Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:30:27 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: Harlan.Stenn@pfcs.com (Harlan Stenn) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: fnord0: disabled, not probed. Message-ID: <199710141230.FAA01086@usr02.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <13633.876796649@mumps.pfcs.com> from "Harlan Stenn" at Oct 13, 97 10:37:29 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I'd rather see "what happened" messages on the console during boot, and > a more detailed list of "what did and didn't happen" written to the disk > file. > > Perhaps changing the printf's to a macro or subroutine, and separating > the verbosity levels of the "console" and the "log file" information streams. Hey, yeah! Seperate what gets displayed vs. what gets dmesg'ed! I still don't like making the boot less verbose simply to make the boot less verbose; if you were serious about it, you would boot to a graphical login screen by default, and would be able to override and get a console display window (which then went to a graphical login screen). This is how NeXTStep boots. But seperating the logged vs. displayed seems like the best compromise I've seen so far (assuming a -v can get everything logged to be displayed as well). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710141230.FAA01086>