Ubuntu QA:
BlogBrainstormPackage status
Log in
Ubuntu QA
The Ubuntu community has contributed 15312 ideas, 95871 comments, 1967999 votes
Idea sandbox Idea sandbox
Popular ideas Popular ideas
Ideas in development Ideas in development
Implemented ideas Implemented ideas
Idea #21: Professional-looking bootloader

bug This idea was marked as being in development the 1 June 09.
Written by Murrquan the 28 Feb 08 at 14:42. Category: Look and Feel. Related project: Nothing/Others. Status: In development
Rationale
Ubuntu's bootloader is a stark black and white screen, filled with confusing options. It gives newbies a moment of indecision, as they try to figure out if they are supposed to choose something, and wonder why there are three or four Ubuntus listed. Then the timer finishes counting down (starting from 10), and the newb begins to feel like he's getting in over his head as his PC boots into Ubuntu.

Too much information up front, stark text-only display, painfully long countdown timer.
Tags: grub grubgfx

5944
votes
inprogress
Selected solution (#1): Create an attractive boot loader with grubgfx
Written by Murrquan the 28 Feb 08 at 14:42.
Create an attractive boot loader with grubgfx that requires minimal user input and does not scare away new users. If that doesn't work then use Fedora's Plymouth
524
votes
inprogress
Selected solution (#2): Use Plymouth and the latest GDM for a faster and smoother boot up.
Written by vs8 the 14 Jan 09 at 15:59.
openSUSE and Fedora 10 feature more elaborate art than Ubuntu, I'm not talking about the colors they choose, because I like the Ubuntu colors, it's the art style.

One thing they got right is the boot up. Those distros boot very smooth and they look professional, Ubuntu looks rushed, plain and ugly.

I've seen Fedora boot, and the new plymouth thing rocks, Ubuntu should use it too. It's way better than the actual ugly usplash.

The other thing is the GDM, Ubuntu uses a very old GDM, which is slow. At least on my PC (AMD Phenon 9600 Quad Core, 4gb RAM). The new GDM is smoother, faster and it works fine.

In short, Ubuntu needs eye candy, from boot up to shut down it will attract more people, I guarantee it.

What is Plymouth?

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=fedora_plymouth&num=1


Attachments
spec Blueprint use-grubgfx: Ubuntu
forum Ubuntuforums.org thread #208855


Duplicates
Accepted Idea #9893: GRUB (-1 votes)


Comments
xhaker wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 14:49
This will most likely happen with the move to grub2.

will_in_wi wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 14:51
LP Bug# 3339

jakethecake wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 15:17
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/use-grubgfx

https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/slick-boot
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/grub2
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/grub-configuration-improvements

nicolaide wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 15:49
I really like the idea... This theme of gfx is awesome

http://www.gnome-look.org/content/preview.php?preview=1&id=43166&file1=43166-1. png&file2=&file3=&name=Dark+Grey+Ubuntu+GFXBoot+Theme

madman2k wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 15:59
who cares how the boot loader looks like? All I see of grub is the booting in n secs message at startup...

rainforest12 wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 16:02
juhu, seems like debian is switching to grub2 soon (1 year :O)

felipe wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 17:05
Does is have to say: Ubuntu, Kernel blablabla....????

It should say just Ubuntu and hide the mem test and leave just the option to start Ubuntu and any other OS that is installed. Leave a Fkey to access the other kernels installed and the memtest.

dstickst wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 17:12
Absolutely agree. My wife is a lifetime Windows use and freaked when the bootloader popped up after I installed Ubuntu. It looks too foreign and intimidating to casual users. Instantly puts them in the "this is going be hard, isn't it" mode.

FastZ wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 18:32
I will agree that Grub simply looks...well, simple. In the event that a user is sitting, staring at a Grub menu, then they most likely have a dual-boot set up. In this case, I can see sprucing up the landscape a little there to make it a lot less intimidating to the average computer user. In the event that the user has a computer and is not utilizing a dual-boot set up, then they will never see grub to begin with so having a graphic grub menu would be pointless for them.

ManiacHgh wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 19:03
don't remove memtest. I would actually like HDD test to be added.

gpmartinson wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 19:04
Its not just the simple grub interface that bothers me. The memtest and repair option that are loaded by default really need to be hidden. Those options are seldom used and could be hidden behind an F2 key or something. As to the simplicity of the GUI, I think just adding some fine-tuning to the bootsplash like Gentoo uses or similar would be great. I realize using the G word around here is a sin, but...

eks wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 19:09
Also correct the name of the BOOT MANAGER to something about *****BOOT*****, which is different from START-UP. (Current Start-Up Manager is actually a menu.lst editor)

A full-featured visual BOOT EDITOR/MANAGER inside Ubuntu would be great also. Currently the (wrongly named) "Start-Up Manager" destroy my mapping for the other OS on the other disk and simply throws it away.

dragonx wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 19:17
http://weblogs.inf.udp.cl/nboettcher/11/01/2008/grub-con-entorno-grafico/

keen101 wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 19:53
If you use the alternate install CD, you can choose to install the GRUB or LILO bootloader.

