user-startup -- Really useful?

[scholle]

I would like to discuss the question wether the user-startup script really is useful by now. I have discarded mine not only for speed purpose during boot time, but also for a better overview of the booting sequence. Anything that has to be started early or better/only as a shell command went into the primary startup-sequence, the rest resides in the WBStartup drawer. IMHO two places is enough for starting stuff. We will not go towards Linux with its chaos of booting structure, but me thinks we should beware of the beginnings...

What do you think? Has anyone gone the same direction with the boot process?

[iamaboringperson]

usefull

[scholle]

:-? I would be grateful if you were a bit more detailed...

[Jiffy]

I agree with you

As I understand it, the User Startup is there to edit by hand if you want/need to. The Startup Sequence is then to be left alone and only to be edited 'automatically' by softwareinstallation programs and such.

But, imo, if you are capable enough to edit the User Startup, you are also capable of editing the Startup Sequence, thus leaving the division of startupfiles into two parts rather useles (I never understood why there was both a config.sys and an autoexec.bat in DOS).

So I've also removed my User Startup. Works for me...

[Castellen]

There are arguments either way with the user-startup.

The original idea with it was that the startup-sequence, which contained the important system booting stuff, was meant to be left alone.  Any additional assigns or programs run on startup could be added to the user-startup.
If some kind of problem developed, you could disable the entire user-startup, thus narrowing the problem down to the startup-sequence or the user-startup.

I kind of use it in this fashion, but of course we all add extra stuff that has to be run early in the main startup-sequence.

A disadvantage is that it's harder to see what's going on during startup, as first you have the startup-sequence, then the user-startup, then the contents of the WBstartup drawer.

The bottom line is that the OS is flexible enough so that you can use user-startup/WBstartup if you want to, but if you don't like/need it, then don't use it.

Personally I use all 3, but I know it could be tidier, and slightly faster if I just use 1 startup-sequence.

Anhony.

[jaokim]

usefull

It's extremely usefull when installing progs with assigns. The installer add lines only to the user-startup, wouldn't want any installer messing with my startup-sequence.

[Damion]

Hmmmm....it's easier for me to divide them in
two, and I think it makes sense from a design/
organization perspective to have both - one for
strict system oriented commands, and another
for extraneous user related commands.

But either way is ultimately the same effect,
so I'd say "whatever works best for you."

[scholle]

The logic intention to have one file for system and the other for user commands is clear but once you start finetunining your system or heading for speedups you have to fiddle around with the startup-sequence. Doing this long enough you can hardly divide between system and user commands. At some point it was enough for me already because of the number of commands. So I throw away my user-startup and reorganized the startup-sequence from the scratch. Now the chaos is banned and I am able to discover errors easily again. :-)

[scholle]

I hate installers cluttering up my systems with assigns anyway. :-D For this I try to avoid installers up to 95-98%.
All important assigns go into a list that is read by BatchAssign (Aminet), the rest is done by batch scripts when they are needed, i.e. before the corresponding executable is called in for action.

[Madgun68]

Whatever floats your boat.

I've gotten used to the idea of two of them, and it's pretty simple to figure out where a problem lies since you can temporarily rename the user-startup to check and see if something in it is what's causing a problem.

[Lo]

@scholle

I agree about avoiding installers, BUT why sacrifice the convinence of disabling the user-startup simply? What do you gain? 2 seconds on boot-up?  For myself I'm with the original concept.

IF EXISTS USER-STARTUP, Execute that Bugga!  :-D

[JoNty]

Useless.

Be a man, use your hand!

-
JoNty

#AmigaIRC Xnet
#AmigaOne Undernet
#AmigaOne EFNet

[Steady]

The Installer program also makes automatic use of user-startup when you create assigns with install scripts. Moving user-startup might cause the script some problems. I will try tonight to see if not having a user-startup causes trouble or not.

[JoNty]

@Steady
It doesn't.

If I really have to use an installer, I just move what's put in the newly created user-startup into the startup-sequence, and delete the user-startup.

-
JoNty

#AmigaIRC Xnet
#AmigaOne Undernet
#AmigaOne EFNet

[Mad-Matt]

I find the feature very useful.  Its a place to stick all those startup slowing patches and additinal assigns without cluttering up the main startup.

The startup-sequence is prolly one of the most important filesonthe system and the less programs messing about with it the better.  The user startup at least is an easy place to look for allthose nasty extra progs that get launched which can help finding issues i guess.

There is absolutly no speedup befit of any kind by merging the files.  since they get joined into one big script and executed durring the startup anyway. (Usualy find it lurking in T:)

Its important this feature stays in os4 for 100% AOS Compatability anyway