grub entries, what is meant?

[Guest shtik]

hi, i've installed grub as bootloader, so i've entries for linux (standard) and windows. that's easy entries, but what does "linux-nonfb" mean and what's different with failsafe?

[Havin_it]

Welcome, shtik. That is a good question. I hope a clever person sees it as I'd like to know better myself about this. I can give you my own half-hearted answer, but it's just that.

 

MY OWN HALF-HEARTED ANSWER....

 

linux-nonfb: boot Linux without the Frame-Buffer. Something to do with graphics rendering, possibly whether or not to use 'hardware acceleration' provided by your graphics card, but honestly don't quote me on that one.

 

failsafe: basic command-line boot with no graphical environment. May have some other limits in functionality, a la Windows 'Safe Mode'

 

Great eh? Don't worry, a real expert will be here soon

[scarecrow]

Framebuffer is just eyecandy when no X-server is running.

Failsafe is single user mode (in Mandy you don't have to insert the root password). Most services are not running in that mode, and only the basic kernel modules are loaded.

[Guest shtik]

hey, thanks for your answers, much appreciated, it's always good to know whats going on on my pc! :)

 

shtik

[adamw]

framebuffer isn't just 'eye candy'. It's the way to get graphical output direct from a console, without running an X server. This isn't important to most users but certainly for some. Some diehards like to run console-based desktops but occasionally use a graphical app, like the graphical version of links (the console web browser) or a video player. Framebuffer is important for that setup. It's also important for me, as I play old DOS games via dosemu / Freedos, and that works much better from the console via the framebuffer than it does from within X.

 

For normal desktop users, the only difference you'll see is that the graphical boot doesn't work. Having the option there by default is really a bit of a throwback, it was originally there because it was sometimes desirable to boot without framebuffer support, but now that's very rarely the case.

[Havin_it]

Eh?

 

So you mean the linux-nonfb option is using no Framebuffer OR X-server? (Sorry if I'm a bit dense but the whole X-server thing is still new to me.)

[adamw]

it uses no framebuffer. So your desktop will still work, but you won't get the graphical *startup*, you'll get just the plain text version of the startup sequence. Sorry if that wasn't clear, I didn't mean that you don't get X started on boot, just that you don't get the nice blue background and progress bar and so on while it's booting. :)

[Havin_it]

Oh... so if I go for that option, since I set the normal boot to be verbose rather than progerss-bar: it'd basically be the same thing?

[adamw]

well, even though you have the verbose option it probably still shows against a nice blue background graphic, right? with non-fb you would just get a black terminal background, no graphic. at least, if nonfb even works any more. why not just try it out? it's only a boot option, won't hurt your system. :)

[Havin_it]

Well... I did so already, and it's as you describe. So that's it? I thought the framebuffer had much more behind-the-scenes significance than something so ephemeral. (Probably because it was awarded its own boot option...)

[adamw]

not on a typical 'moderate Linux user's' desktop any more, no. Like I said, it's a hangover from several years ago when it was a lot more significant.