Personally I like GRUB. It's easy to configure the file if I don't like it.

sudo gedit /boot/grub/menu.lst

But, if you like LILO better, then install it with the alternate install CD.




PeterG wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 20:05
I'm sure linux will allow advanced users to create whatever bootmenu they want.

But for the simple user the current bootmenu is way too complicated and its getting worse over time with the automatic updates creating more and more old kernel options.

For those simple users (and for myself) I would like to just start the latest kernel and roll back to the previous version when this fails.

deejross wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 20:32
This is a good idea. Granted, you only see grub for a few seconds. Generally, when I see text-only screens, the first thing I think is that it's showing me an serious error. For a newb, they won't know what grub is...they will likely think something is wrong until they get used to. Further, many people will usually, out of fear, not even mess with grub to begin with.

Just KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) and let the advanced users press a key if they need advanced options.

dscassel wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 20:42
This isn't just about pretty graphics. Novice users on a dual-boot box only want to see two options: Ubuntu and the OS that came with their computer. Old kernel versions, memtests, etc. are just noise, and should be relegated to an "Advanced" section.

I'd be willing to give a concession to a "Last known good" option for failed kernel updates. Beyond that, the grub menu needs to be as simple as possible.

vintik wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 21:47
madman2k:
>who cares how the boot loader looks like? All I see of grub is the booting in n secs message at startup...

Good! That means you're only booting Ubuntu :)
However, when I had a dual-boot with Windows before, a menu came up with three different options for Ubuntu and one for Windows in an ugly white-on-black screen. I never used Windows so I removed it (I suppose whoever installed it on my computer didn't pay for it anyway), but there still are some people out there that haven't been enlightened ;)

webs05 wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 23:03
I have to 100% agree with fixing the bootloader.

The problem I have seen in the Linux world, is that longtime Linux users tend to have an SME (Subject Matter Expert) bias, where what makes sense to the SME should make sense to everyone else right? Unfortunately it doesn't play out that way.

If you want people to adopt Linux and you want to take away Microsoft's share than start listening to people who know nothing about Linux. This is the only way. A great example is the link below, here is an experienced IT person and someone that has experience on Unix and Linux. These are the people we need to listen to for advice on how to make Linux better.
SEB

In fact if I was in charge of any Linux community or distro project the first thing I would do is hire a retired IT guy that worked in Microsoft and tell him to install and play around on the system. Then I would listen to every complaint and those would be the areas I would focus on. Reach out to the lowest user and fix their needs, make the experience easy and enjoyable.

interval wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 23:07
grub and the ntboot loader (or whatever its called) look pretty much the same to me. I think you windows users are confused about what a bootloader is. If xp is the only os on the boot drive I think you don't see the boot loader, so; I pretty much don't believe you guys in that aisle know what you're talking about. Further, if you have multiple os's (even windows ones) you then get a boot loader; its a plain black tty-style screen with text (just like the "ugly" grub one.) If the objection is to make it "pretty" I think loading an x server during that phase of the boot process is tricky (I'm not saying it can't be done, I just don't know how you'd do it), but to compare it to the "prettier" windows boot processes doesn't make sense to me given my previous, what I believe to be accurate, statements.

randomnote1 wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 23:11
A simplified boot loader would be nice for the average user. You could have the loader look something like this:

Ubuntu
Windows
Other OS's
Advanced Options ->

That way the average user will be able to easily get to their OS's. If they need to boot off of an older kernel, you could go to advanced options and boot off the old kernels by date installed.

Plus making it look pretty is always nice, but not necessary. Microsoft's boot loader has always been black and white :)

KeyserSoze93 wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 23:55
There is a neat QT based GRUB configuration front end called QGrubEdit. That might be worth including...

andrewmin wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 00:09
Definitely agree. What about something like how openSuSE has their bootloader?

dark wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 00:12
Good idea, after seeing Fedora 8's Bootloader I realized that Ubuntu's needs work. It would be a nice thing to have implemented in a future release.

v1ncent wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 00:13
I love the Fedora Graphical Boot (the fedora 7 graphical boot style was the best).

Grub2 is just not enough... We need to go forward, even if that means to improve the grub.
Seriously innovation is what we need.

nloira wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 00:48
I still don't like the "x seconds to boot" concept.
It's too short for a new user, but making it longer is probably worse.
What do you think about making an *Interruptible* booting process?
So the boot loader, after 5 seconds starts the default booting (Ubuntu), and during the graphical Ubuntu booting there is always the chance to switch to a different OS, probably with a button "Switch to: Windows XP" somewhere.

I know that it can be a difficult trick to pull, but it's not impossible.

Also, I agree that Mem test and others should go to an "Advanced Options".

lifeless85 wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 00:56
isn't possible to make choice visible only if a button is pressed ? and is possible to make, maybe after some succesfull tests, the grub and terminals resolutions identical to the maximum resolution possible setted by the users of the group administrators ?

clickwir wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 01:16
I'm just another post, but here's what I think.

1) This is hardly the most pressing issue for Ubuntu.

