| 1 |
On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 07:11:31AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> An initramfs is just a secondary bootloader for userspace. I almost |
| 4 |
> always use them even if I'm just booting a VM with a single partition |
| 5 |
> on it. If something goes wrong you can fall back to a shell in the |
| 6 |
> initramfs and it is like having a rescue disk built into your system |
| 7 |
> disk. For a more complex setup it is much more robust than relying on |
| 8 |
> the kernel to find your root, and it also lets you build with a more |
| 9 |
> module-based kernel, which has some benefits as well even if you build |
| 10 |
> kernels tailored to each host. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Another point that just occurred to me... |
| 13 |
- get a machine with 128 gigs of RAM |
| 14 |
- put *ALL* software on the initramfs |
| 15 |
- when initramfs comes up, it won't have to hand off control to the |
| 16 |
"real init", because everything will be running off initramfs. A |
| 17 |
hard drive will only be used for storing data, and config files. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
What worries me is a future where only initramfs images will boot on |
| 20 |
UEFI machines. Make that *SIGNED* initramfs images. I'm sure Microsoft |
| 21 |
would love that. initramfs images with annual licence fees, hard-coded |
| 22 |
telemetry to the mothership, and forced "upgrades" every so often. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@××××××××.org> |
| 26 |
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications |
Archives