It all starts from, say, how many people boots from ide? And how many from
scsi? It's the *COMPARATIVELY* more common option that's chosen here. E.g.
although you don't need /boot as separate partition, that doesn't mean
everybody else doesn't want it. In fact, many people are using /boot as
separate partition, and probably even using ext2, dating back from the
days where grub and lilo doesn't support reiserfs /boot yet. And you won't
say that everybody should install the whole linux from scratch, right?
Abel Cheung
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> So sprach J . A . Magallon am Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 04:04:00PM +0200:
> > At least all that can be needed to boot, with some limits.
> > You can say: hey, do not make your /boot reiser, just ext2. But you
>
> Why make a /boot at all? It just complicates things, and as grub is able to
> boot from reiserfs, there's actually no reason to make a /boot partition
> anymore. (Yes, I also have a /boot - but only because I just learned that
> grub can read from reiserfs - next install will just be one / which is gonna
> be reiserfs).
>
> > can't say "don't boot from your aha152x", because I can't boot from
>
> *I* don't need aha152x - why should this module be loaded in this case? And
> aren't there some drivers which may conflict?
>
> > many other drivers that should also be built-in (how many people BOOTS
> > from raid ??).
>
> As soon as Mandrake can be installed to a raid-/, I suspect that there will
> be quite some.
>
> > By now I have a crap ide disk in that system just to be able to boot
> > because ide is built-in in mdk kernels. But that is not a serious solution.
>
> I've asked this quite some time ago: Why built ide into the kernel? initrd
> works like a charm - why not move ide and also ext2 to initrd?
>
> > Say that to all the people with servers that boot from a 2940 and have no
> > ide disks...
>
> I'm not following you here...
>
> Alexander Skwar
>
