| 1 |
On 03/14/2012 12:14 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 03/14/12 14:56, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 03/14/2012 11:36 AM, Maxim Kammerer wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 19:58, Matthew Summers |
| 5 |
>>> <quantumsummers@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>> Why is an in-kernel initramfs so bad anyway? I am baffled. Its quite |
| 7 |
>>>> nice to have a minimal recovery env in case mounting fails, etc, etc, |
| 8 |
>>>> etc. |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> There is nothing bad about initramfs. I think that you are misreading |
| 11 |
>>> the arguments above. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> Whatever the arguments may be, the whole discussion boils down to the |
| 14 |
>> fact that the only people who seem to have a "problem" are those that |
| 15 |
>> have a separate /usr partition and simultaneously refuse to use an |
| 16 |
>> initramfs. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> People just don't like change for the sake of change, and haven't been |
| 19 |
> shown any benefits yet. I don't have a separate /usr anywhere, but if I |
| 20 |
> did, I would have to rebuild and test a good number of custom kernels |
| 21 |
> that would eventually need to wind up on production servers. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> It would take a least a day's worth of work, not to mention staying late |
| 24 |
> to make the switch overnight. If you can offer me something cool for it, |
| 25 |
> great; but at the moment people are being offered "it will work the same |
| 26 |
> as it did yesterday," which sucks, because it works that way now. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Sure, there will be improvements in the future, but it can feel a lot |
| 29 |
> like treading water sometimes. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Well, for most people, the most practical course of action is to suck it |
| 32 |
up [1] and move on. Dwelling on it certainly won't help, and the |
| 33 |
"redesign the entire filesystem" approach probably isn't very practical |
| 34 |
for most people either. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
[1] http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/suck_it_up |
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Thanks, |
| 39 |
Zac |
Archives