i realize that the graphical boot has been discussed on numerous occasions, but frankly, i've never seen one on my system (currently running FC3). how do i get one? (at the moment, i see the standard line-oriented boot i've seen for years).
i've verified that /etc/sysconfig/init contains
BOOTUP=color GRAPHICAL=yes
i've perused /etc/rc.sysinit and the conditions look like they'd be satisfied. /usr/bin/rhgb is there. the file /proc/cmdline does not contain the string "nogui". so what am i missing?
i figured it would be nice to see this graphical boot thingie at least once.
rday
On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 21:58, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
i realize that the graphical boot has been discussed on numerous occasions, but frankly, i've never seen one on my system (currently running FC3). how do i get one? (at the moment, i see the standard line-oriented boot i've seen for years).
i've verified that /etc/sysconfig/init contains
BOOTUP=color GRAPHICAL=yesi've perused /etc/rc.sysinit and the conditions look like they'd be satisfied. /usr/bin/rhgb is there. the file /proc/cmdline does not contain the string "nogui". so what am i missing?
i figured it would be nice to see this graphical boot thingie at least once.
you need to apend rhgb to the end of your boot line the same as you do for hdd=ide-scsi for a burner and you need to have the rhgb pacake installed of course.
Dennis
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 06:58:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
i realize that the graphical boot has been discussed on numerous occasions, but frankly, i've never seen one on my system (currently running FC3). how do i get one? (at the moment, i see the standard line-oriented boot i've seen for years).
i've verified that /etc/sysconfig/init contains
BOOTUP=color GRAPHICAL=yesi've perused /etc/rc.sysinit and the conditions look like they'd be satisfied. /usr/bin/rhgb is there. the file /proc/cmdline does not contain the string "nogui". so what am i missing?
i figured it would be nice to see this graphical boot thingie at least once.
You need the "rhgb" boot option, otherwise it is not enabled.
greetings,
Florian La Roche
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Florian La Roche wrote:
(regarding my query about getting a graphical boot ...)
You need the "rhgb" boot option, otherwise it is not enabled.
ok, that certainly wasn't obvious from perusing the early startup files. what looks like the relevant excerpt from /etc/rc.sysinit:
------------------------
RHGB_STARTED=0 mount -n -t devpts /dev/pts /dev/pts
if ! fgrep -q nogui /proc/cmdline && [ "$BOOTUP" = "color" -a "$GRAPHICAL" = "yes" -a -x /usr/bin/rhgb ]; then /usr/bin/rhgb RHGB_STARTED=1 fi
------------------------
since i don't see any check for a boot-line "rhgb", but there is a check for "nogui", is it then the kernel itself that is checking for the "rhgb" string on the command line? or, more to the point, where does that "rhgb" boot option kick in? just being nitpicky, as usual.
rday
--- Florian La Roche laroche@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 06:58:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
i figured it would be nice to see this graphical
boot thingie at
least once.
You need the "rhgb" boot option, otherwise it is not enabled.
Shouldn't it be considered a bug that the "rhgb" boot option isn't added by default? The whole point of the graphical boot is to look good for newbies, who wouldn't and probably shouldn't be editing grub.conf.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
James J. Ramsey wrote:
Shouldn't it be considered a bug that the "rhgb" boot option isn't added by default? The whole point of the
I don't have that option and I get the graphical boot after the kernel loads init. Does rhgb supposed to make the entire boot process graphical so I don't see the kernel messages?
-eric wood
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Eric Wood wrote:
James J. Ramsey wrote:
Shouldn't it be considered a bug that the "rhgb" boot option isn't added by default? The whole point of the
I don't have that option and I get the graphical boot after the kernel loads init. Does rhgb supposed to make the entire boot process graphical so I don't see the kernel messages?
oh, crap, is it really because you might have /usr as a separate filesystem? here's the salient excerpt from /etc/rc.sysinit, which i just now noticed the problem in:
----------------------------------------------------- # Start the graphical boot, if necessary; /usr may not be mounted yet, so # we may have to do this again after mounting
RHGB_STARTED=0 mount -n -t devpts /dev/pts /dev/pts
if ! fgrep -q nogui /proc/cmdline && [ "$BOOTUP" = "color" -a "$GRAPHICAL" = "yes" -a -x /usr/bin/rhgb ]; then <---- HERE! /usr/bin/rhgb RHGB_STARTED=1 fi ------------------------------------------------------
as i read it, for a graphical boot to start, a number of things must be true, including the existence of /usr/bin/rhgb. which is false if /usr is a separate filesystem, since /etc/rc.sysinit hasn't mounted the other filesystems yet and there is no /usr/bin/rhgb.
am i reading this correctly? so those of you who *don't* have a separate /usr have been getting a graphical boot all this time, right?
rday
--- Eric Wood eric@interplas.com wrote:
James J. Ramsey wrote:
Shouldn't it be considered a bug that the "rhgb"
boot
option isn't added by default? The whole point of
the
I don't have that option and I get the graphical boot after the kernel loads init.
