-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 12:33:36PM +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > Le 26/12/2017 à 12:24, to...@tuxteam.de 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 :-) Cheers - -- t -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlpCNiIACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYipQCfRSacDjIkHtzJj4h4wsQaz5VL ju0An3UU+Pfuu5ogh8AdDKomtTKbV2Dt =qoVI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
