From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264505AbTDXVmJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Apr 2003 17:42:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264506AbTDXVmJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Apr 2003 17:42:09 -0400 Received: from 205-158-62-136.outblaze.com ([205.158.62.136]:36551 "HELO fs5-4.us4.outblaze.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S264505AbTDXVmG (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Apr 2003 17:42:06 -0400 Subject: Re: 2.5.68 kernel no initrd From: Felipe Alfaro Solana To: Bill Davidsen Cc: "Kevin P. Fleming" , LKML , =?iso-8859-2?Q?Pawe=B3_Go=B3aszewski?= , Dave Mehler In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1051221242.612.49.camel@teapot.felipe-alfaro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.3 (1.2.3-1) Date: 24 Apr 2003 23:54:03 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2003-04-24 at 22:19, Bill Davidsen wrote: > > I don't have any doubts that initrd is a very flexible solution and > > provides for a generic kernel. However, in the end (I'm talking about my > > experiences), initrd has caused me more troubles than problems it > > solved. I always keep all "config" file for every kernel I use on my > > machines. > > Other than needing to build and maintain all those kernels, what does it > gain you over installing the modules you need and having a single kernel? Simply said, I don't like "initrd". I have still to figure out how to make an "initrd" that includes the newer modutils. Anyways, I don't mantain so much kernels (only 3 or 4 different versions), and have a mix of AMD/P4/P3/P2/PI machines that need things that can't be configured/don't yet work as modules, so I prefer to pass initrd by... -- Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html Linux Registered User #287198