On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 18:52:23 -0500, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
> > And an extended partition is a special type of primary partition.
> >
> > Or you can avoid all this legacy idiocy and confusion by using GPT,
> > which lets you have a sensible number of partitions without fragile
> > kludges.
On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 07:27:18 -0500, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
> > Hm, I don't consider extended partitions as primary ones but as
> > extended ones. When I need more than four partitions, I create three
> > primary ones, an extended one and logical ones within the extended
> > one. Why would
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 12:13:29AM +0100, lee wrote
> waltd...@waltdnes.org writes:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 11:57:20AM +0100, lee wrote
> >
> >> He said that he "has a primary partition 1, which covers the entire
> >> hard drive" and "a small / partition". That made me think that he
> >>
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 12:35:34PM +, Neil Bothwick wrote
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 07:27:18 -0500, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
>
> > OK, Primary and/or Extended partitions are numbered 1-to-4. Logical
> > partitions within extended partitions are numbered 5 and up.
>
> And an extended
waltd...@waltdnes.org writes:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 11:57:20AM +0100, lee wrote
>
>> He said that he "has a primary partition 1, which covers the entire
>> hard drive" and "a small / partition". That made me think that he
>> has two disks.
>
> Primary partitions are numbered 1 through 4
Mark David Dumlao writes:
> On Nov 26, 2015 08:30, "lee" wrote:
>> waltd...@waltdnes.org writes:
>> > compromised with a small / partition, with empty /home, /opt, /var,
>> > /usr, and /tmp directories. Their real equivalents are bind-mounted
>> > from a
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 12:10 AM, wrote:
>
> I'll admit that my system setup is a bit unusual. A long time ago, in
> a place far away, hard drives were small, compared to today's standards.
> The usual unix practice of multiple seprate partitions was not feasable
> for me,
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 5:57 AM, lee wrote:
> Mark David Dumlao writes:
>> wrt symlinks, some legacy tools, and regular unix tools have a completely
>> different behavior when traversing symlinks as opposed to regular
>> directories, which bindmounts
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 11:57:20AM +0100, lee wrote
> He said that he "has a primary partition 1, which covers the entire
> hard drive" and "a small / partition". That made me think that he
> has two disks.
Primary partitions are numbered 1 through 4 and logical partitions are
numbered 5 and
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 06:27:39 -0500, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
> > He said that he "has a primary partition 1, which covers the entire
> > hard drive" and "a small / partition". That made me think that he
> > has two disks.
>
> Primary partitions are numbered 1 through 4 and logical
On Thursday 26 November 2015 06:27:39 waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 11:57:20AM +0100, lee wrote
>
> > He said that he "has a primary partition 1, which covers the entire
> > hard drive" and "a small / partition". That made me think that he
> > has two disks.
>
>
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Jc García wrote:
> 2015-11-25 16:10 GMT-06:00 :
>
>> /dev/sda7. Here's the relevant portion of /etc/fstab...
> ...
>
>> /home/bindmounts/opt/optauto bind 0 0
>
> Why not use regular
2015-11-25 16:10 GMT-06:00 :
> /dev/sda7. Here's the relevant portion of /etc/fstab...
...
> /home/bindmounts/opt/optauto bind 0 0
Why not use regular partiontions instand of bindmounts, you are just
doing weird stuff seems to me.
waltd...@waltdnes.org writes:
> I'll admit that my system setup is a bit unusual. A long time ago, in
> a place far away, hard drives were small, compared to today's standards.
> The usual unix practice of multiple seprate partitions was not feasable
> for me, but I did want to keep root on
On Nov 26, 2015 08:30, "lee" wrote:
> waltd...@waltdnes.org writes:
> > compromised with a small / partition, with empty /home, /opt, /var,
> > /usr, and /tmp directories. Their real equivalents are bind-mounted
> > from a much larger partition.
>
> Why don't you just mount the
I'll admit that my system setup is a bit unusual. A long time ago, in
a place far away, hard drives were small, compared to today's standards.
The usual unix practice of multiple seprate partitions was not feasable
for me, but I did want to keep root on its own partition. So I
compromised with
16 matches
Mail list logo