Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 14:55:55 -0500 From: Brandon Fosdick <bfoz@glue.umd.edu> To: stable@FreeBSD.ORG, obrien@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Dangerously Dedicated Message-ID: <3A18304B.689C2CFE@glue.umd.edu> References: <200011191657.eAJGvnZ63007@cwsys.cwsent.com> <3A180EA0.31926227@glue.umd.edu> <20001119094725.B66448@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David O'Brien wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 19, 2000 at 12:32:16PM -0500, Brandon Fosdick wrote: > > So we're going to be stuck with MS style partitions on machines that only run > > FreeBSD? I don't like this idea. > > Can you tell why?? Just because it is "MS style partitions"?? Using what I consider to be a artifact of another operating system on a machine that doesn't use that OS seems silly to me. Unless, of course, that artifact has some useful feature(s) or functionality. If it does, I'm all ears. > BTW, slices aren't "MS style partitions", but "PC BIOS style partitions". > As long as people insist on using Intel based computers, slices are > demanded. Run FreeBSD on an Alpha if you don't like the idea of the PC > BIOS 4-slot partition table with boundaries on cylinders and MBR. I'm a little confused here. Why are slices demanded by the Intel arhictecture? We've been successfully using DD mode for years now, if slices are "demanded" what kind of voodoo have we been using? Is there some way or ways in which the 4-slot table is superior to DD-mode? You mentioned not having enough space for boot0. Why can't we just change DD-mode to have space for boot0? -Brandon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3A18304B.689C2CFE>