Re:No more boot loader: Please use the kernel instead
by nmstoker on Monday July 08, 2024 @09:07PM
(#40911580)
What I know or don't know is irrelevant, because what matters is that your statement rests of bringing in external knowledge/assumptions, so it's clearly not what the commenter is saying (alone).
Re:No more boot loader: Please use the kernel instead
by Dylan16807 on Monday July 08, 2024 @09:35PM
(#40911721)
Using external knowledge to interpret the meaning of sentences is how every communication works.
Re:No more boot loader: Please use the kernel instead
by nmstoker on Tuesday July 09, 2024 @03:23PM
(#40919901)
Indeed, but accusing someone of saying something based on unstated external knowledge/assumptions is the original problem here. They just needed to say words to the effect of "taken with point X what you say implies Y" and it would be fine and much less accusatory.
Re:No more boot loader: Please use the kernel instead
by Dylan16807 on Tuesday July 09, 2024 @03:44PM
(#40920200)
I don't find "it sounds like you're saying" on a rather neutral technical topic to be very accusatory, personally.
possibly you don't know this, but in order to run a kernel with a modified command line, the bootloader-kernel would need to run a second kernel, for example using kexec; linux doesn't have a useful way to modify the command line of the running kernel. that's why i interpreted the comment as saying that they are proposing using two separate kernels. in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40910796 comex clarifies that they are in fact proposing using two separate kernels; the reason i was confused is that that's not the only configuration they're proposing