Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 09:12:08 +0100 (MET) From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD hackers) Subject: Re: boot disk.... Message-ID: <199510300812.JAA04793@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <199510300130.MAA00303@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from "Michael Smith" at Oct 30, 95 12:00:49 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Michael Smith wrote: > > It's more that this much work be put in to maintain compatability with > the existing scheme. If I Were To Have My Way (tm), I'd have another > partition in the FreeBSD slice for holding kernels and bootstrap tools, > stuck at the front of the slice. (Reminiscent of the SVR4 /stand (?) > concept). I can see right now the fracas this would cause 8( Yeah, we've already got this one: the partition is called `a', and it's mounted as /. Where's that big difference here to /stand? After i had to install an SCO for a customer (ick!, they couldn't be convinced of FreeBSD), and noticed that this f*cking multi-level boot takes ages until it finally presents the Boot: prompt, i'm no longer a fan of any more boot stages. The 7.5 K limitation has one interesting feature: it makes us fast, since you could not put a GUI into it. :-) Believe it or not, a separate /stand/boot tool will be bloated and bloated until it will finally reaches its limits, too -- but it will be much slower, and waste more boot time and disk space then. It won't serve any better purpose however, and none of our current problems can really be solved by it, except perhaps for the ``can only boot off the compatibility slice'' one. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199510300812.JAA04793>