| 1 |
On 2019-08-06 12:28, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > Arguing against this trivial (and IMHO, elegant) solution is tilting |
| 4 |
> > at windmills. Specially if it is for ideological reasons instead of |
| 5 |
> > technical ones. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> Some of the solutions I've seen tossed out in this thread are more |
| 8 |
> complex than just building your own initramfs from scratch. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> An initramfs is just a userspace bootloader that runs on top of linux. |
| 11 |
> Nobody has any problem with conventional bootloaders, and if you want |
| 12 |
> to do anything with one of those you have to muck around in low-level |
| 13 |
> C or assembly. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
There is a difference, and that difference is the reason I dislike |
| 16 |
initramfs, not one of the other possible reasons you hypothesize. The |
| 17 |
difference is that real Unix processes (not just kernel threads and not |
| 18 |
just PID 1) survive from the initramfs stage into the "real Unix" |
| 19 |
stage. It's like being able to trace matter back before the Big Bang. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet, |
| 23 |
if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup. |
| 24 |
To reply privately _only_ on Usenet and on broken lists |
| 25 |
which rewrite From, fetch the TXT record for no-use.mooo.com. |
Archives