Tux in Arch

Spacenick · 2010-04-06 13:58:17

I really like the way Arch keeps the whole system clean and stays very close to mainline overall I think Arch is great. But there is one cosmetic detail I really miss.
And that's the fact that even though Tux is imho one of the best mascots there is and it really is a symbol for the Free Software world (GNU would be the original one but it's simply not cute enough), is nowhere to be seen in Arch, which is especially a pity with the boot process, while I really like the fact that Arch uses a text boot rather then this nonsense boot splash stuff that not only looks eerie but also makes absolutely no sense from a technical point of view.
That Tux is an awesome mascot has become the clearest to me when I once found out that some female friends used to have a Tux picture in their photo albums in the social networks, so I propose that Tux should be added somewhere in Arch so that everyon sees it's a Linux (I mean it has linux in it's name so don't tell me it's more then just the Kernel and might even once run on a *BSD Kernel).

rodbzro · 2010-04-06 15:53:55

I can't see a good reason to include or relate Tux as an official Arch Linux artwork. I mean, Arch _is_ Linux, so what's the point? On the top of that there is the Arch philosophy about using software on its original version, which is a very, very good thing to do. From my perspective there are too many distros spending too much time making their versions of software looks "unique" while there are several other important things to accomplish.

If you want to show off that you're a Linux user, buy some T-shirt, laptop stick, mug, whatever. Or maybe you can share a custom software theme package on AUR. After all, that's one of the things Arch encourages: an user experience through interaction with the community.

But that's only _my_ perspective.

Spacenick · 2010-04-06 16:06:50

I don't know whether I'm mislead but as far as I know the vanilla Linux Kernel includes Tux which is shown (one per CPU Core) at Bootup so yeah it's part of the mainline Linux kernel

pseudonomous · 2010-04-06 17:53:31

The above post is correct; if you compile yourself a custom kernel, you'll see tux in the bootup screen instead of the arch logo, I don't know if there's a way to replace the graphics file without compiling your own kernel, but it may be possible, if the image data is not compiled in, but rather sourced from file.

Spacenick · 2010-04-06 20:35:23

I think it's actually not replaced by the Arch logo as that is at a different place and done in a different way. But yeah I think it would be awesome to have Tux there. Actually grml.org GRML Linuxb has their logo really in place of tux.

Peasantoid · 2010-04-06 20:38:29

My entirely non-humble opinion is that you should not shove this sort of thing down people's throats, no matter how nice *you* think it is. I find boot logos to be frivolous and distracting. Of course, YMMV.

tomk · 2010-04-06 21:31:47

Spacenick - the tux logo files are provided by the upstream kernel release, and the Arch kernel patch overwrites them with identically-named Arch logo files. So they are actually replaced.

My take on this is that if you want to see tux on your machine at boot-time, it's not too difficult to roll your own kernel - although I personally wouldn't do it just because of the logo. If you think all Arch users should see tux at boot-time, you need to post a feature request for it, and let the devs decide. Don't be to surprised, though, if it doesn't get the response you would like.

JackH79 · 2010-04-06 23:22:30

Personally I don't like any form of graphical logo stuff during boot up. Most of them look cheap and chincy (imho) and distract from what is actually going on.
I appreciate that some people want to "pretty up" their machines, but I think that some of us also like having it as clean and clear as possible. So we are back to choice again - something Linux in general and Arch in particular excell at.

ngoonee · 2010-04-06 23:27:44

I've never actually seen the Arch logo on bootup.... firstly because I rarely boot (suspend ftw) and secondly because it flashes by so fast. Why would Tux be any different? I just want to get my computer up and running.

Spacenick · 2010-04-07 16:52:21

Actually Tux as it is in mailine is absolutely not a classical boot logo. It's jsut sits at the etch of sthe screen hiding nothing during the boot process. And, I think it should be there because the Kernel developers have chosen that this would be good and because I think Arch with it's philosophy of keeping things vanilla should honor the linux kernel they way the kernel devs wanted it to be. Actually I don't think Arch overrites it with an Arch logo, have never seen an Arch logo where the Tux is with hand built kernels, I think the config just disables it as it's possible.

Peasantoid · 2010-04-07 17:21:02

Spacenick wrote:

Actually Tux as it is in mailine is absolutely not a classical boot logo. It's jsut sits at the etch of sthe screen hiding nothing during the boot process.

Not to continue the debate [he said, continuing the debate], but my objection is not that it obstructs anything, but that it's pointless and frivolous.

Spacenick wrote:

And, I think it should be there because the Kernel developers have chosen that this would be good and because I think Arch with it's philosophy of keeping things vanilla should honor the linux kernel they way the kernel devs wanted it to be.

An interesting point. Though I'd still end up disabling it no matter what it was.

Spacenick wrote:

Actually I don't think Arch overrites it with an Arch logo, have never seen an Arch logo where the Tux is with hand built kernels,

I believe that's *because* you're using a hand-built kernel. The logo is embedded into the kernel image - it's not a separate entity in the filesystem. From a quick glance at the patch file (patches for various versions located here) used by the Arch package's pkgbuild, it overwrites the .pbm logo as it exists in the kernel source tree.

// edit - clarity

Last edited by Peasantoid (2010-04-07 17:28:00)

Spacenick · 2010-04-07 18:02:42

I'm using the kernel from Core

tomk · 2010-04-07 20:10:49

Spacenick wrote:

Actually I don't think Arch overrites it with an Arch logo

OK... I already told you it does, but I don't see any need to prove that. Feel free to examine the Arch kernel patch if you want, or if you prefer your version of things, that's fine too.

