Konstantin Svist wrote: > > IIRC, the idea was to initialize hardware in parallel. The only thing > (?) required for this to work is using kernel alone, without initrd. > So my question is, how plausible is running Fedora without initrd? Don't > the majority of users out there have similar hardware, making initrd > unnecessary? > If you build your own kernel, with everything you need to boot built in, then you do not need an initrd. I guess I am not in the "majority" because none of my machines has the same hardware. One has SCSI drives, 2 more have different IDE controllers. Then there is my Laptop with the SATA controller. I also have 2 older laptops with different IDE controllers, and a third can not run Fedora (P75 with 40M of RAM) It works as a nice test bed for firewalls, IR to network gateway, Wireless to Ethernet gateway, or a print server. I also have a Stylistic 1000 with a 486 and 32M - it normally does not have a keyboard - it uses a "pen" that acts as a mouse on the screen, and an on screen keyboard. It has a PCMCIA slot that acts like an IDE controller for the hard drive. (PCMCIA hard drive, or memory card, or a conventional memory card in an adapter.) Then there are the USB drives that are bootable. They need the usb_storage module in the initrd as the hard drive controller. Mikkel -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
Description: OpenPGP digital signature