2) On my wife's pc, Kubuntu Gutsy. There is no boot loader screen. It goes past POST, shows a 2 second count down and then loads. No menus. And her's has been updated with new kernels right along, but she doesn't see the menu. I didn't do anything to it either, that's the default action.

Mine shows the menu. But then again I've gone and manually edited mine. The default action seems to be to only show a very simple 2 or 3 second count down and then boot. No menu at all. So how all these people are seeing the menu to begin with, I don't know.

3) Personally, I prefer the default action of just showing a simple 2 second timer and then loading. I don't want something big and fancy. I don't want a graphical boot loader, because I shouldn't see the boot loader. Unless I have multiple options (other OS's or kernels) then it shouldn't even show. Sure give the option to enter the menu, but by default it's fine how it is.

Personally, I'm against the graphical boot loader.

nme wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 01:23
Keep the memtest and recovery modes, but put them under "advanced options" (both have saved my butt). Make the screen look nice with the primary options being the names of the operating systems you have installed.

Also, play nicer with Windows and have a nice GUI screen in Administration for maintaining the menu (I hate having to go vi menu.lst every time I upgrade the kernel because it clobbered the Windows entry). A good example of a boot screen might be:

1. Ubuntu
2. Windows XP
3. Advanced options

This should also be presented as a nice GUI screen. 1988 called. They want their DOS menus back.

hfb wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 01:50

1988 called. They want their DOS menus back.


I think this pretty much sums up everyone's sentiments here.

It's true - the boot loader is ugly. We know its only a loader, but it makes quite an impression on first time users. Of course, we allow for advanced options for those who prefer the terminal, but a little GUI never hurt anyone.

cdylws wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 01:51
I don't care that much about changing the current interface, but I do like options in openSuse to reboot into an alternate OS.

fluxy wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 01:59
This is so obvious that nobody thought of it before. Bravo!

This goes with http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/141/ which is about including StartUp manager - a Graphical frontend for editing /boot/grub/menu.lst

Besides the ubuntu installer should ask the user which OS he/she wants to load on default - not only is the lack of such an option rude but it is also annoying!

AaronPeterson wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 02:11
Ubuntu has the best boot loader already. It shows the options clearly. --- at least keep the livecd with good highly compatible, descriptive, with long enough pause boot loader-- non graphical.

Once it's installed, I need to see the menu right when it comes up.

Keep behavior as it is, and make options or geek tool to change boot loader for the experts --it's the experts who can have everything over simplified because they know what they want. It's the newbies that are hurt because they don't see what they need to make a choice from it, and the moderates who are hurt as well because they'd have to mess with settings to put it back to a sane setting like it already is.

brantheman wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 02:27
Anybody know if Grub2 supports fakeraid?

udippel wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 02:34
True. Never thought of it, but it is the first impression of a new user. XP starts with a graphical screen, even more recent BIOSes do.
Do it like the BIOSes: Show some graphics, for maybe 3 or 5 seconds, with a 'Press F2 for boot options' in the lower right corner. Then you'll be taken to all sorts of options, memtest, you name it. The user doesn't press F2, and after that timeout the default kernel boots.

zeb wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 03:20
Default boot mode: Clean
Averages users are turned off by ugly nerve jangling computer gibberish.

If you don't understand this, you are out of touch with the common folk.

Besides, I'm sure there will be an optional "verbose" mode to satisfy all the geeks out there. :)

RichardNeill wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 03:24
Please at least make sure that in "pretty" mode we can get to see the verbose messages by pressing ESC. Mandriva get this right, whereas Ubuntu's bootsplash does not. As a result, vital debugging messages are made inaccessible. (This isn't "newbie-friendly", it's "expert-hostile", especially when the system is broken, and you can't debug it.)

For a really good example of how to do it, try the Gentoo Live CD. The boot process is the prettiest I've seen, while also being the most informative.

steveg wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 03:25
How about something like XOSL (Extended Operating System Loader)?

http://xosl.fdos.org/shots.html

http://www.ranish.com/part/xosl.htm

I've used it and it's great. Lots of functionality. Unfortunately it hasn't been kept up to date for a while.

I hope someone takes another look at it and see if anything could be reimplemented or borrowed outright, as you can get the GPL'd source code.

Grubgfx looks rather sparse in comparison, though admittedly, I don't know the functionality underneath.

steveg wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 03:40
Here's some more features of XOSL, though many will show it's age.

Also at -- http://www2.arnes.si/~fkomar/xosl.org/

Look & Feel

* User-friendly Graphical User Interface
* Full windowing system with mouse and keyboard support
* Resolutions up to 1600x1200
* Configurable mouse speed
* A set of color schemes
* Several color adjustment options
* Password protected boot configuration and settings
* Restart/Reboot/Shutdown
...and more...

Booting Features

* Up to 24 boot items
* Microsoft file system partition hiding support
* Storing additional keys before booting
* Activate partitions (one per system or one per HD)
* Automatic booting (with timeout)
* Auto boot last operating system
* Password protection per boot item
* Boot master boot record on any drive
* Boot DOS/Windows 9x on any drive
* Hotkey per boot item
* Support for hard disks larger than 8Gb
* [XOSL 1.1.1] Coexist with virtually any other boot manager (boot original master boot record)
* [XOSL 1.1.2] Run Ranish Partition Manager 2.38 beta 1.9 from XOSL, without first booting an OS
* [XOSL 1.1.2] Master boot record virus protection

* [XOSL 1.1.3] Swap drives
* [XOSL 1.1.5] IDE CD-ROM booting by including Smart Boot Manager
* ...and more...

