Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2012 23:02:27 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Devin Teske <dteske@freebsd.org> Cc: Devin Teske <devin.teske@fisglobal.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New Boot Loader Menu Message-ID: <50726C73.10506@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <B4A82131-4B11-4FE8-839B-FCC45C1D4445@fisglobal.com> References: <0655B56F-AD43-402B-872C-568378E650F9@fisglobal.com> <5071D6B5.1010609@FreeBSD.org> <B4A82131-4B11-4FE8-839B-FCC45C1D4445@fisglobal.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/07/2012 13:27, Devin Teske wrote:
>
> On Oct 7, 2012, at 12:23 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> I reject your proposed hypothesis that this was my intent (the proper
> intent is described below).
>
>
>> "But that's not why I mentioned how many hours I spent." "So why
>> mention it at all?" :)
>>
>
> My precise intent for mentioning this was for the other Forth and/or
> boot-menu folks (not the casual person).
>
> I didn't want the other Forth hackers to get excited and perhaps form
> the markedly false impressions that either:
>
> b. that submenus were easy to add
Right, you wanted us all to know how hard you worked. Congratulations,
your efforts seem well received.
>> Others have already brought up their favorite items to keep at the
>> top level, I think it would be much simpler to leave everything
>> that is at the top level now, and make submenus option number 8.
>
> What name would you give this "all submenus" menu item?
That works for me.
> Because, as
> previously discussed, if the menu stays as-is, we can really only
> have one more item
You keep saying that your current code allows for 9. There are 7
currently. Did I miss something?
> and so said-new-item would have to be an "all
> submenus" option. Somehow, I don't think jpaetzel, avg, and mav are
> going to like this as a solution for their proposed-new "BE menu"
> (having "8. Submenus" -> "2. BE Submenu" -> "Select a BE" just seems
> too deep-a-traversal).
Given how few people will be using anything other than what is at the
top level, I doubt it. However, given that we can have 9 more menu items
on the second page of menus, why not have a few of the more popular
items at the top, and then more submenus below? That's what is going to
happen on the first menu page, so the UI will be consistent.
>> Bonus points if you can make it easy to add a submenu via
>> loader.conf.
>>
>
> Done. There's zero difference in configuring menus in a "menu.rc"
> file than in "loader.conf" file.
Ok, different file, same idea. Can you post some sample menu.rc code so
we can get an idea of what "easy" means to you?
>> Regarding the UI on your submenu example; never, ever, ever use
>> Backspace to mean anything other than "delete the character behind
>> the cursor."
>
> Seriously? Who made _that_ rule? and moreover, _WHY_?
Um, if you don't already know the answers, I really can't help you. Go
get a book on how to right proper user interfaces.
Meanwhile, I've no objection to the idea of having move "safe mode" to a
submenu, if that's the consensus. I don't think we should move ACPI
because users who need to enable that option are already having enough
problems as it is.
Doug
--
I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do
something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what
I can do.
-- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50726C73.10506>