Subject: Re: i386 bootselector changes
To: Thor Lancelot Simon <>
From: Bill Studenmund <>
List: current-users
Date: 10/23/2003 13:08:21
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 03:25:23PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 02:22:10PM -0500, Eric Haszlakiewicz wrote:
> >
> > 	well, my knee jerk reaction here is "deal with it.  the keys are
> > only one row apart".  On the other hand, I can understand how annoying
> > it can be to have to change a old ingrained behaviour.  If switching
> > F1-F4 and 1-4 makes the common case now more similar to the common case
> > before, then I'd say go ahead.
> I don't agree -- it's basically impossible to know what key combination
> on a serial console will generate what the bootselector thinks is "F1";
> on some terminals, *there may be no such key combination*.  I've had
> truly horrible experiences with this exact issue making it impossible to
> enter serial BIOS configuration screens without hooking up an actual AT
> keyboard.

Then that means that the current tool is still broken. While the current=20
tool doesn't use Fn often, it uses them to switch between drives. Which=20
still won't work well in the case you describe above.

It's our multi-boot tool. We can configure what each setting does, what=20
the default is, and what the timeout is. Would it be that hard to=20
configure the keys?

For serial console we really want 1-n for partitions and something else
(not F1-Fn) for drives. For my desktop, I want F1-Fn for partitions (I
don't really care about drives, but 1-n would work there). Some folk may
now like the current scheme.

Take care,


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

Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)