Boot screen: Quiet or not?

[Bart Silverstrim]

Mario Vukelic wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 22:30 -0400, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
> 
>> Again, set the preference to say nothing. 
> 
> Again, each preference come with a cost. Please take the time to read
> and understand the essay I linked to

I already said I will.  It's actually on the printer at the moment.

>>  I'm sure there's lots of 
>> people that would rather watch an animated clock or undulating bar for 
>> two minutes. 
> 
> See essay. In usability tests of Gnome 1 (conducted by Sun), the
> existence of 5 clocks confused some users so much that they failed to
> add one to the panel.

I understand that.  I'm not saying that usability or user friendliness 
isn't an issue at times.  I'm saying that, essentially, you're worrying 
about a stain on the floor carpeting in a car with a gas gauge that is 
broken.  Worry about the gauge first.  And many, if not most, of us 
Linux users *aren't bothered* by that stain, and since Linux isn't a 
commercial venture for the most part, there's no coherent force trying 
to prettify the interface for people who buy computers just to play 
video games, and other users that it COULD effect *don't care* either. 
It's icing on the cake, it's eye candy, and the bootup portion isn't 
even really a USABILITY issue because you don't *use* the bootup screen. 
  It doesn't prompt you for anything other then initial startup, and 
that's timed so it'll go away in seconds.  No choices, no responsibility 
to choose things, so for the user, it's a non-issue.

>> I don't know.  It doesn't tell me anything.  It's trying to be user 
>> friendly by hiding everything from me.
> 
> Yeah, but what does this have to do with anything? If we have such a
> case in Ubuntu, it should be fixed by using a meaningful progress bar.

You were just bitching about confusing the user, about usability, about 
user friendliness. What do you think about the install status bars on 
the most popular platform on the friggin' planet?!  At least the thing 
you're complaining about is actually meaningful in that the bootup 
usually gives status messages to me when I want them!

>> If you don't like watching it, set something to hide it or don't watch. 
> 
> NO! So you are telling my mom that she shall set something to hide it?

Your mom sits there reading it?

Kudos to mom.  I can't even get my users to read a EULA or email that is 
more than two paragraphs.

> I'll tell you a secret: she can't and won't. 

Oh dear. I really care at the moment about focusing all my energy on 
making your mom happy with an animated squirrel or intro movie whenever 
the computer starts.  Meanwhile, other developers will continue to try 
to get GNOME to work without quirks when enabling graphics extensions 
and getting networking to work without dropping off wifi.

> The correct solution is that non-computer literate users don't need to
> change things and don't have to worry about preferences they don't
> understand. Users who know enough to want something else can change it.

Non computer literate users DON'T CARE.  They want to get their task 
done.  I've NEVER fielded a call from someone bitching that the BIOS was 
scary looking as it did the memory ticks.  NEVER.  I HAVE fielded calls 
about losing menu bars, or icons missing, or misplaced files.  I think 
your priorities are mucked up, personally.  How often are you getting 
these complaints, anyway?  Or is this a personal mission?

>>   Most sysadmins would probably be much more annoyed if they HAD to 
>> waste this much bandwidth over discussing something that happens to 
>> their workstation or server at *boot*.
> 
> How do sysadmins come into play? 

Well, lets see, since 90% of your teeny tiny Linux market consists of 
sysadmins and system enthusiasts,...

>Anyway, sysadmins are usually not
> usability experts. Sysadmins can also easily change it, or *gasp* use a
> distro that is more to their liking.

So, your poor, easily befuddled end user you're championing is using 
your computer at gunpoint?

Maybe Linus is out to rule the world, but most of us just want to get 
work done and have other things to worry about than the two minutes of 
boot time.

>> Why does it annoy you so much that it is giving a status at boot anyway? 
> 
> I did not say that. I said that is is useless, overwhelming information
> for the vast majority of Ubuntu users, if not now then in the future. It
> is bad UI. There is no reason to turn Ubuntu into Slackware.

Ah! Then it's a non-issue.  You're not getting complaints, you're not 
actually *interacting* with the boot process, so you can ignore it since 
once it's done, it's gone!  No need to worry about it.

> You have clearly no experience with non-computer literate users. And the
> progress bar already tells them it has not died.

No experience, huh?   I guess dealing with them for nearly 15 years now 
clearly is no experience.  You're bitching about the BOOTUP SCREEN for 
an OS used by almost NO computer illiterate users.

The ones that do use it, have a housegeek to hold their hand anyway.

If you had all this experience you apparently hold, you would know that 
they don't pay attention in the first place to the bootup, it's a MINOR 
issue, you don't interact with the bootup 99.9% of the time so it's not 
a usability issue, and the "progress bar" DOES NOT tell you what is 
going on when you have a system like Linux where you have NO STANDARD 
way across the board of knowing what is actually compiled into the 
kernel or loading as a module.

I have users who call when their desktop profile burps.  I have users 
that can't find a file if it's three inches to the right of where they 
thought it would be.

Bootup screens are the LEAST of their worries.  They are *task 
oriented*.  They want to type a letter.  They want to look at a web 
page.  And they don't even understand what the hell they're DOING.  I 
had a user yesterday talking about having to check someone's email.  She 
was talking about finding a comment that was posted on MySpace!

>> Linux isn't for home users.  
> 
> Huh? And this would be why? Because you say so? You might want to read
> the manifesto of the system you are using:
> http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu

That's Ubuntu's mission.  Do you know where Linux came from?  It's 
history?  It was a friggin' hobby project that slowly cherry picked from 
POSIX standards and other UNIX systems.  We all know how popular UNIX is 
for running Duke Nukem in the home.

Linux isn't a market force.  It's not for making a profit.  Companies 
have picked up that torch after it generated it's own following and 
proved itself stable...where?  Oh yeah...the SERVER ROOM.  It sure as 
hell didn't prove itself as a bastion for video games and office work 
that is popular with who...oh yeah!! Joe Schmoe HOME USER!

> "Ubuntu is a community developed operating system that is perfect for
> laptops, desktops and servers. Whether you use it at home, at school or
> at work Ubuntu contains all the applications you'll ever need ..."
> 
>> It's not a game system.
> 
> Only because of missing market share.

So, games, most popular with home users, aren't popular on Linux, but 
it's still meant for home users, eh?  Where it most of the market share 
it does have?

Workstations...servers...

I'd say that illustrates my assertion that it's not "meant" for home 
users.  Ubuntu may be trying to do this, Red Hat to a degree...but how 
many actual companies are pushing Linux into the home, and how many are 
using it as a basis for the server room?

>>   It has root that 
>> are not based at all on keeping your Joe Average user happy. 
> 
> There are a gazillion distros who cater for the expert crowd. And yet
> again, it's a ONE-LINE CHANGE IN MENU.CONF, what's your problem with
> that?

Are you the same person that advocated not making it a preference to 
hide it?

>>  Macs are 
>> usually a better choice for home use.  It hides the details of bootup.
> 
> You might want to ask yourself if the two things are connected in any
> way. And what sense it would make to turn Ubuntu into a less friendly
> system.

Huh?  You wanted a candy happy hidden interface during bootup.  The Mac 
does this.

The Mac is pretty standard across the board.  I can guide users to the 
preferences %95 of the time without resorting to asking, "did you do 
this?  Are you running this?  Did you run this?"

You're complaining about bootup displays, I said the Mac is far more 
friendly for home users and hides the boot display, and you ask if 
they're related to the issue?? I'm beginning to wonder if you're just 
purposely doing this now.

>> Oh, wait, as an option I can watch the Mac's bootup too.
> 
> For the fourth time: the option is there, just change it in menu.lst

So, what, you're bitching because the default isn't what you like?

>>> People who should know or care enough can just set
>>> the grub parameter, as was explained in this thread. 
>> Isn't that the same as setting a preference, only more convoluted and/or 
>> archaic/difficult to do?
> 
> Read Havoc Pennington's essay. It's different because this option does
> not clutter the UI with useless and confusing options

What options?  They're messages.  You don't interact with it.  I make 
ZERO choices during the boot.  You're essentially bitching because it's 
not pretty.

