Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 11:02:28 +1100 From: Zero Sum <count@shalimar.net.au> To: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group <Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca>, Stijn Hoop <stijn@win.tue.nl> Cc: FreeBSD <freebsd@kiwi-computer.com>, Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group <Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca>, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Removal of Disklabel Message-ID: <00112111022805.29201@shalimar.net.au> In-Reply-To: <200011201650.eAKGoYV69653@cwsys.cwsent.com> References: <200011201650.eAKGoYV69653@cwsys.cwsent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 21 November 2000 03:49, Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group
wrote:
> In message <20001120170356.C74393@pcwin002.win.tue.nl>, Stijn Hoop
> writes:
> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 08:58:50AM -0600, FreeBSD wrote:
> > > The problem with the fdisk slices is that there is only room for 4 ...
> > > disklabel gives us 8, no wait.. 6 if you have a swap and 5 if you
don't.
> > >
> > > I've never been a fan of this. May I make a recommendation (flame
away,
> > > boys): redo disklabel while we're at it. it seems counter-intuitive
to
> > > me, as well as wasteful, to make partition "c" the whole disk and
skip "d"
> > > altogether. IMHO, "da0s1" should refer to the whole disk, "da0s1a"
should
> > > be the first physical partition, "da0s1b" the second partition, etc.
down
> > > to "h". This gives us 8 partitions of any type: swap or FS.
> >
> > Hear, hear! I would really like to see this. Installing FreeBSD is that
> > much more confusing due to the two-layered hierarchy... And even more so
> > due to the conventions with the partitions (c, d, etc). If we cannot do
> > away with the two layers, at least make the second layer more intuitive.
> > What argument, other than 'it's been this way for ages' is there for the
> > confusing a-h convention? And what arguments are there for disklabel
> > on the i386 anyway?
> >
> > I'd like to see FreeBSD do the same as Linux on the i386 - use only
> > the partition table, along with extended partitions. Do away with
disklabel
> > *on that platform*.
> >
> > Yes of course the alpha would differ from i386 in disk geometry then.
But
> > since the differences in setting up the alpha/i386 are already there,
why
> > the pretense in keeping them 'the same'?
> >
> > One of the most FAQs I've heard from linux'ees that tried FreeBSD is
> > 'why can't I install to an extended partition?' Fact is when I hear that
> > question, I also wonder myself...
>
> Extended partitions are the subdivision of one of the four partitions
> in the fdisk table. Disklabel does that. We could rename disklabel
> slices to extended partitions. IMO for most people the fdisk and
> disklabel interfaces (commands) are redundant. All of this should be
> done through sysinstall. Just as SVR4 has sysadm, and other O/S's have
> condoned and supported by the vendor approaches to sysdmin, we should
> encourage the use of sysinstall for all sysadmin activities. Sure keep
> fdisk and disklabel around for those of us who like the bits-and-bytes.
>
> The short of it is that sysinstall should have one interface for
> configuring disks, not two as it currently does. That one interface
> should make the user think that we have a unified disk partitioning
> look-and-feel just like NT and Linux do.
>
> To hide the architecture even further, device names in /dev would be
> hidden by the use of symlinks or hard links. Those who want to
> reference ad0s1a can. The rest of us can use names like disk0a or hd0a
> ("a" specifies the first FreeBSD partition/slice found on the disk).
> The disk0a or hd0a names would be independent of the type of device
> driver being used SCSI, IDE, etc., it would just be a generic name.
> The current naming convention would become esoteric and could be used
> if needed.
>
> In a world where most people don't care about the architecture of an
> operating system, I think that this would put a friendlier face on
> FreeBSD.
>
>
Yep. But it would wind up FreeMSDOS.
Look a multi user networked operating system is not for the simple or
uneducatable. Microsoft is busy proving that to the world.
From the questions asked here and in Questions, the major problem people
have is fundmental bits and bytes understanding of things. We should try
and promote this understanding, not make it invisible except to "gurus".
I have recently been trying to help a user with their installation. Their
fundmental understanding is so poor that they cannot even answer questions
like "please send me a copy of the output of the program 'dmesg'". It is a
lost cause. I really doubt I can help this person. They are simply too
used to point and click and won't calm down enough (or are unable) to
answer questions.
I do think that manipulating partitions in FreeBSD is rather harder than on
any other Unix I have had to do it on. Moving things around in a dynamic
and fluid way (which I have always consider part of tuning) is - difficult.
Some better partition management tools would be rather useful. I'll think
on this and maybe do something. Suggestions welcome and solicited. [Can I
get arrested of soliciting on a mailing list?]
Geoff
--
count@shalimar.net.au
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione
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?00112111022805.29201>