>> Btw, there are nowadays many more reasons why using an initramfs is >> preferred. By depending on initramfs, you can simplify system >> initialization greatly. In the future, it is likely that booting a Linux >> system without initramfs will only be possible in very simple cases - at >> least that is the direction we are moving towards. >> > > You are correct. It simplifies it in a lot of ways, also complicates > it as well since you need an extra set of files (included in the > initramfs). > > Thanks for the wonderful response. I really enjoyed reading it. > > -- > Jonathan Vasquez So for the past few days I've been working on removing the initram, how the it works, the kernel, booting process, MBR, etc and I successfully managed to remove the initramfs. So Arch works, it ends up booting to the desktop, and all that good stuff. Although, without the initramfs, I noticed that when I boot my computer, I don't get any of the messages that Arch normally throws out "Welcome to Arch" , "Staring udev", etc etc. It's just a blank screen until it reaches kdm. When I go to shutdown, I do see these output messages, of when it's stopping the services etc. I checked the /etc/rc.sysinit, and the other rc files and functions, and I see that Arch is really integrated with the use of initramfs. Is this a good thing? Shouldn't the use of an initramfs be optional? (Sure a person can decide to use it to take the extra benefits, but should the initramfs be integrated enough into the system where the output messages don't get displayed?) -- Jonathan Vasquez
