From owner-freebsd-fs Wed Oct 4 15: 6:46 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from gidora.zeta.org.au (gidora.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.25]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B06D337B66C for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 15:06:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 12063 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2000 22:06:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bde.zeta.org.au) (203.2.228.102) by gidora.zeta.org.au with SMTP; 4 Oct 2000 22:06:36 -0000 Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 09:06:30 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-Sender: bde@besplex.bde.org To: Greg Lehey Cc: Terry Lambert , "Karsten W. Rohrbach" , Andre Albsmeier , Marc Tardif , freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Partitioning (was: ccd with other filesystems) In-Reply-To: <20001002105342.A8937@wantadilla.lemis.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, Greg Lehey wrote: > On Sunday, 1 October 2000 at 23:59:06 +1100, Bruce Evans wrote: > > On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Greg Lehey wrote: > >> On Sunday, 1 October 2000 at 2:48:53 +0000, Terry Lambert wrote: [actually, Greg wrote this, except for the quotes] > >> I strongly object to the Microsoft "partition" table, and I don't use > >> it myself. And of course you're welcome to use whatever you find > >> convenient. It's not until you advocate making this a standard way > >> that anybody can have any objection. > > > > Why? It is only broken in different ways than the BSD label. > > Because it's another layer of abstraction which doesn't add any > functionality. Yes, there are claims that some BIOSes require it, but > that makes the BIOSes broken. It adds the following functionality: - up to 2^32 partitions (normally limited to 30 in FreeBSD). - inter-operability with other OS's. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message