| 1 |
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:35:36 -0400, Michael Mol wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> >> Don't forget boot-time X-based animation, too. That's an |
| 4 |
> >> extraordinarily common feature of mainstream desktop distributions. |
| 5 |
> >> And there will be other things, I'm sure. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > I don't get involved with those, but I'd hope something intended to be |
| 8 |
> > run so early would have minimal dependencies, if any. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> There's a pretty firm distinction between what things get used for, |
| 11 |
> and what they're intended for. The udev developers presumably were |
| 12 |
> reacting to this when they decided to support an "anything goes" |
| 13 |
> policy regarding plugscript behavior. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> And while I'm generally the kind of person to find unintended (but |
| 16 |
> perfectly compatible with their spec) uses for things, I don't figure |
| 17 |
> on being one to do so in my init sequence. That said, someone else |
| 18 |
> will. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I know what you mean, but here we are discussing something being used for |
| 21 |
its intended purpose. If a bootsplash program is not designed to work |
| 22 |
well a the start of the boot process, you have to wonder what it will be |
| 23 |
good for. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Electrocution, n.: |
| 30 |
Burning at the stake with all the modern improvements. |
Archives