is starting up. IMO this is worse than the scrolling text. Even though I booted the live system hundreds of times, there is always a lingering doubt in my mind wondering if the system crashed or can't start X. IMO zero screen activity for that length of time is not acceptable.

Posted: **Wed Jul 16, 2014 1:15 pm**

BitJam wrote: Another thing I find annoying and unappealing during the live boot (in addition to the silly boot-manager text) is the long time period (10 or 15 seconds?) the screen is blank when xfce is starting up. IMO this is worse than the scrolling text. Even though I booted the live system hundreds of times, there is always a lingering doubt in my mind wondering if the system crashed or can't start X. IMO zero screen activity for that length of time is not acceptable.

This may be something that you already know.
There is one key difference that I can see when X is running VS crashed. In the upper left corner there will be a blinking cursor *if* X has crashed. Leaving an empty vt with neither a bash session or X session (same as pressing control alt f8 with nothing running there)

I think in this case it may be of interest to see how nvidia is working a splash screen into the startup of X.

Posted: **Wed Jul 16, 2014 1:17 pm**

I'd really like to know how much of a turnoff the text display is.

Said the preacher to the choir.

I hate having to hit the shift/alt/cntrl/F1 whatever key (after a google search)
to see what I wanted to see in the 1st place.

But I am a Biker male using a linux computer.
Fugly does not enter into my lifestyle.

That is more in my wifes territory.

Posted: **Wed Jul 16, 2014 11:13 pm**

An alternate suggestion.

How about a short bootscreen that directs newbies to go to a short video on the home page if they want to know what the scrolling text is for and how it is useful?

Maybe with a short blurb at the end about how to use synaptic? Or not.

On the other hand I like the scrolling text too. Just wanted offer another idea.
I do not care if people coming from XP choose another distro because it is pretty.
Like was said earlier, They may end up here later when they find out more about Linux.

When Mepis was younger I used to hit a shortcut combo to look at the boot messages most of the time.
I think that is what inquisitive people do, but not everyone is that way.

Posted: **Wed Jul 16, 2014 11:30 pm**

If I may be so bold...

I'm of the opinion that if someone is that turned off about the scrolling text on bootup, they either need to get over it or install something else or stick with Windows. The developers and package maintainers have more important things to do.

Maybe it's just my cranky nature, but I just don't see the point of dismissing a operating system based on cosmetics. If you think your computer is a fashion statement, buy a freakin' Mac.

Posted: **Wed Jul 16, 2014 11:48 pm**

I think the only thing we need to be concerned about, is people who don't even know what the verbose text is and don't realise that it's part of the normal process. Once they know and they still don't like it, too bad. You just don't want people to see the text and think something has gone wrong.

Thus, can't we just add something in the grub menu screen - maybe even as part of the background graphics - to warn them to expect some scrolling once they choose an option, and that it's normal?

Posted: **Thu Jul 17, 2014 12:11 am**

I don't think this is a problem that needs to be solved now. Maybe when it's easier to implement with no cost to function, or when it's time to abandon the CD restriction and there's plenty of room, but not now. I know some people might be bothered by scrolling text, but I'm not. I make my coffee while my computer's booting.-)

If a minute of scrolling text is enough to drive someone away, then . . .

Posted: **Thu Jul 17, 2014 3:23 pm**

I cut my Linux teeth on PCLinuxOS. It always had a graphic boot with specific instructions on it to hit esc for text. I liked this. But I will choose pure text over pure graphics any day. I like to know what's happening. But I'm inquisitive.

I always wanted to see the text before the graphcs and instructions to hit esc came up. So...I think GRUB options for "Graphic Boot" and "Text Boot" would be a good way to go, pending room on the CD.

Sometimes text scares me still when I see things like "thus and so failed", but it goes ahead and boots anyway. Did a fully functional OS boot-up? Maybe noobs need to be spared this until they're ready for it. Can the devs pick and choose exactly what text will and will not show up during boot? (Sorry. This is MX Linux. Of course they can.)

As others have said, MX is enjoying such success and popularity as is that this is not much of an issue, unless its current demographic is baptized Linuxers. Then, it may be an issue with expanding its base to noobs.

Also, please keep the text BIG throughout the whole boot sequence so it can actually be READ.

Posted: **Thu Jul 17, 2014 3:48 pm**

gmagar wrote:Can the devs pick and choose exactly what text will and will not show up during boot?

No, not without a lot of needless work. Most of the text is built into the standard Debian init.d scripts.

Also, please keep the text BIG throughout the whole boot sequence so it can actually be READ.

On the live system, select "F5 Video" --> "safe" which will disable KMS (Kernel Mode Setting). On an installed system try adding the "nomodeset" boot parameter. Alternatively, you can try using a "video=WWWxHHH" boot parameter such as "video=1024x768".

The benefit of KMS is that it allows for instant switching between the virtual consoles and X-windows. One of the downsides is it blithely ignores the vga= boot parameter and tries to set the console resolution as high as possible which often makes the consoles unreadable or even causes some systems to become unusable.

Posted: **Thu Jul 17, 2014 4:05 pm**

Thanks for the tips, BitJam. Will give them a test drive.

Appreciate the KMS teaching, too. Very helpful, and now I'm a little smarter.

Posted: **Thu Jul 17, 2014 6:24 pm**

antiX-Dave wrote:I think in this case it may be of interest to see how nvidia is working a splash screen into the startup of X.

It is built right into the driver so they can do things we can't do. I really like your idea of launching an interim window while waiting for the desktop to start. I hope it is possible.

I may look into running fbcondecor with a combination of silent and verbose modes. I think the easiest way would be to start out in silent mode and switch to verbose if there is an error or we require user interaction. Maybe switch back to silent when that is all done. Of course, plain verbose mode would still be available. This would just be an experiment.

If we go with a silent bootsplash then maybe we could delay switching to vt7 until the desktop is ready. Here is a sneaky way to do it using startx. I have no idea if a similar trick could be used with lightdm. LightDM does have:

Code: Select all

# session-setup-script = Script to run when starting a user session (runs as root)

Maybe that could be used to launch the early X background window.

MX Linux Forum

How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

Re: How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?