So sprach R.I.P. Deaddog am Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 02:53:53AM +0800:
>
> 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?
No, of course I don't want to say that! My points were that it's hard to
make a generic initrd, because there are so many different configurations
out there.
Further I tried to say, that because creating an initrd is so easy, it
should be used even for "standard" drivers like ext2 and ide. Since the
right (hopefully *G*) initrd is created when you install a kernel package,
having an initrd is also newbie compatible. In fact, I doubt that a newbie
would even notice that he's now using an initrd.
The advantage of having even ext2 and ide seperated from the kernel would
be, that really only the needed things get loaded.
Frankly, with all the excellent work Chmouel is doing in installkernel, I
fail to see why anything at all should be compiled into the kernel. Yes, I
understand that more people use ide than SCSI and also more use ext2 than
reiserfs; but still - what reasons are there that those two modules are not
in an initrd?
Alexander Skwar
--
How to quote: http://learn.to/quote (german) http://quote.6x.to (english)
Homepage: http://www.digitalprojects.com | http://www.iso-top.de
iso-top.de - Die guenstige Art an Linux Distributionen zu kommen
Uptime: 4 days 4 hours 14 minutes