>> Y'know, I don't really care, personally.  It's not politically correct, 
>> but I have to deal with users for my day job.  So, I don't really care 
>> if poor Joe User is going to flip when something goes wrong and it drops 
>> him or her to a cryptic console error. 
> 
> Ok, so I was wrong up there with assuming you have experience with naive
> users. Sorry for saying that. but you should get another job then. I
> have to deal with users for my day job too, both in support and in the
> UI design of an application we develop. I consider every support call
> that I get as a design failure. 

That is an admirable attitude.  Honestly.

But you also have to realize that your application is being used.  This 
is task-oriented.  Someone has to use the application to get something 
done.  Your UI challenges mean something there.

You're complaining about the *bootup screen*, and 99.99% of users DON'T 
CARE about that any more than they read an EULA or care about the 
multitasking model of the OS.  They don't pay attention to that NEARLY 
as much as the other problems Linux or other platforms have, and your 
company would smack you in the head if you're worried about BS that is 
low priority if you have bigger bugs to squash.  Users don't *interact* 
with bootup unless there's a problem in the first place!!

Think about it.  Would my users want me to hide the bootup status 
messages on their workstations, or find a way to make it easier to print 
to the proper printer when they need to do reports?  Or find an email 
that's hidden because they f'd up the sorting order?

I'd hire you as a programmer because you care about usability.  I'd fire 
you if you worried more about the style of a button than whether that 
button is working properly.

>Yes, many are unavoidable at today's
> state of art, but that doesn't mean one should confuse them with
> desirable or meaningless events. Every support call is a user not doing
> what he's paid for or what he'd like to do better. And it annoys me, so
> I'd rather get rid of them.

Because they're using that part of the system.  They don't need to 
interact with bootup, so they don't care.  If they need to interact with 
it, there's a problem, it's not their job, it's not their task, they 
call IT or their housegeek to handle it.

> Not all users have local geeks, and anyway, none of this is an argument
> to make the system unfriendly or hard to use.

Dude, if they're using Linux, they probably have a housegeek.  "Home 
users" don't normally go out and wipe Windows to install something that 
isn't what they're used to without some geek influence.

>> So please spare me the poor user lecture.  They don't care about boot 
>> messages, they learn quickly to ignore it. 
> 
> You just said that Macs are more user-friendly. I have no experience
> with OSX, but I believe you. Surely there are reasons for this
> advantage. I don't think that scrolling screens of cryptic text are one
> of them.

Yeah, pretty interface and more consistency of UI and hardware.

Yet, it's a fraction of the market.

Go figure.  Maybe it's not the most important thing to end users.

>>  If you don't like it, I'm 
>> sure there's a nice way to hide it with some other splash screen or 
>> animation or some other eye candy.
> 
> So everyone shall suffer just to spare you making a one-line change in
> menu.lst? I'm afraid your logic escapes me

It's SUCH suffering.  Oh, the pain.  I have to endure something I might 
not understand while sipping my caffeine waiting to get to the login prompt.

<gasp>...<gasp>...<wheeeeeeeze>

<burp>

I'm over it.

>> Why is this even an issue when there's so many other areas that would 
>> improve user experience with Ubuntu on the desktop??  Watching status 
>> messages fly by is the least of my worries!
> 
> It's wrong to conclude that no other UI work happens just because one
> area is not completely done (the boot screen and its errors), and there
> is an argument about it.

Then fix it.  You're a programmer, no?  Make an offering to the distro 
gods with your own patches or your own boot loader to show all of us how 
it "should be done", and if it's truly the ingenious idea you think it 
would be, it should, by your theory, be adopted, no?

Hell, I'll start rebooting my servers to marvel at the lack of pain from 
watching the status of subsystems on startup.

Seriously, though, you think you can do better on it while everyone else 
out there is scratching their own itches, you can scratch your own itch. 
  Ordinarily I think this is SUCH a copout (Don't like it? Code your 
own!), but this is such a minor minor issue you're not likely to see any 
leaps from what's currently out there or being worked on, so most likely 
the only way whatever the improvement is you're looking for is gonna 
happen is if you did do this yourself.  It simply isn't an issue for 
99.9% of current Linux users because your userbase is already 
knowledgeable, so clueless they already ask for help from someone else 
if anything whatsoever isn't what they're used to, or just plain doesn't 
care about bootup.