Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr): > If you want to boot directly to the disk, then don't use a distro.
I very much do not concur. Since 1992 -- with a gap when I was lazy for a long time -- I've found it useful to construct bespoke kernels for my systems that compile inline the essential drivers and build as modules drivers that might or might not be needed later at runtime. But nothing about that local policy contraindicates my using a distribution, and never has. I love using Linux distributions, leveraging the work of talented package maintainers so as not to need to revert to the bad old days. Why would I not? The advantages to me are considerable, among those a smaller and faster kernel image, a smaller attack surface, less to go wrong, and eliminating the need for an initramfs. Your dichotomy makes no sense to me. > This isn't anything new. Initramfs is the easy way for distros to > provide all possible device drivers as module. But some of us don't want all possible dervice drivers as modules. > Otherwise, your kernel should be compiled according to the hardware > detected by the installer. Sounds good to me. The more I encounter the compromises made wile formulating distro policy, e.g., 'we need to stick with the world's most bloated bootloader because there are edge cases Syslinux cannot handle', and 'we need to make the system rely on an initrd because otherwise some edge cases involving md5-mirrored or dm-crypt or NFS root systems cannot boot', the more I'm glad I can easily override distro policy in favour of local policy. -- Cheers, "I never quarrel with a man who buys ink by the barrel." Rick Moen -- Rep. Charles B. Brownson (R-Indiana), ca. 1960 r...@linuxmafia.com McQ! (4x80) _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
