On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 9:23 PM Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
> On 2.7.2020 01:06, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 9:03 PM Jóhann B. Guðmundsson <johannbg(a)gmail.com>
>>> On 1.7.2020 23:28, Neal Gompa wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 7:19 PM Björn Persson <Bjorn(a)xn--rombobjrn-67a.se>
>>>>> Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
>>>>>> More user friendly than Grub ( has lilo like interface easier to
>>>>>> kernel entry, which goes nicely with the default editor change )
>>>>> This made me go "What?!". I used Lilo back in the day. Its
>>>>> interface was nothing but a prompt. You had to know what to type or
>>>>> you'd be stuck.
>>>>> Information for others like me who haven't seen Lilo since Grub
>>>>> along: Apparently development of Lilo continued until just five
>>>>> ago, and it grew a menu at some point. I guess that menu is the
>>>>> of user-friendliness that Johann was trying to invoke.
>>>> If I ever wanted to switch to another boot manager, I'd seriously
>>>> us to consider rEFInd: https://www.rodsbooks.com/refind/
>>>> It's a very nice boot manager that looks good and doesn't suck.
>>>> purportedly is somewhat (if not fully) compatible with bls.
>>>> sd-boot is too barebones and unfriendly to use, which makes sense
>>>> since it was designed for non-interactive machines and not humans to
>>> If there is this general feel that sd-boots configuration syntax is much
>>> harder to read and the ability of not having to run additional command
>>> once the file has been edited or the ability to be able to easily
>>> maintain and manage multiple kernels or multiple operating systems due
>>> those being a drop-in configuration text files, is considered being too
>>> bare bone and *less* user-friendly than grub, then obviously me creating
>>> a change proposal based on what Javier suggested along with other
>>> cleanups to provide as best user experience as can be had with sd-boot
>>> would be doing the distribution a great disservice would it not?
>> Oh, I don't care about the configuration syntax. That part would be
>> the same across grub, refind, and sd-boot anyway.
>> The user-interactive portion of sd-boot is *awful*. I know our GRUB
>> looks ugly by default these days too, but it doesn't have to be, and
>> most distros actually do make it look semi-decent.
>> But alas, nobody cares about making that part look nice, because they
>> hope people don't have to go there at all. But even Windows makes
>> their boot manager not look ugly and relatively easy to navigate. And
>> obviously Apple has done this forever with macOS.
>> I honestly don't get why everyone is okay with butt-ugly and user-unfriendly
> Because the end user should never find himself in the boot manager to
> begin with that's why no boot manager invest any time in being
> The end user should find himself ending up in some form of shiny nice
> user friendly rescue environment that helps him troubleshoot his problem
> would you agree?
I would, except, we can't have that either, because nobody cares to
make that either.
Well if anything I would have expected atleast the Gnome community to
care deeply about that and build a a rescue environment consistent with
the overall Gnome experience.
If we implement sd-boot in conjunction with the automatic boot
assessment we should be able to boot into such environment if the end
users boot fails but if people oppose sd-boot and see that as unusable
root of all evil or there is no interest within the Workstation WG and
or Gnome community ( Team Anaconda might be the right place for such
work? ) working on to provide such an rescue environment then obviously
nothing will change.