Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 06:38:02 +0100 From: Cliff Sarginson <cliff@raggedclown.net> To: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: /boot partition? Message-ID: <20020215053801.GA577@raggedclown.net> In-Reply-To: <ybn0ybto15.0yb@localhost.localdomain> References: <1013733649.3c6c59114e6a2@webmail.health.ufl.edu> <ybn0ybto15.0yb@localhost.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 07:35:50PM -0800, Gary W. Swearingen wrote: > sridharv@ufl.edu writes: > > > Why did freebsd choose not to have a separate /boot partition like linux? any > > specific issues? just curious > > mail to me as i am not subscribed > > The last time I used Linux (about a year ago), it didn't have /boot on a > separate partition either. These are just installer software default > choices. During the install of either OS, using installers I've seen, > you can make /boot a separate partition or not; your choice. > > The only reason I know to put it on a separate partition is to have > certain boot files located in the first 1024 cylinders when the boot > loader has that problem with the boot disk. I guess someone decided > that it would be better to have the more rare case require extra steps > (to separate /boot) than the more usual case (to unseparate it). > > FreeBSD design choices are seldom driven by newbie convenience if it > comes at the expense of a normal user. > Release 5 will put kernels in a /boot directory. Current already does. -- Regards Cliff To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020215053801.GA577>