From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 21 15:56:34 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from spammie.svbug.com (mg128-177.ricochet.net [204.179.128.177]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E94037B4CF; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 15:56:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from spammie.svbug.com (localhost.mozie.org [127.0.0.1]) by spammie.svbug.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA00656; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 15:55:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jessem@spammie.svbug.com) Message-Id: <200011212355.PAA00656@spammie.svbug.com> Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 15:55:47 -0800 (PST) From: opentrax@email.com Reply-To: opentrax@email.com Subject: Re: Dedicated disks (was: Dangerously Dedicated) To: jhb@FreeBSD.org Cc: chat@FreeBSD.org, msmith@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 21 Nov, John Baldwin wrote: > > On 21-Nov-00 opentrax@email.com wrote: >> >> >> On 20 Nov, Mike Smith wrote: >>>> Let me state this one more time loudly for those calling themselves boot >>>> code experts. THE PARTITION TABLE IN THE MBR IS NOT DEALT WITH BY THE >>>> BIOS, >>>> BIOSES THAT TRY TO MAKE HEADS OR TALES OF PARTITION TABLES ARE TECHNICALLY >>>> BROKEN AND VIOLATE IBM AT COMPATIBILITY. If you doubt this go read about >>>> BIOS service 19H, IPL load. >>> >>> It doesn't matter how loudly you shout, or what exactly you stuff in your >>> ears. The fact is that this code exists, is part of the de-facto >>> platform standard, and has to be dealt with as such. >>> >>> You are welcome to continue to dual-boot FreeBSD and PC-DOS 2.0. In the >>> meantime, the rest of us are living in the real world, and dealing with >>> real-world problems. Please let us get on with what has to be done. >>> Thankyou. >>> >> Has it occured to you that perhaps there are people that really, really >> want DD? > > People really, really want cold fusion, too, but that desire doesn't mean > doodly squat. Please don't enter the discussion unless you have something > remotely useful to say. Many of us have spent quite some time thinking about > all the real world issues involved here. > Mr. Baldwin. With regards to your response, it draws little relevance to the topic at hand. I'm asking a question with the assumption that, perhaps, those arguing for removing DD can be specific. I could take the posteir (sp?) similar to yours, but I'm working on restraint. :-) I can see many people are passionate about this topic. So, spelling out the issues and facts might help remedy this difficult situtation. Per your comment, about spending "some time thinking about all the..", I've assumed as much. I'm not considerig your opinion in this matter any more _or_ less than anyones. (That includes Mr. Smith). So I would consider it a favor, if perhaps you could illiminate the issue a bit more. For your reference, our position is that we need DD. We see the alternatives, most we don't like. Yes, we can run a "booteasy" style booter to help certain issues. However, we don't sell to newbies and our systems are run by professionals. With that consideration, wouldn't it make good sense to use DD? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message