Quoting Didier Kryn (kryn@???):

> If you want to boot directly to the disk, then don't use a distro.

I very much do not concur.

Since 1992 -- with a gap when I was lazy for a long time -- I've found
it useful to construct bespoke kernels for my systems that compile
inline the essential drivers and build as modules drivers that might
or might not be needed later at runtime. But nothing about that local
policy contraindicates my using a distribution, and never has. I love
using Linux distributions, leveraging the work of talented package
maintainers so as not to need to revert to the bad old days. Why would
I not? The advantages to me are considerable, among those a smaller and
faster kernel image, a smaller attack surface, less to go wrong, and
eliminating the need for an initramfs.

Your dichotomy makes no sense to me.

> This isn't anything new. Initramfs is the easy way for distros to
> provide all possible device drivers as module.

But some of us don't want all possible dervice drivers as modules.

> Otherwise, your kernel should be compiled according to the hardware
> detected by the installer.

Sounds good to me.

The more I encounter the compromises made wile formulating distro
policy, e.g., 'we need to stick with the world's most bloated bootloader
because there are edge cases Syslinux cannot handle', and 'we need to
make the system rely on an initrd because otherwise some edge cases
involving md5-mirrored or dm-crypt or NFS root systems cannot boot',
the more I'm glad I can easily override distro policy in favour of local
policy.

-- 
Cheers,                "I never quarrel with a man who buys ink by the barrel."
Rick Moen                    -- Rep. Charles B. Brownson (R-Indiana), ca. 1960
rick@???
McQ! (4x80)