XOSL is known to support

* BeOS
* MS-DOS
* FreeDOS
* Linux (with Lilo)
* Solaris
* VxWorks 5.x
* Windows 95/98/Me
* Windows NT/2000
...and others...

System requirements

Minimal system requirements:
# 80386 or better with 4Mb of RAM (6Mb for 1280x1024/1600x1200)
# VESA VBE 1.2 compliant display controller
# 300kb of free disk space

Recommended:
# Pentium 100 or better
# VESA VBE 2.0 compliant display controller
# PS/2 or serial mouse

Vi.Neon (Idea reviewer) wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 04:19
I don't mind how the Boot Loader looks like.

acreman wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 04:46
I personally don't mind grub. When Window$ fails, it takes you to a black and white failure screen with options of what to choose. What I would like to see is an option in the install process for Ubuntu, that allows a person to choose what is displayed in the boot loader (descriptions can be set for the stuff like memtest to tell a user what it is), if grub should load a OS automatically after x seconds, and what OS to load automatically. Keep the interface simple like it is, but give the user the option to change it upon installation.

ru7hl3ss wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 05:33
There is a lot of "Windows is in black and white..." comments, and that is okay, but here yet again Ubuntu has a chance to be better than Windows. Just because MS does it one way, doesn't mean Ubuntu should also.

phinn wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 06:12
This is a must! Something that looks like Apple's Bootcamp or even Fedora would be a huge improvement. Lets see this happen.

adam.jimenez wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 06:40
I'd like to be able to change the boot priorities from within GRUB. e.g. a settings option.

joharilanng wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 08:22
Anything that looks DOS-ish or terminal-like tends to throw new users into a state of low-level panic.

This is one of the many *little things* in the user experience that causes Ubuntu to die a "death of 1000 papercuts". By itself, not a big deal, but in unison with many others, a deal-breaker.

cyberwiz wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 10:36
I agree on the popularity part. If we want a wide-spread slick desktop Linux system it definitely has to have an understandable and informative boot prompt.

Otherwise I like my current (standard) grub boot menu as it is simplistic and clean.

Jadd wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 12:39
I don't find the current multi-boot grub to be user-friendly. Here's why:
1. Ubuntu has three entries, Windows only has one. This is very confusing. I had to guess which one to choose the first time I ever installed Ubuntu. A relative also asked me why I had installed three Ubuntus.
2. Right arrow is equivalent to pressing enter. Why? This only confuses users who accidentally press it when trying to select an OS.
3. Pressing up arrow on the first option doesn't loop to the last option, and pressing the down arrow on the last option doesn't loop to the first option. Windows' boot loader does this, so does Partition Magic's... but not grub. Why not? This is especially useful when one has a bunch of options.
4. Pressing enter on 'Other Operating systems' just gives you an error.
5. It's ugly. This is not as important as the top four, though, users aren't really expecting something pretty.

hermanhobnob wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 13:01
This is not very important. Unless you have another OS installed it doesn't display the menu anyway you just get a discrete text countdown for a few seconds before it boots.

However ubuntu should remove old kernels. I see the point of having a few hanging around in case a disasterous update goes out but you only really need the previous one for recovery purposes, not all of them. And it could be labeled (for recovery) so users aren't confused.

dagwood wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 13:53
It is obvious that people want Grub to look better. There are several brainstorm topics on Grub and mostly on how bad it looks or how difficult it is to change. OpenSuse has this nailed, and it looks like a slick professional OS from the time you push the power button. I still prefer Ubuntu, and after the boot process is over, it looks very good.

As people get familiar with Linux, there will be lots of dual booting, and the current Ubuntu grub menu is off putting and intimidating. Even if its only on the screen for a few seconds, it needs to be warm and welcoming.

inselaffe wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 14:38
I definitely agree with this one. However riduculous it may seem, white text on a low res black screen means "something wrong with computer"! Non-technical users have no need for alternative kernels and memory tests because they don't know what they are.

If Ubuntu is the only OS installed, no bootloader should be visible. A pretty, or even a plain, splashscreen will do. Access to a menu should be initiated by a user intervention, such as holding a specific key down during boot.

For mulitboot environments, a GUI would be the best option. One nice big shiny button for Ubuntu, another for Windows, and an advanced options button that leads to kernels, memtests and anything else.

Kendall wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 16:57
Too much information to the user? Where in the world have I heard that before?
Seriously, new users aren't the only people using ubuntu, and it seems odd to spend time hide (potentially useful) information from the user to make the new user, who will only be a nwebie for a few more weeks, feel more secure the first few boots.
If you want the bootloader, which you see for two seconds, to get a facelift, that's one thing. Deliberately hiding stuff as an assumption of the user's experience is quite another.

