| 1 |
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 05:38:48 -0400 |
| 2 |
Joshua Kinard <kumba@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Why do I not like an initramfs, though? Well, for one, it complicates the |
| 5 |
> kernel compiles (and it makes them bigger, something which is an issue on |
| 6 |
> the old SGI systems at times). Two, it's another layer that I have to |
| 7 |
> maintain. Three, it violates, in my mind, the simplicity of keeping the |
| 8 |
> kernel and userland separated (e.g., kernel does kernel-y things, userland |
| 9 |
> does userland-y things). |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
You make it sound like the initramfs has to be built into the kernel |
| 12 |
image. It can be but it usually isn't. I suspect you know that though? |
| 13 |
Admittedly that does depend on support from your bootloader. While GRUB |
| 14 |
and U-Boot have supported this for years, I forget what oddball |
| 15 |
bootloaders your hardware may be using. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> Maybe I'm just a old codger who refuses to accept change. I'm fine with |
| 18 |
> that description. I like things to remain somewhat simple, and my view of |
| 19 |
> Linux, both kernel and userland, over the last few years is one of growing |
| 20 |
> dismay due to the constant introduction of subsystem layer atop subsystem |
| 21 |
> layer for very little gain. How much longer until we need a kernel to boot |
| 22 |
> the kernel to mount the userland that mounts the userland (yo dawg)? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Isn't that what the BIOS and bootloader do? On the plus side, you can |
| 25 |
now boot straight from UEFI to kernel without a bootloader but on the |
| 26 |
other hand, UEFI is horrifically over-complex. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
James Le Cuirot (chewi) |
| 30 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives