You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Hi I was just wondering which is better, fbsplash or splashy? The wiki doesn't really explain this well. Mainly I just want it to be as quick as possible and not have much impact on boot time.
Thank you,
bananaoomarang
EDIT: or plymouth for that matter. Doesn't plymouth look nicer?
Last edited by bananaoomarang (2010-05-26 19:29:35)
Offline
Quite honestly - who the hell cares about how a 'boot'-operation looks??
It's only supposed to last some 20-30 secs - it is how it looks _afterwards_ that counts - IMHO
Offline
OK I sort of agree but I personally think that having a loading bar or slick theme like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaSg2rRj4HQ
looks a whole lot nicer than plain text streaming past. But I do see that it only lasts about 20 seconds. When a friend looks at my computer booting they say " What the hell have you done, it's broken" or something similar. My question was about choosing the best boot splash program. If there was no demand for one, they wouldn't exist and ALL the mainstream distros use them. I am fairly sure that if Mark Shuttlewroth announced "The next release of Ubuntu will have no boot splash because I don't care what my 10 second boot looks like" that there would be a fair amount of uproar. arch doesn't because arch is configurable, a base arch install is not very useful. I, personally, would prefer having a boot splash to not having a boot splash. That's just my opinion and I don't want to infringe on yours but all I am saying is why I might prefer a boot splash personally.
Offline
I actually think there isn't much difference. Try both of them and see which one you like better.
Offline
Pages: 1