Linuxratty wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 17:07
This is true...And the same problem gets passed right on downstream to other distros using Ubuntu as their base.
For a newbie,duel booting can be extreamely stressful..I know from having to do it four times..the last time I killed the XP install by mistake. And duel booting was always stressful.
I hate to say this,but you should take a lesson from Linspire...Yes,it's true.
Linspire does not you see all that geeky snot.
Linspire tells you,in simple English what it encountered and your options..Simple English meaning something like this:

Windows.(Linspire finds Windows).
Klikit.(Linspire finds Klikit.)
Install Linspire in it's own partition? y/n
Install over entire disk? y/n.
Set up Linspire home directory partition? Y/N
Continue.

It may not be exactly like this,as it's been three years since I duel booted with Linspure,but there was none of
this "/" stuff to deal with.
It was so easy to duel boot,a 10 year old could do it.
No muss,no fuss,no stress.
So dump the complications and make it easy,make it colorful,make it friendly.

Transmission3000 wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 20:59
"OpenSuse has this nailed, and it looks like a slick professional OS from the time you push the power button."

I totally agree. I was at a friend's house, the other night, and he booted up his laptop with OpenSUSE on it, and I was like "what bootloader is that?"

GRUB is ugly. If there's no real NEED for it to be ugly, then it shouldn't be. Ubuntu has the chance to be a truly elegant OS. We should do what we have to to nudge it in that direction.

akiratheoni wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 21:37
Personally I don't mind GRUB as it is but hey a little eye candy won't hurt. I noticed that Mandriva and Fedora had fancy boot loaders but not Ubuntu.

linmhall wrote on the 1 Mar 08 at 04:42
I agree with akiratheoni, GRUB works well, and it doesn't take much more than two or three looks at GRUB to get the message what it is about. However, just a little reminder that an arrow-key-press will pause the screen to read it would help. Don't gild the lilly to much.

nikhilsinha wrote on the 1 Mar 08 at 15:57
I have to change the "Ubuntu Kernel Version" to simple "Ubuntu 7.10" and hide the "memtest" and "recovery" options.
It would be great if the boot loader has some graphics rather than DOS looking text.

Memtest and recovery should be hiding but should be accessible via some key or advance option.

Some Gurb option changing GUI is also required

oliver@schinagl.nl wrote on the 1 Mar 08 at 16:49
I can get that maybe to simplify the grub menu, but what's wrong with the current implementation?

It just says 'hit esc to see boot menu' and continues booting normally without even showing an ugly menu 3 secs later.

If you look at windows, don't you get a short 'hit f8 for bootmenu' option aswell? Also in plain text? (it's been a while :p)

probono wrote on the 1 Mar 08 at 17:25
And throw out outdated kernels. Maybe show current and current-1, but not so many of them.

jrusinek wrote on the 1 Mar 08 at 20:14
Tomorrow you'll say "use X11 for boot selection" ;D .

smenjas wrote on the 2 Mar 08 at 07:36
LWN recently posted an article on the state of X, which among other things covered the changes that need to happen before we can see flicker-free boot sequences:

LCA: Two talks on the state of X

If all of that comes to fruition, I think it's clear that free software in general will become much more formidable than it is now.

LostOverThere wrote on the 2 Mar 08 at 07:56
Agreed. The boot image looks disgusting at a high resolution, IMO.

arekkusu wrote on the 2 Mar 08 at 11:20
I don't think the design of the boot-loader is that big a issue..

-Memory test and other diagnostic tool are most definitely useful... BUT you don't need to use them very often and putting them in an "Advanced" menu sounds like a good idea to me. Older Kernel version too.

-We need a way to configure the bootloader easily and that need to be in Ubuntu by default. Asking the User which operating system he want to boot as default during the installation process sound like a good idea too.

Furthermore, being able to configure the boatloader from INSIDE the bootloader would be good IMHO. (I guess that has to do with the grub project though making it more delicate to change)

I also such though about how a lot of application handle user setting... if I start a application that isn't my default I will be asked if I want to make it default (and a don't ask me again checkbox). Another example is if I change the language to desktop environment I will get a message asking me if I want to make the setting for this session only or make if default...
We could have something similar on the bootloader.

-Concerning the design of the bootloader I guess I could (and should) be improved. Opensuse version for example looks nicer. No reason Ubuntu can't do it.

-Opensuse as a nice option when restarting the system that allow to choose which operating system to boot. Nice and user-friendly IMO.

I guess I would like to see some of those improvement IF there's relatively easy to be made.
GUI config tool for grub being in a default Ubuntu installation is the most important I think.
Design too considering Opensuse bootloader looks better, Ubuntu shouldn't have a problem doing the same.

