GRUB2 targets

Tue Sep 24 11:19:04 UTC 2013

Hi :)
It sounds lke the image might be unnecessarily 'heavy' in terms of bit&bytes.  Pages with a lot of heavy images take longer to load&display on your machine.  When writing html pages i tend to define the 'physical' size of images so that even if images take ages to appear the page doesn't keep jumping around and reformatting itself as the images appear.  I don't think there is a way to do that in wiki mark-up or else it's so complicated that it's worth avoiding.  

Ideally images should be 500 KBb or 'smaller'/lighter-weight.  

Higher definition images tend to be heavier although different formats tend to have different 'weights'  

Typically Gifs are the lightest weight but only good if there are only 2 or 3 colours and no gradual fades between any colours or between light/dark.  It's good for logos with sharp edges.  

Jpgs (sadly) often tend to be better for websites but they mess images up with swirls and wakes around sharp edges or corners and they don't scale very well.  It's usually a good compromise between.  Good for photos

Pngs can be fairly light weight but are often heavier than Jpgs unless you know what you are doing with them.  Good for photos.  Much better ethically as i think the other 2 are (or used to be) proprietary formats.  

That's a 'bit' simplistic.  I've had really nice Pngs that appear to be high res and the Gif and Jpg equivalent turned out to be much heavier and the Png has turned out to be under 100Kb.  I did it more by luck than judgement though.  

So, sometimes that can be a reason for breaking pages up into smaller sub-pages as it allows more screen-shots for each of the issues.  However, it's a good idea to edit images a bit to see if you can get them lighter-weight before uploading to the wiki.  If an image is already uploaded then it might be too much faffing around to be worth it.  
Regards from 
Tom :)  

________________________________
 From: MARTIN DIXON <mh.dixon at btinternet.com>
To: Tom Davies <tomdavies04 at yahoo.co.uk>; Phill Whiteside <PhillW at Ubuntu.com> 
Cc: Ubuntu Doc <ubuntu-doc at lists.ubuntu.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, 24 September 2013, 11:53
Subject: Re: GRUB2 targets

Hi :)
What I really enjoy about this system is that you can ask one perfectly reasonable, but perhaps unnecessary question 

and get a fascinating array of very useful information back!  

However, I think I have worked out why I could see the link address not the screenshot at that time -

so here's another (perhaps unnecessary) question when (the first time after the OS has been loaded) you first load the GRUB2 page (which is a big one) 
is there significant time delay during which the link and not the shot are visible?  Its not vital to get an answer!.

Martin

________________________________
 From: Tom Davies <tomdavies04 at yahoo.co.uk>
To: Phill Whiteside <PhillW at Ubuntu.com>; Martin Dixon <mh.dixon at btinternet.com> 
Cc: Ubuntu Doc <ubuntu-doc at lists.ubuntu.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, 24 September 2013, 11:20
Subject: Re: GRUB2 targets

Hi :)
+1
That looks right to me too.  I've 1 machine that has a nice wallpaper behind it but even so that screenshot is better.  

What happens nowadays after several
 kernels have been added?  

When you run any Gnu&Linux system the upgrades/updates tool adds newer and newer kernels but the system rarely has any automatic way of removing the old ones.  It's a bit like system restore points in Windows in that if your system suddenly becomes unbootable past the boot-menu then you can just try one of the older kernels and "ta'da" suddenly it all works, allegedly.  So, it used to be that you'd get a longer and longer tail in the boot-menu so finding Windows at the bottom became increasingly awkward.  

The Grub2 mailing lists say that recent versions of Grub2 have tucked all those
 extras away into sub-menus off the main boot-menu, or something like that.  I tend to use Janitor to clear my system and keep forgetting to check how the boot-menu looks before getting rid of those extra kernels.  

Regards from
Tom :)  

________________________________
 From: Phill Whiteside <PhillW at Ubuntu.com>
To: Martin Dixon <mh.dixon at btinternet.com> 
Cc: Ubuntu Doc <ubuntu-doc at lists.ubuntu.com> 
Sent: Monday, 23 September 2013, 15:09
Subject: Re: GRUB2 targets

that looks pretty much like my grub screen (except I have a couple of more instances of operating systems installed and available to boot).

Regards,

Phill.

On 23 September 2013 08:19, Martin Dixon <mh.dixon at btinternet.com> wrote:

Hi all.
>
>Any suggestions as to what the reference at the bottom of the first para of
>
>https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Grub2
>
>( http://pix.toile-libre.org/upload/original/1353953772.png )
>
>refers to?
>
>Martin
>
>--
>ubuntu-doc mailing list
>ubuntu-doc at lists.ubuntu.com
>https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc
>
>
>-- 
>https://wiki.ubuntu.com/phillw 
-- 
ubuntu-doc mailing list
ubuntu-doc at lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-doc/attachments/20130924/3dd8ea88/attachment-0001.html>