Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 19:20:44 +1030 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG>, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Dedicated disks (was: Dangerously Dedicated) Message-ID: <20001120192044.Q58333@echunga.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <20001119235725.A69566@dragon.nuxi.com>; from obrien@FreeBSD.ORG on Sun, Nov 19, 2000 at 11:57:25PM -0800 References: <XFMail.001120111426.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <200011200050.RAA16476@harmony.village.org> <20001120112719.U58333@echunga.lemis.com> <20001119235758.B69566@dragon.nuxi.com> <XFMail.001120111426.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <200011200050.RAA16476@harmony.village.org> <3A1897EB.39DAE37B@urx.com> <0aef01c052a2$34fc3f60$931576d8@inethouston.net> <20001120145304.F58333@echunga.lemis.com> <20001119235725.A69566@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday, 19 November 2000 at 23:57:25 -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 02:53:04PM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote: >> >> If it shows valid partitions, you're using a Microsoft partition table. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Greg, can you read English?? Can you comprehend it?? Are you bind and in > a write-only mode?? > For the last time IT IS NOT A MICROSOFT PARTITION TABLE but a PC BIOS > PARTITION TABLE AND DICTATED BY THE INTEL x86 PLATFORM. THEY ARE ALSO > REQUIRED BY THE IA-64 PLATFORM. > > Why do you *insist* on calling it a "Microsoft partition table"?? Hmm. I was going to say "Because it was introduced with Microsoft 2.0", but I'm no longer so sure. Reading the MS-DOS 2.11 source code, it seems that they didn't have a partition table at the time. Can anybody remember when it was introduced? Anyway, it's needed for "modern" Microsoft offerings, and not really for much else. It's also not a UNIX partition table. But both work on the x86 platform, and I'm pretty sure Intel didn't have anything to do with its development, so calling it an Intel partition table is ambiguous. To call it an IBM partition table would just confuse the issue even further. > To the best of my knowledge, you are not one of our boot experts, so > who do you keep putting forth this FUD? I don't see this as FUD, it's just a terminology convention. What do you call it? On Sunday, 19 November 2000 at 23:57:58 -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 11:27:19AM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote: > >> I wonder how long the current Microsoft partition table has to live, >> anyway? > > Forever, they are mandated on the IA-64 also. Forever is a long time. Admittedly it's silly to keep chs alive even longer than necessary. On Sunday, 19 November 2000 at 23:59:31 -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 11:28:35AM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote: >> No. Unlike the Microsoft partition tables in dedicated machines, it >> has advantages that make up for it. But take away my ability to write >> in assembler and I'll complain too. > > They why don't you write Vinum in ASM?? You'd save more space then > your whining about loosing here. You've ignored the text above: "it (C) has advantages that make up for it.". So why are you getting all upset about this matter? I thought we had already put it to bed. Greg -- Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001120192044.Q58333>