Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 18:24:17 +0000 (GMT) From: Daniel Flickinger <attila@hun.org> To: undisclosed-recipients: ; Subject: Re: devfs oddity? Message-ID: <20021006182417.mRnG20744@hun.org> In-Reply-To: <20021006060625.K30311-100000@sasami.jurai.net> References: <20021006073344.GA9756@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
'c' partition as the whole disk existed in the
pre-release tapes of Berkeley BSD 4.0 and continued on
from there. I think I still have the whole set of
1600bpi 9T tapes.... bad144 also originated at that time
to get away from V7's and V32's assumption of perfect
media which was a nightmare, particularly on DEC media
of the late 70s, early 80s. DEC charged more than double
for media without errors and the warranty was 10 seconds
or 10 feet which ever came first (just like used cars).
Sent: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 00:33:45 -0700 by David O'Brien
+ On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 08:29:52AM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
+ > >The first "c" is part of the standard name for the whole of a (labelled)
+ > >disk device.
+ >
+ > It's not any "standard name". It is a convention used on a minority
+ > of UNIX platforms out there, and it is certainly not "standard" even
+ > for BSD based systems.
+
+ Since when hasn't it been standard on BSD based systems?
+ Other than recently on FreeBSD, all other BSD systems I've
+ used, the "c" partition has been necessary when wanting to
+ operate on the entire disk.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021006182417.mRnG20744>