--HcAYCG3uE/tztfnV
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 10:10:36AM -0500, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Bill Studenmund wrote:
>=20
> > I've noticed this too. I think it was done to help support serial
> > consoles, where we might not easily know what key 'F1' is.
> >
> > However I'd really like the old behavior back. NetBSD has used F1-Fm for
> > YEARS, and F1-Fm are easier to find on the keyboard than 1-m. :-)
>=20
> F1-Fm switches to the other drives; 1-4 access the menu on the chosen
> drive. It's more elegant (i.e. "less confusing") than the old system,
> where the second drive looked like a partiton on the first drive.

No, it's not less confusing. It's REALLY REALLY irritating. While
factoring drive and os-on-drive into separate things is probaby good (and
does achieve the "less confusing" you note above), the way it was done=20
more than makes up for any improvement it might have been. Which is sad.

There's a BIG usability difference between F1-F4 and 1-4. I and a number=20
of other folks (I've asked around) find F1-F4 much easier to find on the=20
keyboard than 1-4. Especially since we've had years of training from the=20
older bootloader. :-)

So is there any objection to putting F1-F4 back to partition choosing and=
=20
having 1-4 switch drives (swapping the current roles)? It would certainly=
=20
remove my objection, and it would retain the drive/os split that Frederick=
=20
mentioned above.

Take care,

Bill

--HcAYCG3uE/tztfnV
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQE/mAtYWz+3JHUci9cRAi1tAJwMm8dvdiex8ZLssKNka8FR91Fu+QCfZOOT
WQOnCyk4cpRaztWC6FgidcM=
=TBmf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--HcAYCG3uE/tztfnV--