From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 7 20:01:13 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91492106564A; Sun, 7 Oct 2012 20:01:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alexander@leidinger.net) Received: from mail.ebusiness-leidinger.de (mail.ebusiness-leidinger.de [217.11.53.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09FEA8FC08; Sun, 7 Oct 2012 20:01:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from outgoing.leidinger.net (p5DD45BA9.dip.t-dialin.net [93.212.91.169]) by mail.ebusiness-leidinger.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 22468844006; Sun, 7 Oct 2012 22:01:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from unknown (IO.Leidinger.net [192.168.1.12]) by outgoing.leidinger.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A54941F2D; Sun, 7 Oct 2012 22:01:03 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=leidinger.net; s=outgoing-alex; t=1349640063; bh=tW4CK7zHSMcgvnZHSNjxhbaldpGiLNCb0y28DjAJuHs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=EY/o1NEjqlfcEnJLkg+OlO7O6O4Y2B6xuFkBEoCpx1Z2x+KzIZfqYLg3r3h1br2Hi Xglt0Pb8aXERzITOmRIwYE8Zt4LuqnegSktGYaSgK6fKmQn51M7lLZLke6i/UpzgDr YKd3RYe6qQCZVR3c2sparPtArrYnza5zX4mxZKinF3EgsxS+7W9keH/0vwYKoVvNOn X4J5794eqzEnsTs3UusRV89vZVkFy7a2SHsQcxLPysd7bH6TkPCaRYNYItmvrK0dCc Su2WKStTgMT3HiugvLjPSSYrENAkdikS5cbJMSvHOHjXMCMbERjL10oOCnv5uHYVK1 ehdfvzkPltlLw== Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 22:01:00 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger To: Devin Teske Message-ID: <20121007220100.00002d21@unknown> In-Reply-To: References: <0655B56F-AD43-402B-872C-568378E650F9@fisglobal.com> <20121007183433.000026a6@unknown> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0cvs30 (GTK+ 2.24.10; i586-pc-mingw32msvc) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EBL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-EBL-MailScanner-ID: 22468844006.AF3AE X-EBL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-EBL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, spamhaus-ZEN, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-1.574, required 6, autolearn=disabled, ALL_TRUSTED -1.00, AWL -0.46, DKIM_SIGNED 0.10, DKIM_VALID -0.10, DKIM_VALID_AU -0.10, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD -0.01) X-EBL-MailScanner-From: alexander@leidinger.net X-EBL-MailScanner-Watermark: 1350244868.88508@I72YQrHxXawGnE4+FmDulQ X-EBL-Spam-Status: No Cc: devin.teske@fisglobal.com, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New Boot Loader Menu X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2012 20:01:13 -0000 On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 11:44:25 -0700 Devin Teske wrote: > On Oct 7, 2012, at 9:34 AM, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > > > On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 16:48:50 -0700 Devin Teske > > wrote: > > > >> Hello, > >> > >> I've been working on a new boot loader menu system. > >> > >> This is what is in HEAD, CURRENT, and RELENG_9 at the moment: > >> > >> http://twitpic.com/b1pkll/full > >> in color: http://twitpic.com/b1pkz1/full > >> > >> > >> I'd like to propose the following replacement to the above: > >> > >> http://twitpic.com/b1pll5/full > >> in color: http://twitpic.com/b1plxi/full > >> > >> The boot options have been whisked away into a sub-menu (see > >> below): > >> > >> http://twitpic.com/b1pm51/full > >> in color: http://twitpic.com/b1pme8/full > >> > >> > >> What does everybody think? > > > > IMO single user mode should be in the first level. I never had to > > use the other options, but I often used single-user mode. Another > > reson is that we tell to install the world in single-user mode. > > While I've always installed the world in multi-user mode, we should > > make it easy/fast to do it the recommended way. > > > > The documentation on how to get into single-user mode would need to > be changed from: > > Press 's' and 'ENTER' > > to instead: > > Press 'o' then 's' then 'ENTER' > Please note that 16+ months ago we had to update the documentation > for my last enhancement to the loader menu. It used to be: > > Press 's' > > and changed to: > > Press 's' then 'ENTER' I failed to notice this, due to lack of need to go into single-user mode since then respectively lack of need to have a look at the boot menu when booting. Please see below for my opinion of this. > because we went from a stateless menu system to a stateful menu > system. The driving force behind that was indeed the fact that with > the old stateless menu, you could not ever boot with > combinations-of-options (but rather you could only boot with options > that were presented -- unless of course you dropped to the > interactive prompt and did the dirty work yourself). Let me rephrase my previous mail a little bit: Personally I agree that safe mode and ACPI can be moved to a submenu, but single-user mode does not belong into the same submenu. While technically they may be similar (setting some options in the loader which based upon this does something behind the scenes), conceptually they are not the same thing for an user, so from an usability point of view they do not belong into the same submenu. IMO single-user mode shouldn't be an option, but a top-level item like "boot". Conceptually it falls within boot and reboot in my point of view (similar would be "boot from network" in case we would add this possibility to the loader). It's not really a small modification of the boot like with safe mode and verbose booting, it's big change in the outcome of the operation. You told in another mail that there is a technical limitation to the number of items, so I assume your interest in moving out as much options as possible is based upon this. You've already made room by moving 3 items out to the submenu. It would be great if "boot single-user" would be along boot and reboot, the rest can be put into a submenu. Even if we are challenged in the future regarding space, we can always put "More" (or similar) as a 5th item and have all the submenus behind "More". I've also seen your mail where you tell to think about the situation where a poor victim is sitting in front of FreeBSD as a remote hand. Having a top-level entry for single-user mode there and all the rest somewhere else would help in this situation too. It's not uncommon to ask a remote hand to boot to single-user, and this would clash with your hint at putting those other options out of the mind of the poor victim. So basically I propose something like this: Main menu: 1. Boot 2. Escape 3. Reboot 4. Boot to single-user mode 5. Expert options (order and numbering doesn't matter, feel free to shuffle around at will) Expert menu: 1. Boot options (what you have in the current submenu except single-user) 2. Change Root FS / BE / kernel to boot / whatever you name it (order and numbering... shuffle around at will) The rationale of having different submenus for changing the root FS and the other boot options are twofold. The first one is a tribute to the poor victim which gives a helping hand, he will not see the boot options in case the request is made to change the root FS. The second one is that the boot options are modifying the behavior of a given kernel (verbose messages, safe mode, acpi), while the root-fs/BE/kernel item is choosing a different kernel to boot. I'm trying to improve the usability / understandability of the boot process from an user point of view. I've tried to forget the technical details and tried to focus on action items an user / minion would like to do. Bye, Alexander. -- http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137