On 03/14/2012 12:14 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 03/14/12 14:56, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 03/14/2012 11:36 AM, Maxim Kammerer wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 19:58, Matthew Summers
>>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>> Why is an in-kernel initramfs so bad anyway? I am baffled. Its quite
>>>> nice to have a minimal recovery env in case mounting fails, etc, etc,
>>> There is nothing bad about initramfs. I think that you are misreading
>>> the arguments above.
>> Whatever the arguments may be, the whole discussion boils down to the
>> fact that the only people who seem to have a "problem" are those that
>> have a separate /usr partition and simultaneously refuse to use an
> People just don't like change for the sake of change, and haven't been
> shown any benefits yet. I don't have a separate /usr anywhere, but if I
> did, I would have to rebuild and test a good number of custom kernels
> that would eventually need to wind up on production servers.
> It would take a least a day's worth of work, not to mention staying late
> to make the switch overnight. If you can offer me something cool for it,
> great; but at the moment people are being offered "it will work the same
> as it did yesterday," which sucks, because it works that way now.
> Sure, there will be improvements in the future, but it can feel a lot
> like treading water sometimes.
Well, for most people, the most practical course of action is to suck it
up  and move on. Dwelling on it certainly won't help, and the
"redesign the entire filesystem" approach probably isn't very practical
for most people either.