Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 10:39:04 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: fdisk headache Message-ID: <199701271739.KAA05784@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <Mutt.19970127012703.j@uriah.heep.sax.de> from "J Wunsch" at Jan 27, 97 01:27:03 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > . Since the MBR is identical to the BSD bootstrap, there's no room for > > > things like `nextboot' after the MBR, and you can't replace the MBR > > > by fancy things like a boot selector. > > > This is evil. > > You consider it evil -- some (many?) others don't. See the first > sentence above: it's called ``dangerously'' dedicated mode. It's just > for those who want and love this way. Those who prefer fighting > against braindead 1024-cylinder or foobar megabyte limits are free to > do so, and we even do them the favour to make these struggles (i.e., > the DOS-compatible way) the default variant. "Fighting against the 1024 cylinder limit" is an irrelevant supposition. That limit is not present in LBA-aware MBR's, such as the OnTrack 7.x stuff which also happens to install a BIOS TSR that supplies the LBA BIOS entry points. The limit in that case, or in the case of native LBA support in the IDE controller BIOS, is the FreeBSD OS specific boot code. Again, removing the ability to install other OS's without reinstalling BSD is evil. I don't care if it's non-default or not. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199701271739.KAA05784>