On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 05:38:48 -0400
Joshua Kinard <kumba@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Why do I not like an initramfs, though?  Well, for one, it complicates the
> kernel compiles (and it makes them bigger, something which is an issue on
> the old SGI systems at times).  Two, it's another layer that I have to
> maintain.  Three, it violates, in my mind, the simplicity of keeping the
> kernel and userland separated (e.g., kernel does kernel-y things, userland
> does userland-y things).

You make it sound like the initramfs has to be built into the kernel
image. It can be but it usually isn't. I suspect you know that though?
Admittedly that does depend on support from your bootloader. While GRUB
and U-Boot have supported this for years, I forget what oddball
bootloaders your hardware may be using.

> Maybe I'm just a old codger who refuses to accept change.  I'm fine with
> that description.  I like things to remain somewhat simple, and my view of
> Linux, both kernel and userland, over the last few years is one of growing
> dismay due to the constant introduction of subsystem layer atop subsystem
> layer for very little gain.  How much longer until we need a kernel to boot
> the kernel to mount the userland that mounts the userland (yo dawg)?

Isn't that what the BIOS and bootloader do? On the plus side, you can
now boot straight from UEFI to kernel without a bootloader but on the
other hand, UEFI is horrifically over-complex.

-- 
James Le Cuirot (chewi)
Gentoo Linux Developer