On 03/14/2012 12:14 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 03/14/12 14:56, Zac Medico wrote: >> On 03/14/2012 11:36 AM, Maxim Kammerer wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 19:58, Matthew Summers >>> <quantumsumm...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>> Why is an in-kernel initramfs so bad anyway? I am baffled. Its quite >>>> nice to have a minimal recovery env in case mounting fails, etc, etc, >>>> etc. >>> >>> There is nothing bad about initramfs. I think that you are misreading >>> the arguments above. >> >> Whatever the arguments may be, the whole discussion boils down to the >> fact that the only people who seem to have a "problem" are those that >> have a separate /usr partition and simultaneously refuse to use an >> initramfs. > > People just don't like change for the sake of change, and haven't been > shown any benefits yet. I don't have a separate /usr anywhere, but if I > did, I would have to rebuild and test a good number of custom kernels > that would eventually need to wind up on production servers. > > It would take a least a day's worth of work, not to mention staying late > to make the switch overnight. If you can offer me something cool for it, > great; but at the moment people are being offered "it will work the same > as it did yesterday," which sucks, because it works that way now. > > Sure, there will be improvements in the future, but it can feel a lot > like treading water sometimes.
Well, for most people, the most practical course of action is to suck it up [1] and move on. Dwelling on it certainly won't help, and the "redesign the entire filesystem" approach probably isn't very practical for most people either. [1] http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/suck_it_up -- Thanks, Zac
