From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Nov 27 7:36:59 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from gatekeeper.veriohosting.com (gatekeeper.veriohosting.com [192.41.0.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECF3437B479; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 07:36:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by gatekeeper.veriohosting.com; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 08:36:52 -0700 (MST) Received: from unknown(192.168.1.7) by gatekeeper.veriohosting.com via smap (V3.1.1) id xma023968; Mon, 27 Nov 00 08:36:24 -0700 Received: from vespa.orem.iserver.com (vespa.orem.iserver.com [192.168.1.144]) by orca.orem.veriohosting.com [Verio Web Hosting, Inc. 801.437.0200] (8.8.8) id IAA32851; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 08:36:23 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 08:55:27 -0700 (MST) From: Fred Clift X-Sender: fred@vespa.orem.iserver.com To: Terry Lambert Cc: Fred Clift , opentrax@email.com, stable@FreeBSD.ORG, obrien@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Dedicated disks (was: Dangerously Dedicated) In-Reply-To: <200011241957.MAA26658@usr06.primenet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Interesting stuff about the bios checksum of the mbr. Is this something we can work with to be compatable against. Perhaps I dont fully understand the issue... On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > I have yet to see a reasonable justification as to why a DOS > > > partition table and MBR (or boot manager) causes any problems > > > that can't be overcome. > > > > So, aparently asthetics mean nothing to you? > > You mean, if I have to choose between "it's pretty" and "it always > works", do I cop out and choose "it always works"? ... It seems to me that you think there can only be one way to do this and that 'we must choose the right way'. What is wrong with having two ways of doing something, the elegant for when you know you can use it and the ugly for when you cant? > > I think that if you have a sense of aesthetics in this area, > you would probably not be running on PC hardware. 8-). not true -- sometimes utility or cost triumphs over aesthetics... But I agree with you the the platform is a particularly messy one... > I look at the PC hardware, and the requirements it makes of the > software that runs on it, as a quaint Swiss Chalet architecture. > > Now you have this modern family who is moving into the chalet > they just bought, and they need another room because their > family is really too big for a Swiss Chalet architecture building. > > When they add this room, should the home owners association force > the addition to be in the same style as the rest of the chalet? > Or should it let the family put up an addition using modern > industrial cinderblock architecture? But if they wanted to build an underground bunker off the back of the house, and not change the external appearance of the house from the outside at all, then the home-owners association shouldn't have a say... it is an amusing anaolgy however... > > things the right way' is a valid reason to keep support for this > > in the code... > > On the contrary, all other things being equal, elegance should > be the determining factor, IMO. But there is a reason that Frank > LLoyd Wright never designed additions to houses, only whole ones: > if you are adding to something that already exists, aesthetics > _demands_ that you constrain your soloution to one that fits with > the existing system of constraints already in place. Again, you seem to insist that there is 'one right way'. Personally, there isn't much difference to me between dedicated and non-dedicated installs. I dont care strongly about having my machines one way or the other. As long as they work. I do care that we keep the functionality however if for no other reason than to satisfy other people's sense of neatness. > > If you are partivcularly bigoted against ideas inherited from > Microsoft, too bad. I'm not. shrug. > > If your complaint is about the antiquated C/H/S values, well, I It isn't. > > > I have no problem with making this less encouraged for newbies > > to try, for making it a bit harder to do inintial installs in dedicated ... > The question is whether it should be allowed in sysinstall. So far, > it has been nothing but trouble. I think the accessibility to new > users is probably the number one consideration. The more likely we > are to destroy an existing FS on a user's system, the less likely they > are going to be to try FreeBSD, or stick with it, once they have tried > it. As I said -- I have no problem with hiding this option in the depths of sysinstall somewhere and putting a line in the handbook that says 'partition in this way', this way being non-dedicated installs. What I dont want to see happen is to have the functionality completely removed. I'm all for hiding complexity and guiding people away from error. However, one of the reasons I like FreeBSD is that I can 'do whatever I want' with it (well, within limits...) and aparently, a lot of people want to do this, wether or not it is compatible with all hardware, and wether or not the swiss-chalet home-owners association wants to disallow it. Fred -- Fred Clift - fclift@verio.net -- Remember: If brute force doesn't work, you're just not using enough. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message