On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:07:26PM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 04:27:01PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote > > On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:15:57 -0400, gottl...@nyu.edu wrote: > > > > > I really don't want to damage any "signature" on the extended partition > > > that is needed to access the "sub-partitions" it contains. As I said > > > my newly installed gentoo resides on those sub-partitions. > > > > Why is a new installation using a 1980s partition scheme? > > Is that you, Lennart? But seriously, if it works, why junk it?
New software could be: * more efficient * technically better (i.e. GPT is technically better than MBR) * have new features that you don't think you need but come in handy * etc. If your system works, why do you update it? Unless you actively need the update, you're just wasting cycles. > Before I retired, I had to put up with Windows at work. Every new > version totally re-arranged the user interface system admin stuff to the > point that enough of "everything you know is wrong" that you have to > re-train your employees. Great if you're a commercial "Windows Trainer" > that charges big buck, but lousy if you're a business that has to pay > for retraining. > > Here's my question to you... why should we junk software that works, > i.e. it does what we need? I want a real reason. The fact that it's > old is not a justification. Neither is "teh shiney". See above. Also, "teh shiney" is a valid reason. This is how software (and everything in general) moves forward. Couple examples: * linux: The very definition of "teh shiney." Started by a university student for fun. snowballed into the beautiful thingy we all use every day. * ruby: Started because Matz could not find a language that was perfect for him. Now it powers loads of websites. I will agree that software being old is not a valid reason for getting rid of it. My ctags is 6 years old - doesn't bother me. It just works, but I would update if I could simply because it would most likely be better. Alec