Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 09:06:30 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, "Karsten W. Rohrbach" <karsten@rohrbach.de>, Andre Albsmeier <andre@akademie3000.de>, Marc Tardif <intmktg@CAM.ORG>, freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Partitioning (was: ccd with other filesystems) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0010050902330.11857-100000@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20001002105342.A8937@wantadilla.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0010050902330.11857-100000>