On Wednesday 30 October 2002 3:37, Russell King wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 03:22:17AM -0500, Dave Cinege wrote:
> > Do you have any serious sysadmin, clustering, or emebedded system
> > IMPLEMENTATION experience?
>
> Please don't get personal, or you'll end up in peoples kill files.
It's not personal. He made a wild 'No one needs any of this[initrd]'
statement. Is he coming from 'this looks like a good idea'(coder) or
'I can prove this is a good idea through experience examples.'
(systems engineer)
I can prove to you (for one thing) that when the shit hits the
fan (disaster recovery) initrd is a good option to have.
> ARM is basically embedded today, and I support initramfs. I don't
> believe your "embedded system" argument holds any water. Yes, it
High level embedded systems...low level systems could care less.
> is a different way of doing things, but it can (and does here)
> support initrd images.
The point to this is:
Linking an image into the kernel LOOKS nice, but I would sure not
want to deploy it because it becomes an adminstation nightmare.
Even with initrd, a single file can be a problem...this is why my
patch supports extracting multiple tar.gz archives....to maintain
configuration modularity.
Having an image in the kernel is not a bad thing...making it the
only option is.
Dave
-- The time is now 22:48 (Totalitarian) - http://www.ccops.org/- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 31 2002 - 22:00:46 EST