From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 327BE1381F4 for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:59:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8159E21C044; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:59:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D840BE0698 for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:55:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkwj4 with SMTP id j4so1722048bkw.40 for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:55:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=JHPVMG/oVJzmKulIumT5feHCyz3uIWfjxkjykQpv07s=; b=t3Db5jhX+AqcRxz2EcWngSJg7bR3Z8Ccon85gGZ9p9zVYw7Yj6v3NvYIyvN0ow9I37 F4mXrK1CpVuoCxx5cHW/uyXJR1OYnynT0PDBXNcZr49idWQaCDLIokUN69GVToqJTc2C ANqk+jIeEQ2w+NpR+Vj0+wuhA+o+R7vdQMQ/iORV3s8ZvjTNzzMPEBzxm9DD0dTD+pLf VHMVquUtHRZ1qFN8IEqNHYAhDcHKJSTkkUSwtEAn+Oewn+FXYEE8Yp8CUAqJ+UIjTPcp TBKCp+Nk76OE6waCY4On1KlLClHnCVbhEOmx+on7hObEUPNmFd0kKgRgwwxoFV1YSMty VrWw== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.128.202 with SMTP id l10mr4412935bks.127.1344873331982; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:55:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.205.25.8 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:55:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120813174712.6569db3e@khamul.example.com> References: <20120810212213.0ce6e810@khamul.example.com> <20120813090643.3475957e@hactar.digimed.co.uk> <20120813174712.6569db3e@khamul.example.com> Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:55:31 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] new installation (ssd, new udev, grub2) From: Michael Mol To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00151747b49a38819e04c727b991 X-Archives-Salt: 7681b9cc-2a7f-497f-b2e0-4a8e0257f060 X-Archives-Hash: 8969845c4ff7bb1d4781d4b0657345d8 --00151747b49a38819e04c727b991 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:17:23 -0400 > Michael Mol wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Neil Bothwick > > wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:11:37 -0400, Allan Gottlieb wrote: > > > > > > > > I have one of those. But I decided to stick with traditional DOS > > > > > partitioning style and grub instead of GPT and grub2. > > > > > > > > I am leaning toward traditional partitioning, but with grub2. Do > > > > those two not mix well? > > > > > > GRUB2 works fine with MBR partition tables. But if you're starting > > > from scratch, you may as well use GPT and get rid of the legacy MBR > > > limitations and fragility. > > > > > > > I'm not dissing GPT...but what's fragile about MBR? > > it's 30 years old, > only 4 primary partitions, > only 16 extended partitions, > it's got that weird DOS boot flag thing, > it all has to fit in one sector. > > I had to fix a mispartitioned disk over the weekend, this really should > have been a simple mv-type operation, but because all 4 primary > partitions were in use I had to disable swap and use it as a leap-frog > area. It felt like I was playing 15 pieces with the disk. That's > fragile - not that the disk breaks, but that it breaks my ability to > set the thing up easily. > > Basically, mbr was built to cater for the needs of DOS-3. In the > meantime, 1982 called and they want their last 30 years back. > > Just because we can hack workarounds into it to get it to function > doesn't mean we should continue to use it. > You misunderstand me. I wasn't arguing that GPT wasn't perhaps more elegant than MBR and dos partitions. I wanted to know what was _fragile_ about MBR. Completely different things. -- :wq --00151747b49a38819e04c727b991 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Alan McKinnon = <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:17:23 -0400
Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:11:37 -0400, Allan Gottlieb wrote:
> >
> > > > I have one of those. But I decided to stick with tradit= ional DOS
> > > > partitioning style and grub instead of GPT and grub2. > > >
> > > I am leaning toward traditional partitioning, but with grub2= . =C2=A0Do
> > > those two not mix well?
> >
> > GRUB2 works fine with MBR partition tables. But if you're sta= rting
> > from scratch, you may as well use GPT and get rid of the legacy M= BR
> > limitations and fragility.
> >
>
> I'm not dissing GPT...but what's fragile about MBR?

it's 30 years old,
only 4 primary partitions,
only 16 extended partitions,
it's got that weird DOS boot flag thing,
it all has to fit in one sector.

I had to fix a mispartitioned disk over the weekend, this really should
have been a simple mv-type operation, but because all 4 primary
partitions were in use I had to disable swap and use it as a leap-frog
area. It felt like I was playing 15 pieces with the disk. That's
fragile - not that the disk breaks, but that it breaks my ability to
set the thing up easily.

Basically, mbr was built to cater for the needs of DOS-3. In the
meantime, 1982 called and they want their last 30 years back.

Just because we can hack workarounds into it to get it to function
doesn't mean we should continue to use it.

You misunderstand me. I wasn't arguing that GPT wasn't perh= aps more elegant than MBR and dos partitions. I wanted to know what was _fr= agile_ about MBR. Completely different things.

--
:wq
--00151747b49a38819e04c727b991--