Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2016 13:46:40 -0800 From: Devin Teske <dteske@freebsd.org> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org>, Devin Teske <dteske@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: revisiting tunables under Safe Mode menu option Message-ID: <5ED1C7D5-8B70-4D36-9682-07B7583B6605@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4F4FACB0.8090605@FreeBSD.org> References: <4F26CC5A.2070501@FreeBSD.org> <4F4C0600.2000903@FreeBSD.org> <3BA1B476-ED05-4E8E-8DFA-0B06EFB48867@samsco.org> <201202280846.08966.jhb@freebsd.org> <A8C72CB9-4C77-4697-8C28-63A2E10C557D@fisglobal.com> <4F4F35B9.5090308@FreeBSD.org> <06bb01ccf7cb$b255a200$1700e600$@fisglobal.com> <4F4FACB0.8090605@FreeBSD.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Found this old mail between avg@ and myself and just had to laugh The boot loader is so much more levels of awesome now, but I had forgotten how much thought I had put into it. Awesome sauce! ;D -- Cheers, Devin > On Mar 1, 2012, at 9:06 AM, Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > on 01/03/2012 18:52 Devin Teske said the following: >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Andriy Gapon [mailto:avg@FreeBSD.org] >>> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 12:39 AM >>> To: Devin Teske >>> Cc: John Baldwin; freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org; Scott Long; Devin Teske >>> Subject: Re: revisiting tunables under Safe Mode menu option >>> >>> on 01/03/2012 03:34 Devin Teske said the following: >>>> >>>> +1 on keeping the menu items loosely entwined (ACPI stands alone, but Safe >>>> Mode knows about ACPI but only acts on it when being enabled). >>> >>> Can you explain why? >>> +1 for having both menu items and each doing its own thing without any >>> entanglement :-) >>> >> >> First, I realize that this may sound entirely *dumb*, but here-goes: >> >> In transitioning from an old release (sans-menu; 4.11 for example) to a newer >> release (with menu; 6.x for example), one of the first thing that is noticed is >> "Safe Mode". >> >> I know that when I first saw this, I scratched my head and wondered what it did >> and what it might be useful for. To this day, I still have never used it. >> >> When I created the new menu for 9.x/higher, I had to rewrite that portion of the >> code and eventually learned what Safe Mode does when used. Still can't say that >> I've ever used it, however, at the point that I saw that it disabled ACPI among >> other things, that it is more of a blanket option for anything and everything >> that might be useful if/when you're having problems (*cough* still can't say >> that I've ever used it, as when I have problems I'm usually slogging through the >> kernel code, not relying on safe mode to fix some problem). >> >> That being said, I felt that it was a huge improvement to the UI to have the >> Safe Mode option divulge a little bit of its secret by visibly diddling the ACPI >> menu item (giving a clue to people that *haven't* read the code that this option >> is indeed not independent but instead conglomerate in-nature). >> >> Indeed, I've watched field engineers when exploring the menu options and their >> eyes light-up when they see that "Safe Mode" toggles ACPI off when enabled. >> Extrapolating on their surprise, they appear to have an "Aha!"-moment as >> previously... this field engineer had no idea what on God's green Earth what >> "Safe Mode" did (or didn't) as he didn't know about "kenv" and certainly >> couldn't read "Forth". At that point, he may not have had a full understanding >> of all the options that Safe Mode diddled, but at that point he at least knew >> that Safe Mode is a multi-option that does many things -- which is more than >> 6.x, 7.x, or 8.x ever offered which simply boots immediately the Safe Mode >> option is selected and does nothing to explain what it is that Safe Mode is >> doing (which would in-turn properly calibrate the user's expectations). >> >> Making the menu items completely independent would be take away the (however >> slight) above value-add that was brought in by entwining these two menu-items. >> I'm not saying that this would be a grave travesty, but would in-fact be a >> value-loss. > > Devin, > > you did a great job with boot menu enhancement in general and in this area in > particular. You greatly improved usability while preserving the historic behavior > and put a lot of work and creativity into that. Thank you! > > But the argument is that the historic behavior is no longer useful. I see that > removing the historic behavior also kills a little bit of your code (and a little > bit of magic). That's true, that's a loss in the code. > > But I still believe that it would be an improvement from the point of view of > usability end-users. > > Having a whole sub-menu where multiple parameters could be tweaked individually > would be even greater improvement. But that's not as easy to do. > > -- > Andriy Gaponhelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5ED1C7D5-8B70-4D36-9682-07B7583B6605>