| 1 |
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:17:23 -0400 |
| 2 |
Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> |
| 5 |
> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:11:37 -0400, Allan Gottlieb wrote: |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > > > I have one of those. But I decided to stick with traditional DOS |
| 10 |
> > > > partitioning style and grub instead of GPT and grub2. |
| 11 |
> > > |
| 12 |
> > > I am leaning toward traditional partitioning, but with grub2. Do |
| 13 |
> > > those two not mix well? |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > GRUB2 works fine with MBR partition tables. But if you're starting |
| 16 |
> > from scratch, you may as well use GPT and get rid of the legacy MBR |
| 17 |
> > limitations and fragility. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> I'm not dissing GPT...but what's fragile about MBR? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
it's 30 years old, |
| 23 |
only 4 primary partitions, |
| 24 |
only 16 extended partitions, |
| 25 |
it's got that weird DOS boot flag thing, |
| 26 |
it all has to fit in one sector. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I had to fix a mispartitioned disk over the weekend, this really should |
| 29 |
have been a simple mv-type operation, but because all 4 primary |
| 30 |
partitions were in use I had to disable swap and use it as a leap-frog |
| 31 |
area. It felt like I was playing 15 pieces with the disk. That's |
| 32 |
fragile - not that the disk breaks, but that it breaks my ability to |
| 33 |
set the thing up easily. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Basically, mbr was built to cater for the needs of DOS-3. In the |
| 36 |
meantime, 1982 called and they want their last 30 years back. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Just because we can hack workarounds into it to get it to function |
| 39 |
doesn't mean we should continue to use it. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 44 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives