[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: disk vs partition numbering

From: Tomáš Ebenlendr
Subject: Re: disk vs partition numbering
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:41:23 +0100 (CET)
User-agent: SquirrelMail/1.5.1

Dne 13 Prosinec 2006, 22:00, Yoshinori K. Okuji napsal(a):
> On Wednesday 13 December 2006 09:14, James Lockie wrote:
>> I take that back, software should work without having to read the
>> manual, grub legacy was NOT like that for me.
> Exactly. It is ideal that one can use software without reading a manual
> appropriately. The reality is different, but we should make effort to get
> closer to this goal.
>> Maybe grub should use the way of designating a disk/partition in the
>> same way as what OS it is running on? Yes, being different for each OS.
>> :-)
> Unfortunately, this would cause strange behaviors. For example, suppose
> that you have installed GRUB into a floppy or CD-R. When you bring it to
> another computer, how should GRUB behave? Mimic the operating system on
> which GRUB was installed? Mimic the operating system the user is trying to
> boot? If you have multiple operating systems installed, which one???
> Okuji

The only think grub may (should?) mimic is bios. IBM-PC compatible bios
has no 'visible' numbering. I would choose 0-based, (subtracting 0x80
is better for me than 0x81), but I'm not a beginner.

Another thing is, that we can add possibility to change naming scheme
by some module. Then, at the beginning of config file will be something
like 'renamedevices --linuxstyle', and then we can use (hda,1).

                            Tomas Ebenlendr

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]