-------
Just a personal experience note: I have installed Ubuntu on my GF laptop and she found being able to choose the OS on startup a really nice thing (she didn't know about Ubuntu or Linux before and much less of dual-booting).
No complain about the design. Of course I am sure she would like it looking nicer but I doubt it's THAT important.

tomko222 wrote on the 2 Mar 08 at 19:12
It is fine: http://www.gnome-look.org/content/preview.php?preview=1&id=43166&file1=43166-1. png&file2=&file3=&name=Dark+Grey+Ubuntu+GFXBoot+Theme

Redrazor39 wrote on the 2 Mar 08 at 19:35
No. What we need to have is this:

1)Have a nice background or theme by default like the one tomko222 posted, but not SO ubuntu-y. Make the logos and stuff change as you choose OSs; have preset logos for windows Vista, Xp, Me, 2000, 98, and 95, as well as have a large, silver or black X for Mac OS X. Then have the ubuntu logos. For another OS like a Linux Distro, then just have some cool picture of electricity or something lol.

Also, fix the font. The font is like MS-DOS and scares the crap out of people. Make it nice and rounded like Arial or OpenFont or something.

tomatz wrote on the 3 Mar 08 at 13:54
To be honest this isnt a priority as you can do this yourself. Also on older hardware higher resolution images could cause your system being unable to boot.

Nomax wrote on the 3 Mar 08 at 17:29
I agree with KeyserSoze93, Ubuntu should ship with QGRUBEditor installed and at least a nice background image set by default.

abaqueiro wrote on the 3 Mar 08 at 19:01
Well I really like the list of kernels and the boot screen, theres nothing bad with it, the user should know there are several kernels to use (no problem if he gets confused because there is a default, 3 secs, auto should be better than 10), and is a oportunity the user see which version of the kernel is using. Windows hides all the details from us, so we get very lazy and dumb users, is it good for us be like that?

giner wrote on the 4 Mar 08 at 06:49
No! Dont do it. Dont change this simple loader please.
Alternatively you can make a choice loader option in ubuntu installation process.

Kovensky wrote on the 4 Mar 08 at 16:43
Fedora uses the plain grub, but with a hidden menu and a splash.xpm on the background. The only needed thing is artwork.

MarcusMaximus wrote on the 9 Mar 08 at 03:20
agreed, we need something akin to gfx-boot to come with ubuntu standard, with a nice gui to edit it under the administration tab and it needs to come up with MUCH simpler choices. 3 Different choices appearing by default for Ubuntu is too many! Also there is no need for the choice "Other OS's" which isn't really a choice at all but just a divider. It needs to be something like

Ubuntu Hardy Heron
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
...

where the x's are whatever other OS's are installed. Even for advanced users, there's no need to show all the version numbers and everything next to the name, we would already know them and it uglifies it. Other options including mem test and such should be put under an 'F' key.

saivann (Brainstorm moderator) wrote on the 9 Mar 08 at 06:43
I believe that we should not do the error of customizing a boot menu too much because a boot menu gives the choice between systems, after what the colors of this system can take place.

I believe that some visual/theme improvements can be welcome if they keep the menu sober and intuitive. Simple example, black text on white background could be very easier to read.

Here's a great screenshot that shows a non-customized clean and more user-friendly Grub menu from duplicate idea 2465 :

http://tugulab.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/grub_afther.png

qinjuehang wrote on the 9 Mar 08 at 08:06
I think a graphical boot loader is certainly good. When I installed Ubuntu, I didn't fear the bootloader at all even though it is my 1st Linux, but that is due to me messing with Windows before that so much that it gives me a black & grey screen every other day. However, does everyone moving from Windows to Linux have that experience? My mum is a software engineer who uses as much if not more Open source than me. (GCC, Tomcat, Apache, Linux, Solaris...) and she was slightly taken by surprise by GRUB. The main reason is that most people don't expect that from a Operating System designed for the Desktop user unless a serious error occurs (X failed?)

Also, GRUB is one of the reasons some of my classmates don't want to be converted to Ubuntu, especially Mac users. If rEFIt and the Mac open-source community can do it, why can't we?

Eldmannen wrote on the 12 Mar 08 at 22:51
A boot loader should be silent and invisible.
You should not know its there.
It should just be there and work.

Stealthily and efficiently passing control of the computer to the kernel.

Endolith wrote on the 17 Mar 08 at 20:16
And you really need a way to hide all the options that people don't usually want. If you have a dual boot system, for instance, it should just show two options.

1. Windows
2. Ubuntu Linux

then you can view the more advanced options (previous versions of the Ubuntu kernel, memory test, etc.) with a key that will open them up:

1. Windows
2. Ubuntu Linux 2.6.22-14
3. Ubuntu Linux 2.6.22-14 (recovery)
4. Ubuntu Linux 2.6.20
5. Ubuntu Linux 2.6.20 (recovery)
6. Memory test

Endolith wrote on the 17 Mar 08 at 20:18
I agree that we should not use Ubuntu colors for the bootloader, since it doesn't boot just Ubuntu. However, a friendlier boot option screen would be very welcome for those intimidated by plain text.

ubuntu_demon wrote on the 21 Mar 08 at 12:51
IMHO we should wait for Grub 2 (aproximately november 2008). IMHO Hardy+2 (Intrepid+1) should have a nice looking Grub 2 menu.

angrykeyboarder wrote on the 23 Mar 08 at 14:09
I like the plain bootloader. I don't want my bootloader to be OS-specific. I run several operating systems.

