How important is a live bootsplash or lack thereof?

[kmathern]

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

[Adrian]

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?

[zeeone]

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

[antiX-Dave]

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.

[tascoast]

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.

[BitJam]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[antiX-Dave]

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.

[rokytnji.1]

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.

[duane]

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.

[uncle mark]

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.