Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 10:57:03 +1030 From: Greg Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> To: Joerg Wunsch <joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de>, Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: "Dangerously Decidated" yet again (was : cvs commit: src/sys/kern subr_diskmbr.c) Message-ID: <20011210105703.I83634@monorchid.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <200112092015.fB9KFJe01121@mass.dis.org> <20011209194606.I97235@uriah.heep.sax.de> <20011209195013.J97235@uriah.heep.sax.de> References: <20011209102129.F97235@uriah.heep.sax.de> <200112092015.fB9KFJe01121@mass.dis.org> <20011209102129.F97235@uriah.heep.sax.de> <44735.1007899299@verdi.nethelp.no> <20011209194606.I97235@uriah.heep.sax.de> <44735.1007899299@verdi.nethelp.no> <XFMail.20011209225258.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <20011209195013.J97235@uriah.heep.sax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday, 9 December 2001 at 12:15:19 -0800, Mike Smith wrote: >> As Peter Wemm wrote: >> >>> There shouldn't *be* bootblocks on non-boot disks. >>> >>> dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/da$n count=1 >>> >>> Dont use "disklabel -B -rw da$n auto". Use "disklabel -rw da$n auto". >> >> All my disks have bootblocks and (spare) boot partitions. All the >> bootblocks are DD mode. I don't see any point in using obsolete fdisk >> tables. (There's IMHO only one purpose obsolete fdisk tables are good >> for, co-operation with other operating systems in the same machine. >> None of my machines uses anything else than FreeBSD.) > > Since I tire of seeing people hit this ignorant opinion in the list > archives, I'll just offer the rational counterpoints. > > - The MBR partition table is not "obsolete", it's a part of the PC > architecture specification. And if it's part of the PC architecture specification, it can't be obsolete? I dont see any contradiction here. > - You omit the fact that many peripheral device vendors' BIOS code looks > for the MBR partition table, and will fail if it's not present or > incorrect. What do you mean by "peripheral device"? I've never heard of disk drives having a BIOS. If you're talking about host adaptors, it's you who omit what Jörg says about it: No, on the contrary, he went into some detail on this point: On Sunday, 9 December 2001 at 19:46:06 +0100, Joerg Wunsch wrote: > > <personal opinion> > Still, it's my opinion that these BIOSes are simply broken: > interpretation of the fdisk table has always been in the realm of the > boot block itself. The BIOS should decide whether a disk is bootable > or not by looking at the 0x55aa signature at the end, nothing else. > Think of the old OnTrack Disk Manager that extended the fdisk table to > 16 slots -- nothing the BIOS could ever even handle. It was in the > realm of the boot block to interpret it. > </personal opinion> I agree with Jörg on this. > I'd love to never hear those invalid, unuseful, misleading opinions > from you again. I'd love to never have to see this level of invective poured onto what was previously a calm discussion. Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers 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?20011210105703.I83634>