Peasantoid · 2010-04-07 20:21:56

Spacenick wrote:

Actually I don't think Arch overrites it with an Arch logo, have never seen an Arch logo where the Tux is with hand built kernels

Spacenick wrote:

I'm using the kernel from Core

Hrm. Looks like I misunderstood. In the first quote, I thought you meant you were using a hand-built kernel.

eldragon · 2010-04-08 00:32:10

facts:

the arch kernel patch overwrites the tux logo with an arch logo.

if KMS is enabled, to see this logo, you need the display module built into the kernel, aka, compile

if UMS is enabled, setting a 1024x768 display will actually show the logo.

.:B:. · 2010-04-08 00:58:14

Spacenick wrote:

Actually I don't think Arch overrites it with an Arch logo, have never seen an Arch logo where the Tux is with hand built kernels, I think the config just disables it as it's possible.

It is nice to see you think that, especially when an Arch 'official' that's been around six years longer than you told you Arch does - in person.

Boy - I love the openmindedness here!

sHyLoCk · 2010-04-08 03:20:13

Spacenick

You can copy your custom logo_linux_clut224.ppm to /usr/src/linux/drivers/video/logo/ before compiling.
I personally prefer this Tux over the Arch boot logo.

Spacenick · 2010-04-08 10:00:59

Sorry then for my arrogance, seems like it's actually KMS that makes me not see the logo. Must have been a little bit sleepy that day so that I trusted my eyes more then my brain without thinking about the possibility, that I don't see the logo for a completely different reason, was so used to seeing it during text boot that I never thought about the possibility of it not being displayed if it's not disabled.

Last edited by Spacenick (2010-04-08 10:07:08)

kfgz · 2010-04-08 10:06:14

Spacenick wrote:

Sorry then for my arrogance, seems like it's actually KMS that makes me not see the logo.

Do you use KMS at early start?

Spacenick · 2010-04-08 10:09:52

Actually, I'm unsure and would have thought that at least on this mashine I don't I'm using radeonhd and don't get the right resolution in my ttys so I'd guessed that I don't but then again there must be a reason for me not seeing the logo. Apart from having radeonhd in xorg.conf my configuration is completely vanilla, no special kernel params or some such.

kfgz · 2010-04-08 10:34:53

Radeonhd doesn't have KMS but xf86-video-ati has. If you want to use radeonhd add vga=xxx as a kernel parameter to /boot/grub/menu.lst.

Spacenick · 2010-04-08 10:42:02

Thanks I will try that, got some problems with ati it has some flickering might as well check out whether it still has that. Might hae to wait for 2.6.33 and xserver 1.8 to roll in though

piezoelectric · 2010-04-10 13:00:42

Spacenick wrote:

Tux which is shown (one per CPU Core) at Bootup

Ohhhhhhhhhhh!

.:B:. · 2010-04-10 13:30:28

Spacenick wrote:

Thanks I will try that, got some problems with ati it has some flickering might as well check out whether it still has that. Might hae to wait for 2.6.33 and xserver 1.8 to roll in though

ATi seems to be notoriously slow in supporting new X servers, if you use their proprietary driver I think you're better of fixing whatever issues you have with the present Xorg, I think they added support for that recently.

Spacenick · 2010-04-10 23:55:06

Haven't used the proprietary driver for ages. I've been happy with radeonhd but as currently it seens upstream lacks support for KMS and new kernels, it's not the Arch devs fault it's not working good at the moment. If anybody we could blame ATI for being unable to help me use the hardware I bought (and that is something completelty different then what the radeonhd or even Arch devs do, they don't do it for profit so I can't blame them, but I do blame ATI cause I paid them and that gives me the right to complain).
Anyway better use radeon driver until that's fixed and live with the flicker then going to another distro or downgrading or something..

Arch Linux

#1 2010-04-06 13:58:17

Tux in Arch

#2 2010-04-06 15:53:55

Re: Tux in Arch

#3 2010-04-06 16:06:50

Re: Tux in Arch

#4 2010-04-06 17:53:31

Re: Tux in Arch

#5 2010-04-06 20:35:23

Re: Tux in Arch

#6 2010-04-06 20:38:29

Re: Tux in Arch

#7 2010-04-06 21:31:47

Re: Tux in Arch

#8 2010-04-06 23:22:30

Re: Tux in Arch

#9 2010-04-06 23:27:44

Re: Tux in Arch

#10 2010-04-07 16:52:21

Re: Tux in Arch

#11 2010-04-07 17:21:02

Re: Tux in Arch

#12 2010-04-07 18:02:42

Re: Tux in Arch

#13 2010-04-07 20:10:49

Re: Tux in Arch

#14 2010-04-07 20:21:56

Re: Tux in Arch

#15 2010-04-08 00:32:10

Re: Tux in Arch

#16 2010-04-08 00:58:14

Re: Tux in Arch

#17 2010-04-08 03:20:13

Re: Tux in Arch

#18 2010-04-08 10:00:59

Re: Tux in Arch

#19 2010-04-08 10:06:14

Re: Tux in Arch

#20 2010-04-08 10:09:52

Re: Tux in Arch

#21 2010-04-08 10:34:53

Re: Tux in Arch

#22 2010-04-08 10:42:02

Re: Tux in Arch

#23 2010-04-10 13:00:42

Re: Tux in Arch

#24 2010-04-10 13:30:28

Re: Tux in Arch

#25 2010-04-10 23:55:06

Re: Tux in Arch

Board footer