Re: terminal --silent option

[Bill Rees]

seems to me that the default for almost any of these situations is to be
silent and force a verbose option via the menu.lst file.  This would allow
you to explicitly control what is said and when it is said.  Since you have
to have a menu.lst in order to boot anything anyway, then this should be no
hardship for those involved and you no longer have any hidden features that
you don't keep from people.

bill rees

----- Original Message -----
From: "Henrik Nordstrom" <address@hidden>
To: "Christoph Plattner" <address@hidden>
Cc: <address@hidden>
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: terminal --silent option


> Christoph Plattner wrote:
> > Bt it is a bad semantic in having "hidden features". This may be a
> > Microsoft method (which I really hate), but not more.
>
> Well, I need to hide it for what I think is valid reasons, which are
>
>   * Users not authorized to use the serial boot console should not find it
> that easily
>   * There may be other devices connected on the serial port not being that
> happy about grub sending data there.
>
> Should perhaps note that on these devices there is no external VGA or
> keyboard connector..
>
> > If I offer a feature, then in the correct way. If I want to have
> > "restricted" access, then password or similar features can be used.
>
> Our grub config is obviously also password protected.
>
> > The only thing to discuss is perhaps the message "press any key ...",
> > but this is another topic.
>
> It is.
>
> If you do not accept the --silent option or a equivalent option then this
is
> fine by me. I'll just continue to patch the code before using to suit my
> needs.
>
> Regards
> Henrik
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-grub mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-grub
>