>I'd also like to see much better boot management. The idea of an OS booting
>to a textual display in 1997 is ridiculous.
No, it isn't. It's not as pretty as booting to a no-icky-text-here
graphical display, but it's perfectly usable. But be that as it
may, are you working on such a thing? I'm doing research into a
modification that will drop a boot picture onto the system (probably
the NT login banner, so dimwitted managers won't run shrieking in
terror at the thought of a usable OS in their hands) and would be
happy to drop it like a hot potato if someone else was already doing
the work.
>At this stage of the game, we should be laying down ideas for a 3.0 version
>of Linux, and trying to stabilize 2.1 for final release, and definitely
>maintenance mode 2.0 to encourage upgrades to the next stable release. As
>far as I can tell, there are far too few reasons for any reasonable user to
>upgrade to 2.1 at the moment if you have a recent 2.0 kernel - we need to
>change that.
Eh? 2.0 is only about 5 months old, and it's just recently settled
down to the point of production stability. I'm certainly not going
to switch to the 2.1 development tree now (or for a long time if it
breaks any of the interfaces again.) just because it's there, and I
suspect I'm not the only fossil reading this mailing list.
____
david parsons \bi/ orc@pell.chi.il.us
\/