Still, it's my opinion that these BIOSes are simply broken:
Joerg's personal opinion can go take a hike. The reality of the
situation is that this table is required, and we're going to put it there.
The reality of the situation is far from being clear. The only thing
I can see is
On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 0:17:14 -0800, Mike Smith wrote:
Still, it's my opinion that these BIOSes are simply broken:
Joerg's personal opinion can go take a hike. The reality of the
situation is that this table is required, and we're going to put it there.
The reality of the
Greg Lehey wrote:
What is it about this particular topic brings out such irrational
emotions in you and others?
Everyone who has been around for any length of time has been bitten
on the arse by it at one time or another, I think. I remember
Alfred made a Lapbrick out of a system a while
What is it about this particular topic brings out such irrational
emotions in you and others?
Because you define as irrational those opinions that don't agree with
your own. I don't consider my stance irrational at all, and I find
your leaps past logic and commonsense quite irrational in
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
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:
Joerg's personal opinion can go take a hike. The reality of the
situation is that this table is required, and we're going to put it there.
End
On Sunday, 9 December 2001 at 18:32:38 -0800, Mike Smith wrote:
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:
Joerg's personal opinion can go take a hike. The reality of the
situation is
