On 5/19/2013 11:54 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
I'm not saying initrd doesn't make people happy, but that it does is a
bit strange. Does anyone know why it is better on a specific system than having a system boot off a hard disk directly?
My systems all have a stock openSUSE-kernel plus a local custom-built initrd (bult by mkinitrd). I would prefer not having to maintain a custom-built kernel per system, it's much easier+faster building the initrd with mkinitrd.
But that's not even part of the argument here. The discussion is WHY is mkinitrd even necessary, and not using initrd does not force you to build a custom built kernel. Linda is saying initHD is every bit as fast (if not faster), and imposes less goofy changes and conventions onto linux than the practice of building an intird for every system. Presumibly there would be tools like mkinitHD and the end user would see no practical difference, and you wouldn't have the problems of half (or more) of your system's needed file and libraries being unavailable at boot time. Although in that case, InitHD might be as simple as a text file bearing paths to specific lists of modules. Initrd IS a custom-built kernel. So what you want to avoid, is already being done for you. Since a relative small number of people can decide to swap out SysVint for SystemD, abandon file systems, add new file systems, replace the sound system 4 times in 6 years, hatch zypper, etc., etc., why is initrd still a sacred cow of Linux after all these years? -- _____________________________________ ---This space for rent--- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org