If you didn't make any of this up, you dumbed it down to the point where there's no useful info left. You seem to operate on the assumption that merely dissing the work of companies and from ecosystems you don't like, as though it's the 'trendy' thing to do, is enough for you to get by on this forum without scrutiny.
-- Patrick Harper paia...@fastmail.com On Thu, 23 Apr 2020, at 18:06, zeurk...@volny.cz wrote: > "Groot" <differentialr...@disr.it> wrote: > > I've tried and failed to create more than 16 > > partitions on OpenBSD. First of all I don't > > understand the difference between the operations > > performed by fdisk and disklabel. Is it that > > OpenBSD sees partitions differently? First we > > create an OpenBSD partition with fdisk and then > > with disklabel we can create at the most 16 more > > filesystem partitions within it. > > Traditionally, BSD has used only its own disklabel(5). Unfortunately, > mess-dos on the IBM pee-cee set a competing standard, the "Master Boot > Record", with a separate partition table (and a lot of kludging to > support more than 4 partitions). While it was (and AFAIK remains) > possible to use the whole disk the traditional way (only a BSD > disklabel, as on e.g. sparc64), it has become common practice to wrap > the BSD stuff in a mess-dos partition, with the caveat that some of the > mess-dos partition entries are duplicated in the BSD label. > > Thus, the BSD label is essentially OpenBSD's version of the structure of > things on the disk. But is an imperfect version: 16 partitions *is* the > limit for an OpenBSD label, and, of course, mess-dos partition > identifiers (which are more *ahem* fine-grained) are not used. To top it > off, partitions which rest within the mess-dos OpenBSD partition are not > necessarily represented on the mess-dos level (this would count, from > the mess-dos perspective, as overlap between partitions and thus confuse > a great many tools). > > Then GPT entered the story to make the mess complete. But me'll remain > blissfully unaware of the inner workings of that particular clusterfsck, > if you don't mind ;) > > It's no shame to be confused by this garbage. Almost all of us'd like > better, but for the above hysterical raisins, it's not so easy to make > it so. > > --zeurkous. > > -- > Friggin' Machines! > >