Once the OS loads then "shine" all you want, but I want a plain bootloader.

Now if you want to add a generic splash of some sort that's fine, but nothing that screams (K/X/Ed)Ubuntu. That's what Usplash is for. :)

Kirby wrote on the 29 Mar 08 at 00:07
Come on people. We could have copy and pasted Fedora's by now. Hardy will release with the same boot screen as Dapper.

That's a big FAIL!

scavenger wrote on the 29 Mar 08 at 09:36
I agree with phinn. Bootcamp just presents you with a whitish screen and only actually does something when you press ALT. If you press ALT, you choose a nice-n-shiny harddisk, hit enter, voila. Ubuntu does computer gibberish and starts to count down something nbs don't even know about.

Make a soft orange background with an ubuntu logo and the text "Starting Ubuntu in 10 seconds. (break) To start immediately, press Enter. (break) To boot another system, press the space bar." Space bar should show up an orange screen with Human icons for Ubuntu/Windows/Mac etc. and an icon for 'More...', like a screwdriver or something. More... should display "Edit menu.lst", "Memtest", "Previous Ubuntu kernel", etc.

vytah wrote on the 30 Mar 08 at 20:30
SUSE's bootloader is nice (even being green), Fedora's too. Why not Ubuntu's?

salmiak911 wrote on the 3 Apr 08 at 09:36
I have seen the Redhats bootloader(long time agoo). it had two options at the left[Linux, Windows] and if you choose Linux it popped up some more options at the right[Start normal, Failsafe(or something), and some more options...].

It was fully graphical and I think that you was able to use your mouse.

It would be nic with something similar.

Gwador wrote on the 18 Apr 08 at 21:26
I also dream to have an easily themeable and congigurable (from GUI!) grub (consistent with Ubuntu default artwork for staters). Maybe put a respectable graphical front-end into System/Administration section, instead of digging through menu.lst all the time? That would be very nice to bring some easy eye-candy into the boot process, and reserve some key for realtime switching into verbose mode, too (Esc in SuSe was pretty comfortable for me)!

keen101 wrote on the 1 May 08 at 00:50
just add this "color blue/black white/dark green" to your /boot/grub/menu.lst file. It makes it look less scary.


And for everyone who dual boots out there... just so you know... GRUB is hidden from sight (unless you press esc within 1 sec), when you only have Ubuntu installed. The only time that is not the case, is when you dual boot.

keen101 wrote on the 1 May 08 at 00:51
whoops.

I meant this one:

"color cyan/blue white/blue"


just add this "color cyan/blue white/blue" to your /boot/grub/menu.lst file. It makes it look less scary.

naja wrote on the 11 May 08 at 17:39
Without joking, since i moved to linux, i have felt like grub was the most robust piece of software i have use. It's the one and only package on linux that has never let me down.
-1 -> don't change what's good, youll most likely make it worse

Ubuwu wrote on the 4 Jun 08 at 19:16
Idea 37 is NOT a duplicate of this one!

Auzy wrote on the 5 Jun 08 at 01:50
We should be giving up on grub1, and instead focus on grub2.
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/8143/

I notice grub2 also has a "video" directory in its CVS, so it will certainly make this idea beyond possible.

And grub2 also fixes a lot of grub1 specific problems

diablo75 wrote on the 10 Jun 08 at 17:06
GRUB AND SENIOR CITIZENS DON'T MIX.

We need a GUI if it's a dual boot system with large icons for people to click on. Menus that show 4 different kernels, their recovery modes, plus Windows just looks like a bunch of greek to the elderly.

bobulator wrote on the 15 Jun 08 at 12:00
I second this.

I think that the list should be like this:
Start Ubuntu
Start... (insert OS here e.g. Windows)
Start... (insert OS here e.g. Windows)
Advanced Options

Memtest should be under Advanced options to reduce confusion to users unfamiliar with linux.

El_Tate wrote on the 29 Jun 08 at 21:01
Linux Mint has a nice config for Grub. Just a good looking background and a bit of re desing of the original.

AFarris01 wrote on the 2 Jul 08 at 18:10
I usually hide the extra boot options on computers I put Ubuntu on by adding an extra line into the menu.lst to make it look something like this:

title Windows
root (hd0,0)
makeactive
chainloader +1

title Ubuntu
root (hd0,1)
kernel

title
root

title Ubuntu (recovery)
root (hd0,1)
kernel

title Memtest86+
root (hd0,1)



then on boot, the only thing thats visible is:

windows
Ubuntu

until you scroll down, upon which the other options begin to appear. not the best solution, but it works.

AndyCee wrote on the 17 Jul 08 at 07:43
Just adding my voice.

My first dual-boot had options resembling something like the following:

Ubuntu...kernel 2.6...
Ubuntu...
Ubuntu...memtest86+
Other Operating systems
Vista/Longhorn
Vista/Longhorn

Aside from the extreme confusion I faced at having two Vista menus (one turned out to be the Vista recovery partition), in a boot menu the only thing I want to see in a multi-boot situation is:

1. Ubuntu []
2. Vista
3. Vista recovery
3. Options boot options, memtest, Ubuntu recovery etc



There may be an unreasonable amount of work to provide this transparency, but I'm just asking if it can be done.

