Re: GRUB and boot partition
- Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 12:44:35 +0100
- From: <tomas@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: GRUB and boot partition
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 12:33:36PM +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Le 26/12/2017 à 12:24, tomas@xxxxxxxxxx a écrit :
> >In the days you measure (small) external media in gigabytes, this
> >argument has lost a lot of push.
> What does storage size have to do with these situations ?
The other way around: if you keep the unencrypted bits in a separate
(or somehow specially secured) medium, a strict limitation on its
size might favour smaller (i.e. half a bootloader only) over fatter
(i.e. a whole bootloader plus a kernel plus an initramfs) solutions.
> >But yes, on some specialized hardware that might make a difference.
> >FWIW, /boot/grub is 9.1M (yikes! didn't I say I don't like how fat
> >the boot loader has become?
> You can remove all the unneeded modules for features that you do not use.
Yes, yes, I know. Still... I don't like this overcomplex Grub. Scope
creep, if you ask me. Dealing with the "lower half" seems more than
enough. But there are tastes for everything :-)
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----