On Sat, Sep 18, 2004 at 03:29:59PM -0700, Alvin Oga wrote: > > > On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, Robert Epprecht wrote: > > > Alvin Oga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > - /boot should NOT be a separate partition > >
That NOT true. The right line today is /boot no longer needs to be a separate partition. It used to be required due to bios limitations on the location of the system on the disk, but that requirement was removed so ... Its sometimes a problem to have lilo/grub on the second HD or the second/third/... controllers, but thats less and less true also. > > Why? Please elaborate. > > even if you can boot, you do NOT have a root fs .. > ( /etc /bin /sbin /lib /dev ... ) > > you can always use a fd or cd or network to boot > the system if the rootfs /etc /bin /sbin is working > without /boot > > without a rootfs ... it is pointless to boot unless > the boot fd or boot cd has its own rootfs > ( like an installer or standalone system like knoppix ) > > gazillion ways to boot a box > > only one way to fix a dead linux install > - to get into single user mode > or boot a standalone system w/o needing the > dead/suspect hard disk > > - a bad partition scheme will prevent you > from fixing your "disk gone bad" due to > corruptions in ext2/ext3/reiserfs/etc > > partition scheme is important if you dont want to lose > your user data in say /home > - user configs in /etc is easy to save onto floppy > I have to admit I can't follow your reasoning here. Whats the relation between a separate boot partition and the ability to boot in single user mode or access the partition from a live-cd and relatives? > c ya > alvin > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System > at the Tel-Aviv University CC. > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
