Why no bootsplash or fbsplash in arch kernel?

Duke · 2005-06-14 23:55:46

I'm not begging for a feature, if I wanted it I'd compile it myself, but I was genuinely wondering, why no bootsplash or fbsplash patches applied to the default arch kernel?

If a splash patch is included in the kernel, it doesn't have to be used if the user doesn't want, right? And bootsplash has been around for quite some time, and every time I used it it felt like stable software (as in, I had no problems with it). Now I never tried fbsplash, but why not include one of them?

I'm sure there's a good reason not to have arch patch the default kernel with either patch, I was just wondering what it is.

Dusty · 2005-06-14 23:59:57

Probably just simplicity... bootsplash doesn't add anything "useful" to Arch, so why go to the trouble of including it. Arch has a keep it simple attitude.

Dusty

Cam · 2005-06-15 01:50:35

Check the about.php page on the main site, the reason might be there I'm not sure. At any rate, as a general rule Arch packages aren't patched, there are exceptions but I can't recall them exactly at the moment but mostly the devs try to keep everything as vanilla (read: simple) as possible, if you want to patch something that's where ABS comes in handy

Euphoric Nightmare · 2005-06-15 04:17:25

I don't understand why people want a bootsplash image. I rarely ever restart, and I can imagine that a lot of people that use arch ever do either, unless they are dual booting.

phrakture · 2005-06-15 04:23:34

Euphoric Nightmare wrote:

I don't understand why people want a bootsplash image. I rarely ever restart, and I can imagine that a lot of people that use arch ever do either, unless they are dual booting.

well, it also allows you to add backgrounds to the framebuffer, which is nice

Duke · 2005-06-15 06:38:16

Actually, I'm sure there are alot of arch users that reboot their machines frequently. I personally have my pc in my bedroom and much rather not have to listen to that sound all night,

I just thought this was a common feature among distros except from my distro of choice, and was curious on why.

On a side note, console backgrounds that bootsplash provides are indeed nice, especially if you are working on a console only box and need some eye candy that you can't get from X.org.

iphitus · 2005-06-15 12:11:10

Amazingly, people use Arch on their laptops too.

IE Me, So I am constantly rebooting, software suspend isnt worth the effort when I boot up in under a minute.

bootsplash is also nice when you want to do some console based work, or operate entirely from the console.

As has been said, bootsplash isnt included because of Arch's keep it simple philosophy, developers only patch the kernel with what they need, no more.

Another reason, could well be that the patches are not well maintained, take a look at bootsplash.org, no recent kernels have patches. Sure bootsplash.de have them, but they always arent out until even a few weeks after the kernel.

And finally, compiling the kernel with either bootsplash or fbsplash would stop a user from having a choice between the two.

iphitus

codergeek42 · 2005-06-15 14:24:17

The default Arch kernel (if you don't roll your own) has the Arch logo instead of Tux if you boot to a framebuffer. Adding a bootsplash or something would be too much of a hassle though, imho.

TheRaginAsian · 2005-06-16 01:48:02

Yeah, I happen to be one of those poor poor Dual Booting souls (When you live in a small town, repairing windows machines is the only real market), and although a bootsplash would be cool and ive considered patching the kernel just for it, I normally just say "Bah" to the whole thing. I see windows always give me a stupid picture, its kinda neat to see all the startup stuff anyways. And yeah, that little arch logo is neat, I think its just the right mix between a bootsplash and not.

Arch Linux

#1 2005-06-14 23:55:46

Why no bootsplash or fbsplash in arch kernel?

#2 2005-06-14 23:59:57

Re: Why no bootsplash or fbsplash in arch kernel?

#3 2005-06-15 01:50:35

Re: Why no bootsplash or fbsplash in arch kernel?

#4 2005-06-15 04:17:25

Re: Why no bootsplash or fbsplash in arch kernel?

#5 2005-06-15 04:23:34

Re: Why no bootsplash or fbsplash in arch kernel?

#6 2005-06-15 06:38:16

Re: Why no bootsplash or fbsplash in arch kernel?

#7 2005-06-15 12:11:10

Re: Why no bootsplash or fbsplash in arch kernel?

#8 2005-06-15 14:24:17

Re: Why no bootsplash or fbsplash in arch kernel?

#9 2005-06-16 01:48:02

Re: Why no bootsplash or fbsplash in arch kernel?

Board footer