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