Re: I like my rc.d boot messages :(

JoaoBR wrote:
> On Thursday 24 July 2008 16:30:33 Miroslav Lachman wrote:
> 
>>JoaoBR wrote:

[...]

>>>something more obvious would be:
>>>
>>>starting $service_name  ... up
>>>starting $service_name  ... up
>>>...
>>>
>>>that would be something clear, specially for whom did not invented it
>>
>>It seems too verbose. (does anybody expect "stoping" service on system
>>boot?) And each service on separate line seems to me like vaste of space.
>>Line like "[ssh] [smtp] [dhcpd] [mysql]" is enough for me.
>>It is easy to document it in handbook and man pages.
>>
>>Just my 0.02
>>
> 
> 
> well, the obvious often is'nt :) 
>  for me it would be something like:
> 
>  starting $service_name  ... up
>  starting $service_name  ... failed
>  starting $service_name  ... up
> 
> what waste of space? running lines not buffered but in dmesg.* 
> anyway the waste of space is it worse as price for clearness
> 
> and as I said before what is clear for the inventor or for you and me is one 
> thing but when you're supporting a remote server which is not coming up and 
> a "not-knowing-the-secret" person eventual in another language (not english 
> speaking) needs to say it ... well, then my friend, when this happens to you 
> then you will remember this thread and will bite your ass for not having 
> agreed ... :)

What waste? Let's imagine starting too many services, that useful 
information already scrolled out of the screen too quickly because each 
service has it's own line... it is just another point of view of the 
same problem with person on the phone and that's why I can't agree ;o)

I am not saying your version is bad, just I don't need it that verbose, 
I'll be happier with "oneline for all".
Maybe there could be some verbosity switch for users choice:
0 - show nothing
1 - show just names in brackets on one line
2 - show full line with named state on separate lines

But maybe this is too complex solution for this easy task...

YMMV

Miroslav Lachman