That's odd. Could you post the contents of /boot/grub/grub.conf?
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
On Oct 31, 2003, "James J. Ramsey" jjramsey_6x9eq42@yahoo.com wrote:
Shouldn't it be considered a bug that the "rhgb" boot option isn't added by default?
It is added by default.
--- Alexandre Oliva aoliva@redhat.com wrote:
On Oct 31, 2003, "James J. Ramsey" jjramsey_6x9eq42@yahoo.com wrote:
Shouldn't it be considered a bug that the "rhgb"
boot
option isn't added by default?
It is added by default.
No, it isn't. When the kernel is upgraded and grub.conf is modified to account for the new kernel, that option isn't added to the GRUB entry for the new kernel.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
On Oct 31, 2003, "James J. Ramsey" jjramsey_6x9eq42@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Alexandre Oliva aoliva@redhat.com wrote:
It is added by default.
[when you install]
No, it isn't. When the kernel is upgraded and grub.conf is modified to account for the new kernel, that option isn't added to the GRUB entry for the new kernel.
kernel upgrades have never modified the command line passed to the kernel, AFAIK. The template is just copied from the default boot entry.
--- Alexandre Oliva aoliva@redhat.com wrote:
On Oct 31, 2003, "James J. Ramsey" jjramsey_6x9eq42@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Alexandre Oliva aoliva@redhat.com wrote:
It is added by default.
[when you install]
No, it isn't. When the kernel is upgraded and grub.conf is modified to account for the new
kernel,
that option isn't added to the GRUB entry for the
new
kernel.
kernel upgrades have never modified the command line passed to the kernel, AFAIK. The template is just copied from the default boot entry.
Then
1) either the template is being miscopied, because "rhgb", one of the options in the original boot entry, was not so copied,
2) or the original Fedora test3 kernel defaulted to using the graphical boot, while the upgrade kernels have graphical boot off by default and need the "rhgb" option passed in order to turn it on.
This is buggy behavior, and simply telling users to add "rhgb" to /boot/grub/grub.conf is the wrong solution, period. Users who can readily do that aren't the ones that a graphical boot is supposed to benefit.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
--- "James J. Ramsey" jjramsey_6x9eq42@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Alexandre Oliva aoliva@redhat.com wrote:
kernel upgrades have never modified the command
line
passed to the kernel, AFAIK. The template is just copied from
the
default boot entry.
Then
- either the template is being miscopied, because
"rhgb", one of the options in the original boot entry, was not so copied,
- or the original Fedora test3 kernel defaulted to
using the graphical boot, while the upgrade kernels have graphical boot off by default and need the "rhgb" option passed in order to turn it on.
I just realized that there was a third option, namely that the init scripts changed so that the "rhgb" option was now necessary, when it wasn't before. Judging from the thread "ok, graphical boot, one more time" (especially the post found at http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2003-October/msg04131.html), that is exactly what has happened.
That means that the way to fix this buggy behavior in the final release is to have Anaconda add "rhgb" to grub.conf on install.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
Once upon a time at band camp Sat, 1 Nov 2003 4:42 am, James J. Ramsey wrote:
I just realized that there was a third option, namely that the init scripts changed so that the "rhgb" option was now necessary, when it wasn't before. Judging from the thread "ok, graphical boot, one more time" (especially the post found at <http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2003-October/msg04131.html
), that is exactly what has happened.
That means that the way to fix this buggy behavior in the final release is to have Anaconda add "rhgb" to grub.conf on install.
Have you read the release notes for the new release?
<Quote>
Fedora Core 1 now uses a graphical interface while booting. The graphical boot screen will appear once the kernel has loaded. Graphical booting is controlled by the GRAPHICAL line in the /etc/sysconfig/init file; set it to "no" to permanently disable graphical booting. In addition, the parameter rhgb must be appended to your bootloader command line.
Systems that have been upgraded to Fedora Core 1 will not be configured to include the graphical boot feature. You must install the rhgb package, and add the rhgb boot-time parameter to your bootloader configuration.
