From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Oct 14 05:30:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA13062 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 05:30:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from usr02.primenet.com (tlambert@usr02.primenet.com [206.165.6.202]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA13057 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 05:30:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert@usr02.primenet.com) Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA01086; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 05:30:28 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199710141230.FAA01086@usr02.primenet.com> Subject: Re: fnord0: disabled, not probed. To: Harlan.Stenn@pfcs.com (Harlan Stenn) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:30:27 +0000 (GMT) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <13633.876796649@mumps.pfcs.com> from "Harlan Stenn" at Oct 13, 97 10:37:29 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > 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.