| |||||||||||||
Fedora and LVMFedora and LVMPosted Nov 2, 2012 10:03 UTC (Fri) by johannbg (subscriber, #65743)In reply to: Fedora and LVM by Tobu Parent article: Fedora and LVM
I think it's better you explain to me why this should not be supported?
Like majority of laptop/desktop users I have absolutely no need for the "advanced requirements" that initramfs brings so why would I want to use it? Why would I want to have and use additional bug layer on my system for no benefits to me at all?
(Log in to post comments)
Fedora and LVM Posted Nov 2, 2012 15:15 UTC (Fri) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
I doubt that's actually true, there are many different requirements for desktop/laptop users that work best with or require initramfs setup at boot time. The only way to not need it is to greatly reduce the capability of the system or increase the fragility of the boot process. If you want encrypted block devices, software RAID, dependency ordering for hardware initialization, etc. then it's best to do that from an initramfs. Maybe you don't want these things but other people do so it has to be supported by default.
Fedora and LVM Posted Nov 2, 2012 16:32 UTC (Fri) by johannbg (subscriber, #65743) [Link]
Please enlighten me how this greatly reduce the capability of the system or increase the fragility of the boot process ( given that I have not been bit by several bugs we have encounter with the initramfs ) or how I cant use encrypted block devices ( like I'm currently doing ).
I dont need or want lvm I dont use hw or sw raid and if I need additional storage I buy external disks or rather use my spideroak account on the cloud to share across all my devices and where I dont have to worry about the disk failing and I could loose my data or I simply use my own local nas at home.
I'm not saying that users should not be able to setup and use initramfs but for laptop/desktop use cases I dont see the argument why they need it
I certainly dont and I prefer faster and more reliable bootup.
|
|||||||||||||