On Sun, 15 Aug 1999, Ben Bucksch wrote:
> Shouldn't it be hd1s0?
Sorry for that typo.
> why change that at all? I considered the GRUB style the most rational. I
> always wondered, why hds are 0-indexed and partitions 0-indexed.
>
Well, the GRUB style of naming is the most rational, and also due
to the fact that it is a bootloader, not and OS. So it has to do with
minimal of true OS features, and hence has to use the INT 13H functions,
instead of using the /dev/*** device entries. the BSD-style is the most
suited, because it works for both BSD and traditional UNIX systems' device
names, Linux; for eg. The reverse is not true. So we want something common
between the OS and the bootloader that will probably help the user from
learning the additional details.
> (if I got you right, this is you intention).
Right.
> I don't know, how *BSD behaves in this case, but you should make sure,
> that devices keep their names.
That's what we want, but as I said, this is difficult, because the
bootloader has to work with much less comfort than an OS.
Thanks,
--------------------
Ashutosh S. Rajekar
