de-uglyfying usplash, replace it with splashy/upower?

[Sander van Loon]

On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 14:14 -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 04:09:05PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > We don't use a higher resolution framebuffer because it would make
> > suspend/resume much harder to support. If that situation changes in the 
> > future, we'll reconsider it.
> 
> Right, this isn't an inherent limitation of usplash, but a tradeoff that
> we've accepted in favour of better hardware support.
> 
> -- 
>  - mdz
> 



Ok, better hardware support makes sense, but isn't there a way to
provide the best solution for everyone? Maybe X.org can detect the video
card, and decide to use a low-res framebuffer if the videocard is not
sufficient, and a high-res framebuffer if the videocard can handle it?
Maybe run a test during the first boot or something with the high-res
framebuffer, and if that test fails, use the low-res framebuffer? Maybe
it would possible to give the user the choice to turn it on?

And if the other distro's do use the high-res framebuffer for the boot
splash, how do they handle hardware support and suspend/resume? I find
it hard to believe that they don't care about good hardware support.



On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 13:13 +0200, Michiel Sikma wrote:
> Interestingly, we were just discussing usplash (the font, that is). I 
> that it might be a good idea to use said boot screens instead of 
> usplash unless they have really low or awkward compatibility. I'd be 
> more than happy to create a few potential screens if you could provide 
> me with the technical limitations that these other startup managers 
> have. Maybe a viable proposition would help strengthen your argument 
> and keep the discussion interesting.
> 
> By the way, I've planned some new usplash propositions (see the usplash 
> font discussion a few issues back) for friday. :)



Sorry, I don't have the knowledge of the technical limitations...



On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 23:38 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 09:35 +1200, Jason Taylor wrote:
> 
> > Just to put my 2 cents in resume/sleep dosn't work on my laptop
> > anyway, and I dont use it on the desktop, could we not at least start
> > with usplash and have the option to easily upgrade?
> > 
> It seems a slightly odd priority to spend more time making a boot screen
> that most people will never really look at pretty than improving support
> for hardware.
> 
> I like shiny as much as the next man, but I prefer "works".
> 
> Scott



I don't know about you, but Ubuntu takes more than 10 secs to boot on my
rig (Windows XP can do it in 3 secs). Considering that my rig is rather
high end, I'm certain that a huge share of Ubuntu users will have to
gaze at usplash for quite a few secondss every day when they boot up
Ubuntu. Appearence/theming still matters, even though hardware support
may be more important.