Glendon Gross:
>Is there anyone interested in rewriting that "fake" partition table,
Please look at the thread with the same topic three weeks ago.
I stated that it wouldn't be possible because there is a fundamental
disagreement:
BIOS standard demands that the first *sector* always remains res
Is there anyone interested in rewriting that "fake" partition table,
or is that requirement satisfied by the non-dedicated format?
I actually like sysinstall, now that I am used to it, but it
would be aesthetically more pleasing to be able to use the
dedicated format. I am curious if there coul
On Friday, 15 December 2000 at 2:20:40 -0500, Mike Nowlin wrote:
>
>> Does that mean that such BIOS's are proprietary in the sense that they
>> don't recognize the dedicated format?
>
> There are times when the politically-correct of the world use the term
> "proprietary" when they actually mean
> Does that mean that such BIOS's are proprietary in the sense that they
> don't recognize the dedicated format?
There are times when the politically-correct of the world use the term
"proprietary" when they actually mean "dumb" or "really badly
designed". But yes, that's what it means... :)
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Glendon Gross
writes:
: Does that mean that such BIOS's are proprietary in the sense that they
: don't recognize the dedicated format?
One could say that, however the fake disk label for dedicated disks is
a problem. The BIOS shouldn't know about partitions, but m
Does that mean that such BIOS's are proprietary in the sense that they
don't recognize the dedicated format?
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Glendon Gross
>writes:
> : Please correct me if I am wrong, but this discussion seems to revolve
> : around a pr
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Glendon Gross
writes:
: Please correct me if I am wrong, but this discussion seems to revolve
: around a problem that results from nonstandard BIOS routines.
Not so much non-standard bios routines, but rather from BIOSes that
know too much about what Should Be Th
Please correct me if I am wrong, but this discussion seems to revolve
around a problem that results from nonstandard BIOS routines.
On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Greg Lehey writes:
> : > No it isn't bogus. You can't boot off a DD disk on some machin
> > > > > o The FreeBSD fake DOS partition table does not pass a
> > > > > number BIOS-based self-consistency checks (it needs to
> ...
> > > again, 30 seconds in fdisk fixes this
>
> > I don't agree with this one. There is a checksum that is not
> > valid against the FreeBSD created p
On Thu, Nov 23, 2000 at 06:43:33AM +0100, Cyrille Lefevre wrote:
> can someone remember me the problem w/ DD ?
Geez, we've just had a 30 message thread that stated many times the
problem with dang.ded. drives.
> well, I don't have tested anything since I don't have any free drive to burn,
> but
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Has it occured to you that perhaps there are people that really, really
> want DD?
can someone remember me the problem w/ DD ? I guess that DD a drive is not
a problem if done w/in the state of the art (or something like that).
- what about to fdisk the destination d
On 20 Nov, Mike Smith wrote:
>> Let me state this one more time loudly for those calling themselves boot
>> code experts. THE PARTITION TABLE IN THE MBR IS NOT DEALT WITH BY THE BIOS,
>> BIOSES THAT TRY TO MAKE HEADS OR TALES OF PARTITION TABLES ARE TECHNICALLY
>> BROKEN AND VIOLATE IBM AT COMP
Greg Lehey wrote:
> On Sunday, 19 November 2000 at 23:57:25 -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 02:53:04PM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
> >>
> >> If it shows valid partitions, you're using a Microsoft partition table.
> > ^
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg Lehey writes:
> On Sunday, 19 November 2000 at 23:57:25 -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 02:53:04PM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
> >>
> >> If it shows valid partitions, you're using a Microsoft partition table.
> >
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Greg Lehey writes:
: I wonder how long the current Microsoft partition table has to live,
: anyway? Sooner or later people are going to have to move to LBA
: addressing, or disks will get so big that the partition table can't
: address them. Then, hopefully, we'll
On 20-Nov-00 Greg Lehey wrote:
> OK, the more this thread continues, the more it's looking as if we're
> talking about different things. I don't have (much) of an objection
> to removing it from sysinstall. If that's all we're talking about, I
> don't have any further objections. But I sti
On Sunday, 19 November 2000 at 17:50:48 -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Daniel O'Connor" writes:
>> At least remove the option from sysinstall so new users don't get
>> stuck with it.
>
> I strongly support this. It has burned me on several machines.
>
> I don't think
On Sunday, 19 November 2000 at 17:48:14 -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Greg Lehey writes:
>> They waste space. In most cases, they're not needed. Isn't that
>> enough?
>
> No. Writing in 'C' isn't necesary and wastes space. That, in and of
> itself, isn't a reason t
On Sunday, 19 November 2000 at 18:50:40 -0600, Jim King wrote:
> Greg Lehey wrote:
>
>>> Why is DD ever _needed_?
>>
>> Because Microsoft partition tables waste space.
>
> That's a really weak argument, given the price and size of drives
> nowadays.
It's a matter of principle. Why waste?
Greg
-
Greg Lehey wrote:
> > Why is DD ever _needed_?
>
> Because Microsoft partition tables waste space.
That's a really weak argument, given the price and size of drives nowadays.
Jim
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Daniel O'Connor" writes:
: At least remove the option from sysinstall so new users don't get
: stuck with it.
I strongly support this. It has burned me on several machines.
I don't think that anyone will remove it from the kernel...
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Greg Lehey writes:
: They waste space. In most cases, they're not needed. Isn't that
: enough?
No. Writing in 'C' isn't necesary and wastes space. That, in and of
itself, isn't a reason to not use it.
But like mike said, it was the ability to create these for t
22 matches
Mail list logo
