1 |
On 03/14/12 14:56, Zac Medico wrote: |
2 |
> On 03/14/2012 11:36 AM, Maxim Kammerer wrote: |
3 |
>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 19:58, Matthew Summers |
4 |
>> <quantumsummers@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
>>> Why is an in-kernel initramfs so bad anyway? I am baffled. Its quite |
6 |
>>> nice to have a minimal recovery env in case mounting fails, etc, etc, |
7 |
>>> etc. |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>> There is nothing bad about initramfs. I think that you are misreading |
10 |
>> the arguments above. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Whatever the arguments may be, the whole discussion boils down to the |
13 |
> fact that the only people who seem to have a "problem" are those that |
14 |
> have a separate /usr partition and simultaneously refuse to use an |
15 |
> initramfs. |
16 |
|
17 |
People just don't like change for the sake of change, and haven't been |
18 |
shown any benefits yet. I don't have a separate /usr anywhere, but if I |
19 |
did, I would have to rebuild and test a good number of custom kernels |
20 |
that would eventually need to wind up on production servers. |
21 |
|
22 |
It would take a least a day's worth of work, not to mention staying late |
23 |
to make the switch overnight. If you can offer me something cool for it, |
24 |
great; but at the moment people are being offered "it will work the same |
25 |
as it did yesterday," which sucks, because it works that way now. |
26 |
|
27 |
Sure, there will be improvements in the future, but it can feel a lot |
28 |
like treading water sometimes. |