[Bootcd-user] A Different RAM Disk Approach + Using Mozilla Firefox

[Mark Clarkson]

Hi Guys,
If no one has any objection I'm going to try Vlado's suggestion.
I was thinking of allowing the user to choose either option tmpfs
or ramfs in the configuration file. Following the general theme
we would have RAMTYPE="<tmpfs|ramfs|auto>", where I suppose auto
would do the on-the-fly test Thomas suggested? Would the on-the-fly
test try to work out if tmpfs is supported in the kernel then choose
it, else fall back to ramfs?

To answer your question, why would people use an old kernel version, some
people are stuck with certain kernel versions when they use binary only
kernel modules, or bespoke kernel modules written for some special
task, that is no longer maintained. I should think there are more reasons
though.

Cheers
Mark.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: bootcd-user-admin@lists.alioth.debian.org
> [mailto:bootcd-user-admin@lists.alioth.debian.org]On Behalf Of Vlado
> Plaga
> Sent: 05 June 2004 18:49
> To: bootcd-user@lists.alioth.debian.org
> Subject: Re: [Bootcd-user] A Different RAM Disk Approach + Using Mozilla
> Firefox
> 
> 
> Thomas Krennwallner wrote:
> 
> > Thanks for your suggestions but we are aware of the ramdisk hassle. The
> > ramdisk approach is used because it's portable between all kernel
> > versions. Maybe there should be config option or an on-the-fly test for
> > used ram-based filesystem.
> 
> That would be nice too. To me it seems more likely for people to have a
> system with only 64 MB RAM or so than wanting to boot a 2.2 kernel or
> older - why should anyone? When was the ramfs/tmpfs option introduced,
> by the way?
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> Vlado