On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 11:33 -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> That is mostly true. There are some SCSI BIOSes that would examine the MBR
> and infer what C/H/S geometry the OS was expecting from the MBR. The
> original dedicated disk dummy MBR triggered a divide by zero in one of these
> BIOS ROMs.
On Wednesday, February 23, 2011 11:15:09 am James R. Van Artsdalen wrote:
> On 2/22/2011 2:57 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> > When that does come, it will probably be driven by BIOS and hardware
> > vendors dropping support for MBR.
>
> MBR is not a BIOS concept. MBR is an OS thing. The BIOS does no
On 2/22/2011 2:57 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> When that does come, it will probably be driven by BIOS and hardware
> vendors dropping support for MBR.
MBR is not a BIOS concept. MBR is an OS thing. The BIOS does not care
or know what kind of partitioning you use, or if you partition at all.
A GPT
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Devin Teske wrote:
> >
> > On Feb 22, 2011, at 12:57 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> >
> >> On 2011-Feb-22 02:50:54 -0800, Devin Teske wrote:
> >>> That's the operative word here ("supports"). Lord help us when
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Devin Teske wrote:
>
> On Feb 22, 2011, at 7:41 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Devin Teske wrote:
>>>
>>> On Feb 22, 2011, at 12:57 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>>>
On 2011-Feb-22 02:50:54 -0800, Devin Teske wrote:
> That's th
On Feb 22, 2011, at 7:41 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Devin Teske wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 22, 2011, at 12:57 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>>
>>> On 2011-Feb-22 02:50:54 -0800, Devin Teske wrote:
That's the operative word here ("supports"). Lord help us when that
>>
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Devin Teske wrote:
>
> On Feb 22, 2011, at 12:57 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>
>> On 2011-Feb-22 02:50:54 -0800, Devin Teske wrote:
>>> That's the operative word here ("supports"). Lord help us when that
>>> changes to "requires" (that is to say, if/when the FreeBSD k
On Feb 22, 2011, at 12:57 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2011-Feb-22 02:50:54 -0800, Devin Teske wrote:
>> That's the operative word here ("supports"). Lord help us when that
>> changes to "requires" (that is to say, if/when the FreeBSD kernel
>> becomes legacy-free with respect to supporting fdis
On 2011-Feb-22 02:50:54 -0800, Devin Teske wrote:
>That's the operative word here ("supports"). Lord help us when that
>changes to "requires" (that is to say, if/when the FreeBSD kernel
>becomes legacy-free with respect to supporting fdisk/disklabel
>partitioned disks).
When that does come, it wi
On 02/22/11 11:14, John Baldwin wrote:
On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 11:26:33 am Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
On 02/22/11 06:45, John Baldwin wrote:
On Saturday, February 19, 2011 4:34:11 am grarpamp wrote:
Sysinstall is fine, as I'm sure any replacement will be. So I'll
just note a few things I'd
On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 11:26:33 am Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
> On 02/22/11 06:45, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 19, 2011 4:34:11 am grarpamp wrote:
> >> Sysinstall is fine, as I'm sure any replacement will be. So I'll
> >> just note a few things I'd like to see in any such repl
On 02/22/11 06:45, John Baldwin wrote:
On Saturday, February 19, 2011 4:34:11 am grarpamp wrote:
Sysinstall is fine, as I'm sure any replacement will be. So I'll
just note a few things I'd like to see in any such replacement...
1 - I used install.cfg's on floppies to clone systems, a lot. Hands
On Saturday, February 19, 2011 4:34:11 am grarpamp wrote:
> Sysinstall is fine, as I'm sure any replacement will be. So I'll
> just note a few things I'd like to see in any such replacement...
>
> 1 - I used install.cfg's on floppies to clone systems, a lot. Hands
> on the box were needed with tha
On Feb 21, 2011, at 11:03 PM, Josh Paetzel wrote:
> On Monday, February 21, 2011 08:38:03 pm Devin Teske wrote:
>
>>
>> Really, the crux of the issue is that our organization is **just now**
>> migrating off of FreeBSD-4 (yes, it's true... there are over 1,000
>> FreeBSD-4.11 machines running i
On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 01:03 -0600, Josh Paetzel wrote:
> I suppose my last question is along the lines of, "If adding geom_mirror
> support to sysinstall was easy, why has it been 6+ years since gmirror made
> it's appearance in FreeBSD and you still can't create or install to a gmirror
> with
On Monday, February 21, 2011 08:38:03 pm Devin Teske wrote:
>
> Really, the crux of the issue is that our organization is **just now**
> migrating off of FreeBSD-4 (yes, it's true... there are over 1,000
> FreeBSD-4.11 machines running in production at this very moment spanning
> the entire Unite
On Feb 21, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Josh Paetzel wrote:
> On Saturday, February 19, 2011 02:44:42 am Bruce Cran wrote:
>> On Saturday 19 February 2011 03:04:39 Devin Teske wrote:
>>> There are many reasons for this, and none of them are selfish (although
>>> it remains possible to drum-up some selfish r
On Mon, 2011-02-21 at 16:12 -0600, Josh Paetzel wrote:
> pc-sysinstall has been used as the PC-BSD installer for quite a while now,
> and
> has done a lot of installs on a lot of different hardware platforms. I'll
> wager that the compatibility of the shell command gpart is a better bet than
On Mon, 2011-02-21 at 16:12 -0600, Josh Paetzel wrote:
> pc-sysinstall has been used as the PC-BSD installer for quite a while now,
> and
> has done a lot of installs on a lot of different hardware platforms. I'll
> wager that the compatibility of the shell command gpart is a better bet than
On Saturday, February 19, 2011 02:44:42 am Bruce Cran wrote:
> On Saturday 19 February 2011 03:04:39 Devin Teske wrote:
> > There are many reasons for this, and none of them are selfish (although
> > it remains possible to drum-up some selfish reason, all of the reasons
> > behind our motivation ar
On 19/02/2011, at 20:04, grarpamp wrote:
> 1 - I used install.cfg's on floppies to clone systems, a lot. Hands
> on the box were needed with that. Operators skills were in question,
> so having them use the dialog menus properly was a pain and often
> resulted in non-zeroed disk or half built syst
On Saturday 19 February 2011 03:04:39 Devin Teske wrote:
> There are many reasons for this, and none of them are selfish (although it
> remains possible to drum-up some selfish reason, all of the reasons behind
> our motivation are in-fact unselfish). Truth-be-told, I welcome the
> replacement of
On 02/18/11 22:11, Shawn Webb wrote:
There are many reasons for this, and none of them are selfish (although it
remains possible to drum-up some selfish reason, all of the reasons behind
our motivation are in-fact unselfish). Truth-be-told, I welcome the
replacement of sysinstall but am very wary
> There are many reasons for this, and none of them are selfish (although it
> remains possible to drum-up some selfish reason, all of the reasons behind
> our motivation are in-fact unselfish). Truth-be-told, I welcome the
> replacement of sysinstall but am very wary that ANY replacement will be a
On Feb 18, 2011, at 7:46 AM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
> On 01/18/11 11:38, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
>> This plan ensures that we have a minimum of three months of testing of the
>> new installer on snapshot media before the 9.0 release, which should ensure
>> a minimum of bugs. I would also like
On 01/18/11 11:38, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
This plan ensures that we have a minimum of three months of testing of
the new installer on snapshot media before the 9.0 release, which
should ensure a minimum of bugs. I would also like to point out that
there are no roads in this map that end up wit
26 matches
Mail list logo