</Quote>
new installs will have it turned on upgrades will need to be configured
Dennis
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:30:56AM +1000, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
[snip] feeling pedantic this evening.....
<Quote>
Fedora Core 1 now uses a graphical interface while booting. The graphical boot> screen will appear once the kernel has loaded. Graphical booting is controlled by the GRAPHICAL line in the /etc/sysconfig/init file; set it to "no" to permanently disable graphical booting. In addition, the parameter rhgb must be appended to your bootloader command line.
In the interests of minimizing ambiguity, this should be rewritten as:
"Fedora Core 1 now uses a graphical interface while booting. The graphical boot screen will appear once the kernel has loaded as long as the following options have been enabled: 1) "rhgb" has been appended to your bootloader kernel command line, e.g., title Red Hat Linux (2.4.20-20.8) root (hd0,0) kernel /vmlinuz-2.4.20-20.8 root=/dev/hda2 ro rhgb initrd /initrd-2.4.20-20.8.img 2) the GRAPHICAL line in your /etc/sysconfig/init has been set to "yes",e.g., GRAPHICAL = "yes".
If you wish to permanently disable graphical boot, set the GRAPHICAL line to "no" in /etc/sysconfig/init."
More wordy but more precise, methinks. Despite this, I think rhgb should be set for rhgb by default for the upcoming golden FC1 release. Those who want to kill it can read the README and do it for themselves, whereas newbies will freak. I generally frown on the dumbing down of linux and I railed against rhgb at first but I can see the rationale for attracting newbies. I will never use rhgb but many will.
Once upon a time at band camp Sat, 1 Nov 2003 12:14 pm, Jack Bowling wrote:
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:30:56AM +1000, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
[snip] feeling pedantic this evening.....
<snip>
More wordy but more precise, methinks. Despite this, I think rhgb should be set for rhgb by default for the upcoming golden FC1 release. Those who want to kill it can read the README and do it for themselves, whereas newbies will freak. I generally frown on the dumbing down of linux and I railed against rhgb at first but I can see the rationale for attracting newbies. I will never use rhgb but many will.
if you do a new clean install you will have rhgb from the get go. if you do an upgrade from a previous RH release you will have to manually turn on rhgb.
Dennis
--- Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us wrote:
Have you read the release notes for the new release?
Why should I have? The new release isn't out yet. Not too surprisingly, I *did* read the release notes for Fedora 0.95 test 3.
A very conspicuous change was made that looked like a bug--a much touted feature had disappeared. The nature of the change was announced (buried?) inconspicuously in the release notes. Meanwhile, on the mailing list, when there were complaints about the disappearance of the graphical boot, no mention was made that this was a result of an intentional change, not a bug. Not good.
new installs will have it turned on upgrades will
need
to be configured
Until yesterday I would have considered that good news. :-(
Unfortunately, the graphical boot at the very least messes up support for Wacom USB tablets. (See http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2003-October/msg04154.html.) Who knows what other stuff rhgb might break? IMHO, the graphical boot shouldn't be enabled by default *at all*.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 06:58:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
i've perused /etc/rc.sysinit and the conditions look like they'd be satisfied. /usr/bin/rhgb is there. the file /proc/cmdline does not contain the string "nogui". so what am i missing?
ensure rhgb is in /proc/cmdline edit grub.conf as appropriate (or just append on a single boot).
i figured it would be nice to see this graphical boot thingie at least once.
I turned it back on and was most impressed.
Paul
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 06:58:21 -0500 (EST) "Robert P. J. Day" rpjday@mindspring.com wrote:
i realize that the graphical boot has been discussed on numerous occasions, but frankly, i've never seen one on my system (currently running FC3). how do i get one? (at the moment, i see the standard line-oriented boot i've seen for years).
i've verified that /etc/sysconfig/init contains
BOOTUP=color GRAPHICAL=yesi've perused /etc/rc.sysinit and the conditions look like they'd be satisfied. /usr/bin/rhgb is there. the file /proc/cmdline does not contain the string "nogui". so what am i missing?
i figured it would be nice to see this graphical boot thingie at least once.
rday
Quite some time ago there was the issue of rhgb only working when you did not have a separate partition for /usr. Is this still an issue?
henk
-
Alexandre Oliva -
Dennis Gilmore -
Eric Wood -
Florian La Roche -
Henk Breimer -
Jack Bowling -
James J. Ramsey -
nosp -
Paul Nasrat -
Robert P. J. Day