On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 11:49:40 +0200
Didier Kryn <kryn@???> wrote:


>     The main reason for initramfs is, IMHO, for distros to provide
> disk drivers and filesystems in the form of modules present in the
> initramfs. They disapear after pivot-root so that only the necessary
> ones remain in memory.
>
>     If you don't want an initramfs, then the drivers and filesystems
> necessary to mount your root partition must be statically linked in
> the kernel. You can recompile the kernel fot that, but you'll have to
> do it for every upgrade, and you will need to modify the init
> sequence because Debian has put some initialisation stuff the
> initramfs phase.

If one wants an exotic disk setup, of course they need an initramfs.
But the least that could be done is to build ext4 support statically
into the kernel. I bet half the users do ext4 without LVM or encryption.

I don't know how big the necessary LVM and encryption modules are, but
if they're tiny, why not put them in the kernel too.

Initramfs' aren't as harmless as everyone thinks. They're a black
box bitch to troubleshoot. Systemd crowd is bragging that they have
tools to debug initramfs. They also brag that systemd software is now
*inside* the initramfs. Imagine what a world we'd have if the systemd
cabal used their millions in funding to take over all the initramfs
makers the way they took over udev.

Initramfs is another moving part, and if you've ever looked inside one,
a major moving part that does a lot more than allow disk mounting. And
it's a black box. For those with exotic setups it will always be
necessary, but compiling ext4 into the kernel, like we always used to,
would get rid of a lot of peoples' need for initramfs.

And about the recompiling the kernel on each update if you want no
initramfs: I wonder how intentional that extreme inconvenience is.

SteveT

Steve Litt 
May 2020 featured book: Troubleshooting Techniques
     of the Successful Technologist
http://www.troubleshooters.com/techniques