Auzy wrote on the 17 Jul 08 at 08:23
People voting for this may also consider voting for Offer to install Grub2 (with autodetection) on USB Memory Stick. As that would also help fix a lot of problems with it breaking, and make configuration better (which will make a big difference in usability).

surruk51 wrote on the 1 Aug 08 at 01:33
I am a relatively tech savvy user. I understand the GRUB menu, but I don't like it. I even more don't like having to support panicking users. So the requirements for me are

1) Be simple and friendly for new/non-tech users - on the top menu only show the options EVERYONE will understand e.g

------------------------------------------------
1 Start Ubuntu
2 Start Windows
9 Go to Advanced and Recovery options menu

Press the number key of your choice
-------------------------------------------------

2) Don't break the configuration every time there's a kernel update (e.g. the default boot option)

3) Make it look a bit less harsh. Use colours - e.g. a tan background and cream text - this is probably sufficient to make it unscary.

I think the problem can be solved without having to resort to X-Windows.

notyetroot wrote on the 14 Aug 08 at 11:55
GRUB 2 + Splashy should support all this. GRUB 2 is still in alpha though.

bojo42 wrote on the 15 Sep 08 at 14:52
I think kernel modesetting is the future and because of this see

http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/11165/

andr983 wrote on the 18 Sep 08 at 12:43
I also support this idea! You can hide the recovery mode and the entries with older kernel version. Than you could let any key to show details.

killroy1971 wrote on the 28 Sep 08 at 19:16
Even creating a Ubuntu-themed splash screen would be a welcome improvement.

enigma_0Z wrote on the 10 Oct 08 at 12:34
At the bare minimum, "hiddenmenu" and a timeout of three seconds would make it a bit nicer as most people see a bit of the "termial" screen when the computer does the POST.

jmite_plusplus wrote on the 25 Nov 08 at 00:47
So, this would be great, but the idea was posted in February 08, Hardy and Intrepid have both come, and after 4000 votes, has this been implemented at all?

Also, just my personal opinion, but comparing gfxboot to grub2, grub2 2 is better than grub, but not as nice as gfxboot.

Daddy98 wrote on the 2 Dec 08 at 08:02
You can "inspirate" from Macintosh MultiBoot

http://www.simplehelp.net/images/bootcamp/bootscreen

With a logo of Ubuntu on the hard disk.

Thanks

Daddy98 wrote on the 2 Dec 08 at 08:04
Excuse me.

The link is broken.

http://www.simplehelp.net/images/bootcamp/bootscreen.jpg


MarcioVinicius wrote on the 8 Jan 09 at 15:13
The nice part is that after hundreds of duplicated ideas, there's no consideration about the implementation of one of these ideas...

sometimes I wonder if we are talking to something that really can work on the brainstorm ideas...

Endolith wrote on the 8 Jan 09 at 22:23
GRUB 2 screenshots:

http://grub.gibibit.com/Themes

baldurpet wrote on the 12 Jan 09 at 01:25
I support this idea whole heartily and I HOPE that this feature will be available before Jaunty Jackalope

ziroday (Brainstorm moderator) wrote on the 21 Jan 09 at 08:51
Plymouth will not be available for Jaunty as the developers would like to see more video drivers support kernel modsetting first (currently only intel does). Without kernel modsetting plymouth won't work.

jeypeyy wrote on the 24 Jan 09 at 11:03
If the developers don't want this, they should put a developer's comment. Right now it has 5790 votes, but no one knows why it is not in development.

KhaaL wrote on the 27 Feb 09 at 10:06
jeypeyy, see ziroday's comment

jeypeyy wrote on the 1 Mar 09 at 11:01
KhaaL, I was talking about the first solution. Using grubgfx is possible.

ziroday (Brainstorm moderator) wrote on the 10 Mar 09 at 09:25
@jeypeyy GrubGFX suffers from the same issue, lack of driver support. Plymouth and GrubGFX well be talked about again in UDS Karmic

vs8 wrote on the 17 Mar 09 at 06:01
Do Ubuntu Developers really listen to us? This Idea has almost 6000 votes and counting and it's not even in development? Why haven't they commented on this idea?

saivann (Brainstorm moderator) wrote on the 19 Mar 09 at 15:09
Because they are working on it. Ubuntu developers let comments when they have relevant and accurate informations.

eierdieb wrote on the 4 May 09 at 14:35
Well, so why isn't it then tagged as an "Idea in development"?

Can you confirm its in development? Then please report it as idea in development.

This would save us time looking at this idea and focusing on other ones.

saivann (Brainstorm moderator) wrote on the 4 May 09 at 20:01
Because "In development" means that the project will be implemented and that there is a approved roadmap. If "In development" was to be added each time a developer looks or consider a idea, they would pass more time on brainstorm than working in the code ;)

Seriously, developers are listening but they can't give a status to a idea unless there is really something more to say than "We're considering it..".

Endolith wrote on the 30 Jun 09 at 20:48
Why aren't the other solutions merged into